# Olight SR95S-UT (SBT-70) Review: RUNTIMES, OUTDOOR BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO and more!



## selfbuilt (Dec 21, 2012)

*Warning: even more pic heavy than usual! :sweat:*

Welcome to my review of the new Olight "Ultimate Thrower" – the Luminus SBT-70-equipped SR95S-UT. 











The new SR95S-UT superficially looks like the standard SR95 and earlier SR95-UT (except for the body labels).  But what really differentiates the lights is the choice of emitter. The base model SR95 uses the same emitter as the inaugural SR90, the Luminus SST-90 (albeit with a higher output bin). The original limited-edition "Ultimate Thrower" SR95-UT used the Luminus SBT-90, which was capable of greater throw (although with lower overall output than the SST-90). 

Olight has now taken that further with the SBT-70-equipped SR95S-UT. The SBT-70 is distinctive, as it is the first round LED emitter I've seen. It also seems to be the new standard for the UT model of this line. Let's see how it compares to its predecessors … 

*Manufacturer's Specifications for the SR95S-UT: * (note: as always, these are simply what the manufacturer provides – scroll down to see my actual testing results).


LED: Luminus SBT-70 LED
Output/Run Time: High: 1250 Lumens/3 Hours; Medium: 500 Lumens/8 Hours; Low: 150 Lumens/48 Hours
Beam intensity in center: 250000 candela
Maximum throw: 1000 meters
A large capacity 7800mAh 7.4V rechargeable lithium battery pack 
18mm diameter power button ensures ease of use even using thick gloves or in adverse conditions.
Material:	Aluminum body with anti-scratching type III Hard Anodizing
Dimensions: Length: 12.8" (325mm), Head Diameter: 3.5" (90mm), Body Diameter: 2" (48.4mm)
Weight: 2.7 lbs (1230.5g)
Color:	Black
Charger:	AC 100～220V 50~60HZ input. Recharge under constant current and voltage 3A/8.4V 
Reflector: High-efficiency, large diameter smooth reflector
Lens: Tough ultra-clear tempering glass, with anti-reflective coating
Striking bezel:	Aluminum body with anti-scratching type III Hard Anodizing
Switch:	Side switch
2 Gold plated, metal O rings
Waterproof rating:	IPX6
Impact resistance: 1.5 (meters) 
Integrated power input socket on the tailcap, with four indicators on the tail for indicating the batteries condition
Included accessories: Carrying strap, AC charger, power cable for charger, user manual, warranty card
MSRP: $450
*Manufacturer's Specifications for the previous SR95-UT (where different from above)*

Luminus SBT-90 LED
Output/Runtime: High: 1050lm(1h55min); Medium: 300lm (10h); Low: 60lm (48h), 
Peam Beam Intensity: 168,100 cd
Maximum throw of 820 meters
*Manufacturer's Specifications for the base model SR95 (where different from above)*

Luminus SST-90 LED (P bin)
Output and Run Time:	High: 2000 lumens/ 110minutes；Medium: 600 lumens/9.5 hours；Low: 120 lumens/46 hours
Beam intensity in center:	129,600 candela
Maximum throw: 720 meters
As you can see in the specs above, the SR95S-UT differs solely in the choice of emitter used (with corresponding differences in output, throw, and runtime - which I will directly measure and report on below).






I am actually showing the case from my original SR95-UT, but the SR95S-UT is exactly the same. The presentation case has an identification badge on the top, showing the make and model. Inside, you find the light with battery handle attached in cut-out foam, along with a charging power cord and transformer, shoulder carrying strap, spare o-rings, warranty card and manual.

All my build comments below refer jointly to all the SR95 models, as they are physically the same. I will discuss the specific differences in emitters and runtime performance later in this review.













From left to right: Redilast Protected 18650; Olight SR95, SR90, SR92; Thrunite TN31.

Dimensions:

*Olight SR95S-UT:* Weight: 1,208g (with battery pack), Length: 323mm, Width (bezel): 87mm
*Olight SR95-UT:* Weight: 1,221g (with battery pack), Length: 323mm, Width (bezel): 87mm
*Olight SR95:* Weight: 1,224g (with battery pack), Length: 323mm, Width (bezel): 87mm
*Olight SR90:* Weight: 1.6kg (with battery pack), Length: 335mm, Width (bezel): 97mm 
*Olight SR92:* Weight: 1,148g (with battery pack), Length: 271mm, Width (bezel): 98mm
*Thrunite TN31*: Weight: 725g (with 3x 18650 protected cells), Length: 203mm, Width (bezel): 79.0mm.

The SR95 series is lighter than its SR90 predecessor – with most of reduction coming from the newly designed head. The new higher-capacity battery pack handle is also slightly lighter than the original model. 

Let's start with the case (from my SR95-UT review, as it basically identical):














Here's the badge from the new SR95S-UT:






As before, the model number is clearly identified on the label badge. 

All the SR95-series lights use a common battery pack handle, and interchangeable heads. Fit and finish has always been are excellent across the SR-series line, and the SR95 versions are no exception. The glossy black anodizing of my SR95S-UT was flawless – there are no chips or scratches. :thumbsup:

Lettering is sharp and clear as always, in bright white against the dark black background. 






Note that the previous SR95-UT has a unique serial number, reflecting its limited edition status. The new SR95S-UT (like the standard SR95 version) lacks a serial number. This leads me to suspect that this SBT-70 version will remain the standard "UT" model for some time.

The rest of the physical build is the same as the other SR95-models. There is a large bright blue on/off button now, and stylish cut-outs in the head to reduce the weight and show you the heatsink assembly. Note that the anchor rings for the shoulder strap (positioned at the head and tail of the light) are made more consistently flat now, so they tend to spin more easily on the SR95-series lights than the earlier models. 

Battery handle ridge detail is higher on the SR95 lights compared to the earlier models (although the new higher capacity pack is still fully compatible with the older lights). The light can tailstand as before.










As always, the charger attaches at the tail-end of the light (just under that rubber protective cover). The battery read-out gauge works as before (press the bottom button, and up to 4 green LEDs light up to let you know the relative charge status of the battery). Note that you need to have the light off for at least a few seconds, and not plugged into the charger, for an accurate charge reading. 










The charger is unchanged from the earlier SR-series lights, and still has the same model number.

Now, let's see how the new SR95S-UT differs from the other models of this line. 

SR95S-UT:





SR95UT on the left, SR95 on the right:





Overall, the heads don't look that different. The lights all have the same external dimensions, and seem to use the same reflector. What differs are the choice of emitters, so let's take a closer look.

SR95S-UT (SBT-70 emitter):





SR95-UT (SBT-90 emitter):





SR95 (SST-90):





And here are some up-close comparisons of the emitters:

SR95S-UT (SBT-70 emitter):





SR95-UT (SBT-90 emitter):





SR95 (SST-90 emitter):





To put what you are looking at into context, the standard SR95 shows you the base SST-90 emitter – which has a relatively large footprint, and a typical big round emitter dome. Note that this dome is distorting the true size of the emitter somewhat – it isn't really that big.

The original limited-edition SR95-UT used the SBT-90 – which is based off the same SST-90 die, but lacks the large dome. In actual fact, the SBT-90 does have a covering, but it is very thin over the emitter die. This results in improved light transmission for focusing, but winds up reducing the maximum luminous flux possible with this emitter class. Note that despite how it looks, the actual die size is the same as the SST-90 (i.e., 3mm x 3mm).

The SBT-70 is basically a "rounded off" version of the SBT-90. By making the die round, you can again focus it better for throw. It is obviously not a simple task to produce a round die, as you can tell from all the bond wire positioning on the SBT-70. Also, logically, you would expect some loss of output for this maneuver (i.e., since you are in essence removing parts of the die). Since the specs report increased output on the SR95S-UT, this would lead me to conclude that Olight is either using a higher output bin for SBT-70 than they did with the SBT-90, or they are driving the SBT-70 emitter harder (or both). More on this later in the review … 

*User Interface*

The UI in unchanged from the earlier SR95 lights. Turn the light on/off by pressing and releasing the big blue button near the head. The electronic switch acts like a reverse clicky.

To change modes, press and hold the switch for more than 1-2 secs. The light cycles between its three output modes, in repeating order (i.e., Lo > Med > Hi). Release the switch to select the mode you want. This is a slight departure from the earlier SR-series lights, which only had two modes (basically, Med and Hi, compared to the SR95's Lo/Med/Hi).

Press and release the electronic mode switch again to turn off (actually a Standby mode). 

There is a "hidden" strobe mode, accessed by double-clicking the electronic switch.

Light has mode memory, and will return to the last constant output mode you set it to after turning off-on.

Light has a "lock-out function" to prevent accidental activation. Cycle through Lo > Med > Hi three time to temporarily deactivate the on/off switch. To unlock, click the switch three times or disconnect and re-attach the battery pack.

To charge the battery pack, connect the cable from the included AC charger/transformer to the port under the rubber cover on the tailcap. There is an LED status indicator on the transformer brick – red means the battery pack is charging, green means it fully charged (or not connected).

For more information on the light, including the build and user interface, please see my video overview of the SR95S-UT:



For extra context, here are my older videos comparing the SR95 to the SR90, and the SR95 to the first limited-edition SR95-UT:





As always, videos were recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the configuration settings icon and select the higher 480p to 720p options. You can also run full-screen. 

*PWM/Strobe*

As before, there is no sign of PWM on any level – I believe the light is current-controlled as before. 

I had detected some imperceptible high-frequency noise with my oscilloscope on my original SR95, but there was no sign of it on my SR95S-UT. 






SR95S-UT strobe is a typical tactical strobe, consistent with the other SR95 models at ~9.7Hz in my testing.

*Standby Drain*

Due to the electronic switch, there is always a standby drain when the battery is fully connected. I measured this as 38uA on my SR95S-UT sample. I don't know for sure how the battery pack is configured, but the 7.4V and 7800mAh spec suggests a 2s3p arrangement (i.e. two series of three 2600mAh 18650 batteries in parallel). That would translate into 23.4 years before the pack were fully drained - definitely not a problem. Note that my original SR95 was 53uA in comparison (which is similarly negligible).

Olight's "lock-out function" presumably uses an even lower level standby drain, but measuring it isn't possible with my limited setup.

To break these currents, you need to twist the battery pack typically at least one full turn (to break the double spring contact in the head).

*Beamshots:*

And now, what you have all been waiting for.  All lights are on their respective battery pack, on Max, about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 





























































Obviously, this distance is insanely close, and isn't meant to be representative of the beam at a working distance. But it does allow you to draw some general comparisons between the models.

First off, the new SR95 models have a narrower spillbeam width than the original SR90, due to the new reflector and head design. The base SR95 puts out more light overall than the SR95 UT models, but the UT models are more focused for throw.

But it is really hard to make any meaningful sense of the peak throw of the UT versions at this limited range. For that, we need to turn to my trusty outdoor location. 

For outdoor beamshots, these are all done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground). 






Ok, the new SR95S-UT is definitely even more focused for throw than the previous limited-edition SR95-UT. oo: It also seems to be putting out slightly more light overall.

As expected, SR95 puts out the most light overall, but isn't as focused for throw. 

Here is a blow-up of the center of the images, to allow you to better compare the peak throw:






*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info. 

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).






My ANSI FL-1 beam intensity measures confirm Olight's specs – I get 260,000 cd with my NIST-certified lux meter, which translates into a beam distance of just over 1km! oo: These numbers also match what you can see in the outdoor 100-yard beamshots above.

It terms of overall output, my ceiling bounce measures indicate that the SR95S-UT is indeed brighter than the original SR95-UT. Note in both cases however, my estimates are slightly higher than the Olight specs. But the overall concordance is good – my results confirm the reported output and beam distances specs from Olight.

On a related note, my original SR90 was from one of the first batches of this model, and relative output is likely to have increased since then. Olight currently cites 1750 lumens for the late-model SR90s, which is believable.

When you combine the greater output and the smaller round die of the SBT-70 in the SR95S-UT, it isn't surprising that it throws further than the original SR95-UT. The question is how did they manage to get more output out of the smaller footprint SBT-70 :thinking: … let's check out the runtimes to find out more.

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

_Note: all my standard runtimes are done under a small cooling fan._










To start, I previously noted in my SR95/SR95-UT review that the SBT-90 of the SR95-UT is either not as efficient, or is a lower output bin than the SST-90 of my SR95. As you can see, the runtimes for those two lights are very comparable, but with greater output on the SR95. This led me to suspect that those two lights were being run at comparable drive levels, but the SST-90 was a higher output bin (consistent with the specs reported by Olight).

First thing to notice for the SBT-70-equipped SR95S-UT is that output is higher than the SBT-90-equipped SR95-UT. Given the smaller die, this suggests it is either a higher output bin, or it is being driven harder than the SBT-90 in the SR95-UT (or both). The runtimes are certainly consistent with the later idea – i.e., runtimes are definitely reduced on the SR95S-UT, using the same battery pack. This is particularly noticeable on the Med level.

Without more information on the specific output bins used in these various lights, it is hard to draw any definite conclusions from these results. But I think it is reasonable to assume that the SBT-70 is certainly no more efficient than the SBT-90 (and perhaps somewhat less), and the SR95S-UT is driving the SBT-70 at least somewhat harder at all levels than the original SR95-UT did for its SBT-90 emitter.

As an interesting side note, the SR95S-UT is very close to my original SR90 in max output and runtime – but with a lot more throw. 

But there is one thing peculiar here - there's a mis-match between my runtime results and Olight's specs for the SR95S-UT (i.e., they report 3 hours on Hi, whereas I only see 1hr 40mins). The explanation for this comes from the use of cooling fan on my standard runtimes. Let's see what happens if we run the SR95S-UT without active cooling: 






What you are looking at above is the relative output (in estimated lumens) for the SR95S-UT with fan cooling (solid light blue), and with no cooling (solid orange). I've also plotted the surface temperature of the light on the right-hand axis, in degrees Celsius (dotted orange). Probe placement was just below the cut out fins, about an inch up from the blue control button (see my SR95 review for info on probe placement).

The SR95S-UT doesn't really get too hot, as the thermal step-down kicks in by the time the surface temp reaches the low 50s (degree Celsius). FYI, this step-down is novel feature of the SR95S-UT - my SR95 does not show this pattern:






In the above case, I have temperature data for the both the cooled and non-cooled SR95 runtimes. As you can see, without fan cooling, the SR95 gets very warm - nearly 65 degrees Celsius, over the course of the run (with fan cooling, it never reached even 40 degrees). The main thing to observe above is that the SR95 just slowly drops in output on Hi - but at an accelerated rate when no cooling is applied. It certainly doesn't step down, like the new SR95S-UT does.

This thermal step-down is an interesting new adaptation for the SR95S-UT, and one that I am glad to see. It's always safer to have thermal control on really high output lights like this. :thumbsup: But you need to keep in mind that the 3hr runtime spec is assuming thermal step-down will occur. If you run the light for short periods of time only, you should expect total battery runtime to be closer to my 1hr 40min measurement.

*Potential Issues*

Due to the electronic switch, all the SR-series lights have a stand-by current when the battery is fully connected – but it is negligible at 38uA on my SR95S-UT. The "lock-out" mode is likely even lower. You can break these currents by unscrewing the battery handle by a full-turn.

While the SR95-series is greatly reduced in weight from the original SR90 (and is better balanced), it is still a substantial light. I recommend use of the included should strap.

Recharge time for a depleted battery was about 5 hours in my testing (i.e. from the point when the protection circuit has been tripped, to when the green light comes on the charging transformer). This is not unreasonable, given the increased storage capacity of the pack. 

Due to the cut-outs in the head of the SR95-series, cleaning may be an issue.

*Preliminary Observations*

I am happy to report that Olight's beam output and beam intensity specs for the new SR95S "Ultimate Thrower" are accurate – this light does indeed have an ANSI FL-1 beam distance of over 1km. :bow:

The new SBT-70 is an interesting emitter, having been "trimmed" to a round shape (which helps with focusing for throw). Combined with a presumed higher drive level, there's no doubt the new SR95S-UT is a greater thrower than the original limited-edition SR95-UT. 

Is it enough to make you run out and replace your existing SR95-UT (or base SR95, or original SR90 for that matter)? That's hard to say, as each individual step up in throw is just that – an incremental step. Personally, I doubt you'd appreciate the difference between the SR95-UT and SR95S-UT, unless you had the two side-by-side to compare. But it does bring enough of a difference from the standard SR90/SR95 that it may worth considering if throw really matters to you that much. Living in the suburbs as I do, I don't have much practical use these types of S&R lights, so I find the throw from my SR95 is more than sufficient for anything I may be up to after dark. 

The new thermal step-down feature on Hi is interesting - I'm glad to see Olight has incorporated this feature onto the SR95S-UT. I had initially missed it in my first runtimes, as my standard cooling fan was sufficient to keep the temparature low enough not to set off the thermal step-down.

As I discussed in my earlier SR95/SR95-UT review, the build of this new SR95 line has improved appreciably over the SR90 in every measureable way (unless you like a larger and heavier head). Please see that review for more general comments on the SR95 series, and how it relates to other lights. Hopefully this review will allow you to meaningfully compare the new SR95S-UT to other members of the line. :wave:

----

SR95S-UT provided by Olight for review.


----------



## kj2 (Dec 21, 2012)

Thanks


----------



## gopajti (Dec 21, 2012)

Thanks selfbuilt!! 260,000 lux oo:


----------



## Tiresius (Dec 21, 2012)

Wow, Olight made a light that broke the 200k lux. I wonder what's next...


----------



## indenial (Dec 21, 2012)

Wow. I'm in awe of this flashlight. A true throw of 1k meters for an LED light. Amazing. 

Great review, too!


----------



## foxfan (Dec 21, 2012)

It's really amazing!!!
thanks Selfbuilt!


----------



## GordoJones88 (Dec 21, 2012)

I thought it was going to set those trees on fire.


----------



## hahoo (Dec 21, 2012)

GordoJones88 said:


> I thought it was going to set those trees on fire.




no kiddin...huge diff in 72,000 lux i guess...


----------



## DENGOH (Dec 22, 2012)

Hi Selfbuilt, thanks for the review. I wonder why runtime test by aku1979 in shoudian.org is not similar with yours, even though he used a fan to do the test either.
Looks like your condition is temperature is quite low that output is so flat. Is it Olight expect output will be lowered due to temperature over time so their runtime is based on general usage of the flashlight where there will not be a fan for it. aku1979 runtime curve as below:


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 22, 2012)

hahoo said:


> no kiddin...huge diff in 72,000 lux i guess...


Well, yes and no. Although that does mean there's a great difference at 1m, the magnitude of the difference drops over time (due to the inverse square law for how throw decreases with distance). I've always found beam distance to be a better measure, as it allow you to see how far the beam goes to some specific set lux value. In that sense, the difference between the two UT models isn't so huge at great distances (although it is still pretty visible at 100 yards, as you can tell from the photos).



DENGOH said:


> Looks like your condition is temperature is quite low that output is so flat. Is it Olight expect output will be lowered due to temperature over time so their runtime is based on general usage of the flashlight where there will not be a fan for it.


Yes, that runtime shows a considerable step-down over time (likely due to greater temperature), which would explain the longer runtime. I will add a note to my review that that may be the source of the spec. But it's important to recognize that the the runtime refers to a prolonged reduced output.

I do all my lights under a cooling fan for safety and consistency reasons, so don't have any data on how the other SR-series lights performed. But the Olight specs were always fairly consistent before with the performance of my samples (run under cooling). It may be that this light has greater thermal management, or Olight has changed how they report their specs. I have temperature and runtime data for the SR95 with cooling ... I will see about comparing it and the SR95S-UT without cooling (may take me a couple of days, though).


----------



## Interhead (Dec 22, 2012)

Can't help my self [h=2]Olight SR95S-UT in order... :santa:[/h]


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 22, 2012)

Thanks Selfbuit for the review. I hardly can imagine how extreme thrower this light is! 260kLux. 1/10 of that lux value usually is considered as a decent thrower!


----------



## DENGOH (Dec 22, 2012)

This runtime graph is in SR95S UT manual.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 22, 2012)

DENGOH said:


> This runtime graph is in SR95S UT manual.


Interesting. The manual wasn't ready when they sent me my sample for testing, so I haven't seen it. The 3hr runtime on Hi is quite believable, for that reduced level. I should have the non-cooled data ready for tomorrow, so we'll see how mine compares.

Something is definitely off with the med mode runtime spec though ... Mine only lasted 5.5 hours, at a constant output level (which I estimate to be ~600 lumens). But that's fine - it's quite reasonable performance for that output level (i.e. about the same efficiency as the SR90).

In any case, I can see it is the accurate beam intensity/distance spec that has caught everyone's attention with this light.  It really is an impressive thrower.


----------



## naiter (Dec 22, 2012)

this light just made me go "holy crap!" i try not to fill up the review thread with trash but DAMN. i didnt even know about this light until right now. Killing it on the throw!! me wants!!


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 23, 2012)

Alright, so we are confirmed - the 3hr Hi-mode runtime spec on the SR95S-UT is based on a thermal step-down without cooling. :wave:






What you are looking at above is the relative output (in estimated lumens) for the SR95S-UT with my standard fan cooling (solid light blue), and with no cooling (solid orange). I've also plotted the surface temperature of the light on the right-hand axis, in degrees Celsius (dotted orange). Probe placement was just below the cut out fins, about an inch up from the blue control button.

The SR95S-UT doesn't really get too hot, as the thermal step-down kicks in by the time the surface temp reaches the low 50s (degree Celsius). FYI, this step-down is novel feature of the SR95S-UT - my SR95 does not show this pattern:






In the above case, I have temperature data for the both the cooled and non-cooled SR95 runtimes. As you can see, without fan cooling, the SR95 gets very warm - nearly 65 degrees Celsius, over the course of the run (with fan cooling, it never reached even 40 degrees). The main thing to observe above is that the SR95 just slowly drops in output on Hi - but at an accelerated rate when no cooling is applied. It certainly doesn't step down, like the new SR95S-UT does.

This thermal step-down is an interesting new adaptation for the SR95S-UT, and one that I am glad to see. It's always safer to have thermal control on really high output lights like this. :thumbsup:


----------



## Patriot (Dec 23, 2012)

Wow! Great review Selfbuilt! I'm glad to see that Olight's throw numbers were so close and actually understated. 

It seems that the SBT-70, in a way, just crossed over into the HID realm, albeit at much less overall output. Still, the surface brightness is rising and the die size shrinking. 

In the past the die size and lumen output was increasing while surface brightness was decreasing. Now the die size is decreasing and surface brightness is increasing for the first time in larger format LED's. I consider this somewhat of a landmark change, that's very welcome! Imagine a triple SBT-70 light......... okay, so perhaps we need one more generation of greater efficiency before that, but it's looking good!


----------



## Tiresius (Dec 23, 2012)

Selfbuilt, sorry for the odd request but can you swap the smooth reflector into the SR95UT? I'm kind of skeptical about the throws being increased dramatically if this happens. I'm interested in how much different the SBT-90 w/ SMO reflector is compared to the SBT-70 w/SMO reflector.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 23, 2012)

Tiresius said:


> Selfbuilt, sorry for the odd request but can you swap the smooth reflector into the SR95UT? I'm kind of skeptical about the throws being increased dramatically if this happens. I'm interested in how much different the SBT-90 w/ SMO reflector is compared to the SBT-70 w/SMO reflector.


Going to be busy with holidays for the next little while, but will see I can get around to it afterwards. Frankly, I wouldn't expect much - the SR95-UT already has a smooth reflector. My SR95S-UT sample may be a touch smoother, but I can't see that doing much.


----------



## DENGOH (Dec 23, 2012)

Thanks for confirming this. Very happy Olight is improving with proper temperature management.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 25, 2012)

DENGOH said:


> Thanks for confirming this. Very happy Olight is improving with proper temperature management.


Agreed, it is good to see in the SR95S-UT.

FYI, I have checked with Olight, and they have no plans to introduce thermal output management into the standard SR95 (SST-90) model.

Happy holidays everyone. :santa:


----------



## nosobrite (Dec 26, 2012)

What a great review! I am torn between this light and the new modified light from saabluster 400cd and 1273 meters of throw. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?350936-OSTS-TN31mb-Monster-Thrower

if you were to choose which one would you purchase (remember on modified 31 you still new to purchase batteries but it is so bright)? I cannot decide but know I cannot afford both.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 27, 2012)

nosobrite said:


> What a great review! I am torn between this light and the new modified light from saabluster 400cd and 1273 meters of throw. http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?350936-OSTS-TN31mb-Monster-Thrower


Indeed, Saabluster has done an incredible job of getting that much throw out of the TN31 build. I haven't seen this mod in person, but I've always liked the TN-series build.

That said, I also find the standard SR95 to be an incredibly powerful light, with it's higher overall output (i.e., brighter spill). It really comes down to what you are looking for in terms of size and beam pattern.


----------



## phantom23 (Dec 27, 2012)

nosobrite said:


> if you were to choose which one would you purchase (remember on modified 31 you still new to purchase batteries *but it is so bright*)?


Which one? Modified TN31 produces about 3x less light than SR95S, it's just very concentrated into tiny but intensive hotspot.


----------



## hahoo (Dec 27, 2012)

phantom23 said:


> Which one? Modified TN31 produces about 3x less light than SR95S, it's just very concentrated into tiny but intensive hotspot.




how do you get close to 1200 lumens, being 3 times less than 2000 lumens ?

last time i checked thats not even twice ??


----------



## BLUE LED (Dec 29, 2012)

I am in a similar position deciding between the Olight SR95S-UT and the moded TN31 XP-G2. I do like throw and will only be buying one. Tiny hotspot with more throw vs larger hotspot with more lumens. I am finding it hard to quantify.


----------



## Exilpatriot (Dec 31, 2012)

So do I see this right, the only thing left about the SR95UT compared to the new version is its 'limited' status and perhaps a slight advantage on the efficiency? 
I cannot help but think that I might have been one of Olight's test pilots. My hunch with the limited version is that Olight wanted to gauge the consumer reaction by offering both floody throw and max throw options. When looking back at the quickly diminished availability of the SR95UT after it came out it would seem it was quite a hit with users. Therefore Olight's step toward a more developed UT version? It's not an unusual practice of manufacturers, I'm aware if that but the relatively quick disappearance of the original UT and launch of the SR95S-UT leaves me with this bitter taste of having been fooled. I already know this kind of feeling from using Apple products hmmm:thinking: at this price range it's not precisely a flashlight that one upgrades on every new launch.

Anyway, I've been using mine for several months now and I can say it's one heck of a flashlight and I find myself using it in situations when other people would feel bad about grabbing for their keyring light.  And here is one of the major reasons why I find this light to be so perfect for me: Unlike the standard SR95 (and most other lights I know) the SR95UT is capable of illuminating things effectively but also discreetly within a wide range of distance using a ridiculously low amount of lumens. In fact, after the initial waoaa factor of shooting holes in the night sky on full power I developed a habit of using the low setting most of the times which is what, 68 Lumens or so? If not directly looking at it from the front it's virtually invisible to others. It's a bit like sniping. I always find it irritating to be surrounded by a massive ball of light when walking the dog or otherwise being out in the dark where people might be around. Likewise I don't like being disturbed by other night folks performing light shows without even being aware of it while I try to enjoy the darkness. So, the light itself is ace but the quick upgrade of the UT I don't like. :shakehead


----------



## firelord777 (Dec 31, 2012)

BLUE LED said:


> I am in a similar position deciding between the Olight SR95S-UT and the moded TN31 XP-G2. I do like throw and will only be buying one. Tiny hotspot with more throw vs larger hotspot with more lumens. I am finding it hard to quantify.



Indeed it is

Basically, it's what YOU want, both will make you happy. Which one will bring you the most happiness though is the right question

I have an SR95S-UT on hand, if you have any questions let me know


----------



## phantom23 (Dec 31, 2012)

hahoo said:


> how do you get close to 1200 lumens, being 3 times less than 2000 lumens ?
> 
> last time i checked thats not even twice ??


1147lm is a lumen rating for stock TN31 with hardly driven XM-L. Modded one has XP-G2 emitter which is less efficient and can't handle such high current. With a good heatsinking it may reach up to 500-600 lumens, not more. But if it's dedomed it'll be even less.


----------



## hahoo (Jan 1, 2013)

phantom23 said:


> 1147lm is a lumen rating for stock TN31 with hardly driven XM-L. Modded one has XP-G2 emitter which is less efficient and can't handle such high current. With a good heatsinking it may reach up to 500-600 lumens, not more. But if it's dedomed it'll be even less.



so the modded tn31mb, your saying, will only have 500 lumens otf ?

and get over 400k lux?

im thinkin your wayy off base......


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 1, 2013)

hahoo said:


> im thinkin your wayy off base......


Not necessarily. The XP-G2 is a very different beast from the XM-L. I don't know how well it performs at really high drive levels (i.e., out of speck, only possible because of the copper heatsinking in this case). But phantom23's estimate doesn't seem unreasonable to me (i.e., I would have thought ~600 OTF lumens at the high end too, given the specs for XM-L vs XP-G2). But there are a lot of variables at play here, so you'll have to wait until saabluster completes it and people provide lumen estimates.

In any case, lumens aren't really the issue here. Just like SR95S-UT has lower lumens but much greater throw than the SR95, I can imagine that such a heavily driven XP-G2 (with it's smaller emitter footprint) could provide greater throw at much lower total lumens.


----------



## DENGOH (Jan 2, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> Agreed, it is good to see in the SR95S-UT.
> 
> FYI, I have checked with Olight, and they have no plans to introduce thermal output management into the standard SR95 (SST-90) model.
> 
> Happy holidays everyone. :santa:



It looks like Olight already have this feature in SR91. Originally Olight spec SR91 High runtime to be 3 hours. It seems to be assuming ATM will kick in. Wonder how Olight decide which model to have this ATM feature.

Quote from SR91 manual as below:
"SR91 increased ATM(Active Thermal Management)function for improving the model's security, stability and
applicability under long time running on high illumination
level. This improvement will make the model be
advantaged as follows,
1.The model can control the current decreased smoothly
to slower inside temperature's rising, so that less heat
accumulated when ATM start up
2.Over-heat protection. When the temperature of head
inside is over 70℃, the circuit will decrease the current
automatically to avoid possible danger caused by high
temperature.
3.Anytime the model will keep 3 minutes running at it's
highest level and then start up the ATM function. You can
start the model again when you need the highest level for
illumination.
4.The runtime can be extended as 3 hours under high level
with ATM function.
Note: Please note the high level means the three
adjustable output's high output, highest level means the
three minutes' output when model running at high level
before ATM start up(just as item 3). The highest output will
be lowered when ATM start up automatically but it still
under high level output."


----------



## brightnorm (Jan 3, 2013)

The potential for the SBT70 in smaller lights is interesting. A light like the Thrunite TN31, but with a 4x18650 body, might produce impressive results, even if not quite up to the massive beam of its bigger brother. Selfbuilt, do you see this as a possibility? (Photo from Selfbuilt's review) 

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...8650)-RUNTIMES-VIDEO-THROW-BEAMSHOTS-and-more!

Brightnorm


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 3, 2013)

DENGOH said:


> It looks like Olight already have this feature in SR91. Originally Olight spec SR91 High runtime to be 3 hours. It seems to be assuming ATM will kick in. Wonder how Olight decide which model to have this ATM feature.


Thanks for the info. I haven't tested a SR91, so didn't know it had that thermal management feature as well.

My guess would be that it is the lower mass of the SR91 (relative to the larger SR90, which shares the same SST-90 emitter) that triggered the use of a thermal management system. Since the SR95 is of good size, I presume they feel it can handle the heat (from the SST-90) appropriately. But the SBT-70 is a less efficient emitter being driven at higher currents (resulting in more heat), so they again opted to go the thermal management route. It would thus seem that this is a case-by-case basis, depending on the specifics of the thermal heatsinking mass and emitter.



brightnorm said:


> The potential for the SBT70 in smaller lights is interesting. A light like the Thrunite TN31, but with a 4x18650 body, might produce impressive results, even if not quite up to the massive beam of its bigger brother. Selfbuilt, do you see this as a possibility?


I expect the SBT-90 would do quite well in any light with a deep reflector for good throw. But the other issue here is the drive current - in order to get the high lumen levels, you need to drive this emitter harder than the earlier SST-90 (or SBT-90). As you point out, you probably need at least 4x18650 to get that kind of sustained power (and even at that, it may not be enough to match the 6x18650 SR95S-UT).


----------



## jh333233 (Jan 7, 2013)

> *Standby Drain*
> 
> Due to the electronic switch, there is always a standby drain when the battery is fully connected. I measured this as 38uA on my SR95S-UT sample. I don't know how the battery pack is configured – if it is one 7800mAh battery, then that would translate into 23.4 years before it would be fully drained. If it is instead composed of *six 1300mAh batteries* in a 3s2p arrangement, then that would be 7.8 years, and so on, and so on. Any way you slice it, this standby current is not a problem. Note that my original SR95 was 53uA in comparison (which is similarly negligible).



How would it be six 1300mah battery?
By the size of battery tube i guess it uses 18650
And i guess you have missed the "7.4V"
7.4V 7800mah would be 2*3.7V and 3*2600maH which is "Three parallel sets of Two cell in series"
Even ultrafire crap 18650 wouldnt have such low (real) capacity
---------------------
Just got mine today from a dealer
Costs $346-usd eq. 
Almost nothing to be complainted except the exposed reflector due to weight-reducing cut on the bezel, which might be an issue for water-ingress or cleaning
Secondly, no IPX-7, couldnt play it while im swimming:shakehead


----------



## jh333233 (Jan 7, 2013)

And some more to say:
The beam is perfectly focused, a tight circle with no artifact, superb quality.
I have to say that so far this is the BEST light i have bought and it definitely worths it:thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 7, 2013)

jh333233 said:


> How would it be six 1300mah battery?


Yes, that is not likely - that line was just trying to imagine the wose-case scenario where the manufacturer was not listing the total capacity correctly. I agree the likely correct interpretation is what you propose - i.e. 7.4V would suggest 2s3p arrangment of 6x 2600mAh batteries, as you say. 

For those wondering why, the reason is that you add the voltages in series for total voltage (i.e., 7.4V = 2x 3.6V). For charge capacity, you should add capacities in parallel (i.e., 7800mAh = 3x 2600mAh). So that would all make sense, giving you the original 23.4 year drain estimate I provided. Note however that some makers get a bit sloppy about this, and sometimes list the charge capacity of individual cells no matter how arranged. Nice to see Olight is apparently listing it correctly, so I'll remove the speculative text that followed.


----------



## jh333233 (Jan 7, 2013)

And not allowing users to use their own 18650 was a pity
I dont know whether this was a measure to prevent accident from happening
(Large current draw posses the risk of discharging the cell heavily or using wrong cell like RCRs, causing overheating or even explosion) 
or simply protecting their profit by limiting the user to use their own battery stick
Tho it gives us simplicity like Apple Inc, simply plug the plug and wait when batts low
I would like to enjoy flexibility like Android.
First i could get my back-up or replacement cell easily, 2nd ive got a bunch of 18650 sitting in my flashlight storage.
Or under extreme condition like disaster strikes, the light itself named Search and Rescue, but then it couldnt provide the flexibility of power source
I wish i could even use 4-D cells like the Fenix TK70, if really needed
Still, this light is a behemoth.
------------------
A good news is, you can still use the light while the AC-charger is plugged in
I dont know whether this affects the battery life or not
i.e. Charging the batt with AC but then discharging the batt for LED
Or it has a seperate channel for that
Im unable to find it out since the battery tube is sealed along with the circuit


----------



## DENGOH (Jan 13, 2013)

Can we use the flashlight while it is being charged at the same time? Is it not recommended by Olight?


----------



## CouldUseALight (Jan 14, 2013)

DENGOH said:


> Can we use the flashlight while it is being charged at the same time? Is it not recommended by Olight?



You can, but the light is still running off battery, not the charge trickle. You _might _get 10-20 minutes more runtime while charging (don't quote me on this) 

Have to say, this is the best "big" flashlight I've come across in the odyssey so far, by rather a lot...love this thing for the combo it offers: throw, spill, runtime, levels, weatherproof, throws farther than I can make out with context, useful charge indicators, takes a beating...., and lighter weight than a couple of my other lights....what an amazing package :thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 15, 2013)

DENGOH said:


> Can we use the flashlight while it is being charged at the same time? Is it not recommended by Olight?





CouldUseALight said:


> You can, but the light is still running off battery, not the charge trickle. You _might _get 10-20 minutes more runtime while charging (don't quote me on this)


Yes, as discussed above, it is hard to know how the circuit handles charging while the light is on. The light does run with the charger cable plugged in - but it's unclear if that will give you any additional benefit for continuous runtime (or how much).

As a general rule, it is better to charger Li-ions without a current draw being applied at the same time. This can be confusing for charger circuitry, as the batteries don't behave the same way as when there is no current draw.


----------



## Exilpatriot (Jan 23, 2013)

Can't believe I've done it but I have sold my SR95UT and have ordered a SR95S-UT...madness. 
The beamshots have convinced me. It's a shame though that the light remains identical in all other ways. Some slight modifications would have been nice and if it's only to make the it feel different. There are indeed a few niggles: I too find the head is difficult to clean. The only thing here are some modified cleaning tools I guess. The carabiners on the strap are wearing very quickly on the sharp holders. Will have to file the sharp edges down on the new light. And to be honest, a pouch / protector or quiver would be nice to attach the strap to rather than having the light dangling down and getting damaged. The display case is just that: A display case and isn't really useful in real life use. Any ideas welcome! 

Other than that...I can't wait to switch on that light!!


----------



## jh333233 (Jan 24, 2013)

Exilpatriot said:


> Can't believe I've done it but I have sold my SR95UT and have ordered a SR95S-UT...madness.
> The beamshots have convinced me. It's a shame though that the light remains identical in all other ways. Some slight modifications would have been nice and if it's only to make the it feel different. There are indeed a few niggles: I too find the head is difficult to clean. The only thing here are some modified cleaning tools I guess. The carabiners on the strap are wearing very quickly on the sharp holders. Will have to file the sharp edges down on the new light. And to be honest, a pouch / protector or quiver would be nice to attach the strap to rather than having the light dangling down and getting damaged. The display case is just that: A display case and isn't really useful in real life use. Any ideas welcome!
> 
> Other than that...I can't wait to switch on that light!!




The protection case is good for storing the light in trunk and to be taken out when needed
Cleaning the head is pain in butt for sure, in exchange of 500g lighter, but it loses IPX8...


----------



## ma_sha1 (Jan 24, 2013)

The "S" was originally meant for "shorty", here is a SPY photo of the original SR95S UT that didn't make into production, the management thought it was too racy:


----------



## jh333233 (Jan 24, 2013)

ma_sha1 said:


> The "S" was originally meant for "shorty", here is a SPY photo of the original SR95S UT that didn't make into production, the management thought it was too racy:



I bet driving the light with less battery is still fine
Since they are using manufactured battery tube, why wouldnt they be able to get special-designed cylindrical cell
Let say having the same size as three 18650, but having 2 in series, each 34mm length
Halving the capacity still allows a safe discharge rate, the factory one runs more than hours so half of it should be still over 30min to fully discharge(>2C)


----------



## Franz (Feb 6, 2013)

Greatest review:twothumbs

I liked more the focus of sst90, this led is amazingoo:


----------



## Exilpatriot (Feb 6, 2013)

Franz said:


> Greatest review:twothumbs
> 
> I liked more the focus of sst90, this led is amazingoo:



You mean you liked the SST-90 better? 

I have swapped my SR95UT for the SR95S and can confirm there is a difference. The SBT-70 emitter clearly gives a rounder and brighter hot spot. Since I never had the chance to compare both at once I can't really comment on a difference in throw though. It gets hotter, oh yes but to me only noticeable indoors. There is another difference which hasn't been mentioned yet. The on off button of the SR95S seems to have a raised switch under the rubber cover and is therefore easier to operate. In fact, I find it a tad too easy and would prefer more resistance. It feels a little weird if you hold a massive light like that in your hand and the on off button is sensitive to the lightest touch. It happened a few times that I accidentally turned the light on when putting it back in the case. I know, it has a locking function but, come on having to cycle through all modes three times to activate it is hardly user friendly. What where they thinking? Apart from that...this is a PHENOMENAL LIGHT!! :twothumbs


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 6, 2013)

Exilpatriot said:


> There is another difference which hasn't been mentioned yet. The on off button of the SR95S seems to have a raised switch under the rubber cover and is therefore easier to operate. In fact, I find it a tad too easy and would prefer more resistance. It feels a little weird if you hold a massive light like that in your hand and the on off button is sensitive to the lightest touch. It happened a few times that I accidentally turned the light on when putting it back in the case.


Hmmm, that may just be variation between samples/batches. My SR95, SR95UT and SR95SUT all have identical switch feels (and I have one of the first production runs of each model).


----------



## CouldUseALight (Feb 6, 2013)

My SR95 and SR95sUT buttons are identical. I like that the covers glow.

What varied for me is the free-swinging lanyard ring. The ring on the head of my SR95's swings freely, even rattling a bit, but the SUT's rotates with a bit of friction, which I prefer. Both bezels seem completely tight. :thinking:

In 4 battery packs, 2 have free-swinging lanyard loops and the other two have a bit of friction to them. No explanation for this. :shrug:


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 6, 2013)

CouldUseALight said:


> What varied for me is the free-swinging lanyard ring. The ring on the head of my SR95's swings freely, even rattling a bit, but the SUT's rotates with a bit of friction, which I prefer. Both bezels seem completely tight. :thinking:
> In 4 battery packs, 2 have free-swinging lanyard loops and the other two have a bit of friction to them. No explanation for this. :shrug:


Yes, this can be quite variable. It seems to be a question of how flat they are - perfectly flat rings spin freely, while slightly "wobbly" ones have higher resistance and don't turn as easily.

My SR95 shoulder strap rings was extremely free-spinning at both ends (especially the head), but my SR95UT and SR95SUT are more "typical" for the SR-series, with more resistance..


----------



## lightliker (Feb 10, 2013)

Great review Selfbult!
Still I like my "good old SR90" and are not planning to buy a newer version because of it's better throw as long as I am capable of blinding some ducks in the creek at 200 yards distance or flashing out a burglar with 10Hz strobo at 10 feet 
The many spacings that has to be cleant after walking around in the woods or once fallen at the ground is also a reason that I like my SR90 more.
The improvement of the battery pack however is very nice; a reason to put it on my birthday-christmas list :naughty:


----------



## CouldUseALight (Feb 11, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, this can be quite variable. It seems to be a question of how flat they are - perfectly flat rings spin freely, while slightly "wobbly" ones have higher resistance and don't turn as easily.



You nailed this! Took a rubber mallet, tapped the attachment points of the rings towards the middle of the light. One tap apiece added an almost imperceptible bend, and they stopped swinging. Thanks!


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Jul 29, 2013)

Do you have any idea how many amps the emitter is driven at?


----------



## AngryDaddyBird (Aug 4, 2013)

Awesome Review! Bought many lights based on your reviews including this Beast!
look forward to the S15 review with 2/3 extentions.


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Aug 7, 2013)

bump for my question of how many amps is the emitter driven at on high. Is that something I should be able to figure out with math... at least ball park?


----------



## Capolini (Aug 9, 2013)

Ok,,,Let's assume[I think it is a good assumption!] that the Fenix RC-40 and the Olight [SBT-70] reviewed on here have great optics.

I am not quite totally[!] understanding when you mix lumens, PBI[Candelas] and [beam distance]throw! Tell me if this makes sense or correct me if I am wrong[I am still an amateur and new to this site!]

The Fenix RC-40 has 3500 lumens, 126,000 candelas and a throw of 776 yards. The Olight[SBT-70] has 1250 lumens, 250,000 candelas and a throw of 1093 yards[1000 meters].

Does that mean that the hot spot[intensity of light] of the Olight is the only part of the entire light output that is brighter?? Being that the RC-4O has almost three times the lumens the overall light output is brighter? From what I have learned I think that the candelas[PBI] is a major factor of how long the throw is[beam distance], they seem to be inner related.


Input would be greatly appreciated!

ciao,,,,,Capolini:thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 9, 2013)

Capolini said:


> I am not quite totally[!] understanding when you mix lumens, PBI[Candelas] and [beam distance]throw! Tell me if this makes sense or correct me if I am wrong[I am still an amateur and new to this site!]


:welcome: to cpf.

The flashlight wiki page on ANSI FL-1 and my ANSI FL-1 page on flashlightreviews.ca should answer a lot of your questions.


----------



## Capolini (Aug 12, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> :welcome: to cpf.
> 
> The flashlight wiki page on ANSI FL-1 and my ANSI FL-1 page on flashlightreviews.ca should answer a lot of your
> 
> questions.



Thanks selfbuilt,,,love your detailed, infomative and helpful reviews and your suggestions,time for me to learn more!

I got the[already have the original] New TK-75 a few hours ago! I hope its improved candela rating does not disappoint me! I am going to do my "amateur" naked eye review in about 2 hours to compare both TK's!!

Young man, could you please do this review?

Original TK-75 VS. NEW TK-75 VS. RC-40 VS Olight SBT-70??!! :thumbsup: :twothumbs:thanks:

How is up in Canada?

ciao,,,,,Roberto,,,,,"Capo di Capo"


----------



## firelord777 (Aug 12, 2013)

Ciao Roberto! Benvenuto al forum!

Non ho potuto trovare informazione sul nuovo TK75, mi potrebbe dire cosa ha cambiato? Forse é stata aggiornata ai XM-L2?

Cheers


----------



## Nederland (May 22, 2014)

Hi! I recently got my sr95sut from dx.com, got a good deal compared to the dutch webshops. Had to wait a month before it arrived.
On arrival the case was a bit broken. But the insight were all there, so the case did its job!
Yesterday a friend of mine shot some beamshots with his phone. And I would like to share them with you. Seeing this thread and review helped me allot too!


----------



## selfbuilt (May 22, 2014)

Nederland said:


> Seeing this thread and review helped me allot too!


Glad to hear that - and :welcome:


----------



## kj2 (May 22, 2014)

Nederland said:


> Hi! I recently got my sr95sut from dx.com, got a good deal compared to the dutch webshops. Had to wait a month before it arrived.
> On arrival the case was a bit broken. But the insight were all there, so the case did its job!
> Yesterday a friend of mine shot some beamshots with his phone. And I would like to share them with you. Seeing this thread and review helped me allot too!


first of all.. :welcome:
second, post those pics


----------



## Mongoose01 (May 29, 2014)

Thanks selfbuilt for the make me buy one review.....will be here any day now


----------



## John7Boy (Nov 30, 2014)

Thanks Selfbuilt, your amazing reviews have been my *Flashaholics guide to the Light Throwers' Galaxy*. Yet another UT thrower to put beside My Fenix TK70, and excellent Thrunite TN32. Hope the Olight SR95UT (SBT-70) has as user friendly interface as my Thrunite. I find the UI on my Nitecore Caveman EA8 and TK70 uneccessarily challenging in the excitement of the "crook crisis", "fox spot moment" or whatever I am illuminating.
Budget for 2014 trashed by SR95UT, but well spent I think thanks to your amazing dedication & research for Candlepower family & Flashaholics generally. I know my "farming sister" will enjoy her Thrunite TN32 birthday present, blinding a few foxes at 500meters pestering her fully named sheep & new lamb families. No sorry no guns, but a blind fox might not find its way back so easily.

Still have enough left in my flashlight budget for another small donation to your battery budget- lets all give Selfbuilt's battery budget an encouragement boost before Christmas for...... all his 2015 new product reviews on the avalanche of next gen Flashlights.....Hope Hope!!!!! You are a great help to my research of best choices for me and friends, by your top flight research, plus independent & accurate reviws. Thanks again. 

I don't post too often so Selfbuilt & ALL Have a blessed Christmas and wonderful New Year!


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 30, 2014)

John7Boy said:


> Thanks Selfbuilt, your amazing reviews have been my *Flashaholics guide to the Light Throwers' Galaxy*.


:laughing:

Glad you have been finding the reviews useful. And it's a good point about a simple interface - for a go-to light for things that go bump in the dark, you don't want to fumbling around trying to remember a sequence.

I'm sure there will be a lot of interesting new lights in 2015. :thumbsup:


----------



## John7Boy (Dec 4, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> :laughing:
> 
> Glad you have been finding the reviews useful. And it's a good point about a simple interface - for a go-to light for things that go bump in the dark, you don't want to fumbling around trying to remember a sequence.
> 
> I'm sure there will be a lot of interesting new lights in 2015. :thumbsup:




Received my Olight SR95S-SBT70 UT 2 hours ago. Only half charged-showing 2 out of 4 green battery lights, but this light is clearly going to be my top Thrower by hundreds of metres. Some quick naked eye 3 metre wall shot comparisons shows the SR95S punching perfectly round solid brighter white holes through the centre beam spots of my Fenix TK70, and my 2nd best thrower the Thrunite TN32. I expect there to be an even greater win for the Olight at 600 metres est. to my white wall night shot comparisons across the valley.

The UI on the Olight is on par with the TK70 but I find the TN32 control ring plus tail switch easiest to use. Bought the extra TN32 for my sister's small sheep farm block in Barossa South Australia, for fox & wild dog chasing off, hoping the powerful beam plus flash blinding might make them think twice about coming back (might be a few blind sheet too??). She can't wait to get back and blast it off across her home paddock. 

Likewise I cannot wait to get down to my brothers country hobby farm down south to show him what a real thrower in SB95S can do against his Ultrafire 3x xml-T6. Had my trouble getting the TN32 back from my son after the last fox hunt down south so will have to keep an eye on the SR95S to ensure it doesn't stray to far from my care!!!!!! What a magnificent LED Flashlight with amazingly intense throwing hot spot. I was going to buy the Olight when the SR90 was out but budget too tight, even looked at some HIDs but somehow I think this SR95S was worth the wait. Probably need to give new spotlights the miss in 2015 otherwise the heat wont be coming from my spotlight!!!

Magnificent Quality Flashlight with exceptional 1 kilometer throw- never thought I'd own one but one came up new on Ebay-Queensland for almost $200 off so jumped on it after reading Selfbuilt Review 20 times and all the feedback and update from everyone here on this forum, 

Thanks ALL
John


----------

