# Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS!



## selfbuilt (Sep 25, 2007)

_This thread is a comparison of the current Fenix emitters. For comparison to other current Cree and Rebel 1AA lights, please see my multi-level AA roundup comparison review

To see results of all the heads in 2AA format, please see my new Fenix L2D Q5 vs R100, R80, Q2, P4 Comparison Review: RUNTIMES+ thread._

_*EDIT: Update Nov 15/07*: Added Fenix Cree Q5 results. The head exterior styling looks similar to the R100 Premium now, but emitter end looks like the Q2 shown below._

_*EDIT: Update Oct 22/07*: Fenix Rebel R080 head added to results. Sorry, no pics - but it doesn't look appreciably different from the R100 head._

*The contenders*:

From left to right: Rebel R100 "Premium", Cree Q2 "Special Edition", standard Cree P4. These three lights were all bought from fenix-store.com, whereas the R80 and Cree Q5 (both not shown) were bought from fenixtactical.com.







*Beamshots:*

On Turbo, with AW RCR in P2D body (Q2) or Duracell 2650 NimH in L2D body (R100 & P4) 










Note that I didn't have enough of the same body type for all 3 shots simultaneously. The R100 and standard Cree P4 are on Turbo on L2D bodies with 2650mAh NiMH, and the Q2 is on a P2D body with AW RCR (and is thus slightly brighter than the other two). The R080 looks similar in pattern to the R100, although mine has a slightly cool tint in comparison.

*Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's FR.com method. My relative overall output numbers are typically similar to his, although generally a little lower. You can directly compare all my review graphs - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1m using a light meter. 

*Summary Chart for Turbo mode with 2650mAh NiMH in L1D, or AW Protected 3.7V RCR in P2D*






Despite what the beamshots seem to show, my lightbox and light meter report that the new R100 produces more overall output and throw than the Cree Q2. The spillbeam is also wider on the Rebel head (although the Q2 has a narrower, brighter spillbeam). Note that these output numbers may be an underestimate of the magnitude of the difference. 

For comparison purposes, here are the results of a "ceiling-bounce" test in a small windowless room, with my light meter on the floor near the base of the light (which is shining upward in candle-mode), in a L2D body on NiMH:

Rebel R80: *5.6 lux*
Rebel R100: *5.8 lux*
Cree P4: *4.9 lux*
Cree Q2: *5.5 lux*
Cree Q5: *7.1 lux*

As you can see the Q5 has a noticeable jump in output compared to the others (in L2D format). This effect is less pronounced in P2D or L1D format. For more detailed info on L2D results (including runtimes), see my Fenix L2D Q5 vs R100, R80, Q2, P4 Comparison Review: RUNTIMES+ thread.

*Runtimes:* 

All runtimes done in my lightbox under a cooling fan, with the identified batteries listed below.

"Turbo" mode on NiMH (Duracell 2650mAh)





Hi/Med/Lo modes on Alkaline Duracells













Note that runtimes in 1AA mode seem be slightly reduced with the new Cree Q5 head. Interestingly, the low mode on alkaline is ~50% brighter on the new R100 and Q5 heads. Most people are not likely to consider this an improvement, however, as one of the main complaints with Fenix circuit-controlled low modes is that they don't go low enough. The R080 head is even brighter on Low mode, leading of course to lower runtime. 

Turbo mode on AW Protected 3.7V RCR





*Temperature:*

There are reported concerns that the Rebels run hotter than equivalent luminous flux bin Crees. To see how Fenix has managed, I’ve done some crude temperature readings of the exterior surface of the head near the emitter using a flexible temp probe. For this test, I've used the P2D body, to minimize the amount of aluminium body heatsinking available. Note that no external cooling is applied for this test. Readings taken at 30sec intervals:






As you can see, the R100 actually ran *cooler* surface temps than the slightly dimmer Cree Q2. Unless Fenix has mysteriously screwed the heatsinking in some way, it doesn't look like temperature will be a problem on these new Rebel lights.


*Conclusion:*

The Cree Q5 is definitely your best choice for maximum overall output among these models, but the Rebel versions have a wider spillbeam and longer runtimes.
The Cree Q5 tends to have lower runtimes in the brighter 1AA modes than the other lights (likely reflecting the higher Vf of Q5 emitters). Low mode seem comparable between the Q5 and R100.
The Rebel R080 is still an excellent performer for the price. Although not as bright as some others, runtime was signficantly improved for equivalent output on Hi mode. Lo mode results were less impressive.
The Rebel beam pattern is very pleasing on my samples. Rebel emitters are believed to produce better color rendition outdoors, and this seems to be the case to my eye as well.
The Fenix L1T/L2T v2.0 comes with a protruding forward clicky (so no tailstanding possible). Quality seems very high, so it looks like the many fans of this type of clicky will be pleased.
No apparent problems with heat build-up on the R100 head.

There you have it. Cheers!


----------



## Tubor (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Thanks for doing the review! Very informative. :twothumbs


----------



## woodrow (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

NICE!!!...Review. Thanks for all of your hardwork. I am really impressed with my P3DR100. So much so, that I just ordered a LP M1R(ebel). It is amazing that so much light can come out of such a small speck of a led. Also, that the light can be of such a nice tint.

The above being said, they are not night and day better than their origional cree counterparts. If I read the charts right, All three leds were pretty close to each other. The rebel was better, but if I had a older light, I might not feel that I need to sell it because it is now outclassed.

Thanks again for the great review.


----------



## Chao (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Wow, thanks for doing this review, very nice:twothumbs, the Rebel runtime looks great!


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



woodrow said:


> The above being said, they are not night and day better than their origional cree counterparts. If I read the charts right, All three leds were pretty close to each other. The rebel was better, but if I had a older light, I might not feel that I need to sell it because it is now outclassed.


You are quite right. My output scale is linearized, so as you can see there's typically only ~10% improvement with each step up from P4<Q2<R100, except on certain modes (although runtime is also increased in some cases). But not enough to trigger an upgrade for most.

But for those considering their first purchase, I don't see any reason to go for the crees at this point in time (unless you are getting a custom upgrade, like the Q5).

Thanks for the support everyone! :thumbsup:


----------



## 700club (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Wow, what a fantastic job you did.

Thanks


----------



## tsask (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Yes again, well done, nice work and much appreciated!


----------



## Nitro (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Nice reviews! Thanks.

That datalogger really comes in handy.


----------



## FlashCrazy (Sep 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

WOW....very nicely done!! Thanks! :twothumbs


----------



## Patriot (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

woohoo! Very nice review and very useful! I've been waiting for a comparison like this and was glad to see the Rebel do so well. Since owning my P3D Rebel I've suspected that any Rebel would do well in a heads-up test. Thanks for all of your work. :thumbsup:


----------



## NA8 (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

+1 Great Job. 

Proof reading questions: 

L1D CE P4 output and throw readings of 39 and 37 seem awful close together. Is that a typo ? Or is there just no spill on that one ? 

Looks like the temperature chart time scale should be seconds instead of minutes ?


----------



## LITEmania (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

impressive reviews, thanks for effort and time.

warren,


----------



## filibuster (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

I assume the circuit Fenix is using is the same for all emitters, which makes me wonder what is happening with the Rebel 100 in low mode? Any ideas?


----------



## Kilovolt (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Thanks, interesting and very useful.

:twothumbs


----------



## nanotech17 (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

some hardwork to be reckon with.
Thanks a lot for the great work :twothumbs


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



NA8 said:


> L1D CE P4 output and throw readings of 39 and 37 seem awful close together. Is that a typo ? Or is there just no spill on that one ?
> 
> Looks like the temperature chart time scale should be seconds instead of minutes ?


Thanks for the catch on the temp chart - just fixed it.

As for the output/throw readings, those numbers are correct. Note that they are completely independent and don't use the same scale. 

The throw value is objective - it's simply the squareroot of lux @1m, and can be reproduced by anyone. This conversion allows you to directly compare throw numbers, since it "linearizes" the scale (which is necessary, since light decays at an inverse square law with distance). 

Output is completely relative to my particular lightbox setup. This is not in lux, lumens, or any other objective measure - since it will be different for every individual setup. All I can say is that my relative output scale (ROV) is linear and seems to correspond well to the expected relative output of most lights. So while the absolute value is meaningless, the relationship of one light intensity to another is pretty accurate (i.e. twice the amount of light produced gives you twice the relative number). One wrinkle here is that I've noticed very strong throwers with little spill tend to get abnormally low scores in my lightbox. That's why my MRV-series comparisons give throw-adjusted values, since that is more appropriate in those cases. But all my other reviews use the same standard ROV scale, so you can compare relative output across my range of lights.

So, in this case, the P4 Cree and Q2 Cree are putting roughly the same throw (i.e. ~1400 [email protected]), even though the Q2 Cree is putting out ~20% more light overall (47 vs 39 ROV) according to my lightbox. The likely reason for this is the medium-texture OP reflector on the Q2 is adversely affecting throw (as you would expect). 

In practical terms, this means the Q2 Special Edition has a brighter spill than a standard P4 Fenix, but with roughly the same throw (and same overall beam width). This is the price you pay for getting rid of the infamous Cree rings. 



filibuster said:


> I assume the circuit Fenix is using is the same for all emitters, which makes me wonder what is happening with the Rebel 100 in low mode? Any ideas?


No idea ... since the circuit was presumably designed around the output characteristics of the Cree, perhaps there's some considerable difference bewtween the two classes of emitters at the lower drive currents? Any theories are greatly appreciated! :thinking:

And thanks for all the support everyone!


----------



## mchlwise (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Said it before and I'll say it again: Best reviews since Doug retired. :thumbsup:

Thanks a LOT!


----------



## da.gee (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Thank you. I love info that justifies my purchase. P2D RB100 is a killer light in its class.


----------



## veleno (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Great job!! Thanks! oo: :thumbsup:


----------



## Gunner12 (Sep 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Great review, thanks for all the work you put int this.

I think the Rebel might have a higher low because of its lower Vf, for the same voltage, the Rebel usually draws more current then the Cree. How that applies to the other modes, well since the Rebel has a lower Vf, it might lessen the draw on the batteries on the other modes so there should be a longer runtime.


----------



## kurni (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Much appreciated, many thanks. I have been waiting for such review.


----------



## TodToh (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Thank you for your valueable review


----------



## audioman (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Great job :twothumbs 
very useful review


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



Gunner12 said:


> I think the Rebel might have a higher low because of its lower Vf, for the same voltage, the Rebel usually draws more current then the Cree. How that applies to the other modes, well since the Rebel has a lower Vf, it might lessen the draw on the batteries on the other modes so there should be a longer runtime.


Could be, although I would have thought Vf wouldn't matter as much with Fenix's current-controlled circuitry (as it would on some of the simpler regulator circuits out there). But its been a while since my university physics courses, so I'll leave it to the engineers here to educate me . What you suggest at least makes sense to me in principle ...

Still no sign of my L2T v2.0 (it will be 6 weeks on monday since my shipping notice from fenix-store.com). I think I can safely write that one as sacrificed to the shipping gods . I've ordered a replacement from fenixtactical.com for when they get their new batch in (with improved forward clicky, I understand). Standard shipping usually only takes 2 days from them, since we are in the same city. Hopefully it won't be too much longer before they get them in.

Thanks again for the support everyone - glad my work is appreciated.


----------



## NA8 (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



selfbuilt said:


> As for the output/throw readings, those numbers are correct. Note that they are completely independent and don't use the same scale....



Ooops.. 

Great explanation.


----------



## Yps (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Could someone explain what version is best for me ? P3D premium 100 or L2D premium 100 ?

If I understand all spec, P3D will have higher output 175 vs 200 lumens, but L2D will have 2,4h runtime vs 1,8h. 

I will use it on my MTB, and will run it on rechargeable batteries. Which one fits my needs best? 

Whats the weight different with rechargeables batteries? 

/Magnus


----------



## NA8 (Sep 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



Yps said:


> Could someone explain what version is best for me ? P3D premium 100 or L2D premium 100 ?
> /Magnus



Welcome to Candlepowerforums. :welcome:

Your question deserves a thread of it's own. You should post the same question over in the LED Flashlights group as you will get more visibility and more answers than buried here in this thread. 

I bought a L2D because I wanted to use the AA NiMH rechargeable batteries and charger that I had. Both lights are very good.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 22, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Just added LxT v2.0 head (Rebel 080) results to the main post.

I still need to do the P2D body runtime test, but so far am quite happy with entry level addition to the Fenix line. :thumbsup:


----------



## NoFair (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



selfbuilt said:


> Just added LxT v2.0 head (Rebel 080) results to the main post.
> 
> I still need to do the P2D body runtime test, but so far am quite happy with entry level addition to the Fenix line. :thumbsup:


 
Thanks for the great review! :twothumbs

Sverre


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Not really a part of this review, but as update for those who are interested in how the L2T v2.0 does relative for the L1T:







As you can see, while you may get ~twice the output on 2AA, runtimes seem to be a bit shorter on both alkaline and NiMH.

Cheers!


----------



## Burgess (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

to *selfbuilt* --


Thank you for your time and effort.


Great Job !


:twothumbs ___ :goodjob:

_


----------



## NA8 (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Not exactly ruler straight regulation on the L1Tv2r80, but that's a lot of runtime and a nice low battery warning roll off. 

Did they take the old L1T v1 drive circuit and just add the Rebel 80 LED or did they whip up a new/modified circuit for the V2 ?


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



NA8 said:


> Did they take the old L1T v1 drive circuit and just add the Rebel 80 LED or did they whip up a new/modified circuit for the V2 ?


I'd say this is definitely a different circuit from old L1T. In fact, Fenix seemed to change something in all their circuits around the time as they went up to Q-bin Cree emitters. Notice the "noiseness" of the runtimes on L1T (and L1D on my other reviews)? It wasn't like that at all on the old LxT series, or the 1st generation of P4 LxDs.


----------



## Dazzer (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Hello, 

can anyone advise me I have a Rebel 100 L2D Fenix Premium.

Problem is I cannot notice a difference between High and Turbo.

Does anyone have the same problem.

I cant tell if Turbo is working or Not 

thanks


----------



## Dazzer (Oct 24, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Guys 

ignore my above post I had low batteries. It is interesting when the batteries are a bit low the L2d cannot push up from the high mode

These flashlights are addictive Im not sure why


----------



## gravityz (Oct 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Nice review

i however have one question

i see that you tested the L1D with the rebel 100 in it(L2D head)
th L2D is coming out any moment now with a Q5 led

do you think this head can also run on a L1D body or will the Q5 just drain the battery to much so that a 2x AA body is the only workable solution

as for color
i noticed that fenix is not stating any bin color so with the Q5 that is probalby russian roullette right?

thanks


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



gravtyz said:


> do you think this head can also run on a L1D body or will the Q5 just drain the battery to much so that a 2x AA body is the only workable solution
> 
> as for color
> i noticed that fenix is not stating any bin color so with the Q5 that is probalby russian roullette right?


I will pick up a Q5 Fenix once it is out and add the results here. Depending on how they've designed their circuits (Fenix has among the best in AA format), it's possible the high Vf of the Q5 may not be that great of a problem for the 1AA configuration. The runtimes will tell once it comes in.

And yes, Fenix make no guarantees as to tint. Given the large number of WD/WG Q5s available online, I suspect a warmer tint is more likely for most of the new Q5 lights.


----------



## L.E.D. (Oct 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Excellent review, these reviews by you make up most of my flashlight review reading experiences ever since FlashlightReviews.com closed down, though there are a few other reviews sites I also visit. As far as the surface temperatures, this could mean a couple of things. Is the Cree conducting more of its heat to the body than the Rebel, or do both of them both have the same conduction rate (heatsinking) into the body, but the Cree just runs hotter? I really like the tint on Rebels, seems to be the fullest spectrum white LED's yet..


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



L.E.D. said:


> Excellent review, these reviews by you make up most of my flashlight review reading experiences ever since FlashlightReviews.com closed down, though there are a few other reviews sites I also visit. As far as the surface temperatures, this could mean a couple of things. Is the Cree conducting more of its heat to the body than the Rebel, or do both of them both have the same conduction rate (heatsinking) into the body, but the Cree just runs hotter? I really like the tint on Rebels, seems to be the fullest spectrum white LED's yet..


Thanks L.E.D, appreciate the support.

As for the heatsinking, I don't really have an answer. As you point out, two interpretations are possible. I think you would need a thermal imager to really assess what is really going on.

FYI, just updated the main post with my ceiling bounce result for the R80 head. As expected from the lightbox runtimes, the R80 was intermittent to the P4 and Q2 Cree heads in terms of initial output.


----------



## Kelvino (Oct 25, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Didn't expected the Rebel LED to be doing that good compared to the Q2.

Excellent review selfbuilt :twothumbs


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Anyone else running Firefox having trouble seeing the pix and graphs?

-LT


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 26, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



Lunal_Tic said:


> Anyone else running Firefox having trouble seeing the pix and graphs?


I'm running Firefox and it's working fine for me. Maybe your service provider's DNS is having touble my hosting site (www.sliderule.ca)? It's been up for years with the same hosting company, so nothing should have changed.


----------



## tony22r (Oct 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

> selfbuilt,
Thanks for the great comparo & pics.. very informative :twothumbs




Lunal_Tic said:


> Anyone else running Firefox having trouble seeing the pix and graphs?


> Lunal_Tic,
I'm running Firefox 2.0.0.7 , 2.0.0.8 , & IE 7.0.. and i can see everything just fine.

Maybe your company is blocking http://www.sliderule.ca/ ?


----------



## hds-lover (Oct 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Hey nice review ... but is there any chance The P2D can join your review???
I`d love to see the throw measurements compared to the rebel :thumbsup:


----------



## LEDninja (Oct 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



selfbuilt said:


> The Fenix L1T/L2T v2.0 comes with a protruding forward clicky (so no tailstanding possible). Quality seems very high, so it looks like the many fans of this type of clicky will be pleased.


My L1T came with the standard reverse clicky on the light and the forward clicky in the holster. So depending on the tailcap I am using I can get tailstand OR ease of use.
I think the 1st production run shipped with both tailcaps.
If you do not have the tailcap of your choice you can buy it here.
The tactical tailcap works with my old L1P so people with older Lxx lights can upgrade to the tactical tailcap.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 29, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



hds-lover said:


> Hey nice review ... but is there any chance The P2D can join your review??? I`d love to see the throw measurements compared to the rebel :thumbsup:


The P2D results for the Cree P4, Q2 and R100 heads are posted in the main thread ... I'm hesistant to try the LxT v2.0 head on the P2D body, as this head was never designed to run on 3.7V cells (unlike the LxD/P2D, which use a common head). The LxT v2.0 circuit would need to accept input up to ~4.2V range, and I'm not sure if it does. Sorry hds-lover, but I like this light too much to risk trying it ... :sweat:



LEDninja said:


> My L1T came with the standard reverse clicky on the light and the forward clicky in the holster. So depending on the tailcap I am using I can get tailstand OR ease of use. I think the 1st production run shipped with both tailcaps.


Hi LEDninja, you are right, the first batch shipped with both tailcaps. But the latest batch (which mine is from) is now only shipping with the forward "tactical" clicky. Of course, as you pointed out, you can always buy a separate reverse clicky, but I wanted to make sure people buying a LxT v2.0 today knew what they were in for in the package.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

What does the runtime look like for Rebel 100 L1D, high and medium with NiMH? 
Thanks,

Bill


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



Bullzeyebill said:


> What does the runtime look like for Rebel 100 L1D, high and medium with NiMH?


Hi Bill, I don't do runtiumes for NiMH on anything but Hi for a simple reason - I don't want to risk destroying my NiMH cells by letting them drain to zero. So I would have to be present and watching carefully for when they dip to ~5-10% of initial output (where I usually stop the run). This is very labour intensive, compared to alkaline testing where I can just let it run unsupervised while doing other tasks, like working (or sleeping ).

In this case, given how the R100 is a relatively poorer performer on alkaline (compared to other Fenix AA models), I suspect NiMH would run a lot longer.


----------



## hds-lover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



selfbuilt said:


> The P2D results for the Cree P4, Q2 and R100 heads are posted in the main thread ... I'm hesistant to try the LxT v2.0 head on the P2D body, as this head was never designed to run on 3.7V cells (unlike the LxD/P2D, which use a common head). The LxT v2.0 circuit would need to accept input up to ~4.2V range, and I'm not sure if it does. Sorry hds-lover, but I like this light too much to risk trying it ... :sweat:
> 
> 
> Hi LEDninja, you are right, the first batch shipped with both tailcaps. But the latest batch (which mine is from) is now only shipping with the forward "tactical" clicky. Of course, as you pointed out, you can always buy a separate reverse clicky, but I wanted to make sure people buying a LxT v2.0 today knew what they were in for in the package.


 

I`M soooory I meant the P2D Q5 !!!!!!!!


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



hds-lover said:


> I`M soooory I meant the P2D Q5 !!!!!!!!


Ah, no problem then.  

I've ordered a Q5 light, and will update this thread with results on L1D and P2D bodies (RCR only for P2D, don't like blowing too many CR123A). Light is not likely to arrive until the end of next week, and it will take me the better part of a week to run all the tests, so you are probably looking at around mid-Nov for my review.


----------



## hds-lover (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



selfbuilt said:


> Ah, no problem then.
> 
> I've ordered a Q5 light, and will update this thread with results on L1D and P2D bodies (RCR only for P2D, don't like blowing too many CR123A). Light is not likely to arrive until the end of next week, and it will take me the better part of a week to run all the tests, so you are probably looking at around mid-Nov for my review.


 
Very nice of you .... only thing is I don`t know if i can hold the button that long . We will see the light i guess !


----------



## gravityz (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

can anybody tell me what led currently is in the l1dce(Q2, P4)

i heared that putting in a Q5 might not make any difference when running 1xAA battery.

still i need something better in it than a Q2 or a rebel80


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 30, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



gravtyz said:


> can anybody tell me what led currently is in the l1dce(Q2, P4). i heared that putting in a Q5 might not make any difference when running 1xAA battery. still i need something better in it than a Q2 or a rebel80


Fenix doesn't guarantee a flux or tint bins for their lights, but I imagine currently shipping L1DCE are probably using Q2 by now - but it's likely a lot of P4s are still in the retail channels. 4sevens would be the best one to ask.

It remains to be determined how well the Fenix circuitry will handle the higher Vf of the Q5 - I'll let you know once I receive mine. As for something better, nothing I know of right now beats the R100 head of the Fenix on regular AAs. Jetbeam MkIIR is due out in a few days, and it uses a Q4, but performance is unknown as yet. Personally, I plan on skipping the MkIIR and waiting for the Jet II (Q5 with wider head).


----------



## gravityz (Oct 31, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

i also just bought the L2DCE Q5 with a L1DCE body

i was told by fenixstore that the Q5 is still much brighter then the rebel100 when on 1AA
hopefully they were telling the truth


let you know when i have it


----------



## 4sevens (Oct 31, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



gravtyz said:


> i also just bought the L2DCE Q5 with a L1DCE body
> 
> i was told by fenixstore that the Q5 is still much brighter then the rebel100 when on 1AA
> hopefully they were telling the truth
> ...


I'm sorry that we weren't clear about this.
There is are very specific reasons why no premium led's are offered for
1xAA and 1xAAA lights. One of which is that the increase in output is
simply not as much as a 2xAA or any 3v battery sourced light. It's barely
noticable when compared side by side. The non premium lights are impressive
as it is. For use to put premium LED's would simply be a marketing scheme.
We don't play those games.  If you guys must have a single AA premium
light, you can do what gravity did, purchase an L2D Q5 and also a L1D body.

About the Q5 vs Rebel 100, I have observed the Q5's to indeed have a tiny
edge over the Rebel 100 - about 7-8% more. Also the Cree reflector
has a deeper profile so the spot will be more intense. But again, they 
increase is not by a landslide. Just like there are som R2's now offered in
very limited numbers by a vendor here (also a cree dealer) but the increase
in output is marginal.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 31, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



4sevens said:


> There is are very specific reasons why no premium led's are offered for 1xAA and 1xAAA lights. One of which is that the increase in output is simply not as much as a 2xAA or any 3v battery sourced light. It's barely noticable when compared side by side. The non premium lights are impressive as it is. For use to put premium LED's would simply be a marketing scheme. We don't play those games.  If you guys must have a single AA premium light, you can do what gravity did, purchase an L2D Q5 and also a L1D body.


Speak his name, and he appears! :devil: Just kidding - thanks for info David.  

My own testing backs up what David is saying - there's little difference in output between the R100 and Q2 heads on 1AA, but there is a good ~8-10% difference on 2AA or CR123A (see my P2D summary table or L2D ceiling bounce results in the first post). I expect the Q5 won't be all that different on 1AA either, but would expect a small increase in output (on average) compared to R100 in 2AA/CR123A formats. 

I've been thinking it's time I start posting results of the Fenix premium heads 2AA format, but I just don't have the time to do all those modes again. Too many lights, too little time ... :sigh:


----------



## gravityz (Oct 31, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



4sevens said:


> I'm sorry that we weren't clear about this.
> There is are very specific reasons why no premium led's are offered for
> 1xAA and 1xAAA lights. One of which is that the increase in output is
> simply not as much as a 2xAA or any 3v battery sourced light. It's barely
> ...


 
i read you 4 sevens
i know that when on 1AA the difference between Q2 Q4 and Q5 are slim. however when i use it as a 2AA light the difference is a lot more.

so this way i have the best of both worlds

a very good AA light(maybee a bit better as a Q2,Q4 or rebel 100)
a Very Very good 2x AA light(much better than Q2, Q4, or rebel100

let me know if i am still reading things wrong

second reason for buying the fenix and not the mkii.r is thast that the ui on the fenix is much more simple low, medium high, sos
need more light, twist the thing


----------



## NA8 (Nov 2, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

So, feel free to put a premium LED into a L2Tv2 anytime now.


----------



## Julian Holtz (Nov 2, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

You guys are killing me!
I have a L2D R100 on the way right now, and you forced me to buy a spare head for my L1D and a Cree Q5 Soft White from Cutter, too:shrug:
I guess I will end up using the Rebel head with the L1D body, and the Cree head with the L2D body.
Has anyone experiences with the "Soft White" (WH) tint?
I like my light on the yellow side

Cheers,

Julez


----------



## gravityz (Nov 2, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



Julian Holtz said:


> You guys are killing me!
> I have a L2D R100 on the way right now, and you forced me to buy a spare head for my L1D and a Cree Q5 Soft White from Cutter, too:shrug:
> I guess I will end up using the Rebel head with the L1D body, and the Cree head with the L2D body.
> Has anyone experiences with the "Soft White" (WH) tint?
> ...


 

that was the reason for me to wait for the Q5

nobody however did fieldtests of both the Q5 AND rebel100 head
for what i have read the rebel100 head dissipates less heat than the Q2 head.
hopefully for me the Q5 head does the same or better


----------



## Julian Holtz (Nov 2, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Well, the thing is, I decided to buy the rebel instead of the Q5, and would do so again: All I hear everywhere is how pleasing the tint is, and that the low Vf means benefits when driven on one AA.
Now, with the hopefully also pleasing tint of the Cree Q5 WH, I guess I will have the best for both 1AA and 2AA:

1AA Rebel: pleasing tint, high efficiency, a little more floody.

2AA Cree: pleasing tint without lottery, highest possible output (for this tint), a little more throwy.

Well, perhaps I can do beamshots in like...2 weeks


----------



## gravityz (Nov 11, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Obviously Selfbuilt is playing with something else than his lights(that's a joke) so i did some really simple tests with my L2DCE Q5 light
Tests were purely to see how long the lights will hold on 2x AA 2650Mah
as for the light output i really do not know because i do not have a lightmeter.

maybee selfbuilt can complement these numbers

L2DCE Q5
runtest on high for 1 hour.
Current:1,2Amp
predicted usage per AA=1200/2=600Mah
real usage(charged batteries in charger with lcd display) 600Mah
so with 2x NimH 2650 batteries the light should last 4 hours 24 minutes which seems ok

L2DCE Q5
runtest on Turbo for 10 minutes
Current:1,9Amp
predicted usage per AA=1900/2/6=158Mah
real usage(charged batteries in charger with lcd display) 310Mah
so with 2x NimH 2650 batteries the light should last 51 minutes which seems pretty low
maybee the test is not precise enough because i did it only for 10 minutes
if you compare current than it should last half the time of the high setting just like the specs say(which is 2 hours)
maybee current usage is not entirely constant during usage(eg high cureent when starting but slowly getting lower because light compensates with voltage)

light temperature after 10 minutes
Body 35 celsius
head 40 celsius
the complete flashlight feels warm so head conduction is ok but temperature is probably hotter then the rebel100

also the charger is probably gonna use more energy to fill the NiMH's than the amount which is actually stored in the battery.

if anybody likes to enlighten these numbers please do


----------



## Stereodude (Nov 12, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Your math is wrong because the batteries are in series. If you have 2500mAhr NiMH batteries and you're running at high the 1.2A draw will give you ~2.1 hours (2.5/1.2). In turbo you would get ~1.3 hours (2.5/1.9).


----------



## gravityz (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



Stereodude said:


> Your math is wrong because the batteries are in series. If you have 2500mAhr NiMH batteries and you're running at high the 1.2A draw will give you ~2.1 hours (2.5/1.2). In turbo you would get ~1.3 hours (2.5/1.9).


 
you are right when using only one AA but what about the second AA in there
accoording to your calculation it runs for 2.1 hours(so in 2.1 hours it consumes 2500mah) so were is the other 2500mah from the second battery?


so somehow when batteries are in series you can not calculate that the current from one battery is also 1.2Amp's
maybee it is but it consumes half the power otherwise the battery would have been using 1200mah instead of 600mah


maybee when batteries are in series we have to compare total watt usage instead of just volts or amps.

total voltage is 2.4 volts
total amps is 1.2 amp
total power usage= 2.4x1.2=2.88 watts

if anybody can enlighten us.

The puzzle is

1 battery uses 1.2 amps thus runtime is 1.2 hours
when 2 batteries are in series the current is still 1.2amps but runtime doubles

the resistance of the cell does not change 1 Ohm
the voltage of the cell does not change 1.2 volt
the current of the cell does not change 1.2 amps

so totals add up with 2x AA in series but why is it discharging at half the rate while currentdrasw is still 1.2 amps?

maybee we are looking in the wrong place and is the issue not with the batteries but with the powerconsumption of the led+circuit.

on 1 aa it provides 1.2 amps and 1.2 volts which is 1.44 watts
on 2 aa it provides 1.2 amps and 2.4 volts which is 2.88 watts
lightoutput is the same on 2 aa so it is offered 2.88 watts but only uses 1.44 watts 
so internally in the circuit it is using the higher voltage to lower the current to the led so that output remains the same
The key must be in the circuit otherwise this makes no sense at all

mmm, back to school i think


----------



## FatTony (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



gravtyz said:


> you are right when using only one AA but what about the second AA in there
> accoording to your calculation it runs for 2.1 hours(so in 2.1 hours it consumes 2500mah) so were is the other 2500mah from the second battery?


 
Batteries in series you get double the voltage and the capacity of a single cell. Batteries in parallel you get double the capacity and the voltage of a single cell (in an ideal world, assuming both batteries are of the same type and capacity).


----------



## gravityz (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



FatTony said:


> Batteries in series you get double the voltage and the capacity of a single cell. Batteries in parallel you get double the capacity and the voltage of a single cell (in an ideal world, assuming both batteries are of the same type and capacity).


 
agreed but somewere the capavity of the second battery has to be available too otherwise i might drop in a shunt to bypass the second battery.

like i said above the trick must be in the regulator circuit which is obviously converting power into power but with different volts,amps

or do you mean 2 aa's in series will get you one big 2.4 volts 2500Mah battery


----------



## FatTony (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



gravtyz said:


> or do you mean 2 aa's in series will get you one big 2.4 volts 2500Mah battery


 
Yup, exactly.


----------



## gravityz (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*



FatTony said:


> Yup, exactly.


 
ok so i picture it like this

in case of a bucket

2x AA in series will give:

2500Mah is diameter
2.4 volts is height
since diameter is small emptying it fast will not give twice the flow
emptied normal and the flow will run twice as long.

2x AA in paralel will give:

5000Mah is diameter
1.2 volts is the height of the water
can supply twice the current when emptied fast
will last 2 twice as long if emptied normal


so basically the only reason for 2xAA to put in paralel is if you really need a high current.


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

In practical terms, a lot depends on how the light is set up to handle the 2AA batteries in series.

For example, on the single-stage ultrafire C3, 2AA is the same brightness as 1AA. In that case, the light runs for twice as long in 2AA format (actually a little better than that, since batteries last longer if not drained under a high load).

For the Fenix lights, 2AA mode Turbo is about twice as bright as 1AA. So in this case, for twice the initial output, you would expect similar runtimes between 2AA and 1AA (actually a little worse than that, since the batteries are under higher load in 2AA due to maximal output).

Back in post #30, I posted a comparison of the L1T/L2T R80 head in 1AA/2AA:







As you'll see, on both NiMH and alkaline, battery life is noticeably lower on 2AA (which has ~2X the output of 1AA). 

FYI, I plan to update this thread with 2AA Turbo NiMH runtimes when my new Q5 L2D arrives (I expect it any day now).


----------



## gravityz (Nov 13, 2007)

He selfbuilt.

thanks for replying.

as you could see my tests were merely to check if the average runtime was still the same with higher output.
since i only have the L2DCE Q5 at the moment i can not tell differences in lightoutput.
first i thought the currentdraw was rather high but if you do the math than it still comes down to a repectable 4 hours 48 minutes(probably shorter because the AA will give up earlier)

i got my light within 7 days from fenix-store(i am in the netherlands FYI)

can't wait to see your test.


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 13, 2007)

gravtyz said:


> since i only have the L2DCE Q5 at the moment i can not tell differences in lightoutput.
> first i thought the currentdraw was rather high but if you do the math than it still comes down to a repectable 4 hours 48 minutes(probably shorter because the AA will give up earlier)


Hi gravitz,

I appreciate your attempt to estimate runtime using the tools you have available (obviously a DMM and a Maya charger). It was a good idea, since the Maya can report on variety of measures. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much inference you can draw from partial time runs, since a battery's discharge status depends on a number of variables over the course of a full run. Not the least of which in this case is the fact that the flashlight circuit adapts the battery load depending on its state. 

BTW, I agree the Q5 is not likely to be noticeably brighter than the earlier models. I've just finished the 2AA NiMH Turbo runs of my exisiting heads, and frankly there is not that big of a difference. We are still only talking about a 5-15% difference between the various models so far. We'll see when the Q5 arrives.

Anxiously awaiting today's mail (finger's crossed) ...


----------



## gravityz (Nov 13, 2007)

i am specially interested in the currentdraw on low high and turbo

did you measure this on your current 2AA light.

this way we can see what the difference in current usage is.

i know it all comes down to runtimes but then we know the difference between a q2 and q5


----------



## yaesumofo (Nov 14, 2007)

my Rebel R100 "Premium",P2D has a very reflective almost like an extension of the reflector which encircles the emitter. it looks different than your example.
Is this just the angle?
Does yours have a mirror liks area surrounding the emitter?
Yaesumofo


----------



## gravityz (Nov 15, 2007)

He Selfbuilt

i see that you have put up some new numbers of the LxDCE Q5

seems to me that the numbers you got are pretty much what i calclulated
i also did a rumtime on turbo with the L1DCE Q5 and got 1:50.

what puzzles me is that the runtime of the Q5 on turbo is about half the runtime on the rebel100 while output is only slightly better.

so is the Q5 consuming much more power on turbo?

i think the standard rule you explained should apply
1x AA output 100, runtime 100
2x AA output 200, runtime 100

current figures show
2x AA output 200, runtime 50




on low, med and high i suspect the differences are not so big(accoording to my calculations.)


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 15, 2007)

yaesumofo said:


> my Rebel R100 "Premium",P2D has a very reflective almost like an extension of the reflector which encircles the emitter. it looks different than your example. Is this just the angle? Does yours have a mirror liks area surrounding the emitter?


It's just the angle. Mine is as shiny around the emitter as the rest of the reflector.



gravtyz said:


> seems to me that the numbers you got are pretty much what i calclulated i also did a rumtime on turbo with the L1DCE Q5 and got 1:50.
> what puzzles me is that the runtime of the Q5 on turbo is about half the runtime on the rebel100 while output is only slightly better.


Oops, I didn't mean for that table to get uploaded last night, I was still working on it. As you'll see now, the "final" version has the correct runtime for L1DCE Q5 on Turbo at 1:44 mins (in keeping with your results). I've revised all the graphs in the main post to include Q5 data.

FYI, I've posted a new review with L2D results (in Turbo only) here:
 Fenix L2D Q5 vs R100, R80, Q2, P4 Comparison Review: RUNTIMES+

Note that I don't plan to re-run all the lower modes on 2AA, so this thread will remain the repository of all the runtime data on 1AA format.

Please let me know if you spot any errors in the graphs or table - it's a lot of data to collate, and I'm a little rushed for time these days.


----------



## gravityz (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanks.

i was a bit worried that fenix did something nasty but they did not.

this makes sense
it is not like the jump from P4 to Q2(higher output, higher runtime) but at least you can see that the output increased a lot while still remaining most of it's runtime.

i will study it some more to see if i find any unlogical things

Regarding the Nimh batteries
these are really nice performers and perform almost exactly as advertised.
i really like it when i calculate things and then test them to see that the test is about the same as the calculation.
this means that both the fenix circuitry as well as the NiMh batteries are extremely liniair performers


----------



## afahmic (Nov 15, 2007)

*Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS*

Useful review!

Million thanks.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 21, 2007)

Nice Job Selfbuilt!.... you should offer your services to Fenix and the others.... your work is excellent and you should be paid by the companies themselves!

Of course many companies will have no incentive to pay you since their product is not superior, but a couple sure should!

Any cutting edge product would be well served to seek you out!

Just keep in mine, you won't be able to be objective if you know up front their product won't fare well against the competition!

Thanks again.... Its nice people are willing to sacrifice their time and expertise for this!


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 21, 2007)

windstrings said:


> Nice Job Selfbuilt!.... you should offer your services to Fenix and the others.... your work is excellent and you should be paid by the companies themselves! ... Just keep in mine, you won't be able to be objective if you know up front their product won't fare well against the competition!


Thanks for the support. Not to worry, I don't plan to take any payments for my reviews - it would definitely affect objectivity. And as you say, in most cases it wouldn't turn out too well for many of the makers! 

Except for the NiteCore (where I agreed to review a pre-production sample gratis), every other light I've reviewed is one I've bought from a commercial source with my own funds. That introduces a sort of bias too, since I won't buy lights I'm not interested in owning/gifting away. I also try to buy from a variety of vendors, so as not to be seen as preferentially falling into one camp or another here.

I have received requests to add specific lights to some of my comparison reviews, but I just won't go for it if I don't think the light is worth the price up front. Sure, I can always re-sell it, but my time is limited, so I have to pick and choose what I want to analyze. It's a fun hobby, but it is just a hobby after all. :thumbsup:


----------



## Minjin (Nov 21, 2007)

Would an upgrade from an older L2D-CE to an L2D-R80 be noticeable? The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about picking up an L1D-R80 as a gift for someone else and swapping the head with mine. They'll never notice it and I get to keep up with LEDs. :laughing:


----------



## gravityz (Nov 22, 2007)

Minjin said:


> Would an upgrade from an older L2D-CE to an L2D-R80 be noticeable? The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about picking up an L1D-R80 as a gift for someone else and swapping the head with mine. They'll never notice it and I get to keep up with LEDs. :laughing:


if you do you better remove the sticker on the back of the box also

mine says Q5 so your box may say RB80


----------



## gravityz (Nov 22, 2007)

selfbuilt said:


> Except for the NiteCore (where I agreed to review a pre-production sample *gratis*), every other light I've reviewed is one I've bought from a :thumbsup:


 

He selfbuilt
you state that you are from canada but you used a word which is probably only used in the dutch language(most favourite one also)

care to explain!


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 22, 2007)

Minjin said:


> Would an upgrade from an older L2D-CE to an L2D-R80 be noticeable? The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about picking up an L1D-R80 as a gift for someone else and swapping the head with mine. They'll never notice it and I get to keep up with LEDs. :laughing:


Juding from my L2Tv2.0 R80 head, the output difference is really only noticeable when directly comparing the two side by side. 

What you will definitely notice is the beam pattern difference - there are no rings on the Rebel light, and the hotspot is smaller with a more even transition to the spill area (unlike the Cree, which has a more defined centre spot beam). The Rebel looks a lot more like a SSC emitter than a Cree.



gravtyz said:


> He selfbuilt
> you state that you are from canada but you used a word which is probably only used in the dutch language(most favourite one also)


What can I say, I'm very cosmopolitan!  

Actually, didn't realize it was used in the dutch language (I was thinking more of latin and its derivative "romance" languages). Actually, I had no idea I was so topical, judging from this wiki entry I just found: Gratis versus Libre


----------



## gravityz (Nov 23, 2007)

selfbuilt said:


> What can I say, I'm very cosmopolitan!
> 
> Actually, didn't realize it was used in the dutch language (I was thinking more of latin and its derivative "romance" languages). Actually, I had no idea I was so topical, judging from this wiki entry I just found: Gratis versus Libre


 
Gratis in dutch means:
for free

this means you do not have to pay money
you know us dutch guys.

if there is anything for free we jump right on it

the difference between dutch guys and people from other countries (like the US) is

we actually check if it is really for free because as you know in real life nothing is for free. there are always hidden costs envolved.

in the US it is the other way around
you get tricked into buying something which is really cheap and than you have to pay for
Tax
upgrades
etc

they are banning al this kind of advertising in europe right now because they want people to know upfront what they are paying total

don't get me wrong, i really love the USA and the people overthere but marketing in the USA and in europe are totally different.

i think this is enough off topic text for today
sorry about this and feel free to remove this if i broke any forum rules


----------



## streamlighter (Feb 19, 2008)

"Gratis" is also very common in the german language and here it means for free, too.

As we say "wenn lau, dann jau!", which means: no matter what it is, when you don't have to pay for it, take it!

Kind regards

SL


----------



## gravityz (Feb 19, 2008)

that's a good one
next time i talk to somebody in germany i will use it.




streamlighter said:


> "Gratis" is also very common in the german language and here it means for free, too.
> 
> As we say "wenn lau, dann jau!", which means: no matter what it is, when you don't have to pay for it, take it!
> 
> ...


----------



## lucio (Oct 22, 2008)

what an amazing job.

so, is still the Q5 the most powerful LED out there (or at least in Fenix's series)?


BTW, you say gratis in italian too


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 22, 2008)

lucio said:


> so, is still the Q5 the most powerful LED out there (or at least in Fenix's series)?


Yup, Q5 is the best you'll find in a stock Fenix, including the new LDx0 and PD20 series. 

FYI, I've just received my new LD10, so you'll start to see it enter into the runtime charts of my other reviews soon. Once I get a chance to test it thoroughly, I'll also add it to this review.


----------



## lucio (Oct 22, 2008)

glad to know, glad to know.

thanks selfbuilt


----------



## krayzeemofo (Feb 5, 2009)

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.11343

so is the Fenix in my link above the same as the Q5 in the review? (I'm basically looking for the brightest AA/AAA light that is easily available to those in Canada)

Thanks in advance


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 5, 2009)

krayzeemofo said:


> so is the Fenix in my link above the same as the Q5 in the review? (I'm basically looking for the brightest AA/AAA light that is easily available to those in Canada)


The Fenix L2D is pretty standard nowadays, with most places only selling the Q5 "premium" version (I don't think many vendors have older stock around anymore).

I would recommend ordering from fenix-store.com (free ship and excellent customer service), lighthound.com, or one of the other vendors closer to home (in Canada, I believe fenixtactical.com, j2ledflashlights.com and paulsfinest.com all carry this light).

Note that the L2D Q5 has been replaced by the LD20 (basically the same light, but with a new body design and slightly throwier reflector). So you may have troube finding the L2D in stock in some places, if you prefer the old body style. Performance of the LD20 should be pretty much the same as the L2D Q5 reviewed here (I believe the low mode is typically a little lower on the LD20 and later model L2Ds),


----------



## krayzeemofo (Feb 5, 2009)

thanks for the reply and links .



selfbuilt said:


> The Fenix L2D is pretty standard nowadays, with most places only selling the Q5 "premium" version (I don't think many vendors have older stock around anymore)...



is that bad?



> ...
> Note that the L2D Q5 has been replaced by the LD20 (basically the same light, but with a new body design and slightly throwier reflector). So you may have troube finding the L2D in stock in some places, if you prefer the old body style. Performance of the LD20 should be pretty much the same as the L2D Q5 reviewed here (*I believe the low mode is typically a little lower on the LD20 and later model L2Ds*),


but how is the turbo mode?

Thanks again

edit:

are the models you are referring to the same as the ones in the links below (with the first two links being the one that you reviewed and the third being the newer LD20)?...sorry if this seems like a stupid question.
http://fenixtactical.com/fenix-ld20.html
https://www.fenix-store.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_65&products_id=397
https://www.fenix-store.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_65&products_id=362


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 6, 2009)

krayzeemofo said:


> but how is the turbo mode?


There is no real difference in output between the L2D Q5 and LD20 on Turbo (same emitter, basically same circuit). The earlier "non-premium" L2Ds came with anything from a P4 to a Q2 emitter (not identified), but there aren't likely to be many of those for sale anymore (although they would be sold at a discounted price, which may be attractive to you based on the results presented here). 

The links you provided for the LD20, the L2D Q5, and the LD20 again. Basically, just go with whichever body style you prefer, there's not much difference (even the heads/bodies of the L2D and LD20 are interchangeable).


----------



## krayzeemofo (Feb 6, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> There is no real difference in output between the L2D Q5 and LD20 on Turbo (same emitter, basically same circuit). *The earlier "non-premium" L2Ds came with anything from a P4 to a Q2 emitter* (not identified), but there aren't likely to be many of those for sale anymore (although they would be sold at a discounted price, which may be attractive to you based on the results presented here)...


 
so the more recent 'premium' versions are better?


I suppose this may be a bit off topic, but would you happen to know if either or both of the Fenix lights are better/brighter than the Ultrafire WF-606A? (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.14909)

I noticed that the Ultrafire has a rated brightness of 230 lumens, whereas the turbo mode on the Fenixes have a rating of 180 lumens; are either or both of those ratings accurate?

Thanks again


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 6, 2009)

krayzeemofo said:


> so the more recent 'premium' versions are better?
> I suppose this may be a bit off topic, but would you happen to know if either or both of the Fenix lights are better/brighter than the Ultrafire WF-606A? (http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.14909)


The only difference with the premium version is the Q5 emitter. The results in this review will help you decide if it's worth the output difference to a Q2/P4.

And no, Ultrafire lumen ratings can't be relied upon. Typically, the L2D Q5 is one of the brightest 2AA lights out there - see my 2xAA round-up thread for more info. I haven't tested the 606A personally.


----------

