# New H53c AA Headlamp Neutral White High CRI!



## Nichia!

Still no images yet 

Cree XP-L2 EasyWhite LED
Nominal CCT 4000K
Typical CRI: 93-95


http://www.zebralight.com/H53c-AA-Headlamp-Neutral-White-High-CRI_p_194.html


----------



## holygeez03

Excited to finally have a replacement for my beloved H52Fw... but a little disappointed that H1 won't reach anywhere near the 475lm burst mode of the H52 with 14500... 400lm H1 with AA would be awesome.

Also not sure about the "pre-installed clip"... I really like the clips on the old headlamps since they are "deep carry" and not overly tight or bulky.

Will there be a H53Fw with slightly less CRI, but way more output?

This will probably get moved to the Headlamp section, but I hope not since I EDC my H52Fw and almost never use it as a headlamp.


----------



## twistedraven

I like the idea of sustained output over a bust output that PID throttles down to 285lumens within a minute. Still waiting for an 18650 version though.


----------



## holygeez03

I'm afraid that the pre-installed clip will not be "deep carry"... I really hope I'm wrong since that really changes the EDC-ability... 

The SC5w mkII appears to be able to sustain 407lm with the 80 CRI emitter, so I am really hoping for that in the H53Fw.


----------



## sddsww

good，I like it。


----------



## eh4

I don't see why they'd remove an option for the clip, pre-installed may very well simply mean that it's already clipped onto the light, it doesn't say permanently installed or anything. 
Maybe they got a bunch of feedback from people who had trouble putting the clip on?


----------



## TCY

Waiting for the F version.


----------



## Chaitanya

No estimated runtimes, but that looks like a useful headlamp either for work or running. Tempted to preorder it.


----------



## davidt1

holygeez03 said:


> Excited to finally have a replacement for my beloved H52Fw... but a little disappointed that H1 won't reach anywhere near the 475lm burst mode of the H52 with 14500... 400lm H1 with AA would be awesome.
> 
> Also not sure about the "pre-installed clip"... I really like the clips on the old headlamps since they are "deep carry" and not overly tight or bulky.
> 
> Will there be a H53Fw with slightly less CRI, but way more output?
> 
> This will probably get moved to the Headlamp section, but I hope not since I EDC my H52Fw and almost never use it as a headlamp.



I am curious about this "pre-installed clip" too. If it's not a swiveling clip like on their previous AA headlamps, I am not interested.


----------



## holygeez03

It does list a pocket clip as an accessory in the box... so hopefully it's the traditional removable "deep carry" clip!

Really want a photo!


----------



## TCY

I actually asked ZL about the pocket clip on the H53 series about three weeks ago. Their response: "_The H53Fc will continue use the same clips as in the H52 series."_


----------



## TCY

The Fc version is now available for pre-order too.


----------



## Nichia!

Here's another one the flood version 

H53Fc AA Headlamp Floody Neutral White High CRI

http://www.zebralight.com/H53Fc-AA-Headlamp-Floody-Neutral-White-High-CRI_p_195.html


----------



## wolfgaze

Very interested... Hope we get photos soon...


----------



## Woods Walker

Thread moved to headlamps. Redirect link left in previous forum to expire in 1 day.


----------



## davidt1

TCY said:


> I actually asked ZL about the pocket clip on the H53 series about three weeks ago. Their response: "_The H53Fc will continue use the same clips as in the H52 series."_



Thanks for this info. Things are looking good.  I notice the length is 2.9 in. vs. 3.0 in for the H52. 

Now what to do with my H52w and H502w. Thousands of hours of use and they still don't die so I can justify buying new lights.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Generally good news, and I'm glad to see it go up for pre-order.

But I'm really puzzled about the H1 level, and how low it is.

When they announced that the H53 would no longer support the 14500, I assumed this meant it would have a circuit like the SC5's circuit, i.e. a dedicated 1.2 volt circuit that could put out a very high amperage to the emitter.

Now it looks like it is the worst of both worlds--does not support 14500, and does not produce high outputs from 1.2v cells.

Is 285 lumens enough for most headlamp uses? Maybe....

But having that 500 lumen option for a quick flash was a *huge* advantage. It made the h52 a much more plausible EDC for all purpose.

I will still pre-order this, but I will be disappointed if it really does max out at 285. I hope there is more to this story?


----------



## lampeDépêche

Okay, I went ahead and pre-ordered one. I'm excited! 

We'll learn more about the numbers and details as they get closer to the release.


----------



## iamlucky13

Honestly, while I'm a bit disappointed it doesn't share the same H1 output as the SC5c II, it's not a big deal to me. If I get the light, there will probably be a few occasions where I'd like to be able to kick the output up just a bit more for a moment to see further down the trail, but they won't be critical.

It's a pity I don't really have a legitimate excuse to buy one of these. My current headlamp is good enough, but this just looks great.

Interestingly, the H52 headlamps are currently listed as $5 more on Zebralights site than the H53 headlamps.


----------



## mellowman

Bought my H52w like 3-4 years ago. Current stock is out of stock, not even back ordered. The replacement is about same lumens and some additional modes G6, G7 which personally don't like as I have relatives who for whatever reason tend to just mash on the button multiple times till light comes out. Love me some high CRI but after so many years feels like a step down without 1450 support.

Wonder what the larger led will do to the hot spot. From the specs it will be narrower, 10 vs 12 deg but that doesn't seem right to me. Larger LED should give larger hot sport all else being equal.


----------



## roger-roger

_Disappointing. I'm not enough of a fan boy or interested in high CRI enough to upgrade. _


----------



## holygeez03

TCY said:


> I actually asked ZL about the pocket clip on the H53 series about three weeks ago. Their response: "_The H53Fc will continue use the same clips as in the H52 series."_




Excellent news... now I will just hope for a H53Fw with slightly less CRI and more output.


----------



## lampeDépêche

No peeking! top-sekrit theory about to come! This is my top sekrit and you can't look!

[Okay, now that it's just the two of us in here: 

I wonder whether this is the same circuit as the new SC5, throttled way down.
*And* I wonder whether there will be a way to program it in order to get its H1 up to a higher figure, like closer to 500.
Think about it: it shares a *lot* of the characteristics of the new SC5 circuit: only handles 1.5v max; has the G5/G6/G7 groupings for programming.
But the body is a lot lighter than the SC5: 31g vs 49g, so it won't handle heat as well.
What does a responsible manufacturer do? They throttle back the output so that newbs won't get burned.
BUT--once we get one in our hands and start figuring out the cheat-code, we'll figure out how to re-program it.
Like: up up down down left right left right BA. Boom: 500 lumens.

Do I have *any* evidence for this theory? Nope. Not a bit. This is just pure speculation on my part.]


----------



## holygeez03

That's what I assumed regarding the SC5 driver... ZL doesn't want it heating up since it is a headlamp... but I almost never use my H52Fw as a headlamp and I use it with a 14500... I do not want to go backwards in terms of output... thus my hope for a Fw version with lower CRI and higher output.

A way for advanced users to re-program the light for a 400 - 500 lumen level would also suffice and be an instant buy.


----------



## lampeDépêche

holygeez03 said:


> A way for advanced users to re-program the light for a 400 - 500 lumen level would also suffice and be an instant buy.



Yeah, I want to repeat that I have *no* evidence for this speculation (I did correspond with ZL about springs, but nothing about programming or lumen-levels.)

I think what put it in my mind was reading Hondo's "Brief History of the HDS universe," where he talks about how it was later revealed that all lights were user-programmable if you clicked it 250 (!!) times in a row. That sort of thing is a pretty good barrier to having casual users get into trouble, but it would let advanced users get access to higher modes.


----------



## holygeez03

Waiting for pictures...

250 clicks to enter programming mode??? That's preposterous... was it intentional or essentially a glitch?


----------



## mellowman

if lack of boost is a heat dissipation issue they could just reduce the boost time to say 1min or 30sec from the 3min that the SC5w has.


----------



## iamlucky13

Zebralight has implemented step downs before. I doubt heat management is all that is going on here.

It could be the slightly smaller size compared to the SC5c II is just enough to force them to downsize parts like the inductor used for boosting the voltage, such that getting much more than 250 lumens from a 1.2v source isn't really practical.

As I understand, this is the main factor driving the sizing of transformers and other inductors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(magnetic)

If so, I expect the presumed next generation of the SC52 will either have a similar output limit as the H53, or will retain 14500 support.


----------



## davidt1

Price is cheaper than previous models. You get what you pay for?


----------



## lampeDépêche

holygeez03 said:


> 250 clicks to enter programming mode??? That's preposterous... was it intentional or essentially a glitch?



This was HDS, remember, not ZL.

I really don't know why HDS did it--check Hondo's "Brief History" in the LED thread. No real answer given there, either, but it sounds like it was intentional: they sold the lights as non-programmable, but in fact they had been programmable all along.


----------



## lampeDépêche

iamlucky13 said:


> ...It could be the slightly smaller size compared to the SC5c II is just enough to force them to downsize parts like the inductor used for boosting the voltage, such that getting much more than 250 lumens from a 1.2v source isn't really practical....



Interesting. Yeah, you might be right. (Hope you're wrong).

And I think that an H1 of 285 or so would be an absolute catastrophe for the SC62 upgrade [eta: sorry, meant SC52]. It's one thing to say that we don't need huge outputs in a headlamp. But in a regular flashlight configuration, a single-AA model that tops out at 285 is going to be dead in the water. That's so far from the cutting edge that it cannot even see the spine of the blade.


----------



## davidt1

From ZL website"

"new generation AA headlamp. smaller and brighter. price lowered to $59. no longer support 14500s."

So far their posted specs say not very bright.


----------



## lampeDépêche

davidt1 said:


> From ZL website"
> 
> "new generation AA headlamp. smaller and brighter....



Huh, I had forgotten that. The H52 already got 300 lumens, so this h53 is not brighter.

(I'm sure it has better tint, color, CRI, etc., and that's all good. But we want brighter, too, or at least *as* bright as it was on the 14500.)


----------



## stephenk

Whilst I'm surprised by the drop in 14500 support and turbo mode, 280 lumens is sufficient for most tasks. For example, I typically only use around 70 lumens for urban night running.


----------



## scs

Then there's the "Yeah, yeah, yeah 500 lumens from a AA size light, BUT for how long? And there's a step down?! *scoff* Why even bother." camp.


----------



## iamlucky13

lampeDépêche said:


> And I think that an H1 of 285 or so would be an absolute catastrophe for the SC62 upgrade. It's one thing to say that we don't need huge outputs in a headlamp. But in a regular flashlight configuration, a single-AA model that tops out at 285 is going to be dead in the water. That's so far from the cutting edge that it cannot even see the spine of the blade.



I tend to agree (assuming you mean SC52, not 62). Maybe not a catastrophe, but they'd be ill advised to give up the extra power for the flashlight variant in the name of a small amount of space savings. 



davidt1 said:


> From ZL website"
> 
> "new generation AA headlamp. smaller and brighter. price lowered to $59. no longer support 14500s."
> 
> So far their posted specs say not very bright.



They must be comparing to the H502C, which could only do 190 lumens. It was a full-flood, not a floody, but the H502 was the only style they offer a high CRI AA-powered headlamp for the current lineup.


----------



## mellowman

Got a response from ZL asking if there was going to be a boost mode for the H53c and the answer was a short No.

Also asked if the clip will be compatible with my H52w and the answer was a short Yes.

So size will not be that much different than the H52 series.

Lack of boost therefore has nothing to do with heat dissipation (H52 series had boost to 500lm with 14500). Therefore lack of boost mode also has nothing to do with argument that you don't need that much lumen in a headlamp because the previous gen had it...and the one before it.

So as suggested by iamlucky13, maybe the driver can't completely fit is the reason and then they choose to reduce the head size since no boost mode and that is where the size and weight savings are coming from.


----------



## lampeDépêche

mellowman said:


> ...maybe the driver can't completely fit is the reason and then they choose to reduce the head size since no boost mode and that is where the size and weight savings are coming from.



There's no reason to think that the head size is reduced. The size of the new head is listed as 0.86 inches, exactly the same as the H52 head. And the weight drop is exactly one gram, from 32 to 31. That probably just represents the fact that they shortened the battery tube by 0.1 inches. Given what we know now, I think we should picture this having basically the same size head as the H52 (and so same reflector).



mellowman said:


> Got a response from ZL asking if there was going to be a boost mode for the H53c and the answer was a short No.



I am just baffled by that. Seems like a crazy move, totally in the wrong direction. On the other hand, I do not run a successful cutting edge technology company, and they do. So I should wait and see.


----------



## davidt1

$6 less = no boost mode. You can't have everything.


----------



## mellowman

yea, your right about the head size. 

So in the end new version brings 2 things 1.) new led which adds CRI and maybe better run times from more efficient led. and 2.) new driver which brings new G6 and G7 modes and drops 14500 support.

Why not just stick with the old driver and add new led which would be a more compelling buy to me than how it is now.


----------



## mellowman

that may just be pre-order price with price going up $6 after launch.


----------



## lampeDépêche

"But, but, I can't fit into this tiny head!"

"Hey, that's no fair--I can't produce that much amperage!"

"More and more magnetic flux--I'm saturated! I can't take it!"

(Don't you hate listening to inductors whine?)


----------



## mellowman

lampeDépêche said:


> "But, but, I can't fit into this tiny head!"
> 
> "Hey, that's no fair--I can't produce that much amperage!"
> 
> "More and more magnetic flux--I'm saturated! I can't take it!"
> 
> (Don't you hate listening to inductors whine?)



the new led XP-L2 has lower forward voltage and current to achieve the same lumens than the previous gens XM-L2.


----------



## iamlucky13

lampeDépêche said:


> (Don't you hate listening to inductors whine?)



:laughing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8sWGMdGMoE


----------



## ma tumba

I am skipping this for I so much prefer pure flood in headlamps. Could complain, too, about lumens, no 14500 support but the deal breaker is the beam type. Still have and use older version of H502d (170lm ?), would love to see higher cri version with the new UI

EDIT: actually, on my old H502d, medium is also set from off by a double click, just like the new UI. So in this regards the new UI is a good old one.


----------



## gunga

I've really come to appreciate high cri, and slightly warmer tints. This headlamp will be definitely on my list.


----------



## lampeDépêche

gunga said:


> I've really come to appreciate high cri, and slightly warmer tints. This headlamp will be definitely on my list.



Hey, don't get me wrong: I have already pre-ordered one. 

The high cri, tint, and new programmable UI are all enough to get me interested. And I hope that they'll put out an H503 line of pure mules, as well.

My only disappointment is about the H1 output level. 

This light will not replace my H52w as the indispensable EDC, if it lacks the capacity to put out 500 lumens now and then when needed.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Interesting. Yeah, you might be right. (Hope you're wrong).
> 
> And I think that an H1 of 285 or so would be an absolute catastrophe for the SC62 upgrade [eta: sorry, meant SC52]. It's one thing to say that we don't need huge outputs in a headlamp. But in a regular flashlight configuration, a single-AA model that tops out at 285 is going to be dead in the water. That's so far from the cutting edge that it cannot even see the spine of the blade.



I noticed the spot of the H52 is 12 degrees compared to that of the H53 which is 10 degrees. Wouldn't that put the intensity of the consistent 285 lumens of the H53c very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level (maybe within 10%)? I'd appreciate any intelligent comments about this.

(I'm not a light expert, so be gentle!)


----------



## iamlucky13

Welcome to the forums Genzod!

That's an interesting point, although I'm not sure if Zebralight uses a consistent means of measuring their hotspot width - in most industries, lighting intensity falloff is marked at full width at half maximum is used, but a lot of people just eyeball apparent beam widths. One of their competitors, Armytek, I'm fairly certain does not use a consistent measure - I've seen beamshots of clearly different patterns between different Armytek models where they list the same beam width spec.

Also, the amount of light that falls within the hotspot compared to in the flood can affect the hotspot intensity, too. I don't think we can infer too much simply from the hotspot width spec.

It also would not affect those of us who prefer the floody beam versions.


----------



## Genzod

iamlucky13 said:


> Welcome to the forums Genzod!
> 
> That's an interesting point, although I'm not sure if Zebralight uses a consistent means of measuring their hotspot width - in most industries, lighting intensity falloff is marked at full width at half maximum is used, but a lot of people just eyeball apparent beam widths. One of their competitors, Armytek, I'm fairly certain does not use a consistent measure - I've seen beamshots of clearly different patterns between different Armytek models where they list the same beam width spec.
> 
> Also, the amount of light that falls within the hotspot compared to in the flood can affect the hotspot intensity, too. I don't think we can infer too much simply from the hotspot width spec.
> 
> It also would not affect those of us who prefer the floody beam versions.



I guess the intensity spec (cd) might prove useful to compare versions at max output then. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that ZL provides that information.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Genzod said:


> I noticed the spot of the H52 is 12 degrees compared to that of the H53 which is 10 degrees. Wouldn't that put the intensity of the consistent 285 lumens of the H53c very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level (maybe within 10%)?



I'll take a crack at thinking this through, although I'm no expert, either. Feel free to correct me for my blunders.

Let's say you took all of the illumination that one light puts into a 12-degree beam, and then focus it a bit more so that it puts the same amount into a 10-degree beam.

How much more intense will it be?

Suppose you shine a 12-degree beam and a 10-degree beam on the same flat wall, from the same distance. What is the difference in the area covered?

The ratio of sin(6 degrees) to sin(5 degrees) is about 1.2: the radius of the larger circle will be about 6/5 the radius of the smaller circle. Squaring that for area, you can see that the larger circle covers about 1.44 times the area of the smaller circle.

So if the smaller beam concentrates all of the lumens from the larger beam, it will have a light-density (lumens per area) that is 1.44 higher. Lumens per area is what lux measures, so its lux figure will be 1.44 times greater. 1.44 x 285 = 410, so the light with 285 lumens in a 10-degree hotspot has the same intensity as the light with 410 lumens in a 12-degree hotspot.

How does this apply to the two ZL lights? Well, if we make a *lot* of simplifying assumptions about beam shape, diffusion, light-density across different regions, and so on, then it suggests that the hot-spot of the H53 will be about 80% of the brightness (intensity, lux) of the hot-spot of the old H52.

That's the good news. The bad news is that it covers only 2/3s of the same area (it's a smaller spot), and it generally puts out only half the light.

Light intensity isn't everything. There's a reason that most of us care more about lumens than about lux. Especially in a general-purpose, non-thrower light like the ZLs--no one is going to buy a Zebralight for its lux figures.

So although you are not wrong when you say that "the intensity...of the H53c" will be "very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level", I think you are bit off in your 10% guess, and I also think that this point does not really address the concerns of those of us who care about total output.


----------



## lonelyboy

I am a bit confused about the new multiple group mode. How does it work?


----------



## scs

lonelyboy said:


> I am a bit confused about the new multiple group mode. How does it work?



each of the 3 mode groups can be configured to have its own combination of output levels.
you choose the mode group to use.
group 5 is the default chosen out of the box.
you can follow the instructions to change it to either group 6 or 7.
see instructions regarding the limitations of group 5 and the flexibility of the other 2.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> I'll take a crack at thinking this through, although I'm no expert, either. Feel free to correct me for my blunders.
> 
> Let's say you took all of the illumination that one light puts into a 12-degree beam, and then focus it a bit more so that it puts the same amount into a 10-degree beam.
> 
> How much more intense will it be?
> 
> Suppose you shine a 12-degree beam and a 10-degree beam on the same flat wall, from the same distance. What is the difference in the area covered?
> 
> The ratio of sin(6 degrees) to sin(5 degrees) is about 1.2: the radius of the larger circle will be about 6/5 the radius of the smaller circle. Squaring that for area, you can see that the larger circle covers about 1.44 times the area of the smaller circle.
> 
> So if the smaller beam concentrates all of the lumens from the larger beam, it will have a light-density (lumens per area) that is 1.44 higher. Lumens per area is what lux measures, so its lux figure will be 1.44 times greater. 1.44 x 285 = 410, so the light with 285 lumens in a 10-degree hotspot has the same intensity as the light with 410 lumens in a 12-degree hotspot.
> 
> How does this apply to the two ZL lights? Well, if we make a *lot* of simplifying assumptions about beam shape, diffusion, light-density across different regions, and so on, then it suggests that the hot-spot of the H53 will be about 80% of the brightness (intensity, lux) of the hot-spot of the old H52.
> 
> That's the good news. The bad news is that it covers only 2/3s of the same area (it's a smaller spot), and it generally puts out only half the light.
> 
> Light intensity isn't everything. There's a reason that most of us care more about lumens than about lux. Especially in a general-purpose, non-thrower light like the ZLs--no one is going to buy a Zebralight for its lux figures.
> 
> So although you are not wrong when you say that "the intensity...of the H53c" will be "very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level", I think you are bit off in your 10% guess, and I also think that this point does not really address the concerns of those of us who care about total output.



I apologize for the errant 10% figure. I had worked an actual equation earlier and later submitted a rounded-off-by-memory figure, which wasn't intentional (some of us are just getting old :sigh. The intensities are 14526 and 11920 cd using the mathematical relationship between _luminous power_ and _luminous intensity_, bringing intensities within 18% of each other (Luminous power gap is 43%, which now isn't exactly as bad as i thought). 

It wasn't my purpose to dismiss those who are concerned about total output, or suggest that intensity is everything. In fact, I was with those here who have expressed their disappointment that the headlamp doesn't support the former boost level. I probably still am. It would have been a much better product I think. My actual intention was to suggest that all was not lost.

In my case, I was hoping The H53 would much like the new ZL AA handheld support a maximum output in the 450-500 range so I would have enough momentary light to check for trail blazes at a large distance. Finally seeing the max power was 285 lumens made my heart sink.

In studying the physics, I realized that perhaps all I really needed to effectively see that distant trail blaze was luminous intensity not necessarily luminous power. Size of the tree all at once, no, but tiny painted trail marker, yes. 

So I worked the equation and realized the H53 could do the job of a 410 lm lamp with the old spill angle. I found that great to know, crossed my fingers that I had reasoned correctly and if correct, had hoped other's might find that fact reassuring.

Thanks for responding to my question for help and doing all that work to check me. I appreciate it. H53c is still on my options list!  Sure wish it had an infinite rotary output selector though. Some of the headlamps I've seen that have them aren't exactly ZL's in quality, price or weight.


----------



## Genzod

Concerning the last comment I made, before a mob of experts jumps on me for the crime of *photonic blasphemy*, I do realize that all the power of the beams (H52 and H53) is not concentrated exclusively into the spot. That is why it was my original intention to state "maybe 18%" (even though I misstated it as "10%" in the original post.) The use of the equation was to make a ballpark comparison not an exacting calculation.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Yeah, Genzod, I think our numbers are pretty much in line. I said "80%", i.e. 20% lower, but that's pretty much the same as your 82% or 18% lower. 

I just knocked off another significant digit because of all of the slop in the calculation, as well as the points you make about how much of the light is concentrated in the hotspot. 

You mention an application in which throw does matter, namely spotting trail-blazes at a distance. And you are right, for that application the new one should be about as good as the old.

I just hate to move *backwards,* when everything else in LED land keeps moving *forwards*!

But like I said, I have pre-ordered this one already, and I will be excited to try it out and see how it works in the hand. Good tint and CRI can make up for quite a bit of difference in lumens.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Yeah, Genzod, I think our numbers are pretty much in line. I said "80%", i.e. 20% lower, but that's pretty much the same as your 82% or 18% lower.
> 
> I just knocked off another significant digit because of all of the slop in the calculation, as well as the points you make about how much of the light is concentrated in the hotspot.
> 
> You mention an application in which throw does matter, namely spotting trail-blazes at a distance. And you are right, for that application the new one should be about as good as the old.
> 
> I just hate to move *backwards,* when everything else in LED land keeps moving *forwards*!
> 
> But like I said, I have pre-ordered this one already, and I will be excited to try it out and see how it works in the hand. Good tint and CRI can make up for quite a bit of difference in lumens.




I agree. It does seem like a step backward. 

Remember though, ZL noted on their comparison spec sheet that this "new generation" headlamp is *brighter*. If the max power in the H53 is substantially lower than the boost of the H52, it would seem the only way to explain this conundrum is the intensity spec of the H53 trumps the H52. 

The way we worked the 82/18% makes an assumption that you start with a given level of luminous power in the spot and then concentrating it from 12 to 10 degrees. If the H53 does have a higher intensity (in candela), that would require higher luminous power in the H53 spot before we mathematically concentrated it. Or our mistake is as the previous poster suggested, there is no way of knowing how consistent ZL is with their spot angles and making conjectures with them are pointless.

I guess someone with a hotline to ZL could ask them this question: What is the basis for saying on their comparison sheet the H53c is "brighter" than the previous generation? Or we could wait until May, and all you geniuses here can figure it all out. In the meantime. I think I'm just going to have to get busy and start pulling out all of my hair.


----------



## mellowman

you may be over thinking this as the listed light output specs are for eneloops so technically H53c is brighter comparing same bats by ~5 lumens vs H52w, if you ignore 14500 and again just compare both using an eneloop.


----------



## Genzod

I think maybe there's a reasonable answer to why the H53c is *brighter* than the H52w. 5 lumens brighter *in the H1 slot* (280 lm to 285 lm). Must be that simple.

When I went back to check this, I looked at the spot/spill angles again on the H52w and H53c. Now they both have 12 degree spot angles. I am certain I read 10 degrees, and the only place I could have read that was on the ZL product page, haha. I'm wondering if ZL read this thread and realized a typo error in their spot/spill specs? 

I went to Google just now and searched "H53c AA Headlamp Neutral White High CRI" and looked at the angles in the CACHED page. Sure enough, there it is, 10 degrees! They DID change it.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> you may be over thinking this as the listed light output specs are for eneloops so technically H53c is brighter comparing same bats by ~5 lumens vs H52w, if you ignore 14500 and again just compare both using an eneloop.



Exactly. I just posted this exact theory while rechecking the product pages. Also note the products specs changed. I wasn't over thinking it. It was based on data that ZL changed while I wasn't looking.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Genzod said:


> When I went back to check this, I looked at the spot/spill angles again on the H52w and H53c. Now they both have 12 degree spot angles.



That's very funny! I guess I was a little too quick on the TRIG-ger.

But at least you and I got a little math work-out.

.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> That's very funny! I guess I was a little too quick on the TRIG-ger.
> 
> But at least you and I got a little math work-out.
> 
> .



I really thought someone at ZL was yanking my chain. Turns out, *mellowman* also mentioned seeing the 10 degree spot angle earlier in this thread, even before I registered. I'm glad someone else here saw it, too. I thought I was losing my mind, haha! Didn't think anyone would believe me. 

I concur with *mellowman*. ZL is only comparing the performance of the Eneloop test figures. It's hard to qualitatively appreciate an extra 5 lumens as "brighter", though.


----------



## eraursls1984

Also we are comparing their C model, which has always been higher CRI and lower output, to the old W model. It would be a better comparison once we see the new W model. For instance, the new SC5w is 75 lumens brighter than the new SC5c. It still wouldn't be as bright as the 52 with a 14500 though.


----------



## Genzod

eraursls1984 said:


> Also we are comparing their C model, which has always been higher CRI and lower output, to the old W model. It would be a better comparison once we see the new W model. For instance, the new SC5w is 75 lumens brighter than the new SC5c. It still wouldn't be as bright as the 52 with a 14500 though.



They invested into the H53c that which was earned by the state of the art LED on buying color. I get it.

Do you think there will be a dividend on economy, too? (Keep in mind, the H52 runtimes were tested with 2000 mAh Eneloops. Whereas the product page for the next generation H53's shows they will be tested with the 2550 mAh Eneloop Pros.)


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> That's very funny! I guess I was a little too quick on the TRIG-ger.
> 
> But at least you and I got a little math work-out.
> 
> .


*Trigor mortis:*

_That frozen to death feeling of futility you get after experiencing a lengthy and completely pointless session of trigonometry._


----------



## lampeDépêche

Someone on the thread about the new SC5c has posted the new runtimes and outputs. The news is very good.

For the same lumens, you get considerably longer run-times--like 15%-20% longer-- even though the CRI is much higher.

Sounds like a very efficient circuit! That's good news.


----------



## Genzod

old age accident, please delete.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Someone on the thread about the new SC5c has posted the new runtimes and outputs. The news is very good.
> 
> For the same lumens, you get considerably longer run-times--like 15%-20% longer-- even though the CRI is much higher.
> 
> Sounds like a very efficient circuit! That's good news.



Zebralight got their first batch in and tested it. 

Yeah, the new Cree LED is said to have spectacular performance gains. I'm almost sold on this headlamp. Thanks for the update.

CREE recently announced new *XP-L2* leds as an upgrade to existing XP-L. It looks like its only marginal upgrade but not. Actually this is the best upgrade ever! (internal link).


----------



## LightObsession

davidt1 said:


> I am curious about this "pre-installed clip" too. If it's not a swiveling clip like on their previous AA headlamps, I am not interested.



Same here. I was counting on the rotating clip, so I could change the angle of the light when clipped to my shirt, hat, pack strap or whatever.


----------



## wolfgaze

Anyone else find it silly that they would put a new model up for Pre-Order on their website before they even have any photos available? Just how many individuals out there are going to place a pre-order for a product they can't see an image of? And I mean how hard could it be to have an image ready and available? Just seems backwards to me... Get your images prepared first and then list the product for sale/pre-order....


----------



## markr6

wolfgaze said:


> Anyone else find it silly that they would put a new model up for Pre-Order on their website before they even have any photos available? Just how many individuals out there are going to place a pre-order for a product they can't see an image of? And I mean how hard could it be to have an image ready and available? Just seems backwards to me... Get your images prepared first and then list the product for sale/pre-order....



I wonder if the factory in china only makes them, and the guys in TX do the photos/website? So they're actually waiting on them the same as customers? Seems strange, but possible. They may have a prototype for testing, but not anodized or worthy of a photo.


----------



## TCY

Photos are up for both version.


----------



## TCY

I was hoping the edge of the switch could be chamfered like the H600Fd III, but still solid ZL design nevertheless.

Runtimes are still not available yet. Hope they are on par with the new SC5c.


----------



## gunga

Evolutionary design. I'm cool with that.


----------



## lampeDépêche

And we can all relax about the clip design now, too. 

It will still swivel to different angles if clipped on a shirt or lying on its back on a flat surface.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> I was hoping the edge of the switch could be chamfered like the H600Fd III, but still solid ZL design nevertheless.
> 
> Runtimes are still not available yet. Hope they are on par with the new SC5c.



 Look at those curves! I was expecting they would get rid of some of those center ribs, but not the curvy way they did it.

Zebralight is waiting on the first batch to come in so they can test them.


----------



## LightObsession

Glad about the clip.

The shape is a bit odd to me, but that won't stop me from buying it.


----------



## Nichia!

ugly Design! I really hoped for something different, now I know why they kept their pics hidden for long time!


----------



## gunga

It's the same type of change that zebralight has done on most of their lights. Nothing surprising.


----------



## Genzod

Nichia! said:


> ugly Design! I really hoped for something different, now I know why they kept their pics hidden for long time!



Looks great in a NiteIze headband.:twothumbs


----------



## Genzod

Nichia! said:


> ugly Design! I really hoped for something different, now I know why they kept their pics hidden for long time!



It's been moving around and toward this shape: :laughing:


----------



## lampeDépêche

gunga said:


> It's the same type of change that zebralight has done on most of their lights. Nothing surprising.



Exactly. It's very much in line with the change from the H600 Mk II to the H600 Mk III. Reduce the number of circumferential grooves, make one central groove that is far wider and shallower than the others.

That's all fine with me--I don't much care. I kinda liked the earliest generation of H52s with a straight tube, too. My guess is that the straight-tube era lacked some of the lateral crush-strength that the groovy-era has--each of the raised ridges gives the tube more stiffness against lateral crushing. But I don't really want my ZL's built for maximum ruggedness, anyhow. ("Watch us drive this 10-ton lorry over our new torch!"). The new design is a decent compromise between strength and simplicity.

My curiosity is all about what's inside, and what comes out through the lens!


----------



## holygeez03

I have an early H52Fw with the straight tube and it is wonderful... the new design is disappointing, but better than the grooved H52... and at least they left the deep-carry clip alone!

Unfortunately the H53Fc has similar output (lower when using 14500 burst mode)... so I am only gaining higher CRI, which would be awesome since I love high CRI and neutral/warm tint... I probably won't be purchasing a H53F unless they release a model with significant gains in output, with good tint and decent CRI.


----------



## Genzod

holygeez03 said:


> I have an early H52Fw with the straight tube and it is wonderful... the new design is disappointing, but better than the grooved H52... and at least they left the deep-carry clip alone!
> 
> Unfortunately the H53Fc has similar output (lower when using 14500 burst mode)... so I am only gaining higher CRI, which would be awesome since I love high CRI and neutral/warm tint... I probably won't be purchasing a H53F unless they release a model with significant gains in output, with good tint and decent CRI.



Not only higher CRI but we're anticipating significant run time gains, as noted above. Another poster mentioned max output for a cool white and neutral version will be substantially higher. 

The curved, de-ribbed center probably looks a little sweeter with the lamp nestled into the headband holder. I don't know why ZL omitted that extra image.


----------



## mellowman

Genzod said:


> Not only higher CRI but we're anticipating significant run time gains, as noted above. Another poster mentioned max output for a cool white and neutral version will be substantially higher.
> 
> The curved, de-ribbed center probably looks a little sweeter with the lamp nestled into the headband holder. I don't know why ZL omitted that extra image.



you seem to have a lot of weight with ZL in that you post something in this thread and then the product page gets updated. the previously ommitted extra image is up.

anyway, 10-20% gains in run time and/or lumens in exchange for a truly significant lumen boost is not an exchange most here would make in view of past posts in this thread. why don't they just stick with the original driver, the run time and lumen gains come from the newer leds anyway.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> you seem to have a lot of weight with ZL in that you post something in this thread and then the product page gets updated. the previously omitted extra image is up.



And there it is. :rock: 
Oh Great Wizard of OZL! Post the release announcement for the ZL-_H33w_...!!! :fail:

(...Aw shucks, already used up my last wish.)


----------



## eraursls1984

mellowman said:


> ...anyway, 10-20% gains in run time and/or lumens in exchange for a truly significant lumen boost is not an exchange most here would make in view of past posts in this thread. why don't they just stick with the original driver, the run time and lumen gains come from the newer leds anyway.


The new driver has the fully programmable UI, huge improvement over the old driver and UI.


----------



## Genzod

eraursls1984 said:


> The new driver has the fully programmable UI, huge improvement over the old driver and UI.



Funny I should have neglected that aspect of it. It's exactly what I need.

Had ZL released the entire H53 line simultaneously, I don't think many of us (myself included) would be complaining about the lower max output of the CRI version. We'd probably attribute it (aside from the loss of lithium ion support) to the cost of higher CRI, and turn to the H53w and H53 for substantially higher max output. I'd still pay an extra $5 if I could have my 1-3 minute 500 lumen boost back, because burning up the forest with light ROCKS, haha. :rock:

For those who want higher power in a compact headlamp, like me, the CR123 version of this lamp (crossing my fingers it is coming) will probably excel in that regard. The H32w could reach 446 lumens without the higher voltage lithium ion battery, if I understand correctly, the data provided was said to be derived from the lower voltage Panasonic primary battery.

But when it comes to headlamps, it's just our "Veruca Salt" nature (myself included) to "want it NOW!" Not having recourse, we attribute our dissatisfaction to poor ZL design selections instead of noticing what it more than likely really is, our version of this headlamp just hasn't been released yet. 

I've decided to curb my own dissatisfaction until I see the full H53 line. _Then_ it's "I'm here to chew bubble gum and kick asterisk, and I'm all out of bubble gum!" time.

For you newbies on planet Earth who think the world started when you were born, I give you Veruca Salt from _Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory_, 1971:


----------



## eraursls1984

Genzod said:


> Funny I should have neglected that aspect of it. It's exactly what I need.
> 
> Had ZL released the entire H53 line simultaneously, I don't think many of us (myself included) would be complaining about the lower max output of the CRI version. We'd probably attribute it (aside from the loss of lithium ion support) to the cost of higher CRI, and turn to the H53w and H53 for substantially higher max output. I'd still pay an extra $5 if I could have my 1-3 minute 500 lumen boost back, because burning up the forest with light ROCKS, haha. :rock:


Based on the new SC5w/c I would expect Around 350 Lm for the H53w.


----------



## davidt1

There will be H53w an H503w? 

I have the early H52w with the smooth body, and H502w with ribbed body. I prefer the ribbed body because it feels more secure in the hand when I hold it. Looking at the pictures above, I am not in love with this new design -- half smooth and half ribbed. I wrap Velcro around my Zl headlamps. The Velcro won't wrap well around this uneven, half smooth and half ribbed, body. But I suppose I will have to live with it.

I think the design comes from the sweatshop contractor they hire to make these new lights for them. It's the latest shop that won the manufacturing contract.


----------



## NPL

davidt1 said:


> There will be H53w an H503w?
> 
> I have the early H52w with the smooth body, and H502w with ribbed body. I prefer the ribbed body because it feels more secure in the hand when I hold it. Looking at the pictures above, I am not in love with this new design -- half smooth and half ribbed. I wrap Velcro around my Zl headlamps. The Velcro won't wrap well around this uneven, half smooth and half ribbed, body. But I suppose I will have to live with it.
> 
> I think the design comes from the sweatshop contractor they hire to make these new lights for them. It's the latest shop that won the manufacturing contract.


That's a pretty bold claim that Zebralight is using a sweatshop to make their lights. Where did you get this information from?


----------



## mellowman

eraursls1984 said:


> The new driver has the fully programmable UI, huge improvement over the old driver and UI.



what you consider "fully" programmable UI and what I do are not the same. besides I've spent the last 4 years building muscle memory of the different modes...why would I want to reorder them now and frustrate myself.

edit: the only useful thing in the new driver I see is lower beacon mode...which I never use but it is nice to have.


----------



## markr6

I don't think the new UI would be frustrating to current users. G5 sounds like the usual UI. G6 and G7 are the programmable modes that allow you to customize it. I think it's great since you can now use H2a and H2b instead of always be locked into H1, which just kills the battery and gets too hot for 99% of my uses.


----------



## mellowman

markr6 said:


> I don't think the new UI would be frustrating to current users. G5 sounds like the usual UI. G6 and G7 are the programmable modes that allow you to customize it. I think it's great since you can now use H2a and H2b instead of always be locked into H1, which just kills the battery and gets too hot for 99% of my uses.



if by customize you mean reorder the existing modes then yes customize.

well given the new H1 is the old H2a you don't need to customize!

edit: of course I'm referring to boost mode, just being cheeky.


----------



## davidt1

NPL said:


> That's a pretty bold claim that Zebralight is using a sweatshop to make their lights. Where did you get this information from?



I came up with that using deductive reasoning.


----------



## lampeDépêche

mellowman said:


> you seem to have a lot of weight with ZL in that you post something in this thread and then the product page gets updated. the previously ommitted extra image is up.



I don't know if Genzod has any special relationship with ZL (I doubt it), but I do think it is pretty clear that someone at ZL is reading this thread. For instance, I pointed out a typo on the GoogleDocs spreadsheet, and a bit later the typo was fixed.

It's okay--I appreciate the fact that people at ZL are listening to us, and sometimes making the changes that we request. 

(And sometimes not making them, but that's life.)


----------



## NPL

davidt1 said:


> I came up with that using deductive reasoning.


"Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the accordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true."

Claiming that ZL are made in a sweatshop because the design doesn't suit your functional and aesthetic requirements is far from deductive. I find it misleading and unfair as it has absolutely zero evidence supporting your claim. If it was meant to be a joke, my apologies for not catching on to the humour.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> I don't know if Genzod has any special relationship with ZL (I doubt it), but I do think it is pretty clear that someone at ZL is reading this thread. For instance, I pointed out a typo on the GoogleDocs spreadsheet, and a bit later the typo was fixed.



psssst...hey, HEY! (looks left...looks right...leans into ear with a hand cover gesture) green shapeshifting lizard eye kitten eating aliens from the Draconian star system live in underground bases and control world governments through covert infiltration. They arrived in 1947 and thwarted an effort by JFK to unmask the deception in 1963!

Don't believe me? *WHY DO YOU THINK ZL'S FLASHLIGHTS ARE GREEEEEEEN? ......HUH! HUHHHH?* :huh:


----------



## davidt1

NPL said:


> "Deductive reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is based on the accordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true."
> 
> Claiming that ZL are made in a sweatshop because the design doesn't suit your functional and aesthetic requirements is far from deductive. I find it misleading and unfair as it has absolutely zero evidence supporting your claim. If it was meant to be a joke, my apologies for not catching on to the humour.



Sounds like you work for them. Provide irrefutable proof that your lights are not made in sweatshops and I will believe you. Otherwise, your post means nothing to me.


----------



## archimedes

davidt1 said:


> Sounds like you work for them. Provide irrefutable proof that your lights are not made in sweatshops and I will believe you. Otherwise, your post means nothing to me.



Can we take things down a notch here ?


----------



## Genzod

archimedes said:


> Can we take things down a notch here ?



Let's all agree that the burden of proof is always on the maker of potentially damaging accusation. That's the way it is in the USA and most other reasonable places on this planet.


----------



## archimedes

Discussion is fine, but (legitimate) concerns of shilling and similar should be privately directed to staff, not posted on open threads to argue and discredit.

Thank you all.


----------



## Genzod

archimedes said:


> Discussion is fine, but (legitimate) concerns of shilling and similar should be privately directed to staff, not posted on open threads to argue and discredit.
> 
> Thank you all.



I didn't mean to encourage further discussion--the discussion was off topic, libelous and pointless. I meant simply to end it with the thought and hopefully agreement that no one should be expected to prove any denigrating accusation as unfounded.


----------



## NPL

Genzod said:


> Let's all agree that the burden of proof is always on the maker of potentially damaging accusation. That's the way it is in the USA and most other reasonable places on this planet.


Totally agree! 


Taking things back to the H53c, I personally like the design tweaks that were made and looking forward to feedback on tint and runtimes from those who pre-ordered.


----------



## Genzod

NPL said:


> Taking things back to the H53c, I personally like the design tweaks that were made and looking forward to feedback on tint and runtimes from those who pre-ordered.



ZL pulled the H32w from the product page. No intentions to reorder. I'm hoping that's a signal that the H33 is not too far behind. The extra voltage from the CR123 seems to boost the max output to 446 lumens on that lamp, and if I can get that or more in a soon to come H33w or c, that would be my perfect headlamp. Gives me a little extra oomph for finding trail blazes on trees and rocks. Better than 285 lm anyway. 

I'm not all that concerned about the loss of 14400 support on the H53. It's simply because my needs are a little narrower than most. I take lithium primaries to fastpack on trails and replace them at mail drops every 2.5-3days. I'd never have the 500 lumen max output there where I'd need it anyway. At home, I usually don't run with a light, but when I get my trail replacement, I'll use the NIMHs to lower battery cost. I wouldn't need 500 lm there.

There's only a perceptual increase in brightness of 20% going from 285 to 500 lm using Steven's Power law--not much at all--still a deal at $5 though, haha. Comparing the potential gain the H53w might have over the H53c, 285-360 lm, the perceptual margin shrinks to about 11%. Neutral tint is good enough for me. I just don't want to experience cool white psychosis again after a long night of trail running with that kind of office light.

I want a compact headlamp with temporary boost to 500 lumens. If the H33w increases from 446 to 521 like I think it might, we're even-Steven, and that's my lamp. It doesn't have to be the H53c.

Since we seem to have a _silent troll_ on the thread, I'd like to say, I sure would like to see ZL come out with a infinite rotary dimmer with variable travel and some kind of click in the knob at certain outputs so I can have an idea where I am in the scroll. Just saying!


----------



## mellowman

you missed a better meme give the today's date.






May 6th....Sith...get it.


----------



## wolfgaze

Nichia! said:


> ugly Design! I really hoped for something different, now I know why they kept their pics hidden for long time!



I certainly don't care for the design of the body...


----------



## Genzod

wolfgaze said:


> I certainly don't care for the design of the body...



I can't wait to press my undulating thumb against that ergonomically delicious curve...mmm! That or play chess with it. Looks like it would make a great substitute for a King piece. (You know it's true...)


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> you missed a better meme give the today's date.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May 6th....Sith...get it.


_
May the sith_ be with you!


----------



## Genzod

I noticed over at the Armytek site, their high CRI Tiara only has an output of 280 lumens even with lithium ion support, whereas their other lamps in this line push up to 610 lumen in turbo. I'm wondering if ZL was likewise restricted? Heat limitations maybe? Experts please reply!


----------



## gunga

That's an older, much warmer (2800-3000K) LED. Not nearly as efficient. Their other lamps are xpl.


----------



## Genzod

gunga said:


> That's an older, much warmer (2800-3000K) LED. Not nearly as efficient. Their other lamps are xpl.



There's quite a few others with older XML LEDs and their OTF lumens still push the upper 500s.


----------



## gunga

Not high cri 3000K xml2.


----------



## Genzod

gunga said:


> Not high cri 3000K xml2.



Well, the XPLs aren't hi CRI's either. And I know the lower you go in temperature, the more inefficiency arises. I was suggesting this trend of inefficiency is the reason why it's pretty pointless to even have lithium ion support...it doesn't seem to get you the boosts of the more efficient temperatures when comparing orange to orange in the same family of LEDs. I'm wondering if heat limitation is possibly the reason why even with lithium ion support, the boosts aren't (or don't seem to me to be at least) possible.


----------



## mellowman

It would have been nice if ZL had provided a reason why no boost rather than giving me a simply No when I asked them. Would end speculation and maybe better acceptance of this limitation for H52 series successor.

I think the inefficiency argument is a bit exaggerated as the inefficiency is already reflective in the reduce lumens. The runtimes and temps should be similar as compared to the cool white LEDs. You seem to be reducing lumens, reducing run time and increasing temps and that isn't the case. Given cool white, neutral and hi-cri version of same LED and applying same voltage and current the only difference will be the lumen output as some of those lumens are lost by the additional phosphors that broaden/shift the wavelenghts emitted.

Maybe the reason no boost besides previous speculation of new driver not fitting is that boosting the Hi CRI version of the new XP-L2 LEDs in the H53 reflector gives a horrid beam or spot profile with obvious tint rings. Which makes me a bit worried even the non-boosted output may not look that great either but be acceptable to the masses.


----------



## scs

mellowman said:


> It would have been nice if ZL had provided a reason why no boost rather than giving me a simply No when I asked them. Would end speculation and maybe better acceptance of this limitation for H52 series successor.



It costs less at full price than its predecessor at full price right. I'm guessing its boost only driver is less expensive than the buck + boost driver in its predecessor, hence the reduction in price.


----------



## lampeDépêche

scs said:


> It costs less at full price than its predecessor at full price right. I'm guessing its boost only driver is less expensive than the buck + boost driver in its predecessor, hence the reduction in price.



That might answer the question, "why no support for the 14500?"

But it does not answer the question, "how come the H53c maxes out at 285 lumens, when the new SC5c puts out 485 lumens *with this same emitter* (i.e. XPL2 Easywhite, 4000k, 93-95 CRI), running the same cell (AA Eneloop), and with what sounds like the same driver circuit (same voltage specs, same revamped, programmable UI, etc.)?"

Somebody upthread suggested that the SC5c's larger head might accommodate a larger inductor, and thus greater output, and the H53c is limited by the size of its head.

That might be right! 

Or it might be that they have the same inductors, but ZL wants to throttle the H53c back for heat-management reasons. 

Or there could be other reasons I can't even imagine.

But one thing we can rule out is that it is impossible to get 485 lumens out of *this* emitter with an AA Eneloop. We know it's possible, because they are doing it in the SC5c.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> It would have been nice if ZL had provided a reason why no boost rather than giving me a simply No when I asked them. Would end speculation and maybe better acceptance of this limitation for H52 series successor.
> 
> I think the inefficiency argument is a bit exaggerated as the inefficiency is already reflective in the reduce lumens. The runtimes and temps should be similar as compared to the cool white LEDs. You seem to be reducing lumens, reducing run time and increasing temps and that isn't the case. Given cool white, neutral and hi-cri version of same LED and applying same voltage and current the only difference will be the lumen output as some of those lumens are lost by the additional phosphors that broaden/shift the wavelenghts emitted.
> 
> Maybe the reason no boost besides previous speculation of new driver not fitting is that boosting the Hi CRI version of the new XP-L2 LEDs in the H53 reflector gives a horrid beam or spot profile with obvious tint rings. Which makes me a bit worried even the non-boosted output may not look that great either but be acceptable to the masses.



Lot of that flew right over my airspace! I do at least understand both parts of N-O in your response from ZL, but not why they remained silent on it.

All I'm really saying is, even with lithium ion support, the AT hi-CRI had a miserable output ceiling. The ZL does not have the advantage of the Li-ion battery, but has slightly better max output as you might expect with a more efficient LED. Sure the AT has an older LED with lower temp tint. I'm not saying they are equal. Neither am I saying inefficiency is the problem. I'm just thinking that even if they still had some lumens they could squeeze out of the LED in reserve due to the efficiency of the LED, heat issues would result that couldn't be handled by the small casing, so they cut it off there as a design constraint, as wrong a speculation as that might be. I'm really just surmising to set up the question--to explain where I'm at with this in hope some clarity might come of it, not trying to assert a viewpoint or make an argument.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> That might answer the question, "why no support for the 14500?"
> 
> But it does not answer the question, "how come the H53c maxes out at 285 lumens, when the new SC5c puts out 485 lumens *with this same emitter* (i.e. XPL2 Easywhite, 4000k, 93-95 CRI), running the same cell (AA Eneloop), and with what sounds like the same driver circuit (same voltage specs, same revamped, programmable UI, etc.)?"
> 
> Somebody upthread suggested that the SC5c's larger head might accommodate a larger inductor, and thus greater output, and the H53c is limited by the size of its head.
> 
> That might be right!
> 
> Or it might be that they have the same inductors, but ZL wants to throttle the H53c back for heat-management reasons.
> 
> Or there could be other reasons I can't even imagine.
> 
> But one thing we can rule out is that it is impossible to get 485 lumens out of *this* emitter with an AA Eneloop. We know it's possible, because they are doing it in the SC5c.



Exactly! I was expecting the H53c to perform close to the SC5c stats--reason I was so disappointed in the 285 figure. I thought perhaps the lighter weight smaller case of the H53c made thermal management difficult. You need a good cross sectional area of conductor metal to carry away heat rapidly, and a lot of surface area to be in contact with cooler air.

Maybe *2*85 is a TYPO.....!!!!! :huh: (It wouldn't be the first time, you know. :laughing


----------



## mellowman

The H52 series had boost to 500+ lumens. The SC5c has boost of 475 lumens with same LED and presumable same or similar driver as H53c. H53c has the same head size as the H52 series. If the H52 size head could manage the heat then an even more efficient LED with less lumens will work as well for the H53c. So heat management reason is NOT the reason for lack of boost. 

covered this back a page or two.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> The H52 series had boost to 500+ lumens. The SC5c has boost of 475 lumens with same LED and presumable same or similar driver as H53c. H53c has the same head size as the H52 series. If the H52 size head could manage the heat then an even more efficient LED with less lumens will work as well for the H53c. So heat management reason is NOT the reason for lack of boost.
> 
> covered this back a page or two.



I'm focused on these two high CRI models below, not the other models that have higher tint temps and lower CRI. I don't think we've seen such high CRI's before by this manufacturer? I'm suggesting that maybe getting to those numbers requires more conductive metal and larger surface area to manage it. You can see differences in the size and masses below. 

H53c SC5c

Head diameters: 0.86" 1.0"
Lengths: 2.9" 3.2"
Weights: 31g 48g


----------



## mellowman

Genzod said:


> I'm focused on these two high CRI models below, not the other models that have higher tint temps and lower CRI. I don't think we've seen such high CRI's before by this manufacturer? I'm suggesting that maybe getting to those numbers requires more conductive metal and larger surface area to manage it. You can see differences in the size and masses below.
> 
> H53c SC5c
> 
> Head diameters: 0.86" 1.0"
> Lengths: 2.9" 3.2"
> Weights: 31g 48g



and what I'm suggesting is that given the head size is the same from the previous gen and the previous gen had a boost mode with more lumens and the new led in the new gen is more efficient (i.e., less heat) that heat is not the issue.

your premise that HI CRI produces higher temps that requires more conductive metal and larger service area than a non-Hi CRI version is incorrect.

yes ZL have had high CRI lights before.

edit: also those head diameters are because the reflectors are different sizes because they have different use cases. the head diameter is not larger for purely heat management reasons.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> If the H52 size head could manage the heat then an even more efficient LED with less lumens will work as well for the H53c. So heat management reason is NOT the reason for lack of boost.



The H52 didn't go as low in tint temperature and as high in CRI I don't think. I don't think you can make that conclusion based on that statement. I think it's the nature of 'c' models, especially very high CRI to push color in the orange and red spectrum where temperature starts to become more involved? Pushing 500 lm in a 'w' and cool white H52 generates heat, yes, and thermal management ramps down the lumens. But is it the same thing as pushing the red end of the light spectrum in a 'c' model with such a much higher CRI? Maybe it isn't. Maybe it renders higher lumens (which add heat on top of it) impractical in a 31g case ZL probably wants to keep that light weight for marketing reasons. If it isn't, then equating two different heating situations to draw a conclusion that dismisses a theory on thermal management isn't exactly the kind of help I'm looking for in understanding this question. 

But I'm not trying to shut you down. I'm just trying to get to what's really going on here.


----------



## mellowman

thermal management isn't ramping down lumens from heat due to high CRI. seriously read more on how high cri is made. the underling LED dies are the same it just a phoshpor coat above the die that converts wavelengths.

if the was such a signficant difference there would be another graph in the spec sheets. check the xp-l2 and xm-l2 datasheets yourself. 

and that's it I'm out.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> and what I'm suggesting is that given the head size is the same from the previous gen and the previous gen had a boost mode with more lumens and the new led in the new gen is more efficient (i.e., less heat) that heat is not the issue.
> 
> your premise that HI CRI produces higher temps that requires more conductive metal and larger service area than a non-Hi CRI version is incorrect.
> 
> yes ZL have had high CRI lights before.
> 
> edit: also those head diameters are because the reflectors are different sizes because they have different use cases. the head diameter is not larger for purely heat management reasons.



93-95 CRI in a AA case? 93-95 is fairly new in terms of numbers for ZL. 

I didn't assert a premise as a fact, I offered it as a question. You are imagining I'm trying to make an argument here to support a theory. My only argument is with your reasoning. It's jumps to a conclusion with unequal parallels. You're equating 500 lumens with my "premise" of heat coming from the low end of the light spectrum--I don't think 500 lumens in this ligh is the same as 500 lumens in cooler tint and lower CRI models. Just because the H53 H52 AA body could handle 500 lumens for 1-3 minutes doesn't necessarily mean it can handle the heat of a more pronounced lower end production of the spectrum. But if you are correct that higher CRI (from the low end) doesn't produce more heat, then that would be helpful to understand as true--can you offer some reference?

If they could do it on the SC5c (high lumens), then why not on the H53? ZL would be shooting themselves in the foot not to I would think. It just doesn't make sense. I believe they were constrained by some limitation in their design. I'm just suggesting it might be a thermal constraint arising from amplifying wavelengths near the red end of the light spectrum and increasing CRI up to 93-95.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> thermal management isn't ramping down lumens from heat due to high CRI. seriously read more on how high cri is made. the underling LED dies are the same it just a phoshpor coat above the die that converts wavelengths.
> 
> if the was such a signficant difference there would be another graph in the spec sheets. check the xp-l2 and xm-l2 datasheets yourself.
> 
> and that's it I'm out.



I didn't say "thermal management was ramping down lumens from heat due to high CRI". I was surmising that they simply capped the max lumens as a design constrain due to thermal limitations. Reading more carefully would help you understand how to help me better.


----------



## lampeDépêche

I am far from an expert on all of this, but maybe I can say one useful thing:

So far as I know, the tint of an LED has no effect on how much heat it generates. Ditto for the CRI.

We call certain emitters "cool" or "warm" as a short-hand for describing the spectrum of light that they put out, and how it would compare to the radiation produced by a black body at different temperatures.

But "cool" LEDs don't run any cooler (i.e. generate more heat, measured e.g. in calories), and "warm" LEDs don't run any warmer (i.e. generate fewer calories). As mellowman said, the underlying die is the same for each, and if it is soaking up X watts then it will convert Y of those into photons and the remaining Z will be lost as heat. Yes, the "cooler" emitter will have higher lumen output for a given wattage (holding all else but color-temperature constant), but when we switch to the "warmer" emitter, I don't think that the difference will be lost as heat. (Some of the difference will simply be the result of how different wave-lengths contribute to the lumen-reading: the lumen measures what the human eye is sensitive to, and we are more sensitive to blues and greens than to reds and oranges, so the same wattage output of red and orange will score fewer lumens than the same wattage output of blues and greens.

Anyhow, back to the short story: no reason to think that the "warmer" tint (or higher CRI) poses any new challenges for heat management. 

I also agree with mellowman that the larger head on the SC5 line is dictated first by the desire for a larger reflector with a throwier beam. Any extra heat-sinking capacity that results is a secondary design feature, not the primary objective.


----------



## TCY

I'm surprised that ZL told some of you "No" and nothing else, ZL's staff has always been prompt and informative to me for some reason. Maybe they see that I'm the one who constantly posts their replies on CPF answering questions and doubts? Dunno.

Anyway I have the official answer from ZL regarding the lack of 14500 support and boost mode: "_14500 support is dropped in the H53 series, compared to the H52, in order to lower the cost (and the price) a bit. High output from Eneloop/NiMH batteries in the SC5 series requires a much more sophisticated and expensive driver_."

Also, ZL will have H53's runtime specs later this week when they get the first production batch.


----------



## LightObsession

Maybe the headlamp is lighter than the handheld because it's a headlamp and lighter is better?


----------



## TCY

LightObsession said:


> Maybe the headlamp is lighter than the handheld because it's a headlamp and lighter is better?



The SC5 series is the beefiest out of all ZL's AA-based offerings. At 1.1 oz the H53 line is indeed the lightest ZL so far.


----------



## mellowman

TCY said:


> I'm surprised that ZL told some of you "No" and nothing else, ZL's staff has always been prompt and informative to me for some reason. Maybe they see that I'm the one who constantly posts their replies on CPF answering questions and doubts? Dunno.
> 
> Anyway I have the official answer from ZL regarding the lack of 14500 support and boost mode: "_14500 support is dropped in the H53 series, compared to the H52, in order to lower the cost (and the price) a bit. High output from Eneloop/NiMH batteries in the SC5 series requires a much more sophisticated and expensive driver_."
> 
> Also, ZL will have H53's runtime specs later this week when they get the first production batch.



Thanks for asking ZL and sharing.

So dropping ~475 lumen boost mode on eneloops to save $6-$10 from a flashlight that is still ~$60 is an unfortunate decision. I'm on the fence as is, if it had the boost mode even if $10 more it would be a must buy. 

Maybe I can hope for a future H53c+ with the boost mode.


----------



## eraursls1984

I don't think the reason for the larger size of the SC5 was the reflector size. One of the first SC5's was a "F" model. I think it's either for heat management, driver size, or a combination of both.


----------



## NPL

mellowman said:


> Thanks for asking ZL and sharing.
> 
> So dropping ~475 lumen boost mode on eneloops to save $6-$10 from a flashlight that is still ~$60 is an unfortunate decision. I'm on the fence as is, if it had the boost mode even if $10 more it would be a must buy.
> 
> Maybe I can hope for a future H53c+ with the boost mode.


Totally agree, would have also spent the extra $10 to get the more sophisticated driver with higher output. Hopefully this translates to better runtimes than the sc5c equivalent.


----------



## TCY

I think they are probably doing it to differentiate the two models as the SC5 is supposed to be the "flagship" of their AA flashlight offerings but there's not a headlamp equivalent. I intend to use my H53Fc as a close range reading light so I can live without the boost mode, but it's certainly nice to have one available just in case.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> I am far from an expert on all of this, but maybe I can say one useful thing:
> 
> So far as I know, the tint of an LED has no effect on how much heat it generates. Ditto for the CRI.
> 
> We call certain emitters "cool" or "warm" as a short-hand for describing the spectrum of light that they put out, and how it would compare to the radiation produced by a black body at different temperatures.
> 
> But "cool" LEDs don't run any cooler (i.e. generate more heat, measured e.g. in calories), and "warm" LEDs don't run any warmer (i.e. generate fewer calories). As mellowman said, the underlying die is the same for each, and if it is soaking up X watts then it will convert Y of those into photons and the remaining Z will be lost as heat. Yes, the "cooler" emitter will have higher lumen output for a given wattage (holding all else but color-temperature constant), but when we switch to the "warmer" emitter, I don't think that the difference will be lost as heat. (Some of the difference will simply be the result of how different wave-lengths contribute to the lumen-reading: the lumen measures what the human eye is sensitive to, and we are more sensitive to blues and greens than to reds and oranges, so the same wattage output of red and orange will score fewer lumens than the same wattage output of blues and greens.
> 
> Anyhow, back to the short story: no reason to think that the "warmer" tint (or higher CRI) poses any new challenges for heat management.
> 
> I also agree with mellowman that the larger head on the SC5 line is dictated first by the desire for a larger reflector with a throwier beam. Any extra heat-sinking capacity that results is a secondary design feature, not the primary objective.



Most assuredly there has been no kidnapping of linguistic devices in my understanding about the physics of an LED in order to jump to a conclusion of greater heat generation. I've always understood it as a matter of inefficiency, the LED requiring more power (in the same family of LED) to get those results.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Anyway I have the official answer from ZL regarding the lack of 14500 support and boost mode: "_14500 support is dropped in the H53 series, compared to the H52, in order to lower the cost (and the price) a bit. High output from Eneloop/NiMH batteries in the SC5 series requires a much more sophisticated and expensive driver_."



I had assumed that much about the driver disappearing. The more meatier question is, why is the SC5c able to get outputs around 475, even without L-ion support, while that performance is neglected in the similar H53c?


----------



## Genzod

NPL said:


> Totally agree, would have also spent the extra $10 to get the more sophisticated driver with higher output. Hopefully this translates to better runtimes than the sc5c equivalent.



AHA, here's something. Are the output drivers dissimilar between the two models? I have been led to believe by others in this forum that the two models are similar. Seems like if they dropped the 14500 driver to reduce cost so as to add the more expensive and sophisticated driver of the SC5 series, they could have done that in the H53c rather cheaply as well but didn't in favor of a simple $5 price reduction. It seems fairly evident, but in my opinion doesn't make a lot of sense. Technology, performance and quality at a reasonable price is what people shop for in the ZL line. Cutting corners to reduce price is the mark of cheap headlamp manufacturers._
_


----------



## Genzod

NPL said:


> Totally agree, would have also spent the extra $10 to get the more sophisticated driver with higher output. Hopefully this translates to better runtimes than the sc5c equivalent.



$69 for an H53c with 475 lm output...? I agree with mellowman here.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Wait, you mean this whole time the reason for the lack of a high H1 was not engineering of any kind, but just marketing? 

Look, if you want to sell more headlights by offering reduced performance, that's okay. 

But why reduce the performance of your cutting-edge headlights? 

Why not offer an entire new line of lower-priced, lower-performance headlights to capture the broader market, while keeping your original headlights on the cutting edge of performance?

Something like...what you are are *already* doing with the Eco line! $39 dollars for a good quality AA headlight with simplified engineering. 

That's great! Now you have the popular market covered. 

And what you need to do with the H53 line is to keep it on the cutting edge of performance, for the specialist and enthusiast market. They will happily pay the extra $10.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Wait, you mean this whole time the reason for the lack of a high H1 was not engineering of any kind, but just marketing?
> 
> Look, if you want to sell more headlights by offering reduced performance, that's okay.
> 
> But why reduce the performance of your cutting-edge headlights?
> 
> Why not offer an entire new line of lower-priced, lower-performance headlights to capture the broader market, while keeping your original headlights on the cutting edge of performance?
> 
> Something like...what you are are *already* doing with the Eco line! $39 dollars for a good quality AA headlight with simplified engineering.
> 
> That's great! Now you have the popular market covered.
> 
> And what you need to do with the H53 line is to keep it on the cutting edge of performance, for the specialist and enthusiast market. They will happily pay the extra $10.



I couldn't agree more. This is EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Consider. I know of a son of a cabinet shop owner who told his father that he should sell the cheap garbage of the hardware stores in order to compete. But the truth is, the survival of small places like such a shop depends on quality manufacture, not quantity.

Same with small bookstores. How does using a large bookstore model like Barnes and Nobles fit into their dynamic? Copying it is a certain death sentence. Offering what the big guy who has deeper volume buying power has covered is going to destroy you. You have to reach beyond the big quantity distributor who knows absolutely nothing about the product they are selling and focus on specialization, those things which the big guy fails on. Your case ZL--cutting edge technology and quality.

ZL. If it only raises the price of the H53c $10 from $59, install the SC5c driver on the next batch for higher output performance, DO IT (DO IT uh, DO IT), call it the H53c+ like one mentioned earlier on this thread. I will buy it in a heartbeat. The general consensus is, you haven't impressed your better, more knowledgable constituents with this headlamp. If it's a heating issue, just increase surface area with more grooving along the case. Some people have been complaining that the hold on the lamp is insecure, and that would provide better grip as well.

Honestly, I was looking forward to an H53c with the performance of your SC5c, but it seems you didn't include the more expensive driver to get it and nixed the 14500 driver as well, leaving a shabby maximum output. Now that you have pulled the H32w and I have no idea how long it will be before you either wake up on this mistake or release an H33w or c with better performance, I'm hard pressed to look to Amytek for a better lamp.

Disappointed...so disappointed. I expected better.


----------



## TCY

Guys, massive update from ZL staff. I asked about the headlamp's shipping time, they replied with more in-depth explanation of why the H53c/Fc doesn't feature the 475lm boost mode as the SC5c line does.

"_One direct consequence of the SC5 driver's 'sophistication' is that the components wont' fit in the H52/H53/SC52/SC53 boards. The SC5 driver is what we call a 4-phase boost converter, meaning that there are literally 4 boost converters (and hence 4 inductors, ...) in one driver, or else you're going to have a hard time driving a 6V LED in the SC5Fc/Fd from a (under the load) ~1V NiMH battery. Squeezing an SC5 driver components into the space of an H52/H53/SC52/SC53 is possible, but not a priority for us at the time being."_

So I was completely wrong, ZL is not doing this to differentiate products (my bad!), it's just the required hardware for a 475lm boost is physically impossible to fit into the H53 housing at the moment (hence explaining why the SC5 series is beefier). And I double checked ZL's product page, the older H52 line DOES NOT feature a boost mode like the SC5 series does. The brightest H52, which uses a XM-L2 cool white (~70 CRI, 6300K CCT), has a maximum output of 300 lumens. The H53c pumps out 285 lumens on high with a XP-L2 (93-95 CRI, 4000K CCT). Hope this clears some of the confusion and frustration.

Also, it looks like our shiny new headlamps will be shipped out a few days earlier than the ZL estimate which is 21/05. I'm pumped.


----------



## mellowman

TCY said:


> Guys, massive update from ZL staff. I asked about the headlamp's shipping time, they replied with more in-depth explanation of why the H53c/Fc doesn't feature the 475lm boost mode as the SC5c line does.
> 
> "_One direct consequence of the SC5 driver's 'sophistication' is that the components wont' fit in the H52/H53/SC52/SC53 boards. The SC5 driver is what we call a 4-phase boost converter, meaning that there are literally 4 boost converters (and hence 4 inductors, ...) in one driver, or else you're going to have a hard time driving a 6V LED in the SC5Fc/Fd from a (under the load) ~1V NiMH battery. Squeezing an SC5 driver components into the space of an H52/H53/SC52/SC53 is possible, but not a priority for us at the time being."_
> 
> So I was completely wrong, ZL is not doing this to differentiate products (my bad!), it's just the required hardware for a 475lm boost is physically impossible to fit into the H53 housing at the moment (hence explaining why the SC5 series is beefier). And I double checked ZL's product page, the older H52 line DOES NOT feature a boost mode like the SC5 series does. The brightest H52, which uses a XM-L2 cool white (~70 CRI, 6300K CCT), has a maximum output of 300 lumens. The H53c pumps out 285 lumens on high with a XP-L2 (93-95 CRI, 4000K CCT). Hope this clears some of the confusion and frustration.
> 
> Also, it looks like our shiny new headlamps will be shipped out a few days earlier than the ZL estimate which is 21/05. I'm pumped.



couple of things. 

I think the 6V is a typo as none of the LEDs in either line have such a Vf. The XM-L2 and XP-L2 have Vf ~3V or less, the XP-L2 is among the lowest Vf LEDs around making it perfect for single cell flashlights. A quick look at the datasheet gives a Vf of ~2.8V for the 280 lm H1 output listed for the H53c. 

The older H52 line did have a boost mode but only with 14500 batteries.

Which comes down to a point I've made before....if space was the issue why not just stick with the older driver from the H52 line. The run time and lumen improvements come from the new XP-L2 LED anyway.


----------



## eraursls1984

eraursls1984 said:


> I don't think the reason for the larger size of the SC5 was the reflector size. One of the first SC5's was a "F" model. I think it's either for heat management, *driver size*, or a combination of both.





TCY said:


> Guys, massive update from ZL staff. I asked about the headlamp's shipping time, they replied with more in-depth explanation of why the H53c/Fc doesn't feature the 475lm boost mode as the SC5c line does.
> 
> "_One direct consequence of the SC5 driver's 'sophistication' is that the components wont' fit in the H52/H53/SC52/SC53 boards. The SC5 driver is what we call a 4-phase boost converter, meaning that there are literally 4 boost converters (and hence 4 inductors, ...) in one driver, or else you're going to have a hard time driving a 6V LED in the SC5Fc/Fd from a (under the load) ~1V NiMH battery. Squeezing an SC5 driver components into the space of an H52/H53/SC52/SC53 is possible, but not a priority for us at the time being."_
> 
> So I was completely wrong, ZL is not doing this to differentiate products (my bad!), it's just the required hardware for a 475lm boost is physically impossible to fit into the H53 housing at the moment (hence explaining why the SC5 series is beefier). And I double checked ZL's product page, the older H52 line DOES NOT feature a boost mode like the SC5 series does. The brightest H52, which uses a XM-L2 cool white (~70 CRI, 6300K CCT), has a maximum output of 300 lumens. The H53c pumps out 285 lumens on high with a XP-L2 (93-95 CRI, 4000K CCT). Hope this clears some of the confusion and frustration.
> 
> Also, it looks like our shiny new headlamps will be shipped out a few days earlier than the ZL estimate which is 21/05. I'm pumped.


I was believing you until that last line, lol. Everyone knows to add at least a month to any Zebralight estimate.


----------



## Genzod

Well, it is possible to fit it on the board, but not a prioity at the moment. Also, the H52 had 500 lm boost with lithium ion battery.

But I'm glad to know at least that ZL had a good reason for the lower max output. I was hard pressed to keep an open door to the chance it wasn't just a poor marketing decision. Thermal management was an avenue of possibility that made sense of the decision. So at least I was correct in believing there was a still a good reason. I just wish they had made it a priority.

Thanks for the update.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> Which comes down to a point I've made before....if space was the issue why not just stick with the older driver from the H52 line. The run time and lumen improvements come from the new XP-L2 LED anyway.



Exactly. That part of it at least was poor marketing decision.


----------



## eraursls1984

mellowman said:


> Which comes down to a point I've made before....if space was the issue why not just stick with the older driver from the H52 line. The run time and lumen improvements come from the new XP-L2 LED anyway.


Because we want the new driver. I've been a huge fan of Zebralight but only have a couple of their lights because I couldn't change the L1, M1, and H1. If/once they upgrade their entire line there'll be at least 9 more of their lights I'll end up with.


----------



## mckeand13

According to the latest Cree binning and labeling for the XP-L2, there is a 4000K emitter in a 90CRI min. That sounds great, but doesn't it seem like a stretch that ZebraLight is labeling these as 93-95 CRI? They are going to have to can a lot of emitters, or use them elsewhere, in other lights to weed out a small percentage that actually meet 93-95CRI.


----------



## mellowman

mckeand13 said:


> According to the latest Cree binning and labeling for the XP-L2, there is a 4000K emitter in a 90CRI min. That sounds great, but doesn't it seem like a stretch that ZebraLight is labeling these as 93-95 CRI? They are going to have to can a lot of emitters, or use them elsewhere, in other lights to weed out a small percentage that actually meet 93-95CRI.





Tint deviation: 2-step MacAdam ellipse

should be narrow deviation and the cri and tint is the only reason to consider this otherwise I'd close tab and check in next year to see new offerings.


----------



## mellowman

eraursls1984 said:


> Because we want the new driver. I've been a huge fan of Zebralight but only have a couple of their lights because I couldn't change the L1, M1, and H1. If/once they upgrade their entire line there'll be at least 9 more of their lights I'll end up with.



you always could, it's called L2, M2 and H2. there is memory to remember which L1/L2, M1/M2, H1/H2 you were in last time you were in a L, M or H mode.


----------



## eraursls1984

mellowman said:


> you always could, it's called L2, M2 and H2. there is memory to remember which L1/L2, M1/M2, H1/H2 you were in last time you were in a L, M or H mode.


You can't​ reprogram L1, M1, or H1. Yes, L2, M2, and H2 has been reprogrammable for awhile now, but now all modes can be reprogrammed and with ANY mode no less.


----------



## mellowman

eraursls1984 said:


> You can't​ reprogram L1, M1, or H1. Yes, L2, M2, and H2 has been reprogrammable for awhile now, but now all modes can be reprogrammed and with ANY mode no less.



yes but I don't really see the point as the only real change is changing how you get to L, M or H mode..ie is it quick press, double click or long press. you're not changing L2 M2 or whatever you chose just how you get to it.

though I suppose if you want just L or M modes then you're a happy pig in a mud...though you could have just bought a cheaper light.


----------



## eraursls1984

mellowman said:


> yes but I don't really see the point as the only real change is changing how you get to L, M or H mode..ie is it quick press, double click or long press. you're not changing L2 M2 or whatever you chose just how you get to it.
> 
> though I suppose if you want just L or M modes then you're a happy pig in a mud...though you could have just bought a cheaper light.


The point is I'm not stuck with crappy modes I won't use on such a sophisticated light. Now I can have six readily available modes that I will use.


----------



## iamlucky13

TCY said:


> Guys, massive update from ZL staff
> ....
> "_One direct consequence of the SC5 driver's 'sophistication' is that the components wont' fit in the H52/H53/SC52/SC53 boards. The SC5 driver is what we call a 4-phase boost converter, meaning that there are literally 4 boost converters (and hence 4 inductors, ...) in one driver_



Cool. So my speculation about size of the inductor was on the right track.



mellowman said:


> The older H52 line did have a boost mode but only with 14500 batteries.
> 
> Which comes down to a point I've made before....if space was the issue why not just stick with the older driver from the H52 line. The run time and lumen improvements come from the new XP-L2 LED anyway.



The H52 could do that in part because with 14500's the voltage doesn't need boosting - they can provide the necessary voltage and current simultaneously. That's in contrast to the SC5 which can approach 500 lumens from a much lower voltage.

Most of the improvements probably come from the XP-L2. We don't know that all of it does. There is also probably some commonality with the new SC5 driver, even if it's simplified in the H53.

Keep in mind the balance between product features and pricing is always a challenge, and the cost of engineering hours adds up fast during product development (speaking from experience). There's so many competent lights available at lower cost than Zebralights that they're probably starting to worry about losing sales based on cost, even with a technically superior light.

They probably didn't make the decision on a whim. It's in their financial interest to appeal to as many customers as possible.


----------



## mellowman

eraursls1984 said:


> The point is I'm not stuck with crappy modes I won't use on such a sophisticated light. Now I can have six readily available modes that I will use.



maybe you can give examples of crappy modes and the six "readily" available modes that you will use.


----------



## mellowman

iamlucky13 said:


> Cool. So my speculation about size of the inductor was on the right track.
> 
> 
> 
> The H52 could do that in part because with 14500's the voltage doesn't need boosting - they can provide the necessary voltage and current simultaneously. That's in contrast to the SC5 which can approach 500 lumens from a much lower voltage.
> 
> Most of the improvements probably come from the XP-L2. We don't know that all of it does. There is also probably some commonality with the new SC5 driver, even if it's simplified in the H53.
> 
> Keep in mind the balance between product features and pricing is always a challenge, and the cost of engineering hours adds up fast during product development (speaking from experience). There's so many competent lights available at lower cost than Zebralights that they're probably starting to worry about losing sales based on cost, even with a technically superior light.
> 
> They probably didn't make the decision on a whim. It's in their financial interest to appeal to as many customers as possible.



yes, I'm aware of no boosting with a 14500 and with the new lower Vf XP-L2 older driver would have been even better...and since it's already designed it would lower cost even more.


----------



## eraursls1984

mellowman said:


> maybe you can give examples of crappy modes and the six "readily" available modes that you will use.


This is subjective to each person. On all of my Zebralights the M1 is to close to the lowest H2 which I use. I also love the moonlight modes, but the lowest two are too low unless I have a slightly higher moonlight to slowly adjust to them. On all of the other lights except for the H52 the H1 is useless for me and I'd like to use one of the H2 modes in it's place.


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> couple of things.
> 
> I think the 6V is a typo as none of the LEDs in either line have such a Vf. The XM-L2 and XP-L2 have Vf ~3V or less, the XP-L2 is among the lowest Vf LEDs around making it perfect for single cell flashlights. A quick look at the datasheet gives a Vf of ~2.8V for the 280 lm H1 output listed for the H53c.
> 
> The older H52 line did have a boost mode but only with 14500 batteries.
> 
> Which comes down to a point I've made before....if space was the issue why not just stick with the older driver from the H52 line. The run time and lumen improvements come from the new XP-L2 LED anyway.



My apologies, The H52 line did have the boost feature. I was ready to sleep but ZL sent me the reply, guess I didn't check very carefully lol.

About the voltage part, note that ZL is referring specifically to the old SC5 series, and the LEDs used in SC5Fd/c are XM-L2 easywhite, which is 6V. I think this makes sense as the high CRI variation of H52, H502d/c, used Philips LUXEON T instead of XM-L2 easywhite. Compared with these two, the H53c has 95 more lumens on max, and ~10 CRI increase. Note that H502d/c do not support 14500 (but still feature an operating voltage range of 0.7-4.2V) but the SC52d does. 

Based on the operating voltage of all variations of the older SC5, I'm guessing that all of them have the same exact circuit that is capable of driving a 6V LED, while dropping 14500 support, so it came down to choices, people either pick the SC52/H52 line for 14500 support, or SC5 if they are looking for good tint & CRI while pumping out impressive lumens (maximum brightness for SC5Fd/c is 375 lumens, 185 higher than H502d/c) but brightness wise SC5 basically rendered the need of a 14500 moot as SC5 can produce 500+ lumens with a standard Eneloop, while SC52/H52 could only crank out 300 lumens with said battery choice.

Back to what ZL said: They probably kept the same driver for SC5c Mk II for the 475lm boost (evident by the no 14500 support), but like they said, the said driver is too large for the H53. Compared to XM-L2 which has a typical forward voltage of 2.85V @ 700mA, XP-L2 is rated at 2.82V @ 1050mA, so ZL probably redesigned the H53's driver (the new fancy user programmable mode groups, remember?) so it could drive the XP-L2 fully. My educated guess is that the combination of SC5's large drive, difference between LEDs and the addition of the user programmable mode groups made ZL to drop 14500 support for the H53 line, which makes sense.

Off topic: Now that I got some sleep (going to get some more), I see ZL mentioning SC53 in their reply.


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> yes but I don't really see the point as the only real change is changing how you get to L, M or H mode..ie is it quick press, double click or long press. you're not changing L2 M2 or whatever you chose just how you get to it.
> 
> though I suppose if you want just L or M modes then you're a happy pig in a mud...though you could have just bought a cheaper light.



Actually many ZL owners do have something to say about the original UI setup. To name a few, I remember someone saying that ZL ruins his night vision when he gets up at night as he couldn't time the low modes as precisely as he could normally when he's still half asleep, and I've seen more than one posts saying that they would love it if ZL lights are one click to medium instead of high.

Also, the old UI limits users to 3 pre-selected levels plus 3 user defined levels. The new programmable UI allows user to set whatever mode they want on whatever level they want which basically screams the word "possibility". Remember dentists and medics having a hard time finding a high CRI light that always start on low (Nitecore designed a 2xAAA penlight specifically for this)? They can easily do that with the new UI now. If people like ZL but hate that one click turns on the light in high mode, they can switch places so one click becomes medium, and double click brings up the high mode. Hell, they can set all six modes to medium if they want. An UI Fully tailored to user's needs and wants is why people, especially ZL fans, are hyping.


----------



## TCY

eraursls1984 said:


> I was believing you until that last line, lol. Everyone knows to add at least a month to any Zebralight estimate.



From ZL: "_The first H53 production batch will come out of our China factory later this week. We'll then take all kinds of measurements, including runtimes, from that batch. Shipping (from China) will start next week. It looks like the shipping date will be a few days ahead of the planned/announced._"

I dunno, maybe you could tell ZL to delay your shipping so it falls in line with everyone's expectation of ZL shipping LOL!


----------



## TCY

eraursls1984 said:


> This is subjective to each person. On all of my Zebralights the M1 is to close to the lowest H2 which I use. I also love the moonlight modes, but the lowest two are too low unless I have a slightly higher moonlight to slowly adjust to them. On all of the other lights except for the H52 the H1 is useless for me and I'd like to use one of the H2 modes in it's place.



This. I wish to get rid of the 0.26/0.06/0.01 level of my H53Fc and set the lowest to 1 lumen so I can have one more slot for a medium level.


----------



## tech25

To add to this- I use the "double click" feature very often to switch between modes. Now I can program exactly what I want- main modes are my most used and the secondary mode on each level is for longer runtime...

This is my only peeve that I have for my H600fc- On the low level I only want one moonlight mode and double click from there to the lowest of medium modes, with this new UI I would be able to do so.


----------



## LightObsession

mellowman said:


> maybe you can give examples of crappy modes and the six "readily" available modes that you will use.



For me, the medium options weren't as high as I'd like. Now I can use one of the lower high settings for medium.


----------



## Genzod

LightObsession said:


> For me, the medium options weren't as high as I'd like. Now I can use one of the lower high settings for medium.



I wanted to have 3 high output level settings available to me for running, two medium level settings and only one low level (or alternatively, the lowest medium). I couldn't do that with the H52w.


----------



## mellowman

well I find the sub L, M, H modes to be close enough that I just use L1, M1 and H1. Mostly just use M1.


----------



## mellowman

TCY said:


> My apologies, The H52 line did have the boost feature. I was ready to sleep but ZL sent me the reply, guess I didn't check very carefully lol.
> 
> About the voltage part, note that ZL is referring specifically to the old SC5 series, and the LEDs used in SC5Fd/c are XM-L2 easywhite, which is 6V. I think this makes sense as the high CRI variation of H52, H502d/c, used Philips LUXEON T instead of XM-L2 easywhite. Compared with these two, the H53c has 95 more lumens on max, and ~10 CRI increase. Note that H502d/c do not support 14500 (but still feature an operating voltage range of 0.7-4.2V) but the SC52d does.
> 
> Based on the operating voltage of all variations of the older SC5, I'm guessing that all of them have the same exact circuit that is capable of driving a 6V LED, while dropping 14500 support, so it came down to choices, people either pick the SC52/H52 line for 14500 support, or SC5 if they are looking for good tint & CRI while pumping out impressive lumens (maximum brightness for SC5Fd/c is 375 lumens, 185 higher than H502d/c) but brightness wise SC5 basically rendered the need of a 14500 moot as SC5 can produce 500+ lumens with a standard Eneloop, while SC52/H52 could only crank out 300 lumens with said battery choice.
> 
> Back to what ZL said: They probably kept the same driver for SC5c Mk II for the 475lm boost (evident by the no 14500 support), but like they said, the said driver is too large for the H53. Compared to XM-L2 which has a typical forward voltage of 2.85V @ 700mA, XP-L2 is rated at 2.82V @ 1050mA, so ZL probably redesigned the H53's driver (the new fancy user programmable mode groups, remember?) so it could drive the XP-L2 fully. My educated guess is that the combination of SC5's large drive, difference between LEDs and the addition of the user programmable mode groups made ZL to drop 14500 support for the H53 line, which makes sense.
> 
> Off topic: Now that I got some sleep (going to get some more), I see ZL mentioning SC53 in their reply.



6V is too much for these LEDs. You looked up the ratings below that contradict the 6V statements above yourself. The note about 502d suggest that they kept the same driver but even 4.2V is too much for the Luxeon LED. Again I think the 6V is a typo, and the new driver need to boost 1.2V to at most 3V (for boost mode). And if ZL says new driver doesn't fit then I can't argue since I have no knowledge of its design. 

However, looking at the data sheet the voltage of an H1 of 285lm is ~2.75V and with an boost H1 of 500lm is ~2.9V. Not much difference.


----------



## lampeDépêche

TCY said:


> Note that H502d/c do not support 14500 (but still feature an operating voltage range of 0.7-4.2V) but the SC52d does.



It does not matter much for this conversation, but I'll say it all the same: the H502w works *very well* with a 14500 at the 500lumen level.

Maybe there is some reason that the Luxeons in the H502d/c won't handle the boost. But the H502w with the XML works like a charm.

(The only trick is finding a 14500 that is short enough: the 14500 that ZL sells is too long. I use AW IMR red-labels).


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> 6V is too much for these LEDs. You looked up the ratings below that contradict the 6V statements above yourself. The note about 502d suggest that they kept the same driver but even 4.2V is too much for the Luxeon LED. Again I think the 6V is a typo, and the new driver need to boost 1.2V to at most 3V (for boost mode). And if ZL says new driver doesn't fit then I can't argue since I have no knowledge of its design.
> 
> However, looking at the data sheet the voltage of an H1 of 285lm is ~2.75V and with an boost H1 of 500lm is ~2.9V. Not much difference.

















Are we not talking about the same thing or am I looking at the wrong data here? I'm confused. Out of all the LEDs we talked about, only the XM-L2 easywhite has a forward voltage of ~6V @ 700mA. My point was that ZL probably used the exact same driver for all of the SC5 variants so it can drive the 6V easywhites in SC5Fd/c without having to design another driver, but on the H52 line they used another driver which added 14500 support but dropped the heavy boost to 6V capability in order to shrink the driver a little bit, as evidenced by ZL's reply "_One direct consequence of the SC5 driver's 'sophistication' is that the components wont' fit in the H52/H53/SC52/SC53 boards_". The H53 line dropped 14500 support to make (physical and/or software) space for the user programmable UI groups. It's basically a choice for ZL: to get the boost mode for H53, either shrink the SC5 driver, which is not their priority at the moment, or drop the new UI and get 14500 support instead. ZL went for the new UI which I find completely reasonable.


----------



## TCY

lampeDépêche said:


> It does not matter much for this conversation, but I'll say it all the same: the H502w works *very well* with a 14500 at the 500lumen level.
> 
> Maybe there is some reason that the Luxeons in the H502d/c won't handle the boost. But the H502w with the XML works like a charm.
> 
> (The only trick is finding a 14500 that is short enough: the 14500 that ZL sells is too long. I use AW IMR red-labels).



My guesstimate is that ZL dropped 14500 support on the H53 to make space for the new programmable UI. Personally I like this choice :thumbsup:


----------



## mellowman

TCY said:


> Are we not talking about the same thing or am I looking at the wrong data here? I'm confused. Out of all the LEDs we talked about, only the XM-L2 easywhite has a forward voltage of ~6V @ 700mA. My point was that ZL probably used the exact same driver for all of the SC5 variants so it can drive the 6V easywhites in SC5Fd/c without having to design another driver, but on the H52 line they used another driver which added 14500 support but dropped the heavy boost to 6V capability in order to shrink the driver a little bit, as evidenced by ZL's reply "_One direct consequence of the SC5 driver's 'sophistication' is that the components wont' fit in the H52/H53/SC52/SC53 boards_". The H53 line dropped 14500 support to make (physical and/or software) space for the user programmable UI groups. It's basically a choice for ZL: to get the boost mode for H53, either shrink the SC5 driver, which is not their priority at the moment, or drop the new UI and get 14500 support instead. ZL went for the new UI which I find completely reasonable.



6V is for the easywhite leds which are 4 dies in what is usually 1 die. This is a confusing part as all the XM-L2 flashlight/headlight versions listed by ZL are NOT the easywhite version including the SC5s. Only the new hi cri ones with the XP-L2 say easywhite. However cree has no datasheet or listing that I can find for XP-L2 easywhite, everything points to to XM-L2 easywhite which again isn't being used by ZL in the SC5, SC5w, SC5F, SC5wF, the regular XM-L2 is.

So yea, if it is an XP-L2 easywhite in the H53c that for whatever reason Cree doesn't even list for sale, then yes 6V otherwise the first table is correct.

So I still think 6V is an error on ZL side as well as for listing XP-L2 easywhite when I think is just regular XP-L2.

Also, I don't think the UI is completely new micro-controller. If it is there is no reason to think it would be substantially bigger than the old one. The UI is not all that different.

Seems to me ZL is saying the size of the inductor for the boost circuit to support boost mode doesn't fit.

edit: If it is 4 dies in 1, and thus 6V, I'd be very concerned about the beam pattern. Glad I haven't pre-ordered, definitely wait for reviews.


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> 6V is for the easywhite leds which are 4 dies in what is usually 1 die. This is a confusing part as all the XM-L2 flashlight/headlight versions listed by ZL are NOT the easywhite version including the SC5s. Only the new hi cri ones with the XP-L2 say easywhite. However cree has no datasheet or listing that I can find for XP-L2 easywhite, everything points to to XM-L2 easywhite which again isn't being used by ZL in the SC5, SC5w, SC5F, SC5wF, the regular XM-L2 is.
> 
> So yea, if it is an XP-L2 easywhite in the H53c that for whatever reason Cree doesn't even list for sale, then yes 6V otherwise the first table is correct.
> 
> So I still think 6V is an error on ZL side as well as for listing XP-L2 easywhite when I think is just regular XP-L2.
> 
> Also, I don't think the UI is completely new micro-controller. If it is there is no reason to think it would be substantially bigger than the old one. The UI is not all that different.
> 
> Seems to me ZL is saying the size of the inductor for the boost circuit to support boost mode doesn't fit.
> 
> If it is easywhite I"d be very concerned about the beam pattern. Glad I haven't pre-ordered, definitely wait for reviews.



I understand where the confusion is coming from. Please check out the SC5Fd/SC5Fc product page, these two SC5 variants has XM-L2 easywhite inside: LED: _Cree XM-L2 EasyWhite (Typical CRI: 83-85, Nominal CCT 4000K). _I never mentioned anything about a XP-L2 easywhite variant because it doesn't exist.


----------



## mellowman

Well the product page for H53c says XP-L2 easywhite LED. I think it's just a confusion on how Cree introduced the easywhite term with the 4 in 1 dies. I don't think any ZL uses a 4 in 1 die and I think Cree meant it as a color binning guarantee.

Yet the email ZL sent you said 6V. 

The 6V is for 4 die in 1 LED versions.

But Cree doesn't list such a thing for XP-L2.

so kinda confusing.


----------



## Random Dan

mellowman said:


> Well the product page for H53c says XP-L2 easywhite LED. I think it's just a confusion on how Cree introduced the easywhite term with the 4 in 1 dies. I don't think any ZL uses a 4 in 1 die and I think Cree meant it as a color binning guarantee.
> 
> Yet the email ZL sent you said 6V.
> 
> The 6V is for 4 die in 1 LED versions.
> 
> But Cree doesn't list such a thing for XP-L2.
> 
> so kinda confusing.


The H600Fc/d and SC5Fc/d used the 6V 4-die XM-L2 easywhites. That's why they only came with frosted lenses, to smooth out the beam from multi-die leds.

The XP-L2 easywhites are single-die.


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> Well the product page for H53c says XP-L2 easywhite LED. I think it's just a confusion on how Cree introduced the easywhite term with the 4 in 1 dies. I don't think any ZL uses a 4 in 1 die and I think Cree meant it as a color binning guarantee.
> 
> Yet the email ZL sent you said 6V.
> 
> The 6V is for 4 die in 1 LED versions.
> 
> But Cree doesn't list such a thing for XP-L2.
> 
> so kinda confusing.



Now that I look back I find my word choices misleading. I meant that 6V XP-L2 easywhite doesn't exist as the XP-L2 line uses a single-die setup, eliminating the need for high voltage as we find on the XM-L2 easywhite variant. The 6V requirement ZL mentioned refers to the XM-L2 easywhite used in their flashlights and headlamps which requires a boost to 6V. For AA based SC5Fd/SC5Fc which uses eneloop, ZL designed a driver to boost the voltage to 6V to drive the XM-L2 easywhite but said driver is too large to fit into other AA-based offering at the moment.


----------



## mellowman

TCY said:


> Now that I look back I find my word choices misleading. I meant that 6V XP-L2 easywhite doesn't exist as the XP-L2 line uses a single-die setup, eliminating the need for high voltage as we find on the XM-L2 easywhite variant. The 6V requirement ZL mentioned refers to the XM-L2 easywhite used in their flashlights and headlamps which requires a boost to 6V. For AA based SC5Fd/SC5Fc which uses eneloop, ZL designed a driver to boost the voltage to 6V to drive the XM-L2 easywhite but said driver is too large to fit into other AA-based offering at the moment.



Why would ZL refer to the driver in SC5Fd/SC5Fc when talking about the H53c? 

I bet nearly everyone in this thread was hoping for the SC5c mkII driver that has boost mode on eneloops as the driver in the H53c.


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> Why would ZL refer to the driver in SC5Fd/SC5Fc when talking about the H53c?
> 
> I bet nearly everyone in this thread was hoping for the SC5c mkII driver that has boost mode on eneloops as the driver in the H53c.



1. SC5's driver is able to boost an AA's voltage to 6V for XM-L2 easywhite in the SC5Fd/c

2. H53 dropped 14500 support for the new programmable UI, hence no boost from 14500

3. SC5's driver is too large for any of their AA based lights, and they are not going to shrink it for now

4. Hence, SC5's driver size > H53's housing, so no boost for H53


----------



## mellowman

TCY said:


> 1. SC5's driver is able to boost an AA's voltage to 6V for XM-L2 easywhite in the SC5Fd/c
> 
> 2. H53 dropped 14500 support for the new programmable UI, hence no boost from 14500
> 
> 3. SC5's driver is too large for any of their AA based lights, and they are not going to shrink it for now
> 
> 4. Hence, SC5's driver size > H53's housing, so no boost for H53



They have a SC5 driver that doesn't boost to 6V to have a boost mode with a XP-L2 on eneloops, its in the SC5c mkII. What part of that aren't you getting. The driver for SC5Fd/c is irrelevant as it is for a 6V LED, a different LED. 

and #2 is pure speculation.

frankly not having boost in H53c seems more like a marketing move than a technical one. so I"m passing, maybe ZL will have a worthy upgrade next year.


----------



## scs

Wait. Hasn't ZL responded in writing that 14500 support is removed in the H53 so they can use a less expensive boost only driver to lower the retail price of the light; and the boost driver in the SC5 mk2 is too sophisticated, too expensive, and most importantly of all, too large at the moment to fit into the H53? What are you guys still arguing about?


----------



## holygeez03

I would gladly pay the extra $10 for 14500 support and a ~500 lumen burst mode... especially if it can last a few minutes.


----------



## Genzod

holygeez03 said:


> I would gladly pay the extra $10 for 14500 support and a ~500 lumen burst mode... especially if it can last a few minutes.



ZL had a choice. They could wait until they could get around to fitting the more expensive SC5 mk II driver with its inductors onto the H53c board, or they could introduce the new UI now with a lower price. I guess they thought we could forgive them easier with the teaser of a lower price. 

It would have suited me better if they had waited. I need boost because their throw is so short at 285 lumens. I need to check for trail markers. I needed the UI as well, to help me tailor my light to need for better economy running long distances up and down inclines with mail drops and the lightest possible pack weight (fewer batteries--trying to keep pack weight between 5-6 lbs so I can carry sufficient of food. Going beyond 20 lbs for a 2-3 day trek starts to become uncomfortable in a fastpack). Now with this release, I feel like I'm going to have to wait a lot longer for them to upgrade it than otherwise would have expected if they had waited for it to all come together.

The H53 shaves about a half ounce off the AT compacts. Not a lot to everyone except maybe a long distance mountain trail runner or ultralight backpacker, people looking the keep their packs within the window of a target weight.

Oh, well. That's the market. You can't please everyone--they aren't all the same. I'm sure there's quite a few people who will be thrilled at the thought of the $59 price and wink at the loss of a few minutes boost, happy with the color and warm light. But I do believe a lot of people who are really into ZL and follow them closely were disappointed thinking the H53c was going to have the performance of the SC5c Mk II. 

I was one of those.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you _Doris Day, Que Sera Sera (1964)_:


----------



## TCY

mellowman said:


> They have a SC5 driver that doesn't boost to 6V to have a boost mode with a XP-L2 on eneloops, its in the SC5c mkII. What part of that aren't you getting. The driver for SC5Fd/c is irrelevant as it is for a 6V LED, a different LED.
> 
> and #2 is pure speculation.
> 
> frankly not having boost in H53c seems more like a marketing move than a technical one. so I"m passing, maybe ZL will have a worthy upgrade next year.



I'm back with ZL's official response to end this debate once and for all.

"T_he SC5 Mk I driver has only one version, for both regular SC5 and SC5Fd/Fc. The SC5 Mk II driver is a slightly improved version of the Mk I -- more powerful and more efficient. If we were to put XM-L2s in the Mk II driver, we'd see the measurable improvements. Yes, this driver is too big for the H53/SC53 body, and we don't plan to shrink it in the near future. 

The H53/SC53/H503 driver is a slightly improved version of the H52/SC52/H502 driver. Again, if we were to put the same (bin) XM-L2 LED in the H53, we'd see some improvements there (in output and efficiency). On top of that, the new UI requires more memory space. Dropping off the 14500 support is among the very few options we had."_

So all my speculations were correct, and from the reply we can derive the conclusion that ZL is not dropping 14500 support on the H53 to differentiate product.

Now that we have the official response, let's wrap it up and get back to topic before a moderator shows up.


----------



## TCY

scs said:


> Wait. Hasn't ZL responded in writing that 14500 support is removed in the H53 so they can use a less expensive boost only driver to lower the retail price of the light; and the boost driver in the SC5 mk2 is too sophisticated, too expensive, and most importantly of all, too large at the moment to fit into the H53? What are you guys still arguing about?



I wanted to convince mellowman that ZL is not pulling some sneaky marketing moves but lacked evidence.


----------



## TCY

For those of you anxiously waiting, ZL sent me the shipping notice 14 hours ago. Will upload pics when I get it. :twothumbs


----------



## lampeDépêche

TCY said:


> For those of you anxiously waiting, ZL sent me the shipping notice 14 hours ago. Will upload pics when I get it. :twothumbs



Woo-hoo! 

Hey, TCY: what continent are you on/country do you live in? 

And is your order number greater than or less than [FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]10372727?

(Just asking for a friend, of course.)[/FONT]


----------



## mico

lampeDépêche said:


> Woo-hoo!
> 
> Hey, TCY: what continent are you on/country do you live in?
> 
> And is your order number greater than or less than [FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]10372727?
> 
> (Just asking for a friend, of course.)[/FONT]



Shipped.
UK.
Slightly greater than


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> _
> 
> The H53/SC53/H503 driver is a slightly improved version of the H52/SC52/H502 driver. Again, if we were to put the same (bin) XM-L2 LED in the H53, we'd see some improvements there (in output and efficiency). On top of that, the new UI requires more memory space. Dropping off the 14500 support is among the very few options we had."_
> 
> So all my speculations were correct, and from the reply we can derive the conclusion that ZL is not dropping 14500 support on the H53 to differentiate product.



I believed there was a technical reason even though I pursued the wrong one in looking.

Suggestion: Replace the UI with a digital infinite rotary dimmer with click to indicate travel and plant the SC5 Mk II driver on the H53 board.


----------



## TCY

lampeDépêche said:


> Woo-hoo!
> 
> Hey, TCY: what continent are you on/country do you live in?
> 
> And is your order number greater than or less than [FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]10372727?
> 
> (Just asking for a friend, of course.)[/FONT]



G'day from Australia:wave:

My order number is 10372712, so my guess is that your new light will be shipped very soon!


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> I believed there was a technical reason even though I pursued the wrong one in looking.
> 
> Suggestion: Replace the UI with a digital infinite rotary dimmer with click to indicate travel and plant the SC5 Mk II driver on the H53 board.



So.. Z(ebra)DS rotary?


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> So.. Z(ebra)DS rotary?



Just an ignorant mountain hiker here...ZDS? :thinking:


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> G'day from Australia:wave:!



Mick Dundee: H53c? That's not a flashlight. SC5c Mk II, that's a flashlight!


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> Just an ignorant mountain hiker here...ZDS? :thinking:



I was talking about the HDS rotary. HDS systems is very popular amongst flashaholics, especially here on CPF.

Internal link:http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?417896-HDS-Systems-EDC-19


----------



## Genzod

Okay, I know HDS--expensive. Working on a dual emitter design, one pointed down for flood, the other for throw.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> For those of you anxiously waiting, ZL sent me the shipping notice 14 hours ago. Will upload pics when I get it. :twothumbs



ZL usually posts runtimes once the first shipment arrives and they are able to run the tests. Nothing posted yet. *Did the dog eat their homework? *


----------



## insanefred

Genzod said:


> ZL usually posts runtimes once the first shipment arrives and they are able to run the tests. Nothing posted yet. *Did the dog eat their homework? *



Could you even imagine they sent out the sample that they needed for the run times? That would be embarrassing.


----------



## TCY

Maybe I'm the first guy in the world to get the new ZL again:devil:


----------



## TCY

Photos taken with HTC10. The following two shots are tint comparison: 1st is SC600Fd Plus 100lm, second one is H53Fc 55lm. 
WB:4900K ISO:400 Shutter Speed:1/320


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Maybe I'm the first guy in the world to get the new ZL again:devil:



Maybe they tested your tint before shipping it off, too! :eeew: :green: :sick2: haha

I've been waiting all morning to see this! So tell me, what's the performance difference between an eneloop pro and a lithium primary? Any?


----------



## Genzod

Shipment already in the hands of people on the other side of the world, and *still *no runtime data posted at ZL's site. I'm really starting to suspect their dog ate their only reserved testing headlamp, *or maybe it was abducted by:*






*Or seeing ZL is based in IRVING, TX, maybe it was:

*


----------



## Genzod

You gotta love that thank you note accompanying the H53c shipment. Dig the crazy spelling of "batteriers"_....batteriers...batteriers--_To apply judicious use of a paddle to the rear of a toddler for the purpose of correction. Used in a sentence: _My daddy used to *batteriers* a lot when I was growing up--me and my little brother, both, when we were misbehaving. _I wonder if they still do that in Texas?


----------



## TCY

First impression:

My first AA light. This thing is tiny (7.5cm in length). 

Flawless construction. Perfect anodizing, silk smooth thread, pre-lubed with beefy O-ring. Heat sink is not chamfered but still feels nice.

Tint is perfect. Absolutely perfect. Pure white 4000K with no hue whatsoever. ZL might be the only company that offers flashlight with a 2-step Macadam ellipse tint variation. This is the perfect gift for tint snobs.

Throws a bit further than light with XHP50/XM-L2 easywhite due to smaller die size. (3.45mm^2 vs 5mm^2)

The end of the pocket clip gets in the way when I try to remove the tail cap but it's nothing to be worried about. This is more of an inevitable factor given how small this light is.

Don't forget that ZL introduces the new user programmable UI so you can have a UI completely tailored to your needs.

Even if I'm not a ZL fan I would still rate this light a 10/10. If you are looking for a small, lightweight (56g with eneloop), and versatile headlamp/light, look no further. If you are after crazy high lumens with an AA form factor, the older H52 and Armytek's Tiara A1 pro with 14500 support would do better.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> Maybe they tested your tint before shipping it off, too! :eeew: :green: :sick2: haha
> 
> I've been waiting all morning to see this! So tell me, what's the performance difference between an eneloop pro and a lithium primary? Any?



My claim is true as long as I'm the first guy who actually paid for this light

I don't have any Lithium primaries with me at the moment but I doubt there will be noticeable output increase.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> Shipment already in the hands of people on the other side of the world, and *still *no runtime data posted at ZL's site. I'm really starting to suspect their dog ate their only reserved testing headlamp, *or maybe it was abducted by:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Or seeing ZL is based in IRVING, TX, maybe it was:
> 
> *



My guesstimate is that the runtime would be a bit better than SC5c's but not by a huge margin. Maybe Mr. president found out that these bad boys are made in China and want that sweet 45% tax from ZL before they are allowed to post runtimes?


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> My guesstimate is that the runtime would be a bit better than SC5c's but not by a huge margin. Maybe Mr. president found out that these bad boys are made in China and want that sweet 45% tax from ZL before they are allowed to post runtimes?



Those badboys are jipped in from "Jina". :laughing: 

Flashaholics shouldn't fear the prices or tariffs of a trade war on their lamps. These warnings are exaggerated high-balling of "the deal". _The Art of the Deal_, folks. Set your "price" obnoxiously high and act serious about it to get the "price" you really want (way more than the "price" should actually be). If you want _peace_, threaten _war_. If you want _fair trade_, threaten _tariffs_. I don't think "Jina" intends to take him seriously knowing how he is known to highball his way to a deal. Standby for more low price inbound lamps from "Jina".


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> First impression:
> 
> My first AA light. This thing is tiny (7.5cm in length).
> 
> Flawless construction. Perfect anodizing, silk smooth thread, pre-lubed with beefy O-ring. Heat sink is not chamfered but still feels nice.
> 
> Tint is perfect. Absolutely perfect. Pure white 4000K with no hue whatsoever. ZL might be the only company that offers flashlight with a 2-step Macadam ellipse tint variation. This is the perfect gift for tint snobs.
> 
> Throws a bit further than light with XHP50/XM-L2 easywhite due to smaller die size. (3.45mm^2 vs 5mm^2)
> 
> The end of the pocket clip gets in the way when I try to remove the tail cap but it's nothing to be worried about. This is more of an inevitable factor given how small this light is.
> 
> Don't forget that ZL introduces the new user programmable UI so you can have a UI completely tailored to your needs.
> 
> Even if I'm not a ZL fan I would still rate this light a 10/10. If you are looking for a small, lightweight (56g with eneloop), and versatile headlamp/light, look no further. If you are after crazy high lumens from one AA battery, this is not probably not for you. (~300 lumens of 4000K, high CRI light is impressive too but not the best money can buy)



*Anodizing*. The close ups make the anodizing look like it's speckled with scratches and pit marks. The bezel looks scratched. Is that dust? Am I seeing things?

*Tint*: I'm telling you, mate! They personally tested it _for you_--not _your_ shipment--_all of them_! No question they hand picked you the best tint of the bunch, hehe. It should turn others GREEN with ENVY! :green:

*Throw: *I don't know if you have an intensity meter to check lux at exactly 1 meter, but knowing it would give me the throw distance to 0.25 lumens. R=SQR(4xI). I asked ZL if they had 1 meter lux or max range data, and they said they don't. They merely provided a rough nontechnical off the hand guess. The H52 was technically measured by a popular reviewer at 66m yielding 1089 lux at 1 meter, but that was the clear lens model at max lumens (500lm). I might add, I noticed you had the frosted lens. It would be interesting to know _through measure_ how much that frosting impedes throw. I'm still considering it, or doing something like Magic Tape to spill the light. I've seen beam shots with that, and it's pretty darn pleasant for such an easy fix.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> *Anodizing*. The close ups make the anodizing look like it's speckled with scratches and pit marks. The bezel looks scratched. Is that dust? Am I seeing things?
> 
> *Tint*: I'm telling you, mate! They personally tested it _for you_--not _your_ shipment--_all of them_! No question they hand picked you the best tint of the bunch, hehe. It should turn others GREEN with ENVY! :green:
> 
> *Throw: *I don't know if you have an intensity meter to check lux at exactly 1 meter, but knowing it would give me the throw distance to 0.25 lumens. R=SQR(4xI). I asked ZL if they had 1 meter lux or max range data, and they said they don't. They merely provided a rough nontechnical off the hand guess. The H52 was technically measured by a popular reviewer at 66m yielding 1089 lux at 1 meter, but that was the clear lens model at max lumens (500lm). I might add, I noticed you had the frosted lens. It would be interesting to know _through measure_ how much that frosting impedes throw. I'm still considering it, or doing something like Magic Tape to spill the light. I've seen beam shots with that, and it's pretty darn pleasant for such an easy fix.



Yeah it's just dust you are seeing. Anodizing is actually perfect.

I don't have a lux meter, someone else might be able to contribute to this.


----------



## markr6

Nice thick anodizing, almost a hammertone finish. I love that! A couple of my latest zebralights are like that.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Yeah it's just dust you are seeing. Anodizing is actually perfect.
> 
> I don't have a lux meter, someone else might be able to contribute to this.



*Anodizing:* Excellent! In that case: 
*Meter:* Oh,_ someone,_ PLEASE do!


----------



## hiuintahs

Genzod said:


> .........I've been waiting all morning to see this! So tell me, what's the performance difference between an eneloop pro and a lithium primary? Any?


I don't have a Zebralight, but this is what I saw as difference on a different flashlight. The Energizer L91 primary will not perform nearly as well as the Eneloop at high discharge rate. At low to medium the L91 will keep up with the Eneloop in output and will have a longer run time.

On post #10 I have some graphs. Ignore the 14500.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-vs-Eneloops&p=5081318&highlight=#post5081318


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> First impression:
> 
> Throws a bit further than light with XHP50/XM-L2 easywhite due to smaller die size. (3.45mm^2 vs 5mm^2)
> 
> (~300 lumens of 4000K, high CRI light is impressive too but not the best money can buy)



*Throw:* When you say "a bit further" TCY, it might be harder for me to squeeze a subjective percentage difference out of you, so perhaps you can tell me _theoretically_, what might one expect in terms of improved throw performance with a smaller emitter. 

I do understand the principle of a smaller emitter and a reflector (creates the relative equivalent of a larger reflector which is great for throw, right?) What I don't understand is how to theoretically gauge that improvement in throw from the mathematical ratio of size of reflector to size of emitter.

Maybe you or someone else can put this in a _mathematical generalization_ or a specific estimate for % gain in throw for a % change in reflector/emitter proportion for this one special case? That way the actual range doesn't have to be known for the combination. 

I'm not shy for terms like "about" or "maybe". Just need the best idea so I can better appreciate the difference. (That doesn't mean I would poo-poo exacting figures! If you know them, impress me you clever ones!)

*Best $ can buy*: TCY, what did you have in mind exactly? Isn't this one top notch for its power range?


----------



## Genzod

hiuintahs said:


> I don't have a Zebralight, but this is what I saw as difference on a different flashlight. The Energizer L91 primary will not perform nearly as well as the Eneloop at high discharge rate. At low to medium the L91 will keep up with the Eneloop in output and will have a longer run time.
> 
> On post #10 I have some graphs. Ignore the 14500.
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-vs-Eneloops&p=5081318&highlight=#post5081318



Excellent point, *hiunitahs*. Taken into consideration. Thanx!

Question, would a 3.0V CR123 lithium primary perform better at high outputs, that is, no radical drop midway through the life of the battery, say up to at least 171 lumens on an H33 version of this headlamp?


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> *Throw:* When you say "a bit further" TCY, it might be harder for me to squeeze a subjective percentage difference out of you, so perhaps you can tell me _theoretically_, what might one expect in terms of improved throw performance with a smaller emitter.
> 
> I do understand the principle of a smaller emitter and a reflector (creates the relative equivalent of a larger reflector which is great for throw, right?) What I don't understand is how to theoretically gauge that improvement in throw from the mathematical ratio of size of reflector to size of emitter.
> 
> Maybe you or someone else can put this in a _mathematical generalization_ or a specific estimate for % gain in throw for a % change in reflector/emitter proportion for this one special case? That way the actual range doesn't have to be known for the combination.
> 
> I'm not shy for terms like "about" or "maybe". Just need the best idea so I can better appreciate the difference. (That doesn't mean I would poo-poo exacting figures! If you know them, impress me you clever ones!)
> 
> *Best $ can buy*: TCY, what did you have in mind exactly? Isn't this one top notch for it's power range?



Throw is a combination of lumens produced, LED size and reflector size. In this case no one knows the exact diameter of the reflector used so there can't be an equation derived. I'm not an expert on this, but given everything else remains the same, the smaller the emitter size is, the further the throw. By how much? I have no idea.

I was talking about the raw power a light can produce. I notice that several CPFer saying they want the 14500/boost mode on the H53, if people are after the brightest headlamp, the older H52 line would do the trick for them.


----------



## insanefred

Stop it guys... You are making me want to buy a H53c.


----------



## TCY

insanefred said:


> Stop it guys... You are making me want to buy a H53c.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


>



Hahaha, *TCY*--flashaholic after my own heart!


----------



## lampeDépêche

TCY said:


> Photos taken with HTC10. The following two shots are tint comparison: 1st is SC600Fd Plus 100lm, second one is H53Fc 55lm.
> WB:4900K ISO:400 Shutter Speed:1/320
> 
> [Good-looking cardboard box]
> 
> [better-looking cardboard box]



Thanks for all of the pics, TCY! I am very glad I pre-ordered this, and I hope that I'll get my shipping notice some day soon (but here in the States we may have to wait a few weeks).

The comparison with the SC600 Plus, which has excellent CRI itself, suggests that this light will have a wonderful tint (I like the warmer temp, too). But could you find a slightly more colorful subject for a test-photo, than a cardboard box? I mean--the ability to render browns is very important. I think wood-grain, for instance, is a great way to show what's wrong with low-CRI beams, because it all flattens out to silver haze.

But for your next demonstration of the H53c's good tint, could you shoot something with some greens and reds, too? A bowl of fruit? A book-shelf? Some color swatches? Thanks!


----------



## gunga

Awesome. Thanks for the impressions. Keep em coming!


----------



## Genzod

If :bow:_*anyone*_ does a *deeply technical* review of this lamp, I'd be interested in knowing at what point a lithium primary battery (Energizer L91) steps down from specified output in the higher levels like 285, 238, 171 and 106 lumens. I need primaries on long trail runs, and ZL only supplies runtimes for the rechargeable Eneloop Pros.


----------



## Mattz68

Wow! The anadization looks tough...almost like they dunked it a few extra times for good measure. This cause me to consider giving up my beloved H51c. -which for the record- has the best 4000k tint and a absolutely "unscratchable" surface. But at 225 lumens and 85 cri vs 300 and 95 cri, it may time for a change! P.s. Thanks for pictures


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Throw is a combination of lumens produced, LED size and reflector size. In this case no one knows the exact diameter of the reflector used so there can't be an equation derived. I'm not an expert on this, but given everything else remains the same, the smaller the emitter size is, the further the throw. By how much? I have no idea.
> 
> I was talking about the raw power a light can produce. I notice that several CPFer saying they want the 14500/boost mode on the H53, if people are after the brightest headlamp, the older H52 line would do the trick for them.



*TCY*, I found the equation for throw, but I could use some information. Does the lens have an anti-reflective coating on it? How many mm wide is the reflector opening at the bezel? I estimate 15.5 to 16 mm from graphical analysis, but I could use a good measurement. And is 3.45 mm^2 the top down view _area_ of the emitter?


----------



## TCY

lampeDépêche said:


> Thanks for all of the pics, TCY! I am very glad I pre-ordered this, and I hope that I'll get my shipping notice some day soon (but here in the States we may have to wait a few weeks).
> 
> The comparison with the SC600 Plus, which has excellent CRI itself, suggests that this light will have a wonderful tint (I like the warmer temp, too). But could you find a slightly more colorful subject for a test-photo, than a cardboard box? I mean--the ability to render browns is very important. I think wood-grain, for instance, is a great way to show what's wrong with low-CRI beams, because it all flattens out to silver haze.
> 
> But for your next demonstration of the H53c's good tint, could you shoot something with some greens and reds, too? A bowl of fruit? A book-shelf? Some color swatches? Thanks!



Your wish is my command


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> *TCY*, I found the equation for throw, but I could use some information. Does the lens have an anti-reflective coating on it? How many mm wide is the reflector opening at the bezel? I estimate 15.5 to 16 mm from graphical analysis, but I could use a good measurement. And is 3.45 mm^2 the top down view _area_ of the emitter?



All ZL lens have AR coating. Reflector is about 15mm wide. The size data is from Cree so I guess it is the top down view area of the emitter.


Keep in mind that ZL uses an orange peel reflector so if your equation implies a smooth reflector, the calculated result is not going to be so accurate.


----------



## TCY

I'm back with more tint comparisons. All photos are taken with HTC10, WB 5000K.


----------



## markr6

NICE TINT!!!! The SC5c should be the same...I hope so! Can't wait!

But that Nichia...just perfect as usual


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> All ZL lens have AR coating. Reflector is about 15mm wide. The size data is from Cree so I guess it is the top down view area of the emitter.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that ZL uses an orange peel reflector so if your equation implies a smooth reflector, the calculated result is not going to be so accurate.



Thank you for the lens coating info and the diameter. The equation doesn't take into consideration orange peel reflectors, but as you will see, the ratio technique I'm using makes that point moot.

The thing that confused me earlier about the emitter area is how you represented the size of the emitters. Cree described the size as a multiplication of the side dimensions--3.45x3.45mm. That would be 11.90mm^2. You described it as 3.45mm^2 when I think now you meant (3.45mm)^2. (Math is a language and parenthesis are essential here). I'm assuming now the area is 11.90mm^2. It is 25mm^2 in the H52.

We have certain things that changed in each lamp going from the H52 to the H53, and certain things that didn't change. All we need to do is compare the things that did change to figure out how the throw changed. The other things that didn't change, like orange peel reflector, reflector diameter, AR coating are irrelevant. They do not modify the upgrade in throw because they themselves were not modified going from one lamp to the other. 

Mathematically, the modifications are expressed as a ratio which are then multiplied by the original intensity (in the H52). The intensity determining the throw. Anything that didn't change is simply the ratio of equal numbers which divides out to 1. Multiplying original intensity by 1 does not increase or decrease it, so those aspects can be ignored. This is why orange peel reflectors are an irrelevant detail.

We just need to know, did throw improve or decline from one model to the next? We don't even need to know the original range to understand that as a percentage change.

According to the formula for throw stated elsewhere on this site *Intensity* = *[(Effective lens area)/(area of emitter)] x [max lumens/(solid angle)] x (lens efficiency)*. _As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the accuracy of this formula and whether its application is appropriate for our case, but for now, just for demonstration purposes, lets follow through to see where this takes us._ Please everyone remember this detail when that "tiny loose thread" non-issue gets pulled. )

From the equation we see that a smaller emitter area with similar lens diameter improves the throw. A decrease in max lumens shortens the throw because it decreases intensity _provided the beam geometry doesn't change!_ (And it doesn't). These are the only two factors that changed that appear to be relevant. Everything else when compared in this way divides out to 1. The _solid angles_ are the same because the beam geometries are the same in each lamp (12deg spot/80deg spill). The lens diameters are the same, so the lens areas are the same. These divide to 1 and can be ignored.

So I/Io = (Ao/A) x (V/Vo)

Where I=intensity (lux), A=Area (mm^2) and V=Volume of light (lm) (The "o" represents the _initial_ lamp, the H52w). "x" is multiplication. 

Units are irrelevant--those being similar divide out. There are no units in the final result as long as the same units are applied in each model. The answer is a percentage--no units.

Following through:

I/Io= [(5x5)/(3.45x3.45)] x (285/500) (See edit at foot of page)
I/Io= 2.1 x 0.57
I/Io= 1.2

There is approximately a 20% increase in intensity from shrinking the emitter and reducing the max output. The beneficial emitter area reduction compensates for the reduced output and adds some.

The increase in range is R/Ro=squareroot (I/Io) =sqrt(1.2) = 1.1

There is about a 10% increase in throw range. What is the max range of The H53c? 10% more than the H52, that's all I can say and really, all I care to know.

I remind everyone that I am not drawing a certain conclusion here. I am still trying to verify the equation for throw (intensity actually) is applicable and correct. 

The rationale of the ratio method stands. It is regularly used as a scientific comparison tool. That was the point of this post, to demonstrate it, and perhaps also to suggest that the smaller emitter change has a substantial effect on the resulting throw of the new model over the old even despite the reduction in max output.


*EDIT*: The correct max output of the H52 cool white is 535 lumens, not 500. So the increase in throw is actually 6% in comparison. A fairer test would be comparing identical tint and CRI versions, as in the H52w and H53w. We now know the H53w has a max of 330 lm and the H52 had a boost mode of 500 lm. The result is a 17.7% improvement in throw despite the vast difference in max outputs. :twothumbs

*EDIT:* I later learned I was misinformed about the LED die area. The area in the equation required the emitter _die_ area, not the _casing platform area_. The die sizes between the XM-L2 and XP-L2 are the same, so the ratio divides to one (no change). The only factor affecting throw that I'm aware of that did change between generations is output. For the H52w, the max output drops from 500 lm to 330 lm in the H53w. Intensity drops from 1815cd to 1018cd which is a drop in throw from 85m to 64m. 

*Final Conclusion:* The decrease in max outputs led to decreased throw, and there is no emitter die shrinkage to compensate for this loss.

However, the comparison tool is still correct, and the answers will be correct, _provided_ the information supplied to it is also correct.​


----------



## snowlover91

markr6 said:


> NICE TINT!!!! The SC5c should be the same...I hope so! Can't wait!
> 
> But that Nichia...just perfect as usual



Maybe it's just me but the H53C seems to bring out the wood grain and natural colors the best to me... the Nichia makes the wood grain look a bit washed out or something.


----------



## markr6

snowlover91 said:


> Maybe it's just me but the H53C seems to bring out the wood grain and natural colors the best to me... the Nichia makes the wood grain look a bit washed out or something.



I like how the Nichia shows it a little reddish, seems more natural. I see what you mean by washed out, but again I think that makes it look more realistic. Both ZL are a close second. That 6500K, trash.


----------



## TCY

snowlover91 said:


> Maybe it's just me but the H53C seems to bring out the wood grain and natural colors the best to me... the Nichia makes the wood grain look a bit washed out or something.



The 219Bs on my M43 has a very subtle pinkish tint that tends to "over do" reds and browns. While it looks great on its own, it's not as realistic as the XP-L2 from my perspective. By a very small margin though, I wouldn't notice the differences without direct comparison.

It's kind of like Samsung's AMOLED screen, looks great but oversaturates photos.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> Thank you for the lens coating info and the diameter. The equation doesn't take into consideration orange peel reflectors, but as you will see, the ratio technique I'm using makes that point moot.
> 
> The thing that confused me earlier about the emitter area is how you represented the size of the emitters. Cree described the size as a multiplication of the side dimensions--3.45x3.45mm. That would be 11.90mm^2. You described it as 3.45mm^2 when I think now you meant (3.45mm)^2. (Math is a language and parenthesis are essential here). I'm assuming now the area is 11.90mm^2. It is 25mm^2 in the H52.
> 
> We have certain things that changed in each lamp going from the H52 to the H53, and certain things that didn't change. All we need to do is compare the things that did change to figure out how the throw changed. The other things that didn't change, like orange peel reflector, reflector diameter, AR coating are irrelevant. They do not modify the upgrade in throw because they themselves were not modified going from one lamp to the other.
> 
> Mathematically, the modifications are expressed as a ratio which are then multiplied by the original intensity (in the H52). The intensity determining the throw. Anything that didn't change is simply the ratio of equal numbers which divides out to 1. Multiplying original intensity by 1 does not increase or decrease it, so those aspects can be ignored. This is why orange peel reflectors are an irrelevant detail.
> 
> We just need to know, did throw improve or decline from one model to the next? We don't even need to know the original range to understand that as a percentage change.
> 
> According to the formula for throw stated elsewhere on this site *Intensity* = *[(Effective lens area)/(area of emitter)] x [max lumens/(solid angle)] x (lens efficiency)*. _As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the accuracy of this formula and whether its application is appropriate for our case, but for now, just for demonstration purposes, lets follow through to see where this takes us._ Please everyone remember this detail when that "tiny loose thread" non-issue gets pulled. )
> 
> From the equation we see that a smaller emitter area with similar lens diameter improves the throw. A decrease in max lumens shortens the throw because it decreases intensity _provided the beam geometry doesn't change!_ (And it doesn't). These are the only two factors that changed that appear to be relevant. Everything else when compared in this way divides out to 1. The _solid angles_ are the same because the beam geometries are the same in each lamp (12deg spot/80deg spill). The lens diameters are the same, so the lens areas are the same. These divide to 1 and can be ignored.
> 
> So I/Io = (Ao/A) x (V/Vo)
> 
> Where I=intensity (lux), A=Area (mm^2) and V=Volume of light (lm) (The "o" represents the _initial_ lamp, the H52w). "x" is multiplication.
> 
> Units are irrelevant--those being similar divide out. There are no units in the final result as long as the same units are applied in each model. The answer is a percentage--no units.
> 
> Following through:
> 
> I/Io= [(5x5)/(3.45x3.45)] x (285/500)
> I/Io= 2.1 x 0.57
> I/Io= 1.2
> 
> There is approximately a 20% increase in intensity from shrinking the emitter and reducing the max output. The beneficial emitter area reduction compensates for the reduced output and adds some.
> 
> The increase in range is R/Ro=squareroot (I/Io) =sqrt(1.2) = 1.1
> 
> There is about a 10% increase in throw range. What is the max range of The H53d? 10% more than the H52, that's all I can say and really, all I care to know.
> 
> I remind everyone that I am not drawing a certain conclusion here. I am still trying to verify the equation for throw (intensity actually) is applicable and correct.
> 
> The rationale of the ratio method stands. It is regularly used as a scientific comparison tool. That was the point of this post, to demonstrate it, and perhaps also to suggest that the smaller emitter change has a substantial effect on the resulting throw of the new model over the old even despite the reduction in max output.



Now that you know the H53c does throw a bit further, will you get one?:devil:


----------



## lampeDépêche

TCY--Thanks so much! Those pics are perfect.

The slight difference between the H53 and the Nichias is not something that I can settle without seeing the original colors in the flesh. But the fact that the H53 is that close to Nichia 291bs says a lot. That is amazing tint performance in a high-output CREE LED.

Thank you ZL for hand-picking these LEDs!

Genzod, I agree with your calculations, and your approach. Ignore all of the dimensions that are the same between the two lights, and just focus (ha!) on the two that change, sc. emitter area and total lumens. The shrinkage in emitter makes up for the drop in lumens, when it comes to calculating the lux at the center of the beam.

It will be interesting to see how that translates into an actual illumination tool in the hand, i.e. when you point this thing around and want to look at stuff. (Sorry, I should have said "in the hand or on the head"). Will it feel a lot throwier than the old H52, because of the diminished spill? About the same, but all dimmer? I'm looking forward to finding out!

(And TCY--you *know* he's going to get one. He's already lost the struggle, whether he knows it or not.)


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Now that you know the H53c does throw a bit further, will you get one?:devil:



Haha, only if you don't tell anyone. :naughty:

Yes, that does make the 285 max lumens a non-issue here, doesn't it? 

Outdoor Gear Lab tested the H52 with alkalines and got a moonlight intensity (0.25 lux) at 66m. Because alkies can't boost to 535 lm, the best range must have been based on the 300 lm high. The boost range translates to 88m. Going from H52 to H53c, assuming 10% increased throw is at least ballpark accurate, that's about 97m and 2343 cd. _Sweet _if the calculations pan out. 

*EDIT:* The calculation panned out, but the input data didn't. The die areas did not change. Therefore there is no increased throw between generations.​
These are just numbers. I know and understand that different objects reflect light differently. I'm only using the numbers for comparison's sake. Sure would be good to know if ZL could confirm the new LED size does slightly increase throw compared to the H52 despite the output ceiling dropping.

What I would really like to know is how the H53c would perform in a very dark place with little to no ambient light, pointed two seconds in front of me on the ground while I ran 5mph (very fast on the AT while carrying a fastpack). That's 4.5 meters level. 

I know 285 lumens would certainly meet the job of helping me identify obstacles that I need to negotiate a path through. But that chews up battery, and I don't like to carry a lot of batteries. There's not a lot of I like to carry while I'm running.

Because I'm carrying primaries (have no opportunity to recharge and don't want to buy a lot of Eneloop Pros), I'd like the 56 lm setting to work at that pace (and range), while reserving the 106 setting for high beam during highly technical trail, to increase confidence while running. Going any higher than that, lithium primaries don't work so well and _might_ be stepped down early in the battery's life. Then it becomes trash. (Leave no trace!). I would have to put a fresh one in to continue at 171 lm. Not only do I have to carry more batteries, but I'm carrying that infernal useless half dead one, too!

I've run on the trail with a different lamp, but outputs are meaningless going from one lamp to the other because the beam geometries are different. On that lamp, moving 3.2 mph with 21.2 lumens was great, plenty of light and still economical. Walking 2.4 mph with 9.9 lumens was decent but quickly became marginal when regulation ended. 

The H53c has a wider spot and thins its lumens out, so the same volume of light (setting of the original lamp) won't do. It needs higher output than with the other lamp to compensate. The extra light increases intensity in the spill, particularly the foreground light (surrounding trees, their overhang, boulders and overgrowth as well) and thus shrinks the pupil, requiring more lumens until intensity at the spot center is perceived to be equal. I'm not constantly adjusting the lamp, just finding the lowest setting that will prove adequate so I don't have to continually adjust the lamp on say a level ridge, going up a mountain or coming down. Boy, those Petzl reactors are starting to make sense, haha. (Except when you breath fog out, then it dims).

Run faster, and your two second reaction time increases your forward spot distance, which thins out the light as it moves father away according to the distance square law. So you have to increase lumens until the perceived spot intensity is again equalized. 

All of this translates to needing higher outputs than the former lamp. The thing that stands in the way now is knowing exactly where in the output range of the H53c. If low: 26up, 56level/down, 106 highbeam, great. It works. If 56, 106, 171, then I might have step down issues at 171 creating useless batteries. So I'm still in research mode until I can resolve them.

A 3V CR123 H33 would solve the problem of step down at 171, wouldn't it? The higher voltage handles the load better? Maybe I'm just pining after the wrong model. 

Oh look, H32 gone, no H33 to replace it. What's a guy to do? :sigh:


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> TCY--Thanks so much! Those pics are perfect.
> 
> The slight difference between the H53 and the Nichias is not something that I can settle without seeing the original colors in the flesh. But the fact that the H53 is that close to Nichia 291bs says a lot. That is amazing tint performance in a high-output CREE LED.
> 
> Thank you ZL for hand-picking these LEDs!
> 
> Genzod, I agree with your calculations, and your approach. Ignore all of the dimensions that are the same between the two lights, and just focus (ha!) on the two that change, sc. emitter area and total lumens. The shrinkage in emitter makes up for the drop in lumens, when it comes to calculating the lux at the center of the beam.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how that translates into an actual illumination tool in the hand, i.e. when you point this thing around and want to look at stuff. (Sorry, I should have said "in the hand or on the head"). Will it feel a lot throwier than the old H52, because of the diminished spill? About the same, but all dimmer? I'm looking forward to finding out!
> 
> (And TCY--you *know* he's going to get one. He's already lost the struggle, whether he knows it or not.)



Thanks for your affirmation to my calculations. Sometimes I think I'm all alone in my derivations and I'm LOSING MY MIND!  AHH_HAHAHAHAHAHAAH! 

Oh, I'm sold on Zebralight. The ability to program the most useful of 12 output options is the next best thing to infinite rotary dimmer. I just don't know if I'm an H53c man or an H33w man, yet. At the moment I'm preferring the next CR123 compact.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> It will be interesting to see how that translates into an actual illumination tool in the hand, i.e. when you point this thing around and want to look at stuff. (Sorry, I should have said "in the hand or on the head"). Will it feel a lot throwier than the old H52, because of the diminished spill? About the same, but all dimmer? I'm looking forward to finding out!



Correct me if I'm wrong, but because of the relatively narrow spot, it doesn't seem to me to take a lot of lumens to crank up the intensity at center. So most of the lumens I think are already distributed in the spill. 

*Edit:* (better example) Suppose you have an H53c with an emitter that has the efficiency of an XP-L2 but the size of an XM-L2; it also outputs a maximum 285 lumens. About 35 lm would be in the spot and 250 in the spill. It would have a mediocre 64 m range @ 0.25lux. Then you shrink the size of the emitter to 3.45x3.45mm. You now have 211 in the spill and 74 lumens in the spot, throwing it to 93m @ 0.25lux. You redirected 39 lumens from the 250 lm spill (without changing spot and spill angles) to increase throw 45%, that's a -15.6% change in spill lumens/intensity. Not a large change to the spill, but a dramtic change to the throw.

But I may have totally lost my mind, so anyone feel free to step right on in, haha.


----------



## scs

Do digital cameras make some sort of calibration depending on the largest area of a single color they detect in frame? Would the background color influence how they capture colors of the other objects in frame?


----------



## scs

Genzod, would you be ok with the bouncing hotspot? Otherwise, you need a more floody beam profile.


----------



## LightObsession

snowlover91 said:


> Maybe it's just me but the H53C seems to bring out the wood grain and natural colors the best to me... the Nichia makes the wood grain look a bit washed out or something.



Beam intensity, angle of incidence and spot/spill may impact that perception, also.


----------



## Genzod

scs said:


> Genzod, would you be ok with the bouncing hotspot? Otherwise, you need a more floody beam profile.



Magic tape to the rescue!


----------



## Genzod

*TCY*, No anti-reflective coating on the H52 or H53, according to ZL. I'm surprised that ZL doesn't know whether the geometry of the reflector between the two headlamps changed in anyway. Somebody chose the reflector geometry to be a certain way--he would be called _the designer_. Maybe the guy who designed the H52 and H53 lives in "Jina", and he doesn't give out his email address.:laughing:

Internal dimensions and performance parameters must be classified *TOP SECRET* in Irving. Quick, call the Pentagon. He must be a spy stealing cutting edge proprietary American technical information! SEIZE HIM!

You ask simple questions with easy, uncompromising answers and you get the bum rush. You business people ever think that maybe the asker is just trying to make an informed decision about purchasing one of your lamps? Cheez-n-crackers! Put the helpful information on the product page already so we don't have to calculate these things ourselves (max range or max intensity). Fenix Nitecore and Armytek do. They don't seem to have anything to hide!

20-30 yards throw? What does that even mean? I would NEVER buy a headlamp to hike with at night that only has 30 yards of throw. NEVER. That's insane. How helpful do you think that unqualified answer was? Most technically savvy lamps in your league that have a useful throw for hiking have a maximum reach of 90 meters at max output. NINETY. 

ZL, if you finally come to your senses, and you get around to posting your performance parameters on your product page, use a qualification _standard_ for proper comparison. Lux at one meter (cd) or max range to 0.25 lux (moonlight).


----------



## lampeDépêche

Woo-hoo! Just got my shipping order!

"[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]Shipping to continental U.S. via USPS takes about 2-4 days.[/FONT]"

So probably by Monday, anyhow.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Woo-hoo! Just got my shipping order!
> 
> "[FONT=wf_segoe-ui_normal]Shipping to continental U.S. via USPS takes about 2-4 days.[/FONT]"
> 
> So probably by Monday, anyhow.



Oh, you lucky *******! haha 

Thanks for mentioning the decrease in spill intensity when range is increased by virtue of smaller emitter area. The lumens to increase spot range had to come from someplace, right? This light stuff is fascinating. I appreciate your insights, all of you.


----------



## TCY

Genzod, where do you get the info of no AR coating? I remember a fellow CPFer asking that his ZL lens doesn't have the fancy purple reflection, and ZL's reply was that the coating just looks different. See this page for the full discussion: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?386357-Zebralight-SC62-and-SC62w/page3

ZL's reply at #82.


----------



## TCY

Runtime is now available.

Compare to the old H52:

285lm for 0.9hr/300lm for 0.9hr

106lm for 3.8hrs/116lm for 3hrs

56lm for 7.6 hrs/54lm for 7.5 hrs

26lm for 17hrs/27lm for 12hrs

10.3lm for 39hrs/13lm for 27 hrs

3.5lm for 4.2 days/2.9lm for 4 days

Overall a very impressive improvement on the mid-low modes and marginal improvement on other levels. Keep in mind this is a comparison of lights using different LEDs. We should see even better runtimes if ZL decides to stuff a cool white regular XP-L2 into the H53c.


----------



## eraursls1984

TCY said:


> Runtime is now available...
> 
> Overall a very impressive improvement on the mid-low modes and marginal improvement on other levels. Keep in mind this is a comparison of lights using different LEDs. We should see even better runtimes if ZL decides to stuff a cool white regular XP-L2 into the H53c.


Or even just a non Hi-CRI w model.


----------



## insanefred

You guys are a bad influence. I just ordered the H53fc.


----------



## snowlover91

markr6 said:


> I like how the Nichia shows it a little reddish, seems more natural. I see what you mean by washed out, but again I think that makes it look more realistic. Both ZL are a close second. That 6500K, trash.



Yeah 6500k is trash now, I can't stand to use any of my lights with it anymore after getting used to the high crib and warm tints. To me the pictures look like what TCY mentioned; the reds and hint of pink are a bit overdone, at least in the photo with the nichia while the ZL seems to bring out the natural wood grain color a tad better. Either way they're incredibly close and if this is a sign of what to expect in the SC5c MK2... then I think our tint lotto days might be done.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Genzod, where do you get the info of no AR coating? I remember a fellow CPFer asking that his ZL lens doesn't have the fancy purple reflection, and ZL's reply was that the coating just looks different. See this page for the full discussion: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?386357-Zebralight-SC62-and-SC62w/page3
> 
> ZL's reply at #82.



Apparently then, somebody doesn't know what they are talking about, and I'm not implying it is you TCY, anyone on CPF or the person at ZL who helped you. 

Maybe Zebralight will read this post and realize a need to train their staff better or perhaps find another more helpful and knowledgeable "staff administrator"? 


User/DateMessage*Customer*
5/16/2017 2:50:39 PMAre there any changes to the reflector/lens geometry (distances across and deep) going from the H52 to the H53?

Is there any anti-reflective lens coating on either model. (not meaning the floody frosting)

Thanks




*Staff (Administrator)*
5/16/2017 8:33:57 PMSorry, we don't have give out dimensions of internal components. 

No anti-reflecting coating on the H52 or H53.



If I ask a "staff administrator" if any _changes_ occurred to the geometry of the reflector/lens combo transitioning from the H52 to the H53 (remember: no changes = influences to throw divide out?), that's a simple _yes _or _no_ answer that requires no release of "TOP SECRET proprietary information". Instead I get "policed". (You can't have the internal dimensions--CLASSIFIED!) I came away from it thinking no effort to actually think about what was being asked of them was made. I also felt miffed as if they were suggesting my question was solicited for the purpose of espionage .

I should ask them again in caps (maybe they're hard of hearing): "ARE THERE ANY CHANGES..." Maybe stipulated this time to remove all doubt "YES OR NO?" If a _spy_ wanted "internal dimensions" all he would have to do is crack open a flashlight and copy it. (Give me a break.)

Nah, after the _duplicitous_ statements coming from Zebralight about the lens coating, I've lost complete confidence in anything they say. If they want to be helpful, I'd need an ANSI standard qualification coming along with their intensity rating or throw data. 

I'm not really angry with ZL, although I'm sure that's the the likely fruit of such treatment in many cases. It's more _frustration_ with me. I just want to know the _measured _reach of their flashlight--Intensity or range to a qualified flux level. Please don't tell me (ZL) a flashlight manufacturer doesn't know these details about their own products. I'm not that ignorant. I'd have the guess the _clerk_ I asked doesn't know and is too lazy to seek out the answer. 

If ZL doesn't know the measured range or max intensity (they say they don't), give me some_ knowledgeable _assistance with a simple yes or no answer so I can calculate the range myself (Isn't that the only alternative they have left me with? Customer service motto--_we let the customer do all the work!_). Use some reading comprehension ZL, and stop treating your customers as if they are after your most guarded secrets.

I leave you with this experience I had that I think best speaks to the quality of customer service at ZL: 

I visited my alma mater over 17 years ago and went to the university's "Information Desk" (on two separate occasions). The student clerks responded to my questions both times with "did you check the internet?" 

And the university actually _pays _these students to frustrate visiting alumni? Maybe these two students clerks could stop surfing the net for a moment themselves and look it up on the internet for me.


----------



## Genzod

I went to the thread TCY pointed me to and read ZL's statement on lens coatings and found this:

Their answer: "Yes, there are AR coatings on the glass. We've been using Corning Gorrila Glass 2 on the SC52 from day one (late 2012). Some later batches of SC52 may also some with Gorrila Glass 3 or our usuall Schott B270. Gorrila Glass 2/3 has to be AR coated differently, and the coatinngs look different.
The Gorrila Glass is one feature, among several others, we preloaded way before annoucing to public.
*The SC52, H600, and SC62 share the same lens and reflectors.*"

Compare that to what their answer was in their response to me provided in my last post here. I asked the same type of question about the H52/H53 family and was given an apparently wrong answer about the lens coatings and a dismissive answer about the reflector/lens. I'm no longer frustrated with ZL . I'm now steaming mad :hairpull:. 

Really, ZL? What's going on here? I would think an apology would be in order_, _or better yet, how about just kicking down (ZL), do some legwork and open a file cabinet in your office and fetching the lux qualified max range / max intensity data for me (and for everyone else here who would probably also like to know)? 

Additionally, I'd like to know if ZL intends to continue allowing their CS agents to make _duplicitous_ statements or _dismiss_ customer questions because they are just too lazy or lack the appropriate level of reading comprehension to do their job properly?


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> Runtime is now available.
> 
> Compare to the old H52:
> 
> 285lm for 0.9hr/300lm for 0.9hr
> 
> 106lm for 3.8hrs/116lm for 3hrs
> 
> 56lm for 7.6 hrs/54lm for 7.5 hrs
> 
> 26lm for 17hrs/27lm for 12hrs
> 
> 10.3lm for 39hrs/13lm for 27 hrs
> 
> 3.5lm for 4.2 days/2.9lm for 4 days
> 
> Overall a very impressive improvement on the mid-low modes and marginal improvement on other levels. Keep in mind this is a comparison of lights using different LEDs. We should see even better runtimes if ZL decides to stuff a cool white regular XP-L2 into the H53c.



Thank you for the runtimes and the comparison. Cool white LEDs tends to run more efficiently than the warmer hi-CRI versions of the same family, right? I would think a comparison to the H52w would have been closer to the truth. I think you were implying that in the last part of your statement.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> I went to the thread TCY pointed me to and read ZL's statement on lens coatings and found this:
> 
> Their answer: "Yes, there are AR coatings on the glass. We've been using Corning Gorrila Glass 2 on the SC52 from day one (late 2012). Some later batches of SC52 may also some with Gorrila Glass 3 or our usuall Schott B270. Gorrila Glass 2/3 has to be AR coated differently, and the coatinngs look different.
> The Gorrila Glass is one feature, among several others, we preloaded way before annoucing to public.
> *The SC52, H600, and SC62 share the same lens and reflectors.*"
> 
> Compare that to what their answer was in their response to me provided in my last post here. I asked the same type of question about the H52/H53 family and was given an apparently wrong answer about the lens coatings and a dismissive answer about the reflector/lens. I'm no longer frustrated with ZL . I'm now steaming mad :hairpull:.
> 
> Really, ZL? What's going on here? I would think an apology would be in order_, _or better yet, how about just kicking down (ZL), do some legwork and open a file cabinet in your office and fetching the lux qualified max range / max intensity data for me (and for everyone else here who would probably also like to know)?
> 
> Additionally, I'd like to know if ZL intends to continue allowing their CS agents to make _duplicitous_ statements or _dismiss_ customer questions because they are just too lazy or lack the appropriate level of reading comprehension to do their job properly?



It could be that it's just their AA headlamp lines come without the AR coating, but I don't see a reason they leave the headlamps alone. Nevertheless after ~3 days of using my H53Fc I find it to be very useful and the beam profile to be spot on, extremely practical.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> Thank you for the runtimes and the comparison. Cool white LEDs tends to run more efficiently than the warmer hi-CRI versions of the same family, right? I would think a comparison to the H52w would have been closer to the truth. I think you were implying that in the last part of your statement.



Yes. Neutral white LED tends to lose ~7% output compared to cool white variants, and high CRI options are even less efficient. Before Cree offers any serviceable high CRI LEDs, Nichia 219B rules the high CRI flashlight market but it comes with a downside: efficiency. On a 18650 based light the maximum output of a 219B could reach 350+ lumens, sounds good on its own but the market is full of flashlights that can pump more than 1000+ lumens, and the vast majority of consumers only care about the quantity of light instead of quality, leading to numerous flashlight manufacturers designing flashlights with 4*219B for the lumen wars (needless to say, runtime is abysmal). IIRC the SC600Fd Plus is the first single-LED flashlight on the market that can pump out 1500 high CRI OTF lumens with more than acceptable runtimes. Also ZL is basically the market leader when it comes to offering flashlight with neutral white tint and high CRI options. Recent years I see major brands like Nitecore and Fenix starting to offer neutral white and 219B options which I think is on a good/right path.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Tracking says I'll have to wait until Monday for my new toy, alas.

Does a change of emitter change run-times? I know that cooler/lower-CRI emitters are more efficient in lumens/watt. But does that greater efficiency affect the run-time, or just the output at any given time?

My overly-simplistic picture of the electronics is that the driver circuit meters out different amounts of current for different levels, and keeps putting them out until it runs out of juice (or kicks down to a lower level). What the emitter does with that has minimal feedback effects on the circuit.

Put differently: if the driver on M1 gives me (e.g.) 50ma of current for 7.5 hours, then that's what it gives me no matter which emitter is in it. A more efficient emitter will put out more *lumens* throughout that 7.5 hrs (ugly, low-CRI lumens), but it will not put out more lumens *for a longer time*. 

I know that this is too simple of an analysis because, e.g. vF can affect how the circuit works, and an emitter with lower vF will be more efficient and may cause the driver to shift to a lower amperage.

But I assume that vF will not change when you move from a hi-CRI, 4000k XPL to a low-CRI, 6000k XPL. As I understand it (i.e. not very well), the vF is a property of the whole family of emitters.

Anyhow--this is my guess: If you put a cooler, lower-CRI version of the same LED into the same driver, it will register higher outputs, but not longer run-times.


----------



## TCY

lampeDépêche said:


> Tracking says I'll have to wait until Monday for my new toy, alas.
> 
> Does a change of emitter change run-times? I know that cooler/lower-CRI emitters are more efficient in lumens/watt. But does that greater efficiency affect the run-time, or just the output at any given time?
> 
> My overly-simplistic picture of the electronics is that the driver circuit meters out different amounts of current for different levels, and keeps putting them out until it runs out of juice (or kicks down to a lower level). What the emitter does with that has minimal feedback effects on the circuit.
> 
> Put differently: if the driver on M1 gives me (e.g.) 50ma of current for 7.5 hours, then that's what it gives me no matter which emitter is in it. A more efficient emitter will put out more *lumens* throughout that 7.5 hrs (ugly, low-CRI lumens), but it will not put out more lumens *for a longer time*.
> 
> I know that this is too simple of an analysis because, e.g. vF can affect how the circuit works, and an emitter with lower vF will be more efficient and may cause the driver to shift to a lower amperage.
> 
> But I assume that vF will not change when you move from a hi-CRI, 4000k XPL to a low-CRI, 6000k XPL. As I understand it (i.e. not very well), the vF is a property of the whole family of emitters.
> 
> Anyhow--this is my guess: If you put a cooler, lower-CRI version of the same LED into the same driver, it will register higher outputs, but not longer run-times.


It's all about perspective. The reason I did the runtime comparison with H52 is that these two lights produce similar maximum lumens. Notice I only listed runtimes of similar outputs. You are viewing it from a runtime/current perspective.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> It could be that it's just their AA headlamp lines come without the AR coating, but I don't see a reason they leave the headlamps alone. Nevertheless after ~3 days of using my H53Fc I find it to be very useful and the beam profile to be spot on, extremely practical.



Their duplicitous response on the reflector question suggests otherwise. My issue is with their staff, not with their product. They clearly have a good product. They could work to improve their staff.


----------



## Genzod

*
*I originally made this now deleted post to demonstrate that interpolation and regression can be used to line up the outputs of two lamps, so run-times can be better compared between lamps. 

Unfortunately, in comparing the H53c with the H52w, I made the realization after I posted the example that the H53c runtimes were for the most part more efficient only because ZL used a higher capacity Eneloop Pro during the runtime test of the H53c (2550mAH compared to 2000mAh). I also noticed that there appears to be a newly mentioned (and probably more restrictive) constraint for run-time evaluation cutoff, further complicating matters.

I attempted to redo the work this morning, taking a few hours for a nap and waking up only to discover the H53w and corresponding run-times had been posted.

As a result, I decided to step back and study this problem a little better, using the H53w data. Had the run-time battery and constraints been exactly the same, I think this work of mathematical gymnastics would have been more productive and "illuminating". I'm removing it for now to spare you the confusion in what has been an exercise of futility.

*EDIT:* I've reattempted the analysis at this post. Instead of interpolation, I regressed the efficacy vs output curves to more accurately predict run-time between outputs. Links to data plots and regression curve fits are provided.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Before I do hard math, I try to get a ball-park sense of what a plausible result would look like. 

I have not done the math to reproduce your results. But I have to say, these do not look like plausible results.

The raw, unadjusted comparison for one of the medium levels is this: H53: _56lm for 7.6 hrs; H52: 54lm for 7.5 hrs
_So can see that the h53 is more efficient: it gives 2 more lumens for .1 more hours.

But you have that level listed as showing a 37% boost in efficiency. That looks way too big. 56/54 x 76/75 = 1.051. 

So about a 5% boost, not 37%

But maybe I am missing something here?


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Before I do hard math, I try to get a ball-park sense of what a plausible result would look like.
> 
> I have not done the math to reproduce your results. But I have to say, these do not look like plausible results.
> 
> The raw, unadjusted comparison for one of the medium levels is this: H53: _56lm for 7.6 hrs; H52: 54lm for 7.5 hrs
> _So can see that the h53 is more efficient: it gives 2 more lumens for .1 more hours.
> 
> But you have that level listed as showing a 37% boost in efficiency. That looks way too big. 56/54 x 76/75 = 1.051.
> 
> So about a 5% boost, not 37%
> 
> But maybe I am missing something here?



AWP!

(No..just kidding, haha)

To better grasp it, you have to see them all simultaneously. Go ahead, list them,_ feel the scattered force flow through you, Luke!_ (I'm not afraid of the peculiarities; data analysts never are). Try to make sense of it at the same time. That's why we have regressions through scattered data, to make sense of it. Good luck! 

EDIT: I had inadvertently overlooked the fact two different capacities of Eneloop batteries (and possibly a different constraint used in determining runtimes) were used in the H53c and H52w runtimes, when I compared them. This created a false sense of substantial runtime improvement in the data. Also, some of the data scatter I encountered was due to wrongly interpolating runtimes into corresponding equivalent outputs for comparison, when I should have interpolated energy (lm-hrs) first, then divided out the the output to get runtime. Nevertheless, there still is runtime data scatter inherent in the experimental measurements, when comparing runtime gains/losses as a percentage, and a curve fitting regression is necessary to make dynamic sense of that aspect of the data.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Before I do hard math, I try to get a ball-park sense of what a plausible result would look like.
> 
> I have not done the math to reproduce your results. But I have to say, these do not look like plausible results.
> 
> The raw, unadjusted comparison for one of the medium levels is this: H53: _56lm for 7.6 hrs; H52: 54lm for 7.5 hrs
> _So can see that the h53 is more efficient: it gives 2 more lumens for .1 more hours.
> 
> But you have that level listed as showing a 37% boost in efficiency. That looks way too big. 56/54 x 76/75 = 1.051.
> 
> So about a 5% boost, not 37%
> 
> But maybe I am missing something here?



*lampeDépêche*, I can tell you there is one thing I did miss. My regression technique is correct, but there was one fact I and perhaps others (and yourself as well?) overlooked, the H52w was tested with 2000mAh Eneloops, and the H53c was tested with 2500 mAh Eneloop Pros. I'm not sure what the cut off standard was that ZL used in their H52w runtime benchtest. I'm going to put a temporary warning statement in my post and redo the numbers with the same method and see what I get. But I'm tapped for the evening, so hang on to your britches until I can get around to that tomorrow.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Before I do hard math, I try to get a ball-park sense of what a plausible result would look like.
> 
> I have not done the math to reproduce your results. But I have to say, these do not look like plausible results.
> 
> The raw, unadjusted comparison for one of the medium levels is this: H53: _56lm for 7.6 hrs; H52: 54lm for 7.5 hrs
> _So can see that the h53 is more efficient: it gives 2 more lumens for .1 more hours.
> 
> But you have that level listed as showing a 37% boost in efficiency. That looks way too big. 56/54 x 76/75 = 1.051.
> 
> So about a 5% boost, not 37%
> 
> But maybe I am missing something here?



I think you are making a comparison with the H52 cool white model? I compared the neutral tint H52w. I think the H52w output is 50 lm and 7.5h. That puts it a little further away from the 56 lm of the H53c for the linear interpolation.


----------



## lampeDépêche

You're right, Genzod--I was using the numbers that TCY posted back @ #240, which compared the new H53c to the old cool H52.



TCY said:


> Runtime is now available.
> 
> Compare to the old H52:
> 
> 285lm for 0.9hr/300lm for 0.9hr
> 
> 106lm for 3.8hrs/116lm for 3hrs
> 
> 56lm for 7.6 hrs/54lm for 7.5 hrs
> 
> 26lm for 17hrs/27lm for 12hrs
> 
> 10.3lm for 39hrs/13lm for 27 hrs
> 
> 3.5lm for 4.2 days/2.9lm for 4 days
> 
> Overall a very impressive improvement on the mid-low modes and marginal improvement on other levels. Keep in mind this is a comparison of lights using different LEDs. We should see even better runtimes if ZL decides to stuff a cool white regular XP-L2 into the H53c.


----------



## lampeDépêche

So this approach is much simpler from the math perspective, but it should give some insight.

I calculated lumen-hours at each level, i.e. the product of lumens multiplied times run-times.

If the circuit and the emitter were equally efficient at every output level, then this figure would be a constant throughout the range. In fact, you see that the efficiency is greatest towards the middle of the range (around 20-50 lumens or so), and drops off at higher and at lower levels.

Here are the lumen-hours for the new H53c and the old H52w:

H52w with 2000mAh cell: 


⁃ H1 280 Lm (0.9 hrs) 280 x 0.9 = 252 lm*hrs
⁃ H2.1 172 Lm (1.7 hrs) 172 x 1.7 = 292 lm*hrs
⁃ H2.2 108 Lm (3 hrs) 108 x 3 = 324 lm*hrs
⁃ M1 50 Lm (7.5 hrs) 50 x 7.5 = 375 lm*hrs
⁃ M2.1 25 Lm (12 hrs) 25 x 12 = 300 lm*hrs
⁃ M2.2 12 Lm (27 hrs) 12 x 27 = 324 lm*hrs
⁃ L1 2.7 Lm (4 days) 2.7 x 96 = 259 lm*hrs
⁃ L2.1 0.34 Lm (3 weeks) 0.34 x 21 x 24 = 171 lm*hrs
⁃ L2.2 0.06 Lm (2 months) 0.06 x 60 x 24 = 86 lm*hrs
⁃ L2.3 0.01 Lm (3 months) 0.01 x 90 x 24 = 22 lm *hrs
⁃ 
⁃ 
⁃ H53c with 2550mAh cell:
⁃ 
⁃ H1 285 Lm (0.9 hr) 285 x 0.9 = 257 lm*hrs
⁃ H2.1 238 Lm (1.5 hr) 238 x 1.5 = 357 lm*hrs
⁃ H2.1 171 Lm (2.2 hrs) 171 x 2.2 = 376 lm*hrs
⁃ H2.3 106 Lm (3.8 hrs) 106 x 3.8 = 403 lm*hrs
⁃ M1 56 Lm (7.6 hrs) 56 x 7.6 = 426 lm*hrs
⁃ M2.1 26 Lm (17 hrs) 26 x 17 = 442 lm*hrs
⁃ M2.2 10.3 Lm (39 hrs) 10.3 x 39 = 402 lm*hrs
⁃ M2.3 3.5 Lm (4.2 days) 3.5 x 4.2 x 24 = 353 lm*hrs
⁃ L1 1.0 Lm (12 days) 1.0 x 12 x 24 = 288 lm*hrs
⁃ L2.1 0.26 Lm (1 month) 0.26 x 30 x 24 = 187 lm*hrs
⁃ L2.2 0.06 Lm (2 months) 0.06 x 60 x 24 = 86 lm*hrs
⁃ L 2.3 0.01 Lm (3 months) 0.01 x 90 x 24 = 22 lm*hrs

Now, if you used the 2550mAh cell with the old light, all of the run-times would be increased by 2550/2000, i.e. a factor of 1.275. But none of the H53c figures are better than the old H52w numbers times 1.275. (e.g., at its most efficient level, the H52w puts out 375 lm*hrs on a 2000mAh cell, so 478 lm*hrs on a 2550 cell. That's higher than the most efficient level for the H53c, which is 442 lm*hrs).

The upshot is that *if* the old H52w numbers really were using a 2000mAh cell, and the new H53c numbers are using a 2550mAh cell, then the new light is measurably *less* efficient than the old one was. I hope the website has made an error about which cells were used!


----------



## markr6

*H53w and H53Fw up for sale*. Or have they been? I can't keep track anymore. Ships ~June 15

H53w
Cree XP-L2 EasyWhite LED
Nominal CCT 4500K
Minimum CRI: 80
Tint deviation: 3-Step


----------



## lampeDépêche

Not just for sale--mine arrived in my mailbox today! (Upstate New York--300 kilometers from anything).

Have to wait until I get home from work to see it. I will try to write up some notes later tonight.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Not just for sale--mine arrived in my mailbox today! (Upstate New York--300 kilometers from anything).
> 
> Have to wait until I get home from work to see it. I will try to write up some notes later tonight.



He's pointing out the 4500K/80CRI model is now up on the board and has a product page. I guess we can compare H53w to H52w runtimes now, as they seem to have provided runtimes for that model as well. At first glance, the 285/330 lm jump at the same runtime of 0.9 hrs is interesting.


----------



## markr6

Genzod said:


> He's pointing out the 4500K/80CRI model is now up on the board and has a product page. I guess we can compare H53w to H52w runtimes now, as they seem to have provided runtimes for that model as well. At first glance, the 285/330 lm jump at the same runtime of 0.9 hrs is interesting.



Yessir. H53w


----------



## lampeDépêche

Woops! Sorry--I totally missed what markr6 was talking about.

Right--okay, it is the H53C that arrived in my mailbox today.

Hmm--the H53W still does not support a higher H1 boost mode. And for the loss of 13-15 CRI points, you get only a 16% lumen boost on high (from 285-330).

Personally speaking, I am glad that I did not wait.


----------



## markr6

lampeDépêche said:


> Woops! Sorry--I totally missed what markr6 was talking about.
> 
> Right--okay, it is the H53C that arrived in my mailbox today.
> 
> Hmm--the H53W still does not support a higher H1 boost mode. And for the loss of 13-15 CRI points, you get only a 16% lumen boost on high (from 285-330).
> 
> Personally speaking, I am glad that I did not wait.



Yeah, absolutely no reason to go with the *w* for just a little bump. Unless the tint sucks as bad on the H53c as it does my SC5c. She's yellow!


----------



## lampeDépêche

markr6 said:


> Yeah, absolutely no reason to go with the *w* for just a little bump. Unless the tint sucks as bad on the H53c as it does my SC5c. She's yellow!



Well, I might not be the best person for you to rely on, then, because I tend to like that candle-light glow. 

That's why I love those Yuji HiCRI 5mms so much--they make everything look warm and honey-soaked. And I like that! But it might be too yellow for you.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Woops! Sorry--I totally missed what markr6 was talking about.
> 
> Right--okay, it is the H53C that arrived in my mailbox today.
> 
> Hmm--the H53W still does not support a higher H1 boost mode. And for the loss of 13-15 CRI points, you get only a 16% lumen boost on high (from 285-330).
> 
> Personally speaking, I am glad that I did not wait.



Should be more economical, but when you notice the outputs are higher at each corresponding level, that is just going into producing brighter light.


----------



## markr6

wrong thread


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Hmm--the H53W still does not support a higher H1 boost mode. And for the loss of 13-15 CRI points, you get only a 16% lumen boost on high (from 285-330).



*Moderator:* (Just in case...) This comparison between the H53w and the H52w relates to which headlamp is a better choice, the recently shipped *H53c* or the preorder H53w. It is also mentioning a specific request regarding the *H53c* and is IMHO relevant to the thread. I started a thread for the H53w, and hope conversations will seed there instead.

*lampeDépêche, *I did a quick runtime check on the H53w at the interpolated output of 280 lm. Energy interpolates to 426 lm-hrs at 280 lm (between 330x0.9 and 275x1.6). Dividing by 280 to get the hypothetical runtime at 280 lm output (to compare to the H52w at said output), the virtual runtime on the H53w is 1.52 hrs. Adjusting for battery capacity--1.52 hrs x (2000/2550) I get 1.194 h. Comparing that to 0.9 hours of the H52w (at 280 lm), I get 1.327. So that's a 32.7% better run time potential at that level (if only it were available). The reality is, they translated that virtual gain into performance by setting the output higher, producing more light (330 lm compared to 280 lm) as opposed to extending battery life by setting it close to 280 lm.. 

On the positive side of the H53w, people who like a neutral tint closer to daylight will like it better (than the *H53c*). Also, the outputs are a little brighter at each corresponding setting, which I might find appealing for running. I think the 56 lm output on the *H53c* would be my most used setting while fastpacking mountains at night, but 65 lm on the H53w would give me about 5% more perceived light increase. That little boost is appealing because it makes up for losses using a diffuser (2 lm) and has left over residual increased brightness, while giving me the same economy.

Also, the 16% improved max output translates to an 8% improvement in throw. _If_ the max throw to 0.25 lux is 93m, the smaller emitter area improving upon that (I think it was 88m on the H52 at 535 lm boost) it would now be 100m on the H53w. I like that since that would be my go to setting for finding trail blazes that typically have a 200 foot spacing. 
*
EDIT:* These exagerated throws were based on misinformation that led to the conclusion that the die sizes had shrunk between ZL H5x generations--from 5x5mm to 3.45x3.45mm. The die sizes inside the emitter platforms are the same. Therefore the throw at max output is only about 69m for the H53w and 64m for the H53c. 

I've also abandoned _linear_ interpolation between outputs as a method to compare run time with the previous model. It's best to regress the (OTF) efficacy vs output curve derived from the run time data, then examine points in between outputs for comparison. I've revamped my analysis of run time at this post.​
So many choices...so little time! *H53c* or H53w. :thinking:

*lampeDépêche** , *If you are planning to do some outside beam shots of your *H53c* (don't feel obligated  instead, feel _entitled_ to boast :laughing: you know you want to!:devil, I'd be interested in seeing photos of running level light aimed at the ground with the center about 4.5 meters (or a little less) in front of you in a dark area with little to no ambient light, preferably on a sidewalk or even better, a dirt trail, since the natural colors would be enhanced, demonstrating the color capacity of the light. Qualifying that the brightness of the photos resemble closely what you actually saw would mean a lot in helping me evaluate the practicality of this lamp at the following settings: Fastpacking levels of light are anticipated to be 26/56/106/171 lm, with 56 lm being the most common setting. I would compare that later (if you are so _boastfully_ inclined :laughing:--DO IT UH DO IT!) with the H53w and decide which is more expedient to my situation.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Quick notes, no pics.

I like it a lot, and the tint is indeed excellent. Since I cannot post pictures, I'll just describe them:

a) Picture of colorful bookshelf illuminated by E01: "too blue!!"
b) Picture of colorful bookshelf illuminated by Yuji 3200K: "too yellow"
c) Picture of colorful bookshelf illuminated by ZL H52w: "pretty good, but slightly rose?"
d) Picture of colorful bookshelf illuminated by ZL H53c: "This one is *just right*," said Goldilocks, and she ate up the entire bowl of porridge.

Genzod, all of our work about geometry was for nought. The hotspot of the new H53c is exactly the same size as the hotspot of the old H52. For that matter, if you look directly at the emitter (powered down!), it looks visually as thought it is the same size and area as the old XM-L2.

That said, the difference in perceived brightness between the 285 lumen level of the new light and the 500 lumen boost level of the old light is not as great as I had predicted. (I turned on the H53c with a single click, then turned on the H52w (powered by a 14500) with a single click. They looked about the same, so I thought, "well, I must have the H52w on H2, not H1." I double-clicked, and it got dimmer, i.e. it really *had* been on H1 at 500 lumens. I double-clicked again to go from H2 to H1 on the H52w, and I could now see that the H52w was brighter. But not hugely.) 

Overall, very happy with the light. I will try EDC'ing this in place of my old H52w for a while and see what I think.


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> Quick notes, no pics.
> 
> Genzod, all of our work about geometry was for nought. The hotspot of the new H53c is exactly the same size as the hotspot of the old H52. For that matter, if you look directly at the emitter (powered down!), it looks visually as thought it is the same size and area as the old XM-L2.
> 
> That said, the difference in perceived brightness between the 285 lumen level of the new light and the 500 lumen boost level of the old light is not as great as I had predicted. (I turned on the H53c with a single click, then turned on the H52w (powered by a 14500) with a single click. They looked about the same, so I thought, "well, I must have the H52w on H2, not H1." I double-clicked, and it got dimmer, i.e. it really *had* been on H1 at 500 lumens. I double-clicked again to go from H2 to H1 on the H52w, and I could now see that the H52w was brighter. But not hugely.)
> 
> Overall, very happy with the light. I will try EDC'ing this in place of my old H52w for a while and see what I think.



The difference in size might be hard to see. One is 5mm on a side the other should be 3.45mm. That change should feed more lumens into the geometrically similar spot (not _focus_ the spot, just increase lumens directed there. Since it is the same shaped spot (12deg beam angle), more lumens means higher intensity and thus farther throw. In fact, slightly more throw in this case 85 m with 500 lm boost and 93 m with 285 hi. It would be hard to differentiate the intensity difference in that case, which is a 3% perceived difference. (93/85 measured)^0.33 = 1.03 perceived. The fact that you said you couldn't at first tell the difference then could barely tell the difference afterwards is certain evidence all of the predictions with math have been successful. Why else would a 285 lumen light with similar spot geometry equal or slightly exceed the 500 lm intensity? Thank you for confirming that.  
Let's celebrate, mon ami! :drunk:

Edit: I misread that you said the H52w was slightly brighter at the second check. The boost modes tend to be momentarily brighter than specs when you first enter them. Do you think the H53c had ramped down a bit when you kicked the other back into turbo, and that's why the older model seemed a little brighter? My PT Quad does the same thing in maximum. It starts out brighter than specs and ramps itself down to specs in a matter of a minute or so.


----------



## insanefred

So, anyone else get their h53c or h53fc?


----------



## Genzod

lampeDépêche said:


> That said, the difference in perceived brightness between the 285 lumen level of the new light and the 500 lumen boost level of the old light is not as great as I had predicted. (I turned on the H53c with a single click, then turned on the H52w (powered by a 14500) with a single click. They looked about the same, so I thought, "well, I must have the H52w on H2, not H1." I double-clicked, and it got dimmer, i.e. it really *had* been on H1 at 500 lumens. I double-clicked again to go from H2 to H1 on the H52w, and I could now see that the H52w was brighter. But not hugely.)



*EDIT: I've since learned my throw calculations are off due to using incorrect LED die areas. I was misinformed by a well meaning poster that "die" areas are defined by the LED's casing footprint provided on the respective data sheets, as opposed to the actually die element inside that casing under the optic. I've done a little research, and I'm awaiting a response from Cree regarding those dei dimensions, then I will recalculate and reevaluate my position on this headlamp. My hope is that the die has shrunk, from the earlier H52, and that the throw will still be decent enough for me to justify purchasing it.*

Now consider comparing your H52w with the extra lumens inherent in the H53w, a rise from 285 lumens to 330 lumens. Which do you think would be brighter, if the first case was a close call? Still waiting for your verdict on the initial one minute idea. Labs wait about a minute for the temporary boost to settle down before testing intensity.

Remember back when it was suggested in this thread what ZL meant by the new generation H53 being "brighter" than the H52s? The high tested with eneloops on the H52w was 280 and the high on the H53c (with eneloops also) was 285. A whole 5 points. But this wasn't really a fair comparison since the tints and CRI are so different, and I certainly don't think that 5 extra lumens was what ZL meant by "brighter". You have to compare w to w. So now that we know the H53w is 330 lm compared to the H52w at 280, we see 50 points higher (with eneloops only, not boost).

But hold on, "brighter" is a technical misnomer and a somewhat nebulous, subjective term. Are we talking about lumens or _intensity_? If intensity, then throw will be higher. The throw on the H52w @500 lumens is calculated to 85m. The throw on the H53w @330lm is calculated to 100m. 

So in terms of _spot range and intensity_, the _conundrum_ that 330lm high is brighter than 500lm boost is vanquished, and the H53w _is_ actually "brighter" than its respective former edition--much brighter, even when compared to the old boost mode. And THAT is what I think ZL is talking about when they say "brighter".

_CONUNDRUM!_






Agent Frank Parker of _Operation Backstep_, a seven day US Government 
time back-stepping operation designed to correct national security 
disasters, calls in a disaster alert with the code word "conundrum" to 
inform mission control that a national event has occurred and he has
gone back in time "seven days" to "vanquish" it. _Seven Days (1998-2001)_


----------



## RollerBoySE

Genzod said:


> Now consider comparing your H52w with the extra lumens inherent in the H53w, a rise from 285 lumens to 330 lumens. Which do you think would be brighter, if the first case was a close call? Still waiting for your verdict on the initial one minute idea. Labs wait about a minute for the temporary boost to settle down before testing intensity.
> 
> Remember back when it was suggested in this thread what ZL meant by the new generation H53 being "brighter" than the H52s? The high tested with eneloops on the H52w was 280 and the high on the H53c (with eneloops also) was 285. A whole 5 points. But this wasn't really a fair comparison since the tints and CRI are so different, and I certainly don't think that 5 extra lumens was what ZL meant by "brighter". You have to compare w to w. So now that we know the H53w is 330 lm compared to the H52w at 280, we see 50 points higher (with eneloops only, not boost).
> 
> But hold on, "brighter" is a technical misnomer and a somewhat nebulous, subjective term. Are we talking about lumens or _intensity_? If intensity, then throw will be higher. The throw on the H52w @500 lumens is calculated to 85m. The throw on the H53w is calculated to 100m.
> 
> So in terms of _spot range and intensity_, the _conundrum_ that 330lm high is brighter than 500lm boost is vanquished, and the H53w _is_ actually "brighter" than its respective former edition--much brighter, even when compared to the old boost mode. And THAT is what I think ZL is talking about when they say "brighter".
> 
> _CONUNDRUM!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agent Frank Parker of _Operation Backstep_, a seven day US Government
> time back-stepping operation designed to correct national security
> disasters, calls in a disaster alert with the code word "conundrum" to
> inform mission control that a national event has occurred and he has
> gone back in time "seven days" to "vanquish" it. _Seven Days (1998-2001)_



Also don't forget that with higher CRI you need less lumens to see with the same detail richness.


----------



## Genzod

RollerBoySE said:


> Also don't forget that with higher CRI you need less lumens to see with the same detail richness.



That sounds like a relationship between color perception and measured light, much like measured intensity and perceived intensity is different in a room when you dim the lights. 

*% perceived intensity = square root of ( % measured intensity decrease)*. (dim wall pot to 10%, perceived as 32% intensity because pupils opened more)

Can you direct me to such a mathematical relationship regarding CRI and lumens or lux? I would deeply appreciate it.


----------



## RollerBoySE

Genzod said:


> That sounds like a relationship between color perception and measured light, much like measured intensity and perceived intensity is different in a room when you dim the lights.
> 
> *% perceived intensity = square root of ( % measured intensity decrease)*. (dim wall pot to 10%, perceived as 32% intensity because pupils opened more)
> 
> Can you direct me to such a mathematical relationship regarding CRI and lumens or lux? I would deeply appreciate it.



Sorry, not mathematically no, but if you try it out in real life it's pretty obvious that it's easier to see details when the color rendering is more accurate.


----------



## toastystuff

So can this use rcr 14500 cells or no?


----------



## eraursls1984

toastystuff said:


> So can this use rcr 14500 cells or no?


No, Ni-MH or Alkaline only. At least that's what is officially supported.


----------



## Genzod

RollerBoySE said:


> Sorry, not mathematically no, but if you try it out in real life it's pretty obvious that it's easier to see details when the color rendering is more accurate.



Okay, probably some psychologist has already studied it and made a formula based on experimental surveys, so it's off to the internet!


----------



## RollerBoySE

Genzod said:


> Okay, probably some psychologist has already studied it and made a formula based on experimental surveys, so it's off to the internet!



If you do find something, please share.


----------



## Genzod

RollerBoySE said:


> If you do find something, please share.



I already mentioned Stephens Power Law for a point source, which is mentioned in the list below:. 

The general form of the law is:






where _I_ is the magnitude of the physical stimulus, ψ(_I_) is the subjective magnitude of the sensation evoked by the stimulus, _a_ is an exponent that depends on the type of stimulation, and _k_ is a proportionality constant that depends on the units used.

Those listed for human visual perception:


ContinuumExponentStimulus conditionBrightness0.335° target in darkBrightness0.5Point sourceBrightness0.5Brief flashBrightness1Point source briefly flashedLightness1.2Reflectance of gray papersVisual length1Projected lineVisual area0.7Projected square

There doesn't seem to be anything there for brightness perception varying due to CRI or quality of light, just intensity in general under whatever light was used in the study. That doesn't mean a rule doesn't exist, but I would have thought the scientist would have covered it if it was there. His list seems pretty exhaustive among other human sensory perceptions. But that he ignored intensity due to variations in light quality or frequency (the high CRI of the H53c) is curious. 

Maybe I'm not seeing something here. I'll continue to think on it, and if I find something I'll try to get back with you.


----------



## TCY

One thing I noticed about the UI. ZL's UI turns off the light ~0.6 second after a single press of a button to make sure the user is indeed turning off the light instead of trying to double click and this used to be the case on every modes. On the H53Fc the light shuts off immediately on all four beacon modes when a single press is registered, but actually the system is still waiting for the second click to transition to the next beacon mode. Good to know that ZL is still polishing their UI when it's already one of the best out there.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> One thing I noticed about the UI. ZL's UI turns off the light ~0.6 second after a single press of a button to make sure the user is indeed turning off the light instead of trying to double click and this used to be the case on every modes. On the H53Fc the light shuts off immediately on all four beacon modes when a single press is registered, but actually the system is still waiting for the second click to transition to the next beacon mode. Good to know that ZL is still polishing their UI when it's already one of the best out there.



ZL H53c UI = Best UI out there. ZL H53c+UI+ HI CRI+ 4000k tint + inductors with 510 lm H1 and 86 m range (or at minimum, 14500 support 432 lm H1 and 79m range) = Best neutral tint, high color headlamp out there. 

C_heckmate_, best king-chess-piece-looking headlamp of the outdoor trails. I think most of your best fans would agree--they would have waited a few more months for you to get it right, rather than have it now, in a half baked form.

Game clock ticking. Your move ZL.


----------



## eraursls1984

I'll have to say I don't use the 500 lumen modes on AA lights, but it doesn't hurt to have them with this new UI. However, I don't want the 500 lm mode or 14500 support *IF* it effects the efficiency of the lower modes of use with Ni-MH or Primaries. If it doesn't have any effect on the efficiency then I'm all for it.


----------



## Genzod

eraursls1984 said:


> I'll have to say I don't use the 500 lumen modes on AA lights, but it doesn't hurt to have them with this new UI. However, I don't want the 500 lm mode or 14500 support *IF* it effects the efficiency of the lower modes of use with Ni-MH or Primaries. If it doesn't have any effect on the efficiency then I'm all for it.



Right, the 14500 only has 1 minute of boost then it steps down to H2. Great for a blaze searches on distant trees, but not as a setting for continuous running.

ZL had until autumn to beat one of their major contenders who will start to introduce XP-L2 then and over the next 6 months. If ZL had only used that time to fit the inductors onto the board. If I were their competition, I'd be busily adding inductors to my board knowing ZL has already compromised their peak throw.

If I were ZL, I'd be fitting inductors now and let the few items they produced without inductors become collector items for virtue of scarcity.


----------



## MX421

insanefred said:


> So, anyone else get their h53c or h53fc?



I received my H53c last Saturday. Love the tint. Its longer than my H502w though, bummer.


----------



## Genzod

MX421 said:


> I received my H53c last Saturday. Love the tint. Its longer than my H502w though, bummer.



Everything is bigger in Texas.


----------



## lampeDépêche

MX421 said:


> I received my H53c last Saturday. Love the tint. Its longer than my H502w though, bummer.



My H502w: 69.4mm
My H53c: 76.4 mm
My H52w: 77.7mm

So the new H53 is a bit shorter than the older H52, but not as short as the old H502.

That's really not too surprising, given that the H502 has no reflector inside of it. That means that the circuitry, and even part of the battery, can be pushed up into the head where the reflector would have been. 

I think the old H52 was a bit longer exactly in order to accommodate the protection circuit on the top of ZL's proprietary 14500 cell. Once you don't need to support protected 14500s, you can make the battery tube a bit shorter.


----------



## mellowman

what about keeping it longer or even making it a little longer to fit an inductor to support a ~500lm boost mode on eneloops. but hey you get 1.3mm shorter tube, the new UI and save $6.


----------



## Genzod

mellowman said:


> what about keeping it longer or even making it a little longer to fit an inductor to support a ~500lm boost mode on eneloops. but hey you get 1.3mm shorter tube, the new UI and save $6.



Or rig a clicky enhanced infinite rotary dimmer! Removing obsolete UI and memory from board creates room for inductors. Rotary dial is easier to control than top clicky button, and less complicated. Rotary dimmer opens up a whole new market of people who are intimidated by complicated things. And it will probably _still_ be lighter than an ArmyTek A1/C1


----------



## JBS

I'm interested in the H53Fc but it only has a 90 degree beam spread. I have the Zebralight H502W and love the 120 degree pure flood beam, so the only thing stopping me from buying the H53Fc is that it only has a 90 degree beam spread. Hopefully Zebralight will come out with an H53Fc version that has a 120 degree flood beam.


----------



## Genzod

JBS said:


> I'm interested in the H53Fc but it only has a 90 degree beam spread. I have the Zebralight H502W and love the 120 degree pure flood beam, so the only thing stopping me from buying the H53Fc is that it only has a 90 degree beam spread. Hopefully Zebralight will come out with an H53Fc version that has a 120 degree flood beam.



You're in luck. The following animated file (of the ZL600w with and without tape and ZL602w) demonstrates that 3M Magic Tape not only diffuses the light with a nice throwy punch, but it also spans the flood like the 120 deg Zebralight floods.


----------



## eraursls1984

Genzod said:


> Or rig a clicky enhanced infinite rotary dimmer! Removing obsolete UI and memory from board creates room for inductors. Rotary dial is easier to control than top clicky button, and less complicated. Rotary dimmer opens up a whole new market of people who are intimidated by complicated things. And it will probably _still_ be lighter than an ArmyTek A1/C1


Can you think of any rotary lights that aren't huge? Every one that I know of is huge because of the rotary mechanism. Also, I love rotaries but I wouldn't want it to replace Zebralights UI.


----------



## markr6

Genzod said:


> You're in luck. The following animated file (of the ZL600w with and without tape and ZL602w) demonstrates that 3M Magic Tape not only diffuses the light with a nice throwy punch, but it also spans the flood like the 120 deg Zebralight floods.



And d-c-fix film works even better! Plus it's more durable and you won't have to pick at it to remove it. You can buy a small sheet by searching the forum "Phaserburn's diffusion film"


----------



## eraursls1984

markr6 said:


> And d-c-fix film works even better! Plus it's more durable and you won't have to pick at it to remove it. You can buy a small sheet by searching the forum "Phaserburn's diffusion film"


I love the magic tape fix, I use it on all of my EDC lights, and headlamps without a diffused window. The new frosted window from Zebralight is closer to the beam of the H600 beam, just smoothed out. This is pretty much how the Magic Tape works. The old frosted window was almost directly in between the H600 and H602, is this what the d-c-fix film is closer to?

You also said it was easier to get off, are you able to re-apply easily as well? I'm thinking this would be a better option for headlamps, especially if you could remove it to look in the distance and then reattach it.


----------



## Genzod

Speaking of quick easy fixes for flood (which is what I intend to do--use 3M tape or DC-fix), how about a quick, easy fix for throw? 

If I could extend the reflector on this H53c with a homemade "monocle" that temporarily fits snug in the bezel for whenever I need a little extra throw, it could turn some of the spill light into the spot without affecting the 12 degree spot. 

Does anyone know of a DIY project for this, or something you could buy to do this? I'm not talking about replacing the ZL lens/reflector. The lens/reflector is fine. I'm talking about a momentarily placed reflector "monocle" that you can press against the bezel to collimate more of the 80 degree spill light into the 12 degree spot.


----------



## tech25

eraursls1984 said:


> You also said it was easier to get off, are you able to re-apply easily as well? I'm thinking this would be a better option for headlamps, especially if you could remove it to look in the distance and then reattach it.



The DC-Fix is a sticky film, flexible but not as much as tape. If you are asking to regularly take it off and reapply the same piece, the adhesive will eventually fail. To do so once in a while should be ok. Make sure to leave a "tab" so that you can pull it off easily. I have taken mine off, stuck it to the battery (for safe storage) and reapplied it after and it was fine. To do so often, I don't think it will work. For my ZL SC600w (original-with the removable bezel ring) I rubbed off the adhesive and when I want diffused, Put it on the glass and tighten the bezel over it. When I want it off, I curl it around the battery.


----------



## Genzod

markr6 said:


> And d-c-fix film works even better! Plus it's more durable and you won't have to pick at it to remove it. You can buy a small sheet by searching the forum "Phaserburn's diffusion film"



Thanks. Has someone actually _measured_ the optic quality of the D-C-fix and/or compared it to 3M Magic tape? (how much light is lost, how well the light is distributed, etc.). If you could provide a link, that would be great!

I was thinking with something more durable, I could cement the film onto a flat metal ring and include a rubber o-ring as a mounting seat, then use a thin elastic shock cord at four points on the ring that wrap around the flashlight head, stretching the looped shock cords behind the head of the flashlight and nestling them down into a thermal groove for stability. I would include a tiny loop as a pull tab for dismounting for when I need to have spot for throw.


----------



## Genzod

eraursls1984 said:


> Can you think of any rotary lights that aren't huge? Every one that I know of is huge because of the rotary mechanism. Also, I love rotaries but I wouldn't want it to replace Zebralights UI.



They could try it out on a new model, not necessarily the H53c, say a common AA unit which most people who are intimidated by UI's might like. The advantage is, a person on a trail, runner or hiker, could set it for the perfect amount of light and conserve battery. The clicky aspect would let the user know where in the output wheel they are, and runtimes at those clicky points could be provided.

I know trail runners would rave over something like this. Runners in an ultra race may encounter difficult technical trail conditions along the way and need a bump up from the 50 lumens they were running with. Say the 85-90 they have next is not enough to provide the confidence they seek for their stride. They might be afraid to go up to the next level beyond that, say 170, run their battery down and have to stop to make a battery change, losing time. This way they always have exactly what they need and can manage their battery life better.

Call it the special edition ZL-H54d/R and market it primarily to ultra runners and trail hikers. It would be a slam dunk in my opinion.

You'd still have your UI, and runners (and most long distance section/thru hikers) would have something they'd find less complicated and useful.


----------



## Genzod

For those who presently possess this headlamp and therefore can examine it, can you tell me if it has a light bending convex lens (magnifying the image of the LED), or just an even thickness, non-light-bending glass cover designed merely to keep water out?


----------



## Koam

The lens is flat, no curvature.




[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Lou Minescence

I was trying out my G5, G6, G7 modes on my H53FC. I noticed when I use low beacon in G5 it beacons in the last low mode that had been used like it is supposed to. When I use low beacon in either G6 or G7 the low beacon is always the highest possible of the low modes no matter what my last used low setting was or how I programmed my low modes. Wondering if anyone else has experienced that. 
I will stick with just using G5. I always leave my light on low beacon at night and the higher flash in the G6 and G7 modes will disturb the Mrs even more.


----------



## Andrey

Lou Minescence said:


> I always leave my light on low beacon at night


Got GITD holders for my lights. They are perfectly visible in the dark without disturbing blinking.


----------



## Genzod

Koam said:


> The lens is flat, no curvature.



Thanks


----------



## TCY

Lou Minescence said:


> I was trying out my G5, G6, G7 modes on my H53FC. I noticed when I use low beacon in G5 it beacons in the last low mode that had been used like it is supposed to. When I use low beacon in either G6 or G7 the low beacon is always the highest possible of the low modes no matter what my last used low setting was or how I programmed my low modes. Wondering if anyone else has experienced that.
> I will stick with just using G5. I always leave my light on low beacon at night and the higher flash in the G6 and G7 modes will disturb the Mrs even more.



Just tried on my H53Fc, got the same result. Guess ZL doesn't have any more memory on their circuit board.


----------



## Lou Minescence

TCY said:


> Just tried on my H53Fc, got the same result. Guess ZL doesn't have any more memory on their circuit board.



Thanks for confirming my observations. That low slow beacon is what put Zebralight over the top for me. Hopefully this new interface is perfected so low beacon works properly in all G modes.
I also noticed that the 'factory reset' of 3 sets of pushes for the different mode groups doesn't work for me. All the changes of brightness levels I made are still there in all groups. Either I am not doing it correctly or something. G5 works well for me. Thats what I will use.


----------



## Genzod

There's been no response from Cree concerning the die sizes of the XM-L2 (H52 generation) and the XP-L2 (H53 generation), but I have reason to believe from articles that although the platform/optic sizes changed (from 5x5mm to 3.45x3.45mm) the die sizes have not. A smaller die size would have increased throw in the H53 line. What I've read is, the XM-L2 and the XP-L are the same size dies in different sized packages and the optic casing _magnified_ sizes of the XP-L and XP-L2 are the same, leading me to believe the dies are the same size. 

Therefore, I'm of the opinion that there is no increased throw due to die sizes between generations of this lamp. Hope dashed.

The substantially improved efficiency of the XP-L2 (compared to the XM-L2) appears to have been used to increase outputs in the H53 line. The H52w non-boosted max output went from 280-330, an 18% gain. (There is nothing to compare the H53c with in the previous line). Increased lumens at each output translates to increased surface brightness, so there is some range increase at the each of the normal outputs (SQR(1.18)=9% additional range), but with 14500 support gone, the brightest output of boost is gone. So in one sense you have "brighter" by virtue of increased surface brightness of the LED, but no boost voltage to exceed the former boost of the H52 line means overall, _less bright_. An apparent play on the word "brighter". Political weasel words used in the context of marketing to smooth over the loss of something numerous ZL fans have been complaining about.







Nevertheless, the H53 line is still remarkable with the new technically impressive leap of the XP-L2 emitter. The UI is spectacular and very convenient for someone like me who would like to use 3-HI and 3-MED outputs in my 2x3 program array instead of only having three options and only one from each level allowed (which is why the previous generation is unappealing to me). There are more output options in the _meaningful range _a trail runner would use to tailor his light to his speed and course technicality than their rival Armytek's headlamps. The new outputs of 30, 65, 122, 198 on the H53w are ideal for trail running mountains. The headlamps are lighter and therefore more comfortable for a runner or hiker. ZL quality is still notches ahead of their competitors.

Since I need the extra throwing power for blaze searches, lost in the H53 line with the dropping of 14500 support, it behooves me to wait for an H33w model. The higher voltage of the CR123 battery should get me to 525 lumens and around 87m of throw, which is back up to the boosted level. Hopefully that model is just around the corner. If that doesn't happen fast enough, maybe I can fashion a "monocle" for occasional momentary seating on the H53w bezel that will concentrate spill light and extend the range a bit for the brief moments I will require it.


----------



## AvroArrow

Is everyone buying theirs direct from ZL? Shipping is +$15 to Canada. Does the old GITD silicone holder from the H51/H52 work well with this new H53c? I've been itching to upgrade my 6 year old H51w. I tried an Olight H1 Nova Neutral on a whim... returned it within half an hour of testing it since it was nowhere close to a ZL. Granted it did cost half of what a ZL H32w cost at the time.


----------



## gunga

I ordered direct. Likely getting it tomorrow. 5 days or so for ems. Fast. No more free shipping. I asked.


----------



## TCY

AvroArrow said:


> Is everyone buying theirs direct from ZL? Shipping is +$15 to Canada. Does the old GITD silicone holder from the H51/H52 work well with this new H53c? I've been itching to upgrade my 6 year old H51w. I tried an Olight H1 Nova Neutral on a whim... returned it within half an hour of testing it since it was nowhere close to a ZL. Granted it did cost half of what a ZL H32w cost at the time.



Direct from ZL, +$10 for EMS (AU). How's your H51W holding up? I don't have the Olight headlamp, why is it inferior compared to the ZL?


----------



## TCY

gunga said:


> I ordered direct. Likely getting it tomorrow. 5 days or so for ems. Fast. No more free shipping. I asked.




Please share some thoughts when you get it:thumbsup:


----------



## Genzod

gunga said:


> I ordered direct. Likely getting it tomorrow. 5 days or so for ems. Fast. No more free shipping. I asked.



Haven't you learned yet that you can't rely on what a ZL CS agent or their website says? 

http://www.zebralight.com/Free-Shipping-Worldwide_ep_43-1.html





And here they got me thinking I was going to save $5 on a next generation headlamp (without indicating on their website postage is no longer free.)

Only at ZL can you get a _"brighter"_ and _"lowered price"_ flashlight that goes from ~500 lumens to ~300 lumens and ends up costing the same out of pocket.


----------



## gunga

Tis true! But they won't ship it to me for free so I don't really have a choice!

Note. Usa shipping is free. Canada ships from China and they want it traceable.


----------



## Genzod

gunga said:


> Tis true! But they won't ship it to me for free so I don't really have a choice!
> 
> Note. Usa shipping is free. Canada ships from China and they want it traceable.



Not to be nitpicky but this is what ZL claims on their website:

*FREE Shipping Worldwide on Orders $50+*
We ship domestically by USPS First-Class Mail Packages and internationally by China Post Air Mail free of charges on orders at or over $50.​


----------



## AvroArrow

gunga said:


> I ordered direct. Likely getting it tomorrow. 5 days or so for ems. Fast. No more free shipping. I asked.



Didn't know you were ordering one, could have combined shipping. Oh well. Lemme know if you get dinged by customs.



TCY said:


> Direct from ZL, +$10 for EMS (AU). How's your H51W holding up? I don't have the Olight headlamp, why is it inferior compared to the ZL?



H51W is holding up great, mind you I mostly use it around the house and doing stuff on the car, so no jungle/forest running at night in the rain. I just wanted something a bit brighter with a Nichia 219B/C 4000-4500k tint & high CRI rendition. I've pretty much switched all my main lights to Nichia 219B/C now except for the headlamp.

I posted my opinions on the H1 Nova thread, but in short, 5000k is neutral tint, not the usual 4000-4500k, CRI sucks compared to 219B, the 500 lumen burst mode only works with certain Li-ion batteries and primaries, none of mine made it longer than 25 seconds so it's essentially a 180 lumen CR123 headlamp for me. The UI to get to their version of moonlight (too bright to be considered moonlight) is convoluted. Brightness mode spacing is not that good. I think the newer H1R takes care of the battery/burst runtime problem, but the brightness spacing, UI, and tint still remain. Granted, I only paid ~$45 USD for it, which is almost half of what a H32w+shipping would have cost, but no one had any stock of the H32w at the time.


----------



## gunga

Genzoid. I read that too. I asked them. It's their fault for making the change and not updating the website. The good thing is my headlamp will take 5 days to arrive instead of 2-8 weeks. 

Avro. I see you pop up like a groundhog, then you disappear for a year. Next time I order I'll contact you. I also ordered an sc5c II so that diffuses the cost a bit. 

I'll likely jump on the new Zebralights due to the easy white 4K LED and the programmable UI. Hoping for 18650 next.

My easy white xml2 h600fc 3 is around 3700-4000K. A touch of warm. I really like it. I'll need to see if the xpl easy white is comparable.


----------



## Genzod

gunga said:


> Genzoid. I read that too. I asked them. It's their fault for making the change and not updating the website. The good thing is my headlamp will take 5 days to arrive instead of 2-8 weeks.



"Genzoid"...haha, that's funny and yet seemingly fashionable (I know the "o" and "i" are close on the keypad, so I know it wasn't intentional).


----------



## gunga

Oh sorry! My mistake.


----------



## Genzod

I think this is a relevant question for this thread:

If you as a trail runner, on a rocky, rooty mountain trail, wanted the best possible visibility, and you had the choice between 15.7% higher intensity at all outputs @ 80 CRI verses lower intensity at 93-95 CRI, which would you choose to see the trail better?

The choice in this case is between the max 330 lumen/80 CRI minimum H53w and the max 285 lumen/93-95 CRI H53c.

I think the color rendition of the c version would be spectacular on a mountain trail and it would probably lend to better visibility in ridge-line fog conditions (love to hear your opinion on that aspect as well), but I require the best possible visibility on the trail for the sake of safety while running. I am unaware of any way of mathematically quantifying the relationship of visibility as a function of CRI and intensity. I'd like to hear your opinions, and if you can lend authority to them with a citation, that would be even better.


----------



## scs

Genzod said:


> I think this is a relevant question for this thread:
> 
> If you as a trail runner, on a rocky, rooty mountain trail, wanted the best possible visibility, and you had the choice between 15.7% higher intensity at all outputs @ 80 CRI verses lower intensity at 93-95 CRI, which would you choose to see the trail better?
> 
> The choice in this case is between the max 330 lumen/80 CRI minimum H53w and the max 285 lumen/93-95 CRI H53c.
> 
> I think the color rendition of the c version would be spectacular on a mountain trail and it would probably lend to better visibility in ridge-line fog conditions (love to hear your opinion on that aspect as well), but I require the best possible visibility on the trail for the sake of safety while running. I am unaware of any way of mathematically quantifying the relationship of visibility as a function of CRI and intensity. I'd like to hear your opinions, and if you can lend authority to them with a citation, that would be even better.



I don't believe the output difference would be consequential in this case, or in most cases for that matter, given the small difference.
80 CRI is good enough in about all cases for the said use, so 93-95 CRI will not provide substantial advantage. Without an immediate prior reference and a side by side reference, I'm not convinced most people can tell one from the other.
So, in this case, it's a matter of personal preference.


----------



## TCY

AvroArrow said:


> Didn't know you were ordering one, could have combined shipping. Oh well. Lemme know if you get dinged by customs.
> 
> 
> 
> H51W is holding up great, mind you I mostly use it around the house and doing stuff on the car, so no jungle/forest running at night in the rain. I just wanted something a bit brighter with a Nichia 219B/C 4000-4500k tint & high CRI rendition. I've pretty much switched all my main lights to Nichia 219B/C now except for the headlamp.
> 
> I posted my opinions on the H1 Nova thread, but in short, 5000k is neutral tint, not the usual 4000-4500k, CRI sucks compared to 219B, the 500 lumen burst mode only works with certain Li-ion batteries and primaries, none of mine made it longer than 25 seconds so it's essentially a 180 lumen CR123 headlamp for me. The UI to get to their version of moonlight (too bright to be considered moonlight) is convoluted. Brightness mode spacing is not that good. I think the newer H1R takes care of the battery/burst runtime problem, but the brightness spacing, UI, and tint still remain. Granted, I only paid ~$45 USD for it, which is almost half of what a H32w+shipping would have cost, but no one had any stock of the H32w at the time.



:thumbsup:Thanks for sharing. I've always wanted to try out a different brand but their UIs looked questionable to me. Not to mention that ZL is one of the few companies out there that offers high CRI lights. I bought a Nitecore P12 back in early 2014 but I almost never touched it after I got a SC62w later that year. Guess I'll just keep buying new ZLs then!


----------



## gunga

Well. Based on some quick use, I have mixed feelings. The body has a few scuffs. Some from the pre installed clip. That is irritating. Otherwise the fit and finish is good. The LED is well centred (while it's a fraction off on the sc5c II). 

Tint is a mixed bag. Seems OK but tends to yellow with a hint of green. I put DC fix on it and it blends the tint. Better. I used it for a few hours of modding on H2 (burned through an eneloop). I found it pleasant. I'll need to evaluate more at night. A little disappointed. But not fully decided yet on my final thoughts.

Note: I chose a clear lens because I wanted the option of a non diffuse beam and may use the light as an angle light.


----------



## gunga

2nd impression is better. Especially after diffusing the beam. Ah, the dangers of white wall hunting. 

I'm still tempted to ask about an exchange due to the minor scuffs (small but goes all the way to bare metal). The funny thing is I accept this on some lights (eg. Hds) when it is considered "normal". This is not. It's minor enough to ignore but on a shiney new toy (Er tool) it's irritating. My worry is that the second sample will be similar. 

I'll need to do a mini review of sorts to encompass what I see.


----------



## Genzod

I think I finally found a throwier alternative for the boost-less H53 line: :rock:


----------



## gunga

Oooh, I like that one...

----

Okay, let me just post what I see in regards to tint. I'm posting this in both the SC5c II thread and the H53c thread since it's relevant to both. While beam shots are nice, I don't think I can accurately represent what I see and also the beam shots would be subject to many variables (from the camera, white balance, to the monitor etc.).

Here's what I saw/see in both the SC5c II and the H53c.

1st impression. Ugly. White wall hunting during the day. Holding the light close to the wall, I see yellow tint with some green in the corona. Never mind pollution from the available daylight, this looks rather poor. Does not compare well to anything I own (which are all handpicked or modded lights with nice tints and/or high CRI).

2nd impression. Much better, quite nice, likely a keeper. So when actually examining things more closely at night, I see something different. The hotspot itself is quite nice in tint, comparable to a 4000K Nichia 219C (this is generally more yellow/green than a 219B). I do see a Cree tint variation though with hints of yellow/green in the corona and also some in the centre of the hotspot giving it the slight impression of a donut. I think this is why some people noted a donut in the Zebralight SC63 (It uses a quad die Cree XPH35 LED I believe). I believe the XPL2 Easywhite is a quad die LED also, thus leading to the impression of a mild donut (very mild). In any case, I have heard of quite unpleasant tint variation on the newer generation of Cree LEDs (XPL2, XPG3) in reflectored lights. I may be seeing some of that here. Please note, this is what I see when viewing on a white wall, up close. As you move away from the wall, the effect is less pronounced. Also, in use, the hotspot is broad, the tint is quite pleasant, and colours pop quite well. So therein lies the danger of white wall hunting, especially up close. I did some reading with colourful kids books too with my son with the light and found it to be a nice tint/beam in use, even up close.

Now the headlamp came with a clear lens too, because I wanted the option of throw and possible use as an angle light. I put some DC Fix film on to diffuse the beam for general use. This works well and has the added benefit of mixing the colours so that the overall beam is smooth with no nasty tint variation. So if you plan on doing this or getting the flood version (with the frosted lens) you will have a much better experience. Colour rendering is good, tint is pleasantly warm. Again more very mild hints of yellow/green than a Nichia 219B or even a Cree Easywhite XML2 but not objectionable at all.

So, for clear lens, white wall hunters will be unhappy, but in use it's quite nice. Frosted lens (or DC Fix) users will be generally happy. Note, I have read that the Cree tint shift is less pronounced in optics, especially mildly frosted ones, of course.

Other notes: Both lights feel impressively small. I've sold all my AA Zebralights (one in, one out rule) so can't compare them directly but they both feel compact. I'm impressed that the SC5c II feels so nice and compact (still has a big head) since that was the main complaint of the previous version. I have not tried the new UI yet but am eager to see it in action. The anodizing is good though I do have some small/minor scuffs (down to bare metal!) on the headlamp I find irritating. It came that way and I'm inquiring about a replacement. Otherwise, overall fit and finish is quite good. Not outstanding, but very good.

Overall, after my initial horror, I'm generally satisfied and feel much better about these. The efficiency, features, new UI, general reliability, high cri and size make these worth keeping.


----------



## iamlucky13

gunga said:


> I believe the XPL2 Easywhite is a quad die LED also, thus leading to the impression of a mild donut (very mild). In any case, I have heard of quite unpleasant tint variation on the newer generation of Cree LEDs (XPL2, XPG3) in reflectored lights.



Thanks for the mini-review.

Every indication I've seen, including the forward voltage, is that the XP-L2 is single die. I've not seen a good photo, but the photo on Cree's website seems to show a single die. It appears to me whatever the reasons for making the XM-L2 Easywhite a quad die don't apply here.

The XP-L definitely seems to experience a lot of tint variation. I haven't seen any XP-L2's in person. However, it stands out to me that in photos the XP-L dome appears fully transparent, while in the XP-L2 it seems to be yellowish and hazy. Perhaps Cree added some phosphor or diffuser to the dome to help smooth out tint variation.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> I think I finally found a throwier alternative for the boost-less H53 line: :rock:



I can hunt down aliens with this


----------



## NPL

Thanks for all the good info so far on the H53c.

Can anybody comment on how it compares to the H52w, or any other 4500K 75cri light from Zebralight? Noticeable difference in color rendition?


----------



## TCY

NPL said:


> Thanks for all the good info so far on the H53c.
> 
> Can anybody comment on how it compares to the H52w, or any other 4500K 75cri light from Zebralight? Noticeable difference in color rendition?



Compared to my SC62w: feels like the colours rendered by the XM-L2 are "fake", or a bit off, artificial, if you will. High CRI lights like the H53c/Fc makes the colour look as natural as they can be despite that CCT is lower. White is still white, but with a warm touch compared to higher CCT lights.


----------



## NPL

TCY said:


> Compared to my SC62w: feels like the colours rendered by the XM-L2 are "fake", or a bit off, artificial, if you will. High CRI lights like the H53c/Fc makes the colour look as natural as they can be despite that CCT is lower. White is still white, but with a warm touch compared to higher CCT lights.


Music to my ears, thanks!


----------



## gunga

TCY said:


> Compared to my SC62w: feels like the colours rendered by the XM-L2 are "fake", or a bit off, artificial, if you will. High CRI lights like the H53c/Fc makes the colour look as natural as they can be despite that CCT is lower. White is still white, but with a warm touch compared to higher CCT lights.



Thanks for posting that TCY. I sold all my "w" Zebralights so have nothing to compare too. I remember they were pretty good tint but something was missing after seeing a good high cri. That and I prefer 4000K to 4500K. This echos my thoughts.

Note that I have 3700-4000K xml2 (80+ cri) that I find very pleasant. So perhaps 75 vs 80+ cri makes a difference. Either that or it's just the tint.


----------



## gunga

Well. I found another bug in the new firmware that effectively ruins it for me. 

This affects both the sc5c II and the h53c. 

I've programmed g7 on both (have not tried g6 but it should be the same). 

I've reverse mapped the levels so that L1, L2 (long press) are high and H1, H2 (quick press) are low. I kept medium the same. 

This, in theory, should allow me to do a quick press to get low levels (and not kill my night vision) and do a long press for high. 

Holding the button starts on high and scrolls down to low. 

Two quick presses should allow me to get to medium with no preflash. Well. It doesn't. When I do two quick presses, I get low, a brief preflash to high, before settling in to medium. So in theory I could have 0.08 lumens, a brief 475 lumen flash before settling into 7 lumens. 

This is garbage. 

Now I need to decide if the new firmware is the deciding factor in keeping or returning the light. I have enough lights. Maybe I need to wait for the next run or next models to fix the firmware bugs.


----------



## gunga

Oh well. 

Might be worth keeping but still use the old firmware. The one advantage is that you can program every level. I'm finding m1 too bright. I'll just reprogram it to a lower level.


----------



## Shred

I received my H53Fc yesterday. It's the first new head lamp I've bought in seven years and is a huge step forward from my trusty old Fenix HL20. It puts out a very even light for reading in bed at night and the higher CRI make working in the garden after dark much better too.

I'll be playing with the various modes for quite a while, fine tuning things I think.


----------



## Offgridled

Genzod said:


> I think I finally found a throwier alternative for the boost-less H53 line: :rock:


Thats a must have .


----------



## TCY

Shred said:


> I received my H53Fc yesterday. It's the first new head lamp I've bought in seven years and is a huge step forward from my trusty old Fenix HL20. It puts out a very even light for reading in bed at night and the higher CRI make working in the garden after dark much better too.
> 
> I'll be playing with the various modes for quite a while, fine tuning things I think.



Congrats:twothumbs


----------



## Genzod

My discussion concerning run time here will revolve around the XP-L2 emitter (used in the H53c and H53w) compared to the XM-L2 of the former generation (used in the H52w).

Total gains in luminous power are 9% going from the XM-L2 to the XP-L, and 7.7% going from the XP-L to the XP-L2. Taken together there is a leap of 17.393%. Since there is no H52c, I will compare the "w" versions between the two generations. The H52w had a max output of 280 lm, and the newer H53w has an output of 330 lumens--a 17.86% increase in power. That seems consistent.

I made OTF efficacy vs. OTF Output regressions between the H52w and H53w to demonstrate the increase. Unfortunately Zebralight seems to have had some problems with a couple data points that are way out of range with the expected distribution. One seems to be due to a typo, a confusion between 17 hours run time and 12 hours run time, and the other is possibly due to overheating or a general step down shortening the run time.

Plotted (at FooPlot) are *Efficacy (lm/W) verses Output (lumens)* for the *red data points of the H52w* and the *pink data points of the H53w*. The red curve is a regression with the corrected 12/17 hour run time data point. The pink curve is simply a multiplication of the red curve by 1.25. That is fairly consistent with the 18% difference in efficacy we expect from the two different LEDs.

The black and blue curves are merely relaxed regressions that were derived with the errant/deviant points maintained in each set of data. Regression allows a scientist to form curves through scattered data to find a generalized trend. Scatter can be the result of poor experimental procedure or variables that the scientist isn't interested in tracking.

You can turn off the relaxed regressions by deleting them. You can change colors of the data points and curves. This plot makes the curves and data more clear. You can now see how far off ZL missed the 330 lm output data point of the H53w as well as the 25 lm output data point of the H52w.

If you want run time at any particular point on each curve (pink and red curve), use the Fooplot point tool (point mouse over graph and select point on line icon, then click a point on a curve) to find values of interest on each curve. Then multiply that number by 3.06 (for Eneloop Pro capacity) or 2.4 (for Eneloop capacity). Then divide by the output lumens to get run time. (see equations at bottom of this post).

*Conclusions:* ZL raised the max output between generations 18% with no little or no run time gain. Had the outputs always remained the same between generations, and similar batteries are compared, you would expect to see an 18% increase in run time. If any outputs are close, you can expect a run time increase close to 18%. For example: looking at the 12 lumen output on both data sets (the only equal output), the compared efficacies are 161/135 = 19.3% increase (translates to increased run time), which is close to the output improvement of 17.4% between generations.

Note: It is unclear if the same rules were observed by ZL in determining run time we observed in both headlamp tests.

The following data were used to compile curves:


*ZL-H53w 4500K Eneloop Pro AA (1.2x2550 Capacity)

*(OTF lm, hours, OTF lumen-hours, OTF lumen/watt)

330 0.9 297 97.1 THIS WAS OFF. Probably (but maybe not) due to a thermal or general step down shortening run time. Ignoring temperature or battery performance, the OTF efficacy would probably be around 125-140 

275 1.6 440 144 
198 2.3 455.4 149
122 4.2 512.4 167
65 8.5 552.5 181
30 21 630 206
12 41 492 161
1.2 13x24 374.4 122
0.31 1.1x30x24 245.52 80.2
0.07 2.2x30x24 110.88 36.2
0.013 3.3x30x24 30.888 10.1​

*ZL-H52w 4400K Eneloop AA (1.2x2000 Capacity)*
(OTF lm, hours, OTF lumen-hours, OTF lumen/watt)

280 0.9 252 105 
172 1.7 292.4 122
108 3 324 135
50 7.5 375 156

25 12 300 125 THIS WAS OFF Should be around 172 lm/W with 17 hours of run time (not 12)-- probably a ZL misread typo between 12 and 17.

12 27 324 135
2.7 4x24 259.2 108
0.34 3x7x24 171.36 71.4
0.06 2x30x24 86.4 36.0
0.01 3x30x24 21.6 9.0


*Run Time Equations*

HOURS = (OTF lm/W)*(3.06) / OUTPUT LM (Eneloop PROs)
HOURS = (OTF lm/W)*(2.40) / OUTPUT LM (Eneloop)​


----------



## Offgridled

Great info Genzod . Thank you!!


----------



## Genzod

Offgridled said:


> Great info Genzod . Thank you!!



Looks like I squeezed in my conclusion corrections just in time. Just to be safe, check that again.


----------



## JBS

Can anyone directly compare the Zebralight H53Fc to the H502w? I have the H502w and I'd like to know if the H53Fc would be a noticeable upgrade.
H53Fc: http://www.zebralight.com/H53Fc-AA-Headlamp-Floody-Neutral-White-High-CRI_p_195.html
H502w: http://www.zebralight.com/H502w-L2-AA-Flood-Headlamp-Neutral-White_p_141.html


----------



## tech25

I don't have the H502w, however the beam shapes are different. The H502w is a flood beam where the H53fc is floody with a hotspot. The "F" beam shapes are more general purpose, reaching out a bit further then the H502w flood beam. 

One difference that you would gain, is the "C" would be more consistent in the beam color and giving you better color rendition over the "W".


----------



## LightSci

Hey all,

First post, long time reader. 

I didn't see any YT videos on the new h53 so I made one. Not trying to self-promote, I don't have a channel other than that video, but if you want to see it it's there. 

https://youtu.be/7iSJ5j-QEq4

PS: I really want an amytek wizard pro warm. I'm going to head to that thread! Forums rock. Otherwise I'd think I had a problem.


----------



## iamlucky13

Thanks for sharing the video LightSci. It really looks small in your hands!

You tested a lithium ion rechargeable in your H53? Not just a lithium primary?

Zebralight says it only supports up to 2.0 Volt batteries. If it worked for you at 3.7+ Volts, that's awesome, but I'd suggest you be careful, just in case it could be something that damages the light over time.

That is, unless you want to be the guinea pig who's willing to risk a dead light for the sake of science. I do know several posters here would be very interested to hear of long term results using a lithium ion battery in this light.


----------



## LightSci

iamlucky13 said:


> Thanks for sharing the video LightSci. It really looks small in your hands!
> 
> You tested a lithium ion rechargeable in your H53? Not just a lithium primary?
> 
> Zebralight says it only supports up to 2.0 Volt batteries. If it worked for you at 3.7+ Volts, that's awesome, but I'd suggest you be careful, just in case it could be something that damages the light over time.
> 
> That is, unless you want to be the guinea pig who's willing to risk a dead light for the sake of science. I do know several posters here would be very interested to hear of long term results using a lithium ion battery in this light.



Wow my mind is blown. I made an error. So going to the flashlights for a second, I thought the sc5 was older, because it didn't support lithium ion and the sc52 was newer because it did. I swore the H53 did. 

It turns out they went from supporting lithium ion on their AA lights to not!? Im sorry for my error, I don't understand that change. 

I've asked zebralight about it. I also asked them if there was any chance in heck it would let me drive it with the beauty of 4.2 volts. 

Sorry for the error.


----------



## iamlucky13

That's quite an understandable error, really. Most people here were surprised that Zebralight dropped lithium-ion support. It got a lot of discussion several pages back in this thread.

It looks like they got so good at getting high output from NiMH batteries, they decided lithium-ion wasn't that important any more.

Anyways, I'm curious, did you actually try a 14500 battery in your H53, or were you just commenting on how 14500-powered lights usually function?


----------



## LightSci

iamlucky13 said:


> That's quite an understandable error, really. Most people here were surprised that Zebralight dropped lithium-ion support. It got a lot of discussion several pages back in this thread.
> 
> It looks like they got so good at getting high output from NiMH batteries, they decided lithium-ion wasn't that important any more.
> 
> Anyways, I'm curious, did you actually try a 14500 battery in your H53, or were you just commenting on how 14500-powered lights usually function?



No i was basing my knowledge off of the s52. I was assuming (bad move/sorry) that the support was the same. 

ZebraLight got back to me and said the light can't buck that much voltage. 

So either it'll not run at all, or it will and put out 500 Lumens, lol. The question is though, let's say it runs, does it really matter if you know you are over driving your led? Would anyone choose to push the light that hard? If it really matters I suppose I can try. 

Also I wanted to attach a picture with the light next to my 18650 light, but I guess you have to link them? Not sure where to link to. I'm such a forum noob.


----------



## iamlucky13

Ok, thanks for clarifying. So anybody who might want to test a 14500 in an H53 is in uncharted territory. It might work, but not well enough that Zebralight is willing to call it a supported power source, or it could fry the light.

You need to host the image you want to share somewhere else, like on Flickr or on imgur. Then you can link to the image by pasting the URL, or embed it. Some forums offer the ability to upload images directly to the forum, but Candlepowerforums isn't able to do that, I presume due to the bandwidth and server capacity.


----------



## TCY

LightSci said:


> No i was basing my knowledge off of the s52. I was assuming (bad move/sorry) that the support was the same.
> 
> ZebraLight got back to me and said the light can't buck that much voltage.
> 
> So either it'll not run at all, or it will and put out 500 Lumens, lol. The question is though, let's say it runs, does it really matter if you know you are over driving your led? Would anyone choose to push the light that hard? If it really matters I suppose I can try.
> 
> Also I wanted to attach a picture with the light next to my 18650 light, but I guess you have to link them? Not sure where to link to. I'm such a forum noob.



I'd suggest not to put 14500 into your shiny new light, especially when ZL has already told you that it's not designed to handle the voltage. Your warranty is at risk if you do so.

I use abload.de to upload and link photos. The site is in German but it's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it.


----------



## LightSci

iamlucky13 said:


> Ok, thanks for clarifying. So anybody who might want to test a 14500 in an H53 is in uncharted territory. It might work, but not well enough that Zebralight is willing to call it a supported power source, or it could fry the light.
> 
> You need to host the image you want to share somewhere else, like on Flickr or on imgur. Then you can link to the image by pasting the URL, or embed it. Some forums offer the ability to upload images directly to the forum, but Candlepowerforums isn't able to do that, I presume due to the bandwidth and server capacity.



Awesome thanks. Yes that's what I believe. If it works I don't think it matters because no flashaholic is going to be at ease when running it like that. I have big lights for big output. 

I like AA for its charm. Safe batteries, lower voltage so not huge output which gives decent runtime, a good bug out option due to standard batteries, etc. 

I have been enjoying it tremendously. It's a different thing. The mini mkii is huge output in a tiny form factor. That's cool, but this light seems honest and great. 

Thanks I'll check out imgur. Never knew what it was really for.


----------



## LightSci

TCY said:


> I'd suggest not to put 14500 into your shiny new light, especially when ZL has already told you that it's not designed to handle the voltage. Your warranty is at risk if you do so.
> 
> I use abload.de to upload and link photos. The site is in German but it's pretty straightforward once you get the hang of it.



Thanks! I'll check it out.


----------



## Genzod

I have some good news (for me at least) regarding the new ZL H53c and H53w as it pertains to white blaze identification on the Appalachian Trail.

Now that I have learned that the National Park System has estimated there are over 165000 white blazes over the 2189 miles of trail. I'm assuming* that's ALL of them, both ways. A quick calculation yields an average spacing of 140 feet. Now that's good news to me because I read earlier that the spacing is on average 200 feet. (That may have been a less accurate subjectively acquired ballpark figure). That's a change from 61 meters to 43 meters. That cuts my intensity requirement for the flashlight in half. There are sections through designated wilderness areas and National Parks where the blazes are less frequent, even 0.1 to 0.2 miles apart at times (160m-320m and that means I would need a heavy scope for that). Nothing I can do about that since such heavy items are grievous to bear while fastpacking. But for the most part, the blazes are supposed to be set up so that one can see the next one from the former. If some areas are spread out that wide, the spacing in places it is _not_ that wide is even closer together than 140 feet. The Zebralight H53c can deliver easy identification intensity (4X above marginal needed intensity) at 170 feet (provided I either tunnel the light to eliminate foreground glare from spill or use a sighting tube against the eye to shield glare). The H53w, 174 feet. So even without lithium ion boost, the Zebralight can still work at finding blazes _most of the time_, except in places like national parks and wilderness areas where the blaze spacing is beyond the performance of _any_ narrow beam compact flashlight. But I still need lamp redundancy in case my main lamp fails, and it would be better to have a narrow beam thrower for better throw and minimizing spill and foreground glare.

So this headlamp is a fine choice for my situation.

*Not a bad assumption since it is the worst case. Assuming 165,000 markers in one direction puts the average at 70 ft.


----------



## Genzod

I'm sitting on a wad of cash and It has Zebralight H53 written all over it. I'm only undecided over whether I'd be happier with the C or W tint. I haven't seen any photos yet of an H53c on a trail in a magically enchanted forest with amethyst rocks, green grass and lush old growth forest. 

On the other hand, I've met with several naughty trolls.

It's the color thing really. I hate cool white tint in the forest on long trips and I think the W is enough to calm the light down some, but I'm afraid I might be unhappy with too much browning of the light in the C--just haven't seen anything in the context of a forested trail.

Anyone like to be the first to host images of the H53c dazzling the forest with its enchanted pixie dust?

Cuing the music now...


----------



## Offgridled

Gods natural tint


----------



## Genzod

Offgridled said:


> Gods natural tint



Well, whaddya know...God's pocketing an H53c! Totally "righteous".


----------



## Genzod

Here's a Reddit thread where an H53c owner is promoting a diffusion solution for his headlamp. He has comparison shots of the beams (at 56 lm), before and after and provides the source of his diffuser.

https://www.reddit.com/r/flashlight..._and_effective_diffuser_idea/#bottom-comments

Still no trail shots of the H53c? I guess everyone is going to stay inside and play with their lamp, then. Don't click it too much, you might go blind!


----------



## LightObsession

Genzod said:


> Here's a Reddit thread where an H53c owner is promoting a diffusion solution for his headlamp. He has comparison shots of the beams (at 56 lm), before and after and provides the source of his diffuser.
> 
> Don't click it too much, you might go blind!



Overly bright or poorly shaped oncoming vehicle headlights are more likely to make me go blind tonight. : (


----------



## Genzod

Outdoor scenery shots of the H53c now available here:

http://www.torch.pl/forum/index.php?topic=62868.msg260607;topicseen


----------



## Genzod

A purchase has been made. Was it H53w or H53c? Holy headlamps, Batman! Will the Joker ever reveal his hand? Tune in next week Bat-fans, same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel!

That should stun some of you on this board who thought that would never happen.:laughing: It should stun the owner of Zebralight, whose incompetent clerk didn't deter me from acting in my own best self interest.


----------



## iamlucky13

I'm going to venture to guess you went with the H53w for high output at medium CRI vs medium output at high CRI, but it's a tough call either way!


----------



## Kazik

It's a really great headlamp (best in the market?), but I wish Zebralight went more into runtime than output. For me 40-50lm is optimum for working stuff (that's what I use my H600w mostly for), so for me 50lm mode would be better than 65lm - You could squeeze some extra runtime, with AA that's nice. Also - H52 could operate on 14500, H53 cannot. Not a very big drawback for me, but noticeable. Still - combination of Zebra's quality and UI, high CRI, flood version avability and compact size makes it almost my holy grail. :twothumbs


----------



## Beacon of Light

TCY said:


> Don't forget that ZL introduces the new user programmable UI so you can have a UI completely tailored to your needs.



Nice pics TCY! I have seen you mention about the new user programmable UI in many older posts but after looking at Zebralights specs this doesn't seem any different than say the H52 which also had user programmable L2,M2 and H2 modes. All of my Mark2 or Mark 3 H600 series have this. Nothing new at all, unless they finally allowed users to program the L1, M1 and H1 modes which I doubt they have.


----------



## gunga

The latest Zebralights (Sc5c II and h53c) have 2 user programmable groups. The UI is the same but each of the 6 preset levels can be customized to any of the available levels. 

Note that single click does a preflash to "L" level before going to "H". So reversing low and high (like I tried to do) does not work well.


----------



## Beacon of Light

So in theory you could have:

H1 30 lumens H2 12 lumens
M1 4.1 lumens M2 1.2 lumens
L1 .31 lumens L2 .07 lumens

If so I'll be ordering shortly! This would be an answer to the problem I have always had as I strictly use lower modes and its a shame that older models made you decide to pick one of 3 subgroup levels when I'd prefer to use all of them in place of the pre determined levels ZL had set. 

So the difference between G6 and G7 are they are just separate groupings the user programs? Do all settings stay set when going from G6 to G7 and then back to G5 or does that do a factory reset every time?

So if I program G6 to the levels I posted above, do I need to click 6 times every time I start my light to get into this mode or will it remember this mode until I decide to change to another mode? 

Note: I downloaded the user manual for the H53W and it did not mention these questions I am asking.


----------



## eraursls1984

Beacon of Light said:


> So in theory you could have:
> 
> H1 30 lumens H2 12 lumens
> M1 4.1 lumens M2 1.2 lumens
> L1 .31 lumens L2 .07 lumens


Yes you can program it like that.

So the difference between G6 and G7 are they are just separate groupings the user programs? Do all settings stay set when going from G6 to G7 and then back to G5 or does that do a factory reset every time?


Beacon of Light said:


> So if I program G6 to the levels I posted above, do I need to click 6 times every time I start my light to get into this mode or will it remember this mode until I decide to change to another mode?


No you don't have to go into G6 each time. Once your in a mode group you are there until you switch to another. It's so easy to switch to another group at anytime that you can setup G5 for general use, and G6 and G7 for specialized uses like your programming above.


----------



## TCY

Beacon of Light said:


> So in theory you could have:
> 
> H1 30 lumens H2 12 lumens
> M1 4.1 lumens M2 1.2 lumens
> L1 .31 lumens L2 .07 lumens
> 
> If so I'll be ordering shortly! This would be an answer to the problem I have always had as I strictly use lower modes and its a shame that older models made you decide to pick one of 3 subgroup levels when I'd prefer to use all of them in place of the pre determined levels ZL had set.
> 
> So the difference between G6 and G7 are they are just separate groupings the user programs? Do all settings stay set when going from G6 to G7 and then back to G5 or does that do a factory reset every time?
> 
> So if I program G6 to the levels I posted above, do I need to click 6 times every time I start my light to get into this mode or will it remember this mode until I decide to change to another mode?
> 
> Note: I downloaded the user manual for the H53W and it did not mention these questions I am asking.



You can set all the modes to .07 if you wish so lol. G6 and G7 are two separate mode groups which you can store different settings for quick config. It remembers every mode you set even after battery swap. Once a mode group is selected, it stays there until the light is told otherwise. Based on your description the new UI satisfy your needs perfectly.


----------



## TCY

I took comparison photos for Genzod over a week ago but whenever I see those dozens of pics waiting to be labelled and uploaded I just become overly lazy. Procrastination is my arch enemy..


----------



## scs

Always thought the AA headlamp, out of the holder, would make a great EDC, when the clip is installed at the head end, making it a mini right angle light that you could clip onto your collar, pocket, waist, loops or straps on vests or backpacks, etc.. However, I just noticed that the new H53 series has done away with the clip groove at the head end, so the clip is no longer reversible. Ugh! I hate it when useful features are lost at the same time improvements are made. This never dying game of compromise with flashlights continues.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> I took comparison photos for Genzod over a week ago but whenever I see those dozens of pics waiting to be labelled and uploaded I just become overly lazy. Procrastination is my arch enemy..



Batman has a new arch enemy in Gotham City!


----------



## Genzod

scs said:


> Always thought the AA headlamp, out of the holder, would make a great EDC, when the clip is installed at the head end, making it a mini right angle light that you could clip onto your collar, pocket, waist, loops or straps on vests or backpacks, etc.. However, I just noticed that the new H53 series has done away with the clip groove at the head end, so the clip is no longer reversible. Ugh! I hate it when useful features are lost at the same time improvements are made. This never dying game of compromise with flashlights continues.



Yes, but you can't deny that when you wear the headlamp in its silicone holder, those luscious, anodized aluminum curves make you look...


----------



## scs

More like a dork. I'm disappointed to say the loss of the groove is enough reason for me to pass on it.
Flashaholism has definitely been more of a waiting hobby for me than the buying one for most.


----------



## Beacon of Light

I read through 300+ posts yesterday starting with post #1. Did I read that the clip now come pre-installed on the light and there is no way to remove the clip without scraping off the anodizing?


----------



## TCY

Beacon of Light said:


> I read through 300+ posts yesterday starting with post #1. Did I read that the clip now come pre-installed on the light and there is no way to remove the clip without scraping off the anodizing?



Yes and no. I took the clip off and put it back on a couple of times and the ano was fine.


----------



## Genzod

Beacon of Light said:


> I read through 300+ posts yesterday starting with post #1. Did I read that the clip now come pre-installed on the light and there is no way to remove the clip without scraping off the anodizing?



Someone in this thread did say that. Interestingly, and to my relief, my ZL came without the clip pre-attached.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> Someone in this thread did say that. Interestingly, and to my relief, my ZL came without the clip pre-attached.



How are you liking yours?


----------



## gunga

Mine was scratched/scraped. Taking clip off took a nice scrape off the side. I returned it and requested my replacement not have the clip attached. Looks like someone took it off (can see minor scuffs where it was attached. But no damage to the anodizing.


----------



## Beacon of Light

When I ordered mine I requested for them to not have it pre installed due to it possibly scratching the anodizing. Also asked if they swap out the black silicone holder for Glow in the Dark holder. I prefer the GITD holders so it is easy to locate when it gets dark.


----------



## gunga

Oh. Didn't know you could do that. Good call.


----------



## scs

gunga said:


> Mine was scratched/scraped. Taking clip off took a nice scrape off the side. I returned it and requested my replacement not have the clip attached. Looks like someone took it off (can see minor scuffs where it was attached. But no damage to the anodizing.



That's the problem with ZL's generous return policy. You got someone else's seconds, and now someone else will get yours, and so on. And you have to pay return shipping right?


----------



## Beacon of Light

Yeah been doing this for years. All of my Zebralights I get with the GITD holder. I must have over 15 ZL headlamps and all of them have GITD that I had Zebralight substitute for the black ones.


----------



## gunga

scs said:


> That's the problem with ZL's generous return policy. You got someone else's seconds, and now someone else will get yours, and so on. And you have to pay return shipping right?



Well. I thought mine was first batch. It did almost look like a second. Minor dings and scratches. Minor but down to bare metal. Second one was better.

I.managed to convince them to cover most of the shipping.


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> How are you liking yours?



I wouldn't know, as I had to return it for an exchange and don't have it.


----------



## TCY

Genzod said:


> I wouldn't know, as I had to return it for an exchange and don't have it.



I can only guess what happened to the bad apple that you sent back to ZL but I kinda know the feeling. Back in early 2016 ZL announced the SC600Fd plus which me and other fellow CPFers thought it would be the holy grail of EDC lights with the high CRI, 1500lm output and 5000K neutral tint. I waited until it was the end of September to finally get my hands on one and the tint was horrible. I still remember that bitter taste when you have been anxiously waiting for something that is suppose to be glorious for almost a whole year and it turn out to be rotten. Luckily ZL has a good return policy and their staff took care of me very well.

I hope the replacement light you are about to receive is good, ZL lights are really something you don't want to miss out when one is stepping into the flashaholic territory.


----------



## Beacon of Light

Got my H53FW a few days ago. I like the design actually, seems slimmer than the H52 and maybe even lighter? I asked for the GITD silicone holder but they sent the black one so I emailed them about it and hope they can take care of that. I was going to use one from my H52 or H501 but the straps aren't in the same location as the new grooves on the body of the H53. 

The manual was a generic manual that looks like it was the same as the one from the H52 as it doesn't even mention the G5,G6 or G7 modes or how to program them. I did see the instructions on the Zebralight site itself, but weirdly not in the PDF manual for the H53. I managed to program it to my preference but not without glitches or bugs in the firmware. I got to G6 or G7 fine. But unless I am doing something wrong when I double click 6 times and let go the light turns off. 

So basically to get to program mode it is hit or miss and I just keep double clicking until I see the levels changing and hope the light doesn't turn off (it will more than 50% of the time). The old way of programming the light was you had to be in one of the three main levels and then double click 6 times to program L2,M2 or H2. So I assume now you need to specifically go to L1 and double click 6 times, L2 and double click 6 times etc. etc. Problem is sometimes I will test it after I program it and light turns off and L1 will match M2 even though I programmed them differently (I basically triple click once in programming mode to get to lowest level and start at L2 and then just count each level after that after getting into whatever mode I am programming) In my case I just used the lowest 6 levels for all my settings. (H1-12, H2-4, M1-1.2, M2-.3, L1-.06, L2-.01) I notice this problem when once the light it off I just press and hold to cycle through the 3 main modes and I will get low medium medium. It skips high. When it is a second after what the high should be I double click and I get the H1 setting and if I turn off the light it will cycle normally. I tested this by turning on L2 and turning off ,M2 and turning off,H2 and turning off so it should cycle L2-.01.... M2-.3.... H2-4... By not sure why the glitch happens. Anyone else have irregularities with the programming?


----------



## Genzod

TCY said:


> I can only guess what happened to the bad apple that you sent back to ZL but I kinda know the feeling. ... Luckily ZL has a good return policy and their staff took care of me very well.
> 
> I hope the replacement light you are about to receive is good, ZL lights are really something you don't want to miss out when one is stepping into the flashaholic territory.



I received my replacement yesterday--that's about 3 days after the backorder was restocked, which is why the reorder took so long. Even so, it was still within the 2 week promised fulfillment schedule for an exchange. They got it out to me as fast as humanly possible. I'm still a little disappointed I had to pay an extra $5.50 and experience the delay, but sch*tt happens. I'm just glad they had a 30 day no questions asked policy, even though I think my return was warranty due to workmanship.

After two shipments, it is apparent ZL no longer ships the lamp with clip attached. It's clear they pay attention to their customer complaints, so that's good. Scratching the virgin lamp for the first time is our job. :naughty: 

Everything appears to be fine with the condition this time. I asked ZL to check the lamp before sending and it appears they did--couldn't ask for it to be more perfect. I haven't yet checked it for programming or run with it yet, but I will later tonight. Hopefully I will get some beams shots as well and post those. Seeing I ultimately decided on the H53w, I'll have to post those in another thread.


----------



## Genzod

iamlucky13 said:


> I'm going to venture to guess you went with the H53w for high output at medium CRI vs medium output at high CRI, but it's a tough call either way!



Nice call. I did get the H53w. The H53c is nice color-wise and having a warm 4000k, but 4500K neutral is a nice enough tint to prevent cool white psychosis on the trail. Much more important I have higher outputs for footing in technical trail situations, but I'll still have a satisfying experience with the greens and browns of the trail at night. I'll probably run with 65, 122 and 198 lm and that is better than 56, 106 and 171 lm, a measured difference of about 16% and a _perceived _difference of about 8%.


----------



## TCY

Congrats, another story we can share about how ZL getting it right (the second time).

I'll be munching popcorns and wait for those sweet beamshots


----------



## Bluebloa

I just bought Zebra H53FC
http://www.zebralight.com/H53Fc-AA-H...CRI_p_195.html
The tint like the incandescent lamp. I am very plesae with HI CRI 93-95. The beam good for hiking but I think with the close rangge, H502c -L2 is the best!​




*​*


----------



## Bluebloa

Sorry double posts​


----------



## Genzod

Lou Minescence said:


> I also noticed that the 'factory reset' of 3 sets of pushes for the different mode groups doesn't work for me. All the changes of brightness levels I made are still there in all groups. Either I am not doing it correctly or something. G5 works well for me. Thats what I will use.



I was having the same problem. You're most likely leaving too much time between sequences of 7 short clicks. What finally got my G7 to reset was a shorter gap between 7's.

Because Zebralight is not forthcoming with full details like this, the UI is a frustrating to learn and not worth the trouble of having it. I'm still trying to figure out what I am doing wrong programming G6 and G7. I want H=30, 198; M=12, 122; and L=1,65. That will give me: 

1) single click on with benign light that won't blind me and still be bright enough to tell it's on 
2) my running lights in sequence so I can scroll through them with HOLD 
3) easy access to 30 for walking (1 click off, one click on) and fetching water or cooking (1 click off, 2 clicks on) and map reading (1 click off, HOLD). 

I've programmed it successfully, and scrolled through both columns 1-12-30 and 65-122-198, but after turning it off and coming back to it, the sequences are jumbled despite the fact that each still seems programmed in its correct mode when checked.

There are details Zebralight isn't telling us that makes making errors in programming easy to make, and until I figure out what those are, I can't tell if this is a firmware issue and I need another light or I'm just doing something wrong with the way I'm programming it. 

I'd prefer it if ZL would just split the opening at the neck of their flashlights and have an internal USB port that I can hook up to any smartphone or PC, access a webpage from the ZL website that communicates with the light, and give me a graphic interface where I can visually select a value for each level and mode and confirm that the levels are programmed correctly. No more of this guesswork on spacing the clicks properly or doing something out of order that messes up the scrolling. One could also download and update firmware directly from their site.

But I guess effective communication regarding the UI procedures isn't important when the flashlights keep going out and the money keeps coming in--what problem, right?


----------



## Genzod

I'm finding the issue I'm experiencing with scrolling is conceptual. The problem is the way the UI remembers the last intensity in each level when the light turns off (or swapping columns after scrolling without turning it off, I'm finding out).

The only way to get the mode sequences to scroll properly in two separate columns (modes 1 and 2) so I can keep track of which intensity I'm using, is to refresh all 6 slots to proper order before I scroll. As you can see, this makes scrolling a major pain and useless for what I intended.

I program from scratch a sequence of low intensities (ascending order) in mode 1, and high intensities (ascending order) in mode 2. When I HOLD on from OFF, it scrolls L1-M1-H1 with mode 1 settings, which is what I want. I drop down to L, DAAAA..BLE CLICK. Now I scroll L2, M2, H2--what I want. Now I drop down to L, DAAAA..BLE CLICK, now it scrolls L1, M2, H2. The scrolling is memorizing the M2 and H2 and disrupts the intended sequence in each mode string.

What's the point to scrolling if the memory function is going to jumble the preferred arrangement? It looks like a firmware issue (a design issue actually ) because I thought memorization is only supposed to take place when you turn off the unit. If the UI is going to play a shell game with me every time I scroll it, I'm better off going to Armytek for my lights. It's much easier to use (learn to use). 

If someone has a work around for this problem, I'd appreciate it, but as for now, it looks like I expected too much from this UI and ZL.


----------



## ooeei

Genzod said:


> I'm finding the issue I'm experiencing with scrolling is conceptual. The problem is the way the UI remembers the last intensity in each level when the light turns off (or swapping columns after scrolling without turning it off, I'm finding out). The only way to get the sequences to scroll properly in two separate columns (modes 1 and 2) so I understand which intensity I'm using, is to refresh all 6 slots to proper order before I scroll. As you can see, this makes scrolling a major pain and useless for what I intended. ...... What's the point to scrolling if the memory function is going to jumble the preferred arrangement? If the UI is going to play a shell game with me every time I use it, I'm better off going to Armytek for my lights. It's much easier to use.If someone has a work around for this problem, I'd appreciate it, but as for now, it looks like I expected too much from this UI.



This is how the Zebralight UI has been for the last few iterations. The idea was you had 6 total settings you could get to, with 3 easily accessible. Those 3 were memorized from the last you used. For example on the H52 if you have L1 at 2.9lm, and L2 at .01lm, it will remember which one you used last. This prevents you from turning the light off after using it at .01lm, then turning it back on and blinding yourself with 2.9lm. It will always go back to the last used of the two settings per level.

I can see a use for having it not remember, but that would end up with you needing to double click, wait, and double click again to get to M2 for example. Not exactly simple or quick, and essentially makes that setting useless. The idea with the current system is you change the 3 sublevels for the given situation, and mainly use the 3 you have setup. For example, maybe you find on some nights you need 300lm on the trail, but on other nights you only need 116lm. At the start of your run you select the one you're more likely to use, and basically stick with it. Basically I consider the light to have 3 levels available during a given event, and you choose between H1/H2 at the beginning of your "event". For most situations you can probably narrow it down to 3 settings and stick with them for the most part.

Additionally, having G6 or G7 function without memory, while leaving G5 intact just seems like it would add more confusion/problems than it would solve. Right now they're basically the old UI but fully programmable, which I think is pretty great. I think the main use of G6/G7 seems to be re-arranging which brightnesses correspond to which presses. Maybe in some situations where you use low a lot you want that as the single press. In other situations you want high or medium as a single press. Whether you need 300lm or 116lm for trail running, it's likely you'll want the same "order" of brightnesses among the 3 levels. The same can be said for camping or late night bathroom breaks. Think of G5/G6/G7 as changing the order, and H1/H2 M1/M2 and L1/L2 as calibrating to your situation. Narrow down the 3 levels you'll use most in a given situation, and stick with them. Trying to have all 6 available ends up getting complicated with 1 button no matter how zebralight does their UI.

The only "workaround" is to start thinking of the light as mainly a 3 level light, with the ability to adjust those 3 levels slightly along the way. Generally having H1/H2 both be around the same relative level (high, medium, or low) is probably your best bet, similar to how G5 works. That way your worst case scenario is something like getting 122lm when you wanted 330lm, vs getting .013lm when you wanted 330lm (or worse, getting 300lm when you were expecting .013lm). In reality after getting used to the light this will all probably be second nature and you won't have many problems. If there's some level you really want guaranteed you could always program L1/L2 to be the same brightness, and prevent the issue from ever happening.


----------



## Swedpat

I bought both H53c and SC53c. Slightly less bright than XM-L2 52w equivalents but the tint is awesome and incandescent reminding!


----------



## Genzod

ooeei said:


> This is how the Zebralight UI has been for the last few iterations. The idea was you had 6 total settings you could get to, with 3 easily accessible. Those 3 were memorized from the last you used. For example on the H52 if you have L1 at 2.9lm, and L2 at .01lm, it will remember which one you used last. This prevents you from turning the light off after using it at .01lm, then turning it back on and blinding yourself with 2.9lm. It will always go back to the last used of the two settings per level.



The problem here though is that it's memorizing levels without the unit being turned off, so when I scroll then switch out L1 and L2 with a "dabble" click, it's keeping in memory the last two H and M levels of the last scroll. I'm not sure if this is supposed to happen. Either it's a firmware error or ZL just made a design oversight. I think it would be much better not to have one column of variable H M and L getting redefined (ex. H=H1 or H=H2) by how it was last scrolled. The way I read their website, memorization into H M L (as last used) is only supposed to occur when the unit is turned off, not when swapping mode banks to initiate a scroll.

Thank you for taking the time to register and making your first post to help me with this issue.


----------



## ooeei

Genzod said:


> The problem here though is that it's memorizing levels without the unit being turned off, so when I scroll then switch out L1 and L2 with a "dabble" click, it's keeping in memory the last two H and M levels of the last scroll. I'm not sure if this is supposed to happen. Either it's a firmware error or ZL just made a design oversight. I think it would be much better not to have one column of variable H M and L getting redefined by how it was last scrolled. The way I read their website, memorization into H M L (as last used) is only supposed to occur when the unit is turned off, not when swapping mode banks to initiate a scroll.......Thank you for taking the time to register and making your first post to help me with this issue.



I don't actually have an H53 (yet), as I'm waiting in case there are any bugs that need working out. Also I don't really have anything my H52 doesn't already work for, so I can't justify it at the moment. I have been scouring the interwebs for any info on them though, and may bite the bullet one of these days as a backup. I may hold out to see if they end up fitting the S5C supercharger into it. I've been a lurker here long enough, so now's as good of a time as any to register! 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that what you're looking for is when you switch from L1 to L2, that M1 switches to M2 and H1 switches to H2 as well. Basically making 1 and 2 two discreet "sets" that operate independently from each other. As far as I know that's not how it works or is intended to work. I can see value in that for certain specific purposes, but for general use I think having each level be independent is better. For example I might find for a given situation my High isn't quite bright enough, but that doesn't mean my low or medium also needs to be changed. Scrolling is simply toggling through the 3 "H, M, L" levels with whatever level was last used (which could be L1, M2, H2 or L2, M1, H2, etc), it shouldn't be reassigning anything. Really I think adding the 1 and 2 after the levels can be a bit confusing, since they aren't really tied to each other and other than G5 (where the 1's are fixed) neither one is really primary or secondary in practice. 

As I understand it the functionality you're looking for is what the separate G5, G6, and G7 are for. If you want to change all modes over at once, just toggle between them. You essentially have G5, G6, and G7 for "macro" level changes, and within those modes you can adjust each level individually with the double click. This gives you the flexibility of large scale sets to work with, along with the ability to customize your set on the run (rather than being stuck with discreet sets of 3). The scrolling system always goes with the last used mode at each level. I think of the double click to change from H1 to H2 for example as just being a mild adjustment to fine tune your setup. Maybe I don't really need 330lm right now since I walked into deeper brush, so I'll change it over to 198lm instead. That doesn't mean my low mode for reading a map also needs to be changed, maybe it was perfect where it was. Once you use the low mode you can toggle it easy enough if needed though. Thus instead of having H1/M1/L1 and H2/M2/L2 as your only options, you can mix and match for the specific situation. I can definitely see this being inconvenient if you prefer having all 3 levels switch at once for some reason. For large scale changes (reversing the order of high/medium/low for example), I think I'd switch across G levels to prevent accidental blinding or confusion. Essentially you have 3 sets (G5, G6, and G7) that are somewhat customizable on the fly rather than 6 sets (G51/G52, G61/G62, G71/G72) that aren't customizable on the fly, which it seems like you may be looking for.

Hopefully that helps? Maybe I misunderstood what you're looking for and typed all of that in vain :thinking:


----------



## eraursls1984

Genzod said:


> The problem here though is that it's memorizing levels without the unit being turned off, so when I scroll then switch out L1 and L2 with a "dabble" click, it's keeping in memory the last two H and M levels of the last scroll. I'm not sure if this is supposed to happen. Either it's a firmware error or ZL just made a design oversight. I think it would be much better not to have one column of variable H M and L getting redefined by how it was last scrolled. The way I read their website, memorization into H M L (as last used) is only supposed to occur when the unit is turned off, not when swapping mode banks to initiate a scroll.......Thank you for taking the time to register and making your first post to help me with this issue.


No, it memorizes the last used mode in that mode group. This is the way my older Zebralights work as well.


----------



## Genzod

eraursls1984 said:


> No, it memorizes the last used mode in that mode group. This is the way my older Zebralights work as well.


I agree. That is what it seems to be doing. But ZL's site says "The selections for the second sub-levels are memorized after the light is turned off and through battery changes." Which if taken literally for the way the sentence is structured, it reads "The selections for the second sub-levels are memorized after the light is turned off ". Had they been clear as you and said "it memorizes the last used mode in that mode group, (adding...) even after it is shut down" then there would be no mistake in understanding what was meant. This is just a communication failure on the part of whoever wrote their site instructions.


----------



## Genzod

Now that I understand how the ZL UI is actually designed to work, I think I'm going to have to do this for my AT trail running.

G6/Mode 1 (H,M,L) will be programmed with 30, 65, 122 (my economy running spread which can be scrolled for inclines, level and down slopes, respectively). G6/Mode 2 will be programmed with 12, 1, 275 (H2O and cooking, maps and lower draining trail marker beaming when necessary--plan is to use hand held back up lamp with up to 1600 lm for blaze identification instead). I can scroll the mode 1 running intensities, while "dabble" clicking to get to the non running levels. I'll just have to build the habit of "dabble" clicking back to running mode when done with non running modes so as not to disturb the sequence of running mode levels.

G7 will be a set up as a power mode as opposed to economy modes of G6. The running spread will be increased one level up to 65, 122 and 198, all else being the same. That way technical situations can have a little extra brightness in each mode by a simple 7 click shift to G7.

Thank you all for your advice and experiential knowledge. I thought I was losing my mind. If anyone has a better idea, please advise. I appreciate your help.

If ZL could design an array that allows for two column scrolling, I think that that would make their product tenfold better.

For those of you international lumen fanatics not familiar with American football TV-commercials, "dabble" means "double" in northern US dialect. I confess I can't resist the urge to say daaa-ble with every availing opportunity, but that's just me.


----------



## ooeei

Genzod said:


> Now that I understand how the ZL UI is actually designed to work, I think I'm going to have to do this for my AT trail running......... G6/Mode 1 (H,M,L) will be programmed with 30, 65, 122 (my economy running spread which can be scrolled for inclines, level and down slopes, respectively). G6/Mode 2 will be programmed with 12, 1, 275 (H2O and cooking, maps and lower draining trail marker beaming when necessary--plan is to use hand held back up lamp with up to 1600 lm for blaze identification instead). I can scroll the mode 1 running intensities, while "dabble" clicking to get to the non running levels. I'll just have to build the habit of "dabble" clicking back to running mode when done with non running modes so as not to disturb the sequence of running mode levels.......G7 will be a set up as a power mode as opposed to economy modes of G6. The running spread will be increased one level up to 65, 122 and 198, all else being the same. That way technical situations can have a little extra brightness in each mode by a simple 7 click shift to G7........Thank you all for your advice and experiential knowledge. I thought I was losing my mind. If anyone has a better idea, please advise. I appreciate your help.........If ZL could design an array that allows for two column scrolling, I think that that would make their product tenfold better........By the way, my HTML code is off as indicated at the bottom of my Google browser display of this page. If anyone knows how to resolve this so I can space my paragraphs again. I'd appreciate a PM (not a post here). I've tried selecting other settings for the editor. I've also purged the cache and rebooted the computer. I also tried IE 10. Still can't place emoticons or space paragraphs. Not sure what has changed since late August when everything was working properly. Haven't posted since then. Sorry about the difficult to read posts that have resulted. I'm trying to resolve that......For those of you international lumen fanatics not familiar with American football TV-commercials, "dabble" means "double" in northern US dialect. I confess I can't resist the urge to say daaa-ble with every availing opportunity, but that's just me.[video=youtube;yfB4PY8Wa10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfB4PY8Wa10[video]



I'm not sure I agree with having the two column scrolling is desirable, but I guess the option wouldn't hurt (although it would make the lamp a bit more complicated). 

I do have a suggestion that might improve your G6 a bit. I'd recommend H1/H2 65/30, M1/M2 12/1, and L1/L2 275/122. This way you simply have a medium, low, and high mode, each of which can be adjusted a bit on the fly depending on your situation. This is basically how G5 works in a slightly different order, and it's very intuitive. In this way you won't have a 65/1 spread which would be pretty disorienting if you accidentally choose the wrong one. You also won't have to worry as much about memorizing what is where. If you need a medium amount of light, you single click, then double click to increase/decrease it if needed. Same for low and high. Rather than thinking of it as two separate sets of three (H1/M1/L1 vs H2/M2/L2), think of it as three separate sets of two (H1/H2 vs M1/M2 vs L1/L2). As I mentioned above in my comment (which takes awhile to post due to moderator approval on these first 3), H1/M1/L1 aren't actually related to each other, so I don't think considering them as a separate set from H2/M2/L2 makes much sense. 

Granted our brains may just work in different ways, so your way might work great for you. For example, I almost never use the scrolling but it seems to be pretty important to you. Also keep in mind someone mentioned earlier in this thread that doing a double click to get to M1/M2 does a brief flash of both H1/H2 and L1/L2, so that might be worth testing before you actually use it in a dark adjusted situation in the woods. If you're scrolling it may not be an issue.


----------



## Genzod

ooeei said:


> I'm not sure I agree with having the two column scrolling is desirable, but I guess the option wouldn't hurt (although it would make the lamp a bit more complicated). I do have a suggestion that might improve your G6 a bit. I'd recommend H1/H2 65/30, M1/M2 12/1, and L1/L2 275/122. This way you simply have a medium, low, and high mode, each of which can be adjusted a bit on the fly depending on your situation. This is basically how G5 works in a slightly different order, and it's very intuitive. In this way you won't have a 65/1 spread which would be pretty disorienting if you accidentally choose the wrong one. You also won't have to worry as much about memorizing what is where. If you need a medium amount of light, you single click, then double click to increase/decrease it if needed. Same for low and high. Rather than thinking of it as two separate sets of three (H1/M1/L1 vs H2/M2/L2), think of it as three separate sets of two (H1/H2 vs M1/M2 vs L1/L2). As I mentioned above in my comment (which takes awhile to post due to moderator approval on these first 3), H1/M1/L1 aren't actually related to each other, so I don't think considering them as a separate set from H2/M2/L2 makes much sense. Granted our brains may just work in different ways, so your way might work great for you. For example, I almost never use the scrolling but it seems to be pretty important to you. Also keep in mind someone mentioned earlier in this thread that doing a double click to get to M1/M2 does a brief flash of both H1/H2 and L1/L2, so that might be worth testing before you actually use it in a dark adjusted situation in the woods. If you're scrolling it may not be an issue.



Yeah, I like scrolling my running spread since it's one press, hold, then release on preference. I can do that easily while running. Scrolling to level, THEN "Daaaa-ble" clicking during motion is a little more awkward (since obviously I can't start from OFF while in motion). That's why keeping my stationary settings (cooking, water, maps, tenting and blaze searching) in mode two is more convenient in my case. Double clicking while running is for people who can walk and chew gum at the same time (So yes it is a difference in the way our brains work).  Actually, cognition is affected by running and also curtailed sleep, so the more mindless the action is while selecting a running level, the better.

I think the process of having to rewire my brain to work with this UI and switch has made this seem harder than it eventually will no longer be. I'm sure all of you have long accustomed yourselves to the UI, it's timing of clicks and so forth, that you can now do it in your sleep. I appreciate everyone's insights here, especially the practical experience affirming there is no firmware issue. I wasn't exactly a happy camper thinking I was going to have to fork out *another* $5 shipping to get ZL to fix that.


----------



## Burgess

Have a new ZebraLight SC 5c Mk2
and really LOVE it !


But today, I tried to program
the G6 mode, and finally *GAVE UP *!

< sigh >


Guess I'll just use it as it is . . . .


_


----------



## ven

Burgess said:


> Have a new ZebraLight SC 5c Mk2
> and really LOVE it !
> 
> 
> But today, I tried to program
> the G6 mode, and finally *GAVE UP *!
> 
> < sigh >
> 
> 
> Guess I'll just use it as it is . . . .
> 
> 
> _




You can not give up! Have a brew(or a beer) , which ever takes your fancy(10 mins away from the light). 6 double clicks, or you can double click it to change level to sub level, double click back..............which ever way you look at the 6 double clicks. Then pause a couple of secs to get your breath! . Double click to go up, triple click to go back in levels, once your at the one desired.............click off and its stored. I have my H1 set to the highest, and around 100-140lm level(which ever it is, i just go off rough brightness). Its a very noticeable drop anyway which i wanted. Now with a single click i get a do it all level, i just double click for my super high 500lm level. Or visa versa of course...................now this mkII being my 1st ZL light, then after getting a couple of lights with the older UI, i do prefer the newer for its added flexibility. Just more options, you have g5/g6/g7 which can all be tweaked with more level options. I really like the new UI, about to give it a go on an sc53w(4500k and trying the xp-l2 again...............)


----------



## sc00ts19

Burgess said:


> Have a new ZebraLight SC 5c Mk2
> and really LOVE it !
> 
> 
> But today, I tried to program
> the G6 mode, and finally *GAVE UP *!
> 
> < sigh >
> 
> 
> Guess I'll just use it as it is . . . .
> 
> 
> _



One thing that frustrated me until I figured it out was that you can only program a level that you’ve entered from off, which is your last memorized mode. For example, assuming H1 is your memorized high mode, single click to H1, then 6x double clicks to enter programming mode. To program H2, single click to H1, 1x double click to H2, single click off then single click to H2 followed by 6xDC for programming. 

To reset G6, I’ve found that the cadence is more like 18 single clicks, rather than 6 single clicks 3 times. 

I hope that made sense [emoji851]


----------



## Burgess

Thank you, everyone,
for your helpful suggestions !


Tell me --
I already have my G5 modes set up the 
way I like them.

BUT --
I'd really like to change JUST my L-2 setting,
to something else. (to the M-2C level)


Tell me, please --
Can I go to G6 mode,
and change JUST my L-2 setting ?

And will all my other modes 
stay at my chosen G5 settings ?

Or, will they automatically
revert back to the "defaults" ?

Hope this makes sense . . . .


----------



## ven

You can go to G6, with just 6 clicks from off, your now in G6( 5 clicks from off is G5, 6 clicks from off is G6 and 7 clicks from off is G7). Once in G6(6 clicks from off) you can select your L2 , then 6 double clicks to get you into your level select. Double click to bump up, triple click to bump down. Once happy, single click off and its memorised. 

It will not revert back to default unless you (if on G5) you have to do 3 consecutive 5 clicks,( or 5 clicks three times). To revert G6 back to default its 6 clicks three times, G7 seven clicks three times. Its a lot of clicks..................but i have attempted worse(novatac's 250)


----------



## ven

Thats the great thing burgess with ZL's latest UI, you can have 3 mode groups set at your levels. So G5/G6 and G7 can all be set up different. All you need to do to select(example here) a home suited use, 5 clicks, outdoor use ,6 clicks and work use, 7 clicks.


----------



## eraursls1984

sc00ts19 said:


> One thing that frustrated me until I figured it out was that you can only program a level that you’ve entered from off, which is your last memorized mode. For example, assuming H1 is your memorized high mode, single click to H1, then 6x double clicks to enter programming mode. To program H2, single click to H1, 1x double click to H2, single click off then single click to H2 followed by 6xDC for programming.


No, you can reprogram any and every mode you want. You do need to wait a few seconds so it doesn't register the clicks as being sequential to the double click to change modes.


----------



## sc00ts19

eraursls1984 said:


> No, you can reprogram any and every mode you want. You do need to wait a few seconds so it doesn't register the clicks as being sequential to the double click to change modes.



Yes, I understand that. The problem I was having is that I was going to H1 from off, double clicking to H2, then trying to enter programming mode with 6xDC. Once I figured out that you have to enter the desired level from off, then 6xDC to programming mode, setting the levels was a breeze.


----------



## Burgess

** * * FINALLY GOT IT * * **




Thank you, everybody, SO MUCH ! ! !


lovecpf

_


----------



## Genzod

Burgess said:


> Have a new ZebraLight SC 5c Mk2
> and really LOVE it !
> 
> 
> But today, I tried to program
> the G6 mode, and finally *GAVE UP *!
> 
> < sigh >
> 
> 
> Guess I'll just use it as it is . . . .
> 
> 
> _



One of the most frustrating things about the ZL was having to teach my muscle memory the click timing.

First problem encountered was resetting the unit. If the space separating the three sequences of 5, 6 or 7 short clicks was just a hair splitting fraction of a second too long, it wouldn't reset to default. 

The second problem I noticed is trying to program mode 2 of a level when mode 1 is queued in memory (or visa versa). That requires clicking on at a level, then double clicking to get the other mode into memory. If the double click of the swap is too close in time to the double click of the 6 double clicks to start programming, the first double click seems to get counted into the mash. The only way I could ensure this error didn't happen is just to do the swap first, turn off the unit, then turn it on with the other mode coming on first. That eliminates the need for the troublesome double click swap.


----------



## one5

My new H53Fw flashes every 15 seconds after turning off. Is it some kind of low battery warning? It is not mentioned in user manual.


----------



## Genzod

> "My new H53Fw flashes every 15 seconds after turning off. Is it some kind of low battery warning? It is not mentioned in user manual."



*DavidD* had a problem like this with his ZL back in May. I don't know what his conclusion was. You could try what he did and conctact them:

https://zebralight.3dcartstores.com/crm.asp?action=contactusI 

I have a feeling though you'll be paying $5.50 homage to the United State Postal Service, just like I had to, :laughing:.


----------



## sc00ts19

one5 said:


> My new H53Fw flashes every 15 seconds after turning off. Is it some kind of low battery warning? It is not mentioned in user manual.



I’m sure this isn’t the case, but thought it would be worth asking. Are you sure you aren’t inadvertently triple clicking into beacon mode instead of turning it off? What happens when you double click?


----------



## gurdygurds

I was accidentally putting mine into strobe/beacon mode for a while. Think it's just getting used to click timing a bit. Thanks for the tip about only programming a certain setting from OFF. Thought my light had an issue until reading that. I've got the Sc53c. Been a learning curve but this thing has been extremely fun to play with and getting to know the UI.


----------



## one5

sc00ts19 said:


> I’m sure this isn’t the case, but thought it would be worth asking. Are you sure you aren’t inadvertently triple clicking into beacon mode instead of turning it off? What happens when you double click?


Yes I'm sure. Double click turns on M1.

Flashing was gone when I replaced battery for fresh one. Putting back drained battery - and after turning healamp on and off flashing was back again. I measured distance between two flashes. Initially it was 15 seconds, next day it was 20 seconds.

I asked Zebralight user support at Friday and waiting for the answer.


----------



## sc00ts19

one5 said:


> Yes I'm sure. Double click turns on M1.
> 
> Flashing was gone when I replaced battery for fresh one. Putting back drained battery - and after turning healamp on and off flashing was back again. I measured distance between two flashes. Initially it was 15 seconds, next day it was 20 seconds.
> 
> I asked Zebralight user support at Friday and waiting for the answer.



Darn, sorry to hear that. Hopefully it gets resolved quickly for you. Let us know what you find out.


----------



## one5

So user support answered:


Zebralight said:


> Yes, it's a low battery warning.


----------



## eh4

Two nice things about scrolling; it's very little wear on the switch, not that that should be an issue, and it takes minimal dexterity with cold hands, etc, just a basic sense of the timing, and of course on the Cons side it takes a second longer to get to the third level.


----------



## sc00ts19

one5 said:


> So user support answered:



My h53c began flashing while off at 12 second intervals. I put the eneloop in my charger and it read .9v. The battery had about 1 month of frequent daily use. 

I’m very impressed with this low voltage warning, though I was completely unaware of this feature and can’t seem to find any mention of it on the product specs.


----------



## likethevegetable

I noticed the other day that there was a bit of light poking through the rubber button my H53c with the light on high - anyone else notice that? I'm not worried, just an observation.


----------



## eh4

likethevegetable said:


> I noticed the other day that there was a bit of light poking through the rubber button my H53c with the light on high - anyone else notice that? I'm not worried, just an observation.



That would worry me a bit. 
You've got light leaking from the base of the reflector, which is probably typical enough, but then you've either got a perforation in the switch boot, a failure of the boot's seal, an extremely thin silicone rubber casting, or a casting that didn't get pigment mixed thoroughly. - the last case is the only one that wouldn't worry me.


----------



## one5

likethevegetable said:


> I noticed the other day that there was a bit of light poking through the rubber button my H53c with the light on high - anyone else notice that?


Yes, my H53Fw.


----------



## likethevegetable

Here's what it looks like. Note: it is not as bright as the picture shows, I believe my camera was over-compensating for the low light picture. A bit of light shines through the other side of the switch too, but not as much. I'm guessing the rubber is thin enough that it's letting some light through.


----------



## likethevegetable

Here's a better picture (the leakage brightness is still exaggerated)


----------



## gurdygurds

I couldn't say what is actually happening there but there is no way I could personally live with that. I'd be exchanging that quickly.


likethevegetable said:


> Here's a better picture (the leakage brightness is still exaggerated)


----------



## eh4

one5 says the same, this seems like a molding problem with the switch boots. 
Hopefully it's a problem with pigments and not with the molding fill out. 
I'm ordering an H53c as a gift shortly, I'll be looking for this issue.


----------



## eh4

If there's missing material in the boot, incomplete mold fill out, you should be able to feel it with some careful probing, maybe with a cut off toothpick - to dull it. Feel the pressure resistance in the dark areas and compare to the physical resistance when pushing into the illuminated areas.


----------



## likethevegetable

eh4 said:


> If there's missing material in the boot, incomplete mold fill out, you should be able to feel it with some careful probing, maybe with a cut off toothpick - to dull it. Feel the pressure resistance in the dark areas and compare to the physical resistance when pushing into the illuminated areas.



Did exactly that - it was difficult to compare without some psychological bias, but I do believe the brighter side deforms slightly more with equal pressure.

I've contacted ZL to see what they say. Provided they offer a RMA, I might wait to employ it. It might be informative to use this light regularly and see if the boot fails - although I doubt it would happen soon since the "more thin and/or less pigmented" areas probably won't see a lot of mechanical stress as I'm not activating the button with my fingernail or anything like that.

I'm in Canada and not sure how much the duties will cost - does anyone have any experience with RMA's from Canada? Looks like a small package with tracking and insurance would be $17CAD, about 20% of what I paid. 

I have an H600Fc Mk IV on pre-order - if I love the frosted glass, you think ZL would swap out my lense too if I send it in for the boot replacement?


----------



## eh4

I'll bet that they would swap the glass for you if you ask nice. 
One thing to consider is that the frosted glass makes the H52Fc (that's what I can compare with) into a pretty short range light, the H53c numbers look comparable. 
I've given away my H52Fc to a family member, and switched over to H600Fw, and in comparison the H600Fw manages to work for me as an all purpose edc light due to the larger reflector and the high modes, even though I mostly use L1 and M1, which are also long duration modes with the H52 and H53 models. 
If you switch your H53c to floody, it's going to become something like a very handy oven range light, maybe 30 feet of comfortable viewing with decent battery life (50+ lumens for 8.5 hours).

On the other hand, I've been trying to convert them over to H600Fw ever since I upgraded to it, but they love the H52Fc and don't want the added bulk and new battery chemistry even for the greater range and duration it offers. 
I'm torn myself, I am spoiled with the floody lens and don't miss the blob of throw, but with such limited power it would be nice to have more range. 
When i get one for myself I think it's going to have to get the removable DC film fix, so that even if I never need the throw, it's already available by pulling the film.


----------



## likethevegetable

eh4: I was thinking the same thing. When I get my hands on the H600Fc (that will be a good day), I was planning on doing some tests to see the approximate lumens of the H600Fc that match the throw of the H53c. Different emitter and reflector size aside, I think it would be a reasonable test. I've messed around DC-fix film, scotch tape, and latex gloves on my H53c and found it was a big set back for throw, so perhaps you're right in that a frosted AA will be too weak for my needs. I'll probably demote my H53c from the primary hiking/camping headlamp job and use it mainly as an off head band EDC and loaner headlamp for my lady.


----------



## likethevegetable

Zebralight responded: 
"All switch covers leak light somewhat, especially in thin/flexible area. The 'black' silicone is actually a mix of transparent silicone with some black pigment."


----------



## eh4

Interesting, so the pigment mix error is their answer. 
That would fit with the way the light bends around the rim, my concern was that a poorly filled out molding might do the same... failure to fill the mold would be a much bigger fail than a poorly mixed pigment, and I would certainly give them the benefit of the doubt there, that the silicone would be properly shaped if not uniformly pigmented.


----------



## anthon87

The H53w I've received today doesn' leak brightness through the switch rubber


----------



## Tachead

anthon87 said:


> The H53w I've received today doesn' leak brightness through the switch rubber


Did you put it on high in a dark room and press it against something to block the light coming out of the lens? Most of my Zebralight's show a bit of light through their switch boots if you look hard for it. It is not a problem imo and should not be worried about unless there is an actual hole in the switch boot.


----------



## Genzod

likethevegetable said:


> I noticed the other day that there was a bit of light poking through the rubber button my H53c with the light on high - anyone else notice that? I'm not worried, just an observation.



Oh, great. Ditto on the H53w, too. :sigh: If this compromises the waterproof integrity of the lamp, I'm going to be out ANOTHER $5.50 postage. To date, my ZL reduced price to $59.00 has cost me $64.50. Now shooting for $70.00.


----------



## eh4

I'd never noticed it, but on H1 my H600w actually leaks a tiny bit of light from two spots on the edge of the switch boot, through the boot, not around it... looks like a little bit of variance in the pigment. 
This is a light that's been dunked casually and repeatedly, with the switch operated while wet and while submerged without incident.


----------



## likethevegetable

Genzod said:


> Oh, great. Ditto on the H53w, too. :sigh: If this compromises the waterproof integrity of the lamp, I'm going to be out ANOTHER $5.50 postage. To date, my ZL reduced price to $59.00 has cost me $64.50. Now shooting for $70.00.




Zebralight mentioned that this is a common occurrence due to a lack of pigmentation. I don't think the waterproofing is compromised on mine, and I believe I have a pretty extreme case of light poking through. Only time will tell though..


----------



## gogdog

Genzod said:


> Oh, great. Ditto on the H53w, too. :sigh: If this compromises the waterproof integrity of the lamp, I'm going to be out ANOTHER $5.50 postage. To date, my ZL reduced price to $59.00 has cost me $64.50. Now shooting for $70.00.



Did you happen to purchase the light with Paypal? Paypal will reimburse you the return shipping fee if you need to do a return. Just google "Paypal refund return shipping". I just did it with a Fenix light that I bought and then returned. 

What this also means...is that if someone can't decide on a h53c or h53w (like me), they can buy both, and then return the one they don't want. Paypal will then reimburse you the return shipping! So it would be free shipping both ways (from zebralight and return to zebralight).


----------



## gogdog

Is anybody else getting the same "flashing" problems that user gunga was having? ->



> I've reverse mapped the levels so that L1, L2 (long press) are high and H1, H2 (quick press) are low. I kept medium the same.
> 
> This, in theory, should allow me to do a quick press to get low levels (and not kill my night vision) and do a long press for high.
> 
> Holding the button starts on high and scrolls down to low.
> 
> Two quick presses should allow me to get to medium with no preflash. Well. It doesn't. When I do two quick presses, I get low, a brief preflash to high, before settling in to medium. So in theory I could have 0.08 lumens, a brief 475 lumen flash before settling into 7 lumens.
> 
> This is garbage.





> Note that single click does a preflash to "L" level before going to "H". So reversing low and high (like I tried to do) does not work well.



I just wanted to confirm if everyone is experiencing this or if it is a one-off error/bug on gunga's light. I don't see how zebralight could accept such "flashing" when a single or double click should go straight to the desired mode without any kind of other "flashing" of some other light level?


EDIT: And.....does this flashing happen in G5 for you too genzod? Like, in G5, if you double click to M, does it preflash some other light level first?


----------



## Genzod

gogdog said:


> Did you happen to purchase the light with Paypal? Paypal will reimburse you the return shipping fee if you need to do a return. Just google "Paypal refund return shipping". I just did it with a Fenix light that I bought and then returned.
> 
> What this also means...is that if someone can't decide on a h53c or h53w (like me), they can buy both, and then return the one they don't want. Paypal will then reimburse you the return shipping! So it would be free shipping both ways (from zebralight and return to zebralight).



I did not know that. In my case, my return was for replacement, not refund, so I don't think I can recover the $5.50 on that.


----------



## gogdog

A return for replacement would certainly be covered and reimbursed. All you do for the claim is view the original paypal transaction in your history, click "request return shipping refund" and then upload a picture showing how much the return shipping was and showing the address of the merchant (zebralight). I almost always pay for shipping from within paypal ( https://paypal.com/shiplabel/create/ ) because paypal gives free tracking IDs (even on first class mail) PLUS a small shipping discount. So, I can just upload the PDF of the shipping label that Paypal gives me as the proof of return shipping. I print the shipping label from my home printer and put it in the mail (I rarely go to the post office). Another nice service I use a ton is if your package is going Priority mail, you can schedule the USPS to pick it up from your front door for free (just create an account at usps.com). 

ANYWAY...for you genzod, it wouldn't work for your original purchase anyway. You have to enable Paypal return shipping in your account first, and its not retroactive. Its dumb though...you just have to click activate on this page https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/returns ....its not like you have to "do" anything to be eligible for it. For a service that they advertise I would think that they would have it activated for all Paypal accounts automatically...but...whatever.


----------



## likethevegetable

gogdog said:


> Is anybody else getting the same "flashing" problems that user gunga was having? ->
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to confirm if everyone is experiencing this or if it is a one-off error/bug on gunga's light. I don't see how zebralight could accept such "flashing" when a single or double click should go straight to the desired mode without any kind of other "flashing" of some other light level?
> 
> 
> EDIT: And.....does this flashing happen in G5 for you too genzod? Like, in G5, if you double click to M, does it preflash some other light level first?



I've programmed my light with the lows in single-click, mediums in hold, and highs in double-click, with no issues at all.


----------



## gogdog

> I've programmed my light with the lows in single-click, mediums in hold, and highs in double-click, with no issues at all.



Sweet...good to know and relieves one of my fears. And...thats exactly how I plan on programming the light too.


----------



## likethevegetable

gogdog said:


> Sweet...good to know and relieves one of my fears. And...thats exactly how I plan on programming the light too.



Happy to help! I like having the press and hold on medium because it's easily accessible from when the light is on either high or low


----------



## sc00ts19

gogdog said:


> Sweet...good to know and relieves one of my fears. And...thats exactly how I plan on programming the light too.



Same here, works fantastic.


----------



## gogdog

Ok...I was planning on using an eneloop or rarely a L92 lithium battery with the h53...but...I've been eyeing a Fenix arb-l14-1600u li-ion micro usb rechargeable battery. 

I'm a backpacker and weight really matters to me. A L92 weighs .52oz, the fenix claims .67oz, and a 2000 mAh eneloop is .91. So it would save me .25oz over the eneloop. I prefer rechargeables to disposables for environmental reasons and thus avoid the L92s. 

I think the main disadvantage is that its only 1600 mAh vs 2000 mAh so capacity vs weight is actually about the same...but, on longer trips it has the much bigger advantage of being able to be charged from a battery pack that I would have that I would charge my phone from. Can anybody point out any other disadvantages? Mainly....the Fenix battery should work fine in the h53, correct? 

And...here comes my real ignorant question. I also see Fenix has the ARB-L16-700U...which is a micro usb rechargeable 700 mah 16340 battery. (so, would work in a h32). Now, I understand the total energy between a cr123 and AA is roughly the same. But if I charged both of these batteries from a external battery pack...is the 700 mAh 16340 battery really only going to drain my battery pack by 700 mAh or would it drain more due to the voltage difference?


----------



## archimedes

gogdog said:


> Ok...I've been eyeing a Fenix arb-l14-1600u li-ion micro usb rechargeable battery....
> 
> Can anybody point out any other disadvantages? ....



Other than having the extra little electronic bit that can break or short out ... ?


----------



## Random Dan

Milli amp hours (mAh) is a measure of current draw relative to time, what you want is watt hours which tells you total energy. Since watt = volts * amps, you can multiply the nominal voltage to the Ah to get an idea of total capacity. So the eneloop is 2Ah * 1.2V = 2.4Wh. The 16340 is 0.7Ah * 3.7V = 2.59Wh. 

The fenix battery must have a circuit that lowers the voltage because li-ion are typically 3.7V.


----------



## gogdog

Right...the Fenix battery has a voltage of 1.5V, not 3.7V like a typical li-ion. 

Here is where I'm getting confused. 

So, the 1600 mAh AA fenix li-ion battery charges at 300mA. So...I would assume it takes 5 hours 20 minutes to charge via micro-USB. 
The 700 mAh 16340 battery also states it charges at 300mA. Now...is this going to take 2 hours 20 minutes to charge and thus drain much less from my battery pack than charging the 1600 mAh AA battery? 

Logically...that doesn't make sense because the two batteries have roughly the same "energy" capacity...but I'm just having a hard time reconciling that with the stated charge rates...


----------



## gogdog

Ok....sorry, I went ahead and read some articles to become enlightened on the mAh, voltage and watts issue. So, both batteries should drain roughly the same amount of energy (watts) from my power bank. And my power bank (lets say...10,000mAh) is based on the same voltage as my phone...3.7V, so...there is 37Wh in the power bank. The 1600 mAh fenix AA battery is 1600 mAh x 1.5V, or 2.4Wh. 

Though....I still don't know how long each battery is going to take to charge. If the charging voltage is 1.5V to the Fenix AA battery at 300mAh, I'm assuming it will take the 5 hours 20 minutes to charge. Vs...the 16340 battery that also charges at 300mAh via USB but at 3.7V, so..it would take 2 hours 20 minutes to charge. 

Maybe I'm wrong though...maybe the circuit in the AA battery constricts the voltage to 1.5V output, but the input can still be 3.7V while charging...


----------



## likethevegetable

Clarification: You said the battery charges at, 300mAh, but this should be 300mA (notice that I removed the “h”). I believe the charging current is referring to 300mA on the 1.5V side of the charger, that is, the battery current. If this is the case, your calculation is correct in that the 16340 will charge much more quickly.

Looking at the Fenix ARB-L14-1600U specs on Battery Junction (https://www.batteryjunction.com/fenix-arb-l14-1600u.html) it is rated for 5V USB input. Yes, the charging circuit will reduce the 5V to around 1.5V for charging.

FWIW, I try to be as ultralight as possible when I backpack and typically bring my H53c with a NiMH in it and an L91 lithium as a spare. Once my H600Fc IV arrives, I will probably take that despite the increase in weight. Why? Because the increase in weight is worth it to me simply because I love flashlights. I don’t need more than 1000lm as my H53c has always been more than adequate in the past, but I want to bring more lumens (and that floody beam) because I enjoy it.

But to make your decision more difficult, apparently there is an 1100mAh 16340 available that offers an excellent energy density: https://www.rtdvapor.com/keeppower-imr-18350-1200mah-10a-2pcs/





To help out with the electrical concepts:

Voltage is the energy per unit charge, expressed in volts [V]. In other words, it is the available energy to push a fixed number of electrons or ions. Voltage is analogous to the pressure of water.

[voltage = energy/charge = joules/coulombs], 



Current is charge flowing through time, expressed in amps, or milliamps [mA]. In other words, it is the amount of electrons or ions flowing through the conductor per time. Current is analogous to volumetric flow of water.

[current = charge/time = coulombs/s]



If we multiply current by time, we get amount of charge, or electrons or ions. This is exactly what we do when we express mAh – since we have [charge/time]*[time], we are left with charge. If we multiply voltage by charge, or [V*mAh], we have [energy/charge]*[charge], which is energy.
At any given time, energy is conserved. Power is simply the rate of energy transfer, and so this is also conserved. Since power is voltage*current, then we have:
voltageIN*currentIN = voltageOUT*currentOUT (ignoring losses)
If we have a pump pushing water, the output pressure is limited by the output volumetric flow rate. Notice that when you have more taps running in your house, the pressure decreases. This is analogous to the voltage dropping when you have more load (current).[/time]


----------



## gogdog

Thank you...that does really help. 

Yeah, so I called Fenix and was told the AA battery does have overcharge protection, so if I hook up a micro usb that outputs at 2.1A, it would go down to 300mA. I then asked that I assume its charging at 1.5V so would take...5 hours ( 1600maH/ (300mA * 1.5V) ), but...for whatever reason the CSR said it takes about 3 hours. Who knows...I went ahead and bought one anyway and I'll just play around with it when it gets here. 

Also, you said


> there is an 1100mAh 16340


 but I didn't see it there...just the 1200mAh 18350 battery. Which....is just a longer version of 16340...though...how would a person know if something like a zebralight h32 would accept that extra length? I guess just calling the company? 

Doesnt really matter much....I asked zebralight about their h32 headlamps and when a warm version was going to be made again and was told that there are currently no plans on making revised cr123 headlamps, so I guess the current stock of cold white h32s are it and when they are gone they are gone.


----------



## lampeDépêche

gogdog said:


> ... the 1200mAh 18350 battery. Which....is just a longer version of 16340...though...how would a person know if something like a zebralight h32 would accept that extra length? I guess just calling the company?



I can help a bit here with battery nomenclature. The numbers for these lithium cells give the diameter in the first two digits, and the length in the next three (all in mm).

So a "16340" is a cell that is 16mm in diameter, and 34.0 mm in length.
An "18350" is 18mm in diameter, and 35.0mm in length.



The 18350 will not fit into an H32 or any other lamp designed for CR123 cells. It is 2mm too fat in diameter. Length may also be a problem, but not as big of a problem.

Of course, the advantage of the 18350 (and 18650) is that their extra diameter gives them more capacity. The volume goes up as the square of the radius (for a given length), so an 18xxx will have an 81/64 advantage over a 16xxx.

But if it won't fit into the light, then that won't help much.


----------



## likethevegetable

I suspect it would accept the extra millimeter... But as lampeDepeche mentioned the width is the issue


----------



## gogdog

OK, yesterday I received my zebralight package! This is my first "decent" AA light. I bought two to compare...a h53c and a h53Fw. Right now, besides junk lights, here is my total collection ->






lumintop hl AAA, lumintop tool, h53c, h53Fw

So...in comparing the two headlamps, here is a beginner's initial impressions: 

1. I personally thought that the h53c was too warm. I know that its supposed to have a higher CRI value, but it seemed to give everything too much of a yellow tint. It did remind me of incandescent maglites that I used to own 20 years ago. For example...I went in the woods last night and the h53c made the snow look muddy/dirty. The h53Fw though was beautiful. I'm not enough of a connoisseur to tell the difference apart from a CRI 93-95 and CRI 80, but I pretty much couldn't. I could definitely tell the difference between my lumintop hl AAA and the h53Fw though. I didn't realize how much the cooler white/lower CRI of the lumintop distorted colors in comparison to the zebralight until I had both side by side. 

2. I prefer the beam of the floodier Fw. After side by side comparisons...even at the highest levels, I felt the 53c provided just barely farther throw than the 53fw, which is the only advantage over the 53fw. But the 53fw was much nicer with up close work, and just the "look" of the beam (nice soft edges). Now, I could put dc fix/tape over the non floody to make it just like the fw...but, I really don't think I'll ever say "I HAVE to see 32 feet instead of 30 feet (or whatever the actual beam distance is) RIGHT NOW" and rip off the tape. I wouldn't want it any floodier though...I definitely won't be looking at a 502 or something. Tape would have a disadvantage of getting dirty around the edges (or sand...I'm in the desert often), or having to clean up adhesive residue if I took it off..or...just plain buying dc fix from home depot for $10).

3. I did get the GITD headband vs the black one. I don't see any benefit of the black over the GITD, so the GITD does offer some additional functionality. However...I didn't like the headband. I thought it was a pain to get the headlamp through the two holes and out again (harder than it should have been anyway). I also found it uncomfortable (the outside edges kind of dug in). It might help to thread the band through the loops as well, though that would make it harder to get the headlamp attached. I would probably just buy the armytek headband separately if I was planning on using one frequently. (I'm not though..I'm going to attach a loop of grosgrain to my beanie). 

4. Wow, to a beginner...I was surprised how little difference I thought there was between the higher output levels. Like...between H1 *320* Lm (0.9 hr), H2 *267* Lm (1.6 hr) / *192* Lm (2.3 hrs). I'm sure all of you here were already well aware of that though. So I set my highest to 267 Lm for the additional runtime. I would have set it to 192 Lm but it started getting a bit too close to my second highest of 119 Lm (which I could tell a brightness difference). 

5. UI. I ...actually really like the UI. I get quick access to 6 different intensity settings, and everything feels nice and quick. There were some learning curve to programming, but I overcame those with just a few minutes of playing around with the light timing. (one example...if I double click to go to M1 and then double click again to go to M2..if I do that too quickly it registers as 3 clicks and goes to beacon. Or...in G6/G7 I only get into programming mode maybe...50% after doing the 6 double clicks). 

Anyway, I do see what user gunga was saying with preflashing though. But mine is the exact opposite. I only notice it in G5 when double clicking to Medium. It will flash High because you did the first single click (which shoots high), and then it goes to medium with the second click (after it registers a double click). Its quite noticeable to me. But thats basically the only time I see it....and it makes sense to me why I would see it (the first single click is High and the second quick "double click" makes it go to medium). Gunga on his G7 model...had switched High and Low, and previously said ->



> Two quick presses should allow me to get to medium with no preflash. Well. It doesn't. When I do two quick presses, I get low, a brief preflash to high, before settling in to medium. So in theory I could have 0.08 lumens, a brief 475 lumen flash before settling into 7 lumens.



Which...doesn't make sense. The first single click should now be Low, and the second quick double click should then register to Medium. Which....I went ahead and programmed my G7 like gunga did (switched high and low) and I didn't get any "HIGH" preflash.

Anyway...in case anyone cares, I set the light to G6 and programmed it ->

Single click Low (.06Lm, 1.2Lm)
Hold medium (29Lm, 63Lm)
Double click High (119Lm, 267Lm)

I prefer lights that are L, M, H since I mainly am using the light in a tent in the middle of the night or doing camp chores. In this configuration, I never get a "preflash" of H that might ruin night vision, nor will a single click ever accidentally register as a long press and go to something really bright (it will go to a medium). And...if I'm in L, its real quick to go to Medium/High since I can just now hold it and it goes M, H, L. 

Anyway...really liking the light. I still think I'll use the Lumintop HL AAA for most of my trips for weight saving but for winter or longer trips I will probably take the zebralight.


----------



## likethevegetable

Nice comparison, gogdog. Just an FYI, DC-fix leaves no residue at all, it widens the spill a tad, but it does compromise the throw quite a bit. I ended up taking it off my H53c (EDC use) because I liked the extra throw.. once I get my H600Fc my H53c probably won't see much headlamp use.

If you want super floody, try putting a finger from a latex glove on. Gives you almost 180°! Worth checking out.

Edit: also just wanted to add: the difference in throw between the c and Fw is offset by the fact that the w emitter puts out more lumens, so I don't think it's fair to say that the F throws almost the same as the regular..


----------



## lampeDépêche

gogdog said:


> I still think I'll use the Lumintop HL AAA for most of my trips for weight saving but for winter or longer trips I will probably take the zebralight.



Great write-up! 

I agree with you that the -w beam is just right for my taste in tint and CRI. In principle, I should prefer the higher-CRI. But I have loved every ZL neutral that I have owned. (Which is...um...about 6 of them?)

Remember, though, that the AA battery has *3 times* the capacity of the AAA. So an extra 17 grams of base weight (31 gms for the H53 vs. 14 gms for the HL) is giving you higher max levels, a better UI, better efficiency, and 3 times the capacity. Plus, the H53 can run on AAAs, while the Lumintop cannot run on AAs. 

This is why I am perennially tempted by AAA lights, and always in the end go with AA lights instead. To my mind, the advantage in size and weight never makes up for the drop-off in capacity and capability.


----------



## gogdog

> This is why I am perennially tempted by AAA lights, and always in the end go with AA lights instead. To my mind, the advantage in size and weight never makes up for the drop-off in capacity and capability.



I can appreciate that point of view. Its interesting though...in general I would be the opposite. For most of my backpacking trips, I would grab the AAA lumintop. The main reason...is that I simply don't use a flashlight much during the summer (it gets dark late (9:30pm) and we go to bed, and by 6:30am its already light enough that you don't need a light). 

But more than that...the actual watts/oz rates between a AAA eneloop and a AA eneloop is only about 12% worse. For instance, check this chart I recently made:






So a standard AAA eneloop gives you 2.34watts per oz, and a AA eneloop...2.64watts/oz. So actual battery capacity for the weight are pretty similar. If you add in the weight you would have to carry to bring a AA light (17gm difference between the HLaaa and h53), the AA eneloop wattz/oz efficiency compared to the hlaaa drops way down to 1.6watts/oz. 

Lets think of it a different way....if you only had a lumintop hlaaa...would it be that awful? Actually....for less weight of the h53 and batt, I can carry the hlaaa and 3 AAA eneloops and have MORE energy capacity. ->




That setup is more energy efficient. 

Now....don't get me wrong...we are talking about grams here. But...thats all ultralight backpackers talk about (grams). Sometimes we forgo luxury. I mean, my hiking partner doesn't bring a flashlight at all (just uses his phone light), even though the phone light is much harder to use. So for me....bringing a h53 would be more of a luxury item. If I honestly thought I would go through 3 AAA batteries...I would bring the h53. Its a nicer light. Actually..if I thought I would go through 2 AAAs...I would bring the zebralight. I am thinking in high use trips I would bring the h53 with the fenix 1600mAh li-ion 1.5V microusb rechargeable battery that I could charge with my battery pack (I would assume if I'm using my light a lot, I would be using my phone a lot, so need external power), since the fenix also weighs less than a AA. 

Its the same reason that I EDC'd a lumintop tool AAA (I actually don't EDC anymore though). It was super light, thin, and it worked for me because I rarely used it so the diminished capacity wasn't an issue. (I do know that its blasphemous to not EDC a light here on this forum).



> Plus, the H53 can run on AAAs, while the Lumintop cannot run on AAs.



Thank you for this! I'm new to zebralights...I actually had no idea about that capability. So..all things being equal....I would assume that I would simply get 2.5x less runtime on a AAA eneloop than a AA eneloop? I would assume that I should stay away from the high modes of the light ....that the AAA would perform worse with high amp draw than the AA....but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## likethevegetable

Just a minor thing to add: where you've written watts, it should be watt-hours. As you know, energy was the proper metric used for your comparison, but watts is used for power. Power is a rate of energy transfer. For example: you would say that flashlight is consuming X watts of power, and a battery has Y watt-hours of energy stored. Consuming X watts for 1 hour results in X watt-hours of energy consumed.


----------



## lampeDépêche

gogdog, I like the way you think! 

Making up a spreadsheet and running the numbers is exactly the right way to approach this question, and I cannot quibble with your conclusions about watt-hours (I also like the way that likethevegetable thinks, too--I made the same mental correction from "watts" to "watt-hours" while reading gogdog's post.)

Now that you have established that 1 Lumintop + 3 AAAs weighs less than 1 H53 + 1 AA, and provides more watt-hours, there's a further step you could investigate:
Which set-up will give you more lumen-hours? 

If one or the other of the lamps is more efficient, then it will give you more lumen-hours per watt-hour. 

Lumen-hours are handy because with LEDs there is a *roughly* linear trade-off between output in lumens and runtime in hours. *Very* roughly, and depending on details of the light and the cell (esp. if it's an alkaline), a lamp+cell that can run for 1 hour at 100 lumens output will also run for 100 hours at 1 lumen output. How close to a linear relation is it? Not that great--there is a zone of max efficiency usually in the middle of the output range (like around 10-50 lumens), and efficiency will drop by something like a factor of two on the ends. So if your light will give you 20 hours of 10 lumen output, then it may only give you 1 hour of 100 lumens (instead of 2 hours) and only 1000 hours of 0.1 lumens (instead of 2000). Nevertheless, it's a good way of comparing how efficiently different lamps convert watt-hours into usable light. (Note: with alkalines, the efficiency is awesome in the lowest end, and really, really craters at the high output end. But you clearly already know about this.)

So: have you compared the lumen-hours/watt-hour efficiency of the Lumintop and the ZL? Since you're a spread-sheet devotee, you might enjoy it. I honestly don't know how it will come out, because I have not run the numbers.

As the lawyers say, this is all de minimis by now (i.e. we are quibbling over tiny quantities), but as you mentioned, that's what UL people like to do!

ETA--on the H53 using AAAs: one nice thing about the ZL headlights is that the spring in the tailcap is long enough that you do not need to add a spacer in order to use a AAA--you can just drop it into the H53 and tighten it up and it will fire right up. Will you lose the high modes? No, not if you are running eneloops, because their current output is good. On the other hand, you would burn through the AAA pretty quick if you run it at the 300+ H1 mode, so it would probably make sense to choose a lower output if you are running it on AAAs. Also: the H53 no longer supports 3.7 volt cells like the 14500 and 10440 (the H52 and H502 do). Not much of a loss, really, since you are unlikely to encounter those in the wild. Much more likely to have to resupply from a Mom&Pop gas station which has sold everything but their last card of AAAs (or AAs).


----------



## lampeDépêche

Okay, couldn't resist running some numbers myself.

Here's the Lumintop info:

120LM,30LM,1.5LMRuntime:0.5h,4h,36h

So in the middle of the range, one AAA cell gives you (30lumens x 4 hrs)=120 lumen-hours. At the high end, it drops to (120x 0.5) = 60 lumen-hours, and at the low end it drops to (1.5x 36) = 54 lumen-hours.

Here's the H53w info for comparable outputs:



*122* Lm (4.2 hrs) M2 *30 *Lm (21 hrs) L1 *1.2 *Lm (13 days)
So that's (30x21)= 630 lumen-hours at the 30-lumen output, 512 lumen-hours at the 122-lumen output, and 374 lumen-hours at the low end.

But of course each of these should be divided by 2.5 since the ZL is running AAs (2000mah) instead of AAAs (800mah) (and let's assume we are using eneloops all around). 

So for 800 mah worth of input, the ZL is giving 205 lumen-hours on high, 252 lumen-hours on medium and 150 lumen-hours at the lowest level.

If I did those numbers right, then the ZL is 3x as efficient at the high level (205 vs. 60), 2x as efficient in the mid-range (252 vs. 120), and 3x as efficient at the low range (150 vs 54). 

Check me on this, but it looks to me as though you could get as much actual light from the ZL and *one* eneloop AAA as from the Lumintop and *three* AAAs.

But I may have screwed up somewhere with my numbers.


----------



## eh4

You could run the AAA light on an AA with the battery case open, or run a AAA in the AA light.


----------



## gogdog

> there's a further step you could investigate:
> Which set-up will give you more lumen-hours?



Challenge accepted!

Actually, it looks like you started on the challenge yourself.

First to point out...is that the h53 #s are based on a AA eneloop Pro, not standard eneloop. So taking the 30 Lm (21hrs), that would be 30 Lm ( 16.8hrs ) for a normal 2000 mah eneloop. So, that would be 504 lumen-hours at the 30 Lm level, then divided by 2.5 would be 202 "normalized" lumen hours in comparison to the AAA eneloop. Which..yeah...compared to the lumintop at 120 lumen hours is quite a big jump.

However...this needs to be more apples to apples. All of these numbers right now are based on manufacturer claimed specs. I would rather do the numbers on real life specs. 

I do have this review of the lumintop hl aaa that gives runtime charts ->
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?441706-Review-Lumintop-HL-AAA

Which....shows the medium at 25lumens and 3hrs40min runtime. I previously did do a runtime chart of my own for the lumintop ...and while I don't have a light box to measure lumens accurately, I can confirm the runtime to be exactly 3hr40min on medium with a AAA eneloop. 

Now...for the h53...I'm having trouble finding an actual runtime chart. This thread shows that the runtimes are overinflated by about 20% ->
https://www.reddit.com/r/flashlight/comments/6vyg7h/zebralight_h53c_runtimes_less_than_specified/

Of course, the lumintop is about 10% overinflated. But....to get a better #s...I can simply do my own runtime test of the h53Fw with a AAA. One problem though....is I don't have a accurate light meter so I would have to just hope that both Medium settings are about the same lumens....again...a chart from a review would help to see how much zebralight inflates their lumen values...



> You could run the AAA light on an AA with the battery case open



I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean battery tube open...that wouldn't work since the AA won't fit inside the lumintop battery tube.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Ha! I see that the Reddit thread was started by our own "likethevegetable"! I have to assume that it's the same person.

So, likethevegetable--did you ever get satisfaction from ZL? Did you get better runtimes, or a new light, or some explanation?

I have not previously heard claims of inflated specs on ZL lights, but I may have missed them.

Oh, and I looked at Narmattaru's review of the Lumintop--that is one very cute light! Beautiful piece of work--I almost want to get one just to play with it.


----------



## gogdog

I didn't notice that about likethevegetable's reddit thread! Funny.

Anyway...so yeah, tomorrow I'll run the AAA runtime test. I might (depending on how bored I am), create a shoebox lightbox so I can test the relative lumens of the lumintop and h53 and hopefully find a setting that they are close on. (right now to me...the lumintop's medium level is brighter than the h53s 30 Lm level). You really have piqued my interest to see just how much a difference two lights can be efficiency wise. 

Oh...and...I think I figured out my programming issues for g6 and g7! 

Lets say I was programming my double click settings. I would double click to get to the DC1 setting (called M1 by zebralight...but now that they are user programmable, I think they should be called s1,s2 (single click), dc1,dc2 (double click) and h1, h2 (hold)....or something similar...just makes more sense to me). Anyway...now that I'm on the dc1 setting, I double click 6 times to enter programming for that level. That works fine. 

But what I was doing before...is trying to set the dc2 setting. I would double click 1x to get to the dc level, then, double click again to get to the dc2 level. I would then wait...5-6 seconds and then double click 6x...but...it wasn't working. Either it would turn off after the 6th double click, or...program the dc2 level to some odd level, or...whatever. I haven't pinpointed exactly what happens, but, there is an easy solution. 

If you want to program dc2...first, make it your memorized mode. So...double click (or single click/hold, for whatever level you want), then double click to your sub level, then single click to turn the light off. Now your "sub level" is your new "memorized level". So, then go back to that level (double click for example), then do 6x double click to program that level. 

Basically...don't try and double click to get to your sublevel and then try and do 6x double clicks afterwards to program it. Just try and get to programming level when its the memorized level.


----------



## gogdog

Ok....so, I couldn't wait for tomorrow and made an integrating shoebox. Initial results were interesting. So...when comparing the two lights in person, I always felt that the Lumintop medium was brighter than the zebralight medium, and the 120Lm lumintop was a brighter than the 122Lm h53. 

Here is my shoebox (its white on the inside) ->






So...first, I calibrated the ceilingbounce app to read the lumintop's medium setting at 25Lm (based on the Narmattaru review chart). But....the h53's (h53Fw I tested first) 30Lm only read as 18Lm. Lumintop 120 read as 106, and the h53Fw 122Lm read as 83Lm. (the h53c read as 12Lm and 79Lm respectively. 

Now...am I going crazy here or is there really something up? At first I thought that it could be a big difference due to the CCT levels? Or...my setup just sucks or ?


----------



## eh4

So regarding running an AA in a AAA light with the battery cap off, it's pretty self explanatory, you need to fabricate a connection to the positive and negative, maybe use friction against the side walls, anyhow...

Second thought is that integrated spheres aside, one could substitute the use of a sphere for a specific task; at what distance or level were the crossing shadows of a single obstacle judged to be identical for two lights? 
(If there's a pole in front of you and a wall behind it, you know that the light in your right hand is more intense than the light in your left when the shadow to your left is darker than the shadow to your right...)
- that's harder than just figuring which is more useful to you at given range, using the relative shadow strength, and DC amperage readings.

You could figure out your best light= driver X led X optic for your preferred usage.

Or another simpler test could simply be; at what range was an observational task able to be completed for each light at a given power level?


----------



## likethevegetable

Caught red handed! That was me. 

My concerns of the lower than spec'd runtime were ultimately assauged, I did not replace my light.

I found that the runtimes were actually higher on the highest modes, but almost 25% lower on the medium modes. I will fully disclose that I had no way of knowing the actual lumens though. I compared the runtimes of similarly spec'd (and visually compared) lumen outputs to my Fenix HL50, and the H53c produced better runtimes, and considering the warmer and higher CRI, this was good news. I figured ZL was a bit generous when interpolating their run times.


----------



## gogdog

OK...I have the runtimes of the h53Fw using a AAA eneloop (800 mAh). As I stated before...the medium setting on my lumintop hlaaa is what I used for normalizing my ceilingbounce app. I set that to 25Lm (lumintop specs it at 30Lm). The h53Fw on the 29Lm level only registers as 18Lm on my phone. And...my eyes say that is probably true...it does seem less bright than the lumintop. 

So, the Lumintop hlaaa gives 3hr40min of 25Lm, so 91.6Lm hours. Here is my runtime chart for the Zebralight ->





So, 18Lm for 5hr40min gives 102Lumen hours. That means the zebralight is about 10% more efficient than the lumintop with a AAA eneloop on the Medium setting. 

If I go back to this chart ->




So for the setup above, even if I boost the watt/oz numbers for the h53 by 10%...(1.35), it still wouldn't beat the hlaaa in WEIGHT efficiency. But, it was fun to do the testing. I'll probably run a test tomorrow on a higher setting for the h53. 

Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed though in the zebralight manufacturer spec #s. Not only do the lumens seem lower than they should be for a particular setting, but also the runtime. Extrapolating my numbers for a AA, it would give me a 14hr10min runtime on M2 (29Lm) vs the spec 16hr48min....thats 16% off (not even mentioning the lumen value difference so really it would be quite a bit more than 16%). The lumintop spec #s/lumen values seem much closer to reality. (lumintop even underestimates their runtime for high....they say .5hr, when its really about 43 min). 

OH....I also wanted to mention something. So, I was trying to use the ceilingbounce app...but...if you don't leave the app running in the foreground, it won't record all of the time (at least on my phone). For example, if I have it recording and then go do a text or something, only about half of the time actually gets recorded, which is bad. I couldn't just leave my phone alone for a whole runtime test, so I instead used the program I used to use called 'Physics toolbox suite'. Its a much more fleshed out app than ceilingbounce..and it will still record all time even in the background (you can also turn off your screen if you want and it will still work).


----------



## lampeDépêche

Thanks so much for doing this, gogdog!

One query: your graph is labeled "AAA 2000mah". I assume that you meant "AAA 800mah"? I'm assuming that you ran the ZL on an eneloop AAA?

I share your disappointment with ZL's output and run-time claims--I had thought that their numbers were more reliable than this. I remember reading some of Selfbuilt's reviews, and the impression that I took away was that their output numbers were generally accurate in the middle range, over-stated in the low range, and understated in the high range, i.e. he was measuring highs that were a little higher than they published.

Check this one, for instance:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...650)-Review-RUNTIMES-BEAMSHOTS-VIDEO-and-more!

Bottom line: it looks to me like you were right about the Ultra-light backpacker's perspective. The Lumintop gives as good value in lumen-hours per gram as the ZL does, and perhaps slightly better.


----------



## gogdog

Yep...I made that mistake on the graph. Fixed!

This morning I did a test at the h4 setting (119Lm). 






It was a step down at almost exactly 60 minutes, and 86Lm (119Lm claimed). So, 86 Lumen hours. The lumintop gave 43 minutes at 105 lumens (120Lm claimed), so 75.25 Lumen hours. Thats 12.5% more efficient. Though...with both tests...the zebralight was producing less lumens than the lumintop which at that lumen level could have been relatively more efficient to run so that should be considered as well. 

Anyway...interesting experiment (for me at least).



> Bottom line: it looks to me like you were right about the Ultra-light backpacker's perspective. The Lumintop gives as good value in lumen-hours per gram as the ZL does, and perhaps slightly better.



Per gram...yeah, the lumintop gives better lumen hours. But that metric isn't necessarily the most important. I mean...if I only cared about lumen-hours per gram I would switch to a 18650 light. The core principle of ultralight backpacking is that you only take what you need. For example...you decant everything like sunscreen, hand lotion, etc into a micro container and bring only the amount you would need for the trip. Energy would be the same thing...if I only use a AAA amount of energy on a trip, I should take a AAA light. Bringing a AA light would be too much, and 18650 much more so.

I did think about the ZL vs Lumintop a bit more though. If I do take my measurements/runtimes at face value, the ZL is 10-13% more efficient. But I also should take into account that the ZL has a higher CRI which I believe is more energy draining, so if the ZL is giving 10% more lumen-hours for a AAA, its really more than that because energy is also going into the higher CRI value (if I understand that correctly). If it had a lower CRI, maybe the ZL would be...15-20% more lumen-hours than the lumintop? Not sure. 

Anyway, I'll probably go ahead and do some AA tests and make sure I still get the same lumen-hours, and do some higher lumen testing on AA.


----------



## gogdog

Oh...and I wanted to be clear that after thinking about it...I'm not really "disappointed" in the lumen values/runtimes of the ZL. Its all relative. Whether someone says the M2 level is 30Lm or 20Lm on their measurement device is really all just relative. The important thing, is if I'm comparing two lights (hl aaa and h53fw) on the same measurement device, I can now calculate lumen-hours and thus efficiency between the two lights. Now I know that the ZL is giving me more lumen-hours with a higher CRI than the lumintop, plus a myriad of other features. Which...I would hope so...its a $60 light vs a $20 light.


----------



## lampeDépêche

I'm still puzzled about your output results. Promising 119 and delivering 86 is really not acceptable. 

And it's also not in line with most people's experience of ZL. As I mentioned, Selfbuilt has usually found their performance to be very close to their advertised specs (except in the low-low range). 

I don't know whether there's something funny about your lightbox? (In that case, the Lumintop may be delivering *more* than its specs). Or something off about this particular ZL light? 


On a separate topic--that Lumintop sure is cute! The only things keeping me from buying one now are
a) I don't like the beams from pebbled lenses as much as reflectored ones, and 
b) the lack of lock-out means I cannot drop it in a pocket without worrying about it turning on. In a pack, I guess you can keep the battery out during the day, and at night you can clip it somewhere visible so that you'll see if there's an accidental turn-on.
ETA: c) the lowest setting of 1.5 lumens is still a lot higher than I like for my lowest setting. I use the sub-lumen settings on my ZLs quite a lot.

These aren't huge minuses, but so far they have been enough to make me resist the temptation to buy a light I don't really need. Must...resist...temptation!


----------



## gogdog

Yeah...I don't know either. Its possible my lightbox is just crappy and due to a # of factors that I'm unaware of, the ZL is getting underreported or the lumintop getting over reported. But again, the lumen-hour calculations do seem that they would be accurate. 

And yeah, I discussed the lumintop hlaaa frustrations I have with it here ->
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...rating-that-its-soo-close-the-Lumintop-HL-AAA


----------



## gogdog

Ok...here are my runtime charts for a h53Fw running a 2000mAh Eneloop. I tested the eneloops on a la crosse charger and they all reported higher than 2000 mAh (2020, 2070, 2040, etc). I'm also reporting the difference between spec and actual runtimes:



























Spec: H1 *320* Lm (0.9 hr) using 2550 eneloop pro, so 43 min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 170Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 41min so only 5% under runtime, 116 Lumen hours

Spec: H2 *267* Lm (1.6 hr), so 1hr15min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 162Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 63min, 16% under runtime, 170 Lumen hours

Spec: H3 *192* Lm (2.3 hrs), so 1hr48min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 130Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 90min, 17% under runtime, 195 Lumen hours

Spec: H4 *119* Lm (4.2 hrs), so 3hr17min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 86Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 2hr28min, 25% under runtime, 212 Lumen hours

Spec: M1 *63* Lm (8.5 hrs), so 6hr38min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 49Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 4hr43min, 29% under runtime, 231 Lumen hours

no chart made:
Spec: M2 *29*Lm (21 hrs), so 16hr23min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 18Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 15hr3min, 8% under runtime, 271 Lumen hours

So, I'm somewhere between 5-29% under runtime. The lumen hours seem to be correct with h1 being much less efficient than the lower light levels of m1, m2. H4 and M1 are the most, exagerated, runtimes on the zebralight website. I'm wondering if they actually tested each individual light and instead just estimated runtimes based on what they thought should be based on some kind of lumen hours chart they have. I'm not sure.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Wow, gogdog, I don't know what to say about this. Except, thank you for testing and documenting and sharing it with us!

But as to the big gap between the claimed specs and what you are recording, I am puzzled, and troubled. I cannot explain it.

As to the outputs, we could blame it on your light-box. But that would not explain the run-time deficiencies.

Do you have an easy way of checking the calibration on your light-box? I am trying to think about how you could acquire light-sources whose lumen figures you could trust. Perhaps just some household LED bulbs in a few sizes? If GE or Philips or any reputable mfgr says that their LED bulb puts out 800 lumens, then I feel pretty confident it's within 5% of that. 

Another possibility to consider at some point--and maybe before you do too much more work--is that your light is a bad sample. You could just ask ZL to send you a new unit. Point them to these graphs, and ask them whether these gaps are acceptable. Tell them you'd be willing to rerun the tests with a second sample.

I'm really not happy about what you are seeing. Promising 320 and delivering 170, if that is really what is going on here, is not cool.

And again--it's really anomalous, given the results of people like Selfbuilt, which I have pointed you to before.

In any case--this is excellent work, whatever the explanation for it may be. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Keitho

One theory to only partially explain lumen measurement differences, at least on h1: ZL might use the ansi standard, which I think is the lumen measurement at 30 seconds or a minute. 

Another: the ZL setup might be very warm, or downright hot, making the cells perform better.

Another: ZL cherry picks good new cells, and tops them off to the very high end of the spec.

The most obvious is that ZL has over inflated the specs on this light. It would be the most flagarent inflation of specs I've heard from ZL, so I'm definitely going to reserve judgement until some other samples are tested with other setups.

Thanks for all the work, gogdog!


----------



## gogdog

> Do you have an easy way of checking the calibration on your light-box?



Well, not really. As I stated before, I calibrated the lightbox based on the Narmattaru Lumintop hl aaa review that stated the Medium mode was 25Lm. So everything is based off that. Its possible that the lumintop's real lumens are higher than manufacturer spec...though that sounds odd for a manufacturer to do that. Regardless, based on my AAA testing....the ZL was shown to be more efficient on lumen hours than the lumintop so even if the lumens are lower than stated, the runtimes seemed accurate based on lumen hours between the two lights.

Really the issue here is why the stated manufacturer runtime specs are so off, especially for H4, M1. My calculated runtimes do seem accurate on what the headlamp should be getting...I mean, if the AAA on H4 gave 86 Lumen hours, then theoretically I should get 2.5x that on a AA, so 215 Lumen hours (I got 212, super close). But why would zebralight over inflate the spec runtimes so much? 

I like Keitho's possible explanations, though that wouldn't explain the increased differences between modes (H1, M2 are much closer than H4, M1). Which is why I think that ZL really probably didn't actually test all of the modes and just did a calculated/estimated runtime for some of them, and whatever calculation they used was just wrong. 



> Another possibility to consider at some point--and maybe before you do too much more work--is that your light is a bad sample. You could just ask ZL to send you a new unit. Point them to these graphs, and ask them whether these gaps are acceptable. Tell them you'd be willing to rerun the tests with a second sample.



Actually...I have a h53c that I also bought at the same time....so I have a second sample that I'm running as we speak! I'm testing H4, M1 on the h53c and will report my findings tonight when the tests complete.


----------



## gurdygurds

Gogdog how does your second copy perform in comparison to the first?


gogdog said:


> Well, not really. As I stated before, I calibrated the lightbox based on the Narmattaru Lumintop hl aaa review that stated the Medium mode was 25Lm. So everything is based off that. Its possible that the lumintop's real lumens are higher than manufacturer spec...though that sounds odd for a manufacturer to do that. Regardless, based on my AAA testing....the ZL was shown to be more efficient on lumen hours than the lumintop so even if the lumens are lower than stated, the runtimes seemed accurate based on lumen hours between the two lights.
> 
> Really the issue here is why the stated manufacturer runtime specs are so off, especially for H4, M1. My calculated runtimes do seem accurate on what the headlamp should be getting...I mean, if the AAA on H4 gave 86 Lumen hours, then theoretically I should get 2.5x that on a AA, so 215 Lumen hours (I got 212, super close). But why would zebralight over inflate the spec runtimes so much?
> 
> I like Keitho's possible explanations, though that wouldn't explain the increased differences between modes (H1, M2 are much closer than H4, M1). Which is why I think that ZL really probably didn't actually test all of the modes and just did a calculated/estimated runtime for some of them, and whatever calculation they used was just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...I have a h53c that I also bought at the same time....so I have a second sample that I'm running as we speak! I'm testing H4, M1 on the h53c and will report my findings tonight when the tests complete.


----------



## gogdog

I'm still doing tests (I basically am redoing all 6 tests for the h53c). And...I discovered that I was using 5 different AA eneloops, and they were all testing above 2000mAh...but I found one that last reported 1800, so I'm redoing a few of the h53Fw tests just to make sure some test didn't accidentally use that one.


----------



## lampeDépêche

Thanks for all of your work on this.

An eneloop that only contains 1800mah might explain lower run-times, but it cannot explain low lumen outputs.


----------



## gogdog

OK...so, I retested several of the h53Fw tests...and the H4 (119Lm) was off...I most likely used the 1800mAh battery originally. Here is the new H4 ->






Spec: H4 *119* Lm (4.2 hrs), so 3hr17min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 86Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 2hr48min, 14% under runtime, 241 Lumen hours

Now....my second sample, the h53c. 




















Spec: H1 *285* Lm (0.9 hr) using 2550 eneloop pro, so 43 min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: Honestly....I'm not really sure where to cut this test off. But, it hit 100Lm at the 48minute mark. If so, it averaged 170Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 48min so 14% OVER runtime, 136 Lumen hours
Again though...I'm not really sure where ZL cut their runtime off at. The h53c H1 runtime chart is a shallower curve than the h53Fw H1 runtime chart.

Spec: H2 *238* Lm (1.6 hr), so 1hr15min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 150Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 65min, 13% under runtime, 163 Lumen hours

H3 (not tested)

Spec: H4 *106 *Lm (4.2 hrs), so 3hr17min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 79Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 2hr48min, 14% under runtime, 221 Lumen hours

Spec: M1 *56* Lm (8.5 hrs), so 6hr38min using 2000mAh eneloop
Test: averaged 45Lm during runtime based on my lightbox, for 4hr37min, 30% under runtime, 208 Lumen hours

M2 (not tested)

To recap...if I'm not looking at H1 due to the curve, the h53c runtimes are very close to the h53Fw runtimes. Lumens, and thus, lumen hours, are lower on the h53c due to the higher CRI. 

For whatever reason, the M1 runtimes are greatly exaggerated on ZL's specs. Its possible...based on my lightbox #s...that it could be because the lumen value is closer to the spec value. Like, on the h53Fw...the M1 value is about 22% under spec, and other values are: H2: 39% under, H3: 32%, H4: 28%, M2: 38% under. So, on average the M1 value is closer to lumen value than spec, so worse runtime. 

Again...all just speculation. Through these tests I did learn just how much eneloops can differ from each other on actual energy that they hold, so I would have to think that Keitho's guess is a good one -> 



> Another: ZL cherry picks good new cells, and tops them off to the very high end of the spec.


----------



## lampeDépêche

gogdog said:


> To recap...if I'm not looking at H1 due to the curve, the h53c runtimes are very close to the h53Fw runtimes. Lumens, and thus, lumen hours, are lower on the h53c due to the higher CRI.



Yeah, that makes sense--it is very unlikely that ZL change the driver circuit when they move from one emitter to another. So the circuit is still feeding the same current to the emitter in both lights, and that's what controls run-time. The different emitters then convert the same amount of current into different amounts of lumens, because of their different temperature and CRI profiles, which is what controls output.

I am still unhappy that your numbers are coming in so much lower than ZL's posted specs. And the fact that you got consistent numbers with two different models makes it much less likely that either unit is bad.

I think ZL has some 'splaining to do....


----------



## dmsoule

Keitho said:


> One theory to only partially explain lumen measurement differences, at least on h1: ZL might use the ansi standard, which I think is the lumen measurement at 30 seconds or a minute.
> 
> Another: the ZL setup might be very warm, or downright hot, making the cells perform better.
> 
> Another: ZL cherry picks good new cells, and tops them off to the very high end of the spec.
> 
> The most obvious is that ZL has over inflated the specs on this light. It would be the most flagarent inflation of specs I've heard from ZL, so I'm definitely going to reserve judgement until some other samples are tested with other setups.
> 
> Thanks for all the work, gogdog!



Another possibility: perhaps the Eneloop Pro can produce higher output as well as greater runtime. It is designed for higher discharge rates, correct? This would not explain the M1 discrepancy, however...


----------



## gogdog

I'm not aware that the eneloop Pros are designed for higher discharge rates...I thought the only difference was capacity. But if I'm wrong, someone please chime in. 

Here is something interesting though....I then started testing my Fenix 1600mAh 1.5V li-ion microusb rechargeable battery (arb-l14-1600u). 

I did a test on H3...here is the runtime chart ->







Compared to the original Eneloop test (I actually retested it on a different eneloop and got the exact same results as before)





Technically the 1600mAh 1.5V battery should have just as much stored energy as the eneloop (2000mAh 1.2V). 

The eneloop gave me 90 minutes before a slow dim "dying" light, which I'm not sure how long it would last for before eventually dying (I didn't test till it reached moonlight mode). The Fenix li-ion gave me 111minutes, before shutting off (probably due to the overdischarge circuit on the battery). Same lumen values between the tests. Manufacturer claimed runtime is 1hr48min (108min) with a standard eneloop, so 111 minutes is actually slightly over spec at 3% overspec. Of course, there is an abrupt cutoff though.

I am pretty impressed by the Fenix battery....its lighter than an eneloop and..looks like gives me good performance. I will note that you can not run H1 on the Fenix but the other modes seem to work fine.


----------



## Tachead

lampeDépêche said:


> Thanks for all of your work on this.
> 
> An eneloop that only contains 1800mah might explain lower run-times, but it cannot explain low lumen outputs.


No offence intended to gogdog and I too thank him for his work on this but... 

He is using a cardboard box with a cell phone stuck in it. I would take his lumen measurements with a grain of salt.

As for the runtimes, he is using a different cell(who knows how old it is)and doing a calculation to account for the capacity difference. This is not a very accurate method. One needs to use brand new Eneloop Pro's to do accurate comparative testing.

It should also be noted that all samples will likely be slightly different due to small variations in particular electronic components and emitters. Eneloops will also vary both in capacity and resistance.


----------



## gogdog

> He is using a cardboard box with a cell phone stuck in it. I would take his lumen measurements with a grain of salt.



You and me both! I mean...I've admitted several times that my lightbox is crappy, and I can't explain the lower lumens. I normalized it based off of the lumintop hl aaa's review...which...who knows how he came up with his lumens either. I can say though, that at a particular light level (lumintop HI 120Lm spec vs h53F2 H4 119Lm spec), the lumintop appears brighter to my eye, which would support the lightbox values. The tints are different though, so one might "appear" brighter (the cool white of the lumintop). I don't know. 

I would LOVE if someone could confirm lumen values...ideally if they had the lumintop hl aaa too. 



> As for the runtimes, he is using a different cell(who knows how old it is)and doing a calculation to account for the capacity difference. This is not a very accurate method. One needs to use brand new Eneloop Pro's to do accurate comparative testing.



You know...thats not a bad idea. I don't have any eneloop Pros....I think I'll just have to order some. I confirmed capacity via my la crosse charger, but.....not resistance. I didn't think of the older battery having higher resistance, which could certainly be throwing stuff off.

But 30% off runtime on M1? I don't think resistance is going to cut it.


----------



## likethevegetable

If you look at the H52w vs. the H53w:

H52w @ 25lm for 12hrs*(2.55/2) =15.3hrs [corrected for using an Eneloop pro)
H53w @ 30lm for 21 hrs

I think the specs are overestimated, it's just something we have to accept. I posted a thread about this on here a few months ago, and with the help of some other members, we all found the same thing with our lights.

Who cares if they're overstated? They still come out more efficient than other lights when tested.


----------



## likethevegetable

likethevegetable said:


> If you look at the H52w vs. the H53w:
> 
> H52w @ 25lm for 12hrs*(2.55/2) =15.3hrs [corrected for using an Eneloop pro)
> H53w @ 30lm for 21 hrs
> 
> I think the specs are overestimated, it's just something we have to accept. I posted a thread about this on here a few months ago, and with the help of some other members, we all found the same thing with our lights.
> 
> Who cares if they're overstated? They still come out more efficient than other lights when tested.



Here is the other thread: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...t-H53c-Runtimes-Less-than-Specified&highlight

There is a table with 5 tested runtimes, and a link to another thread on Taschenlampenforum (I believe our friends in Germany)


----------



## gogdog

Well dang it.....I wish I saw that thread earlier....now I realize that I just duplicated a bunch of work that was already corroborated in that other thread. Its too late to cancel my amazon order for the eneloop Pros..though..I did buy amazonbasics high capacity batteries which I hope are truly rebranded ones, that are at least half the price.


----------



## gogdog

OK, just for finalization. My new amazonbasics high capacity batteries came in (eneloop pros), and I decided to test them. First, I cycled all 4 several times, and then picked the two highest.






I then tested both H2 and H4. The results are just about the same as with my standard eneloops. They have 25% more energy, so 25% more runtime. Still about 20% under ZL specs, though I don't really care anymore. Nice to know that my older eneloops don't appear to have any resistance based issues since they are performing on par with new eneloops.


----------



## Burgess

Thank you so much
for all your time and effort here !


:thumbsup:
_


----------



## Burgess

BTW --

If you happen to get bored one day,
it would be nice to see how Energizer L91 Lithiums perform !



_


----------



## Andrew479

Hi,
just a quick question - has anyone tried to measure CRI/RA for multiple lumen outputs? 
SC64c even though advertised with the same XP-L2 came out as 88-91 CRI, and not 93-95 - link


----------



## pdirt

Been reading CPF for a while now, FTP. Such a rich community in the search for the perfect lamps!

After purchasing the Thrunite TH20 and loving it, I got the "bug" and now want a Zebralight. My main reasons are: the ZL is much lighter and it's far more efficient. Apparently the TH20 is only efficient in moonlight, infinity low/high and turbo...anywhere in the ramping aka infinity modes is not very efficient. I've decided it is down to the H53c and H53Fc. I love me a warm light and now having a couple Nichia 219c/b lights, I see the punny light of what high CRI is all about. So glad LED's have come so far from that awful icy blue of the early 2000's.

Anyways, I have not seen really thorough comparison's between the H53c and H53Fc. I've seen a few beam shots and lots of text descriptions. I think I will only be satisfied as to which model I would prefer for hiking/backpacking by purchasing both and returning the one I don't want to keep. I appreciate that ZL has such a generous return policy.

So I will write a mini review (as a new post) titled something like, "Comparison of beams between Zebralight H53c (with and without DC-Fix) and H53Fc". I'm half-tempted to also order the H53w and H53Fw, but I am not a high-lumen user and not sure the extra 16% of lumens between the "c" and "w" variants will be noticeable and I'm pretty sure I would prefer the slightly warmer tint of the "c" over the "w". I have most certainly been able to see the tint differences between the two in photos I've seen online.


----------



## likethevegetable

pdirt, comparisons like that are always helpful, looking forward to it. 

I myself have an H53c + DC-fix and an H600Fc IV. For most users, I believe the frosted lens is the most versatile (wish I got the H53Fc, but I'm in Canada and returning it doesn't make sense, and the DC-fix helps). For similar outputs between the H53c and H600Fc I noticed only a small compromise in throw, maybe 2/3 to 3/4, but a much larger field of view... But since my observations used different LEDs and maybe reflectors, it's obviously a flawed test. I'm interested in seeing an accurate comparison!


----------



## woodentsick

Just received an H53c. Not super happy with the tint, looks like I lost the lottery this time round...Some iPhone beamshots:

*H53c
*



Just look at that sickly green/yellow spill :green:*

SC51w
*



I've had this light for many years now, and still love it.
*
Folomov EDC C1
*



Ah, my first Nichia E21A. What a beautiful tint.


----------



## likethevegetable

That's too bad. Maybe try some DC-Fix?

My H53c looks very nice to me. My H53Fc on the other hand does look slightly yellow and green, BUT if the light is used on its own, it's fine.


----------



## radellaf

gunga said:


> Well. I found another bug in the new firmware that effectively ruins it for me.
> This affects both the sc5c II and the h53c. ...mapped the levels so that L1, L2 (long press) are high and H1, H2 (quick press) are low. I kept medium the same.
> This, in theory, should allow me to do a quick press to get low levels (and not kill my night vision) and do a long press for high.
> ...
> Two quick presses should allow me to get to medium with no preflash. Well. It doesn't. When I do two quick presses, I get low, a brief preflash to high, before settling in to medium. So in theory I could have 0.08 lumens, a brief 475 lumen flash before settling into 7 lumens.
> 
> This is garbage.



Just got a H53Fc, about two years after this quote, and the bug seems to be gone.

What's bothering me, is: what's the deal with the clip?

Are you supposed to be able to put the clip on and still use it with the headband?

And, why does the clip go on the "wrong" end of the light? I don't get how a head-down clip is useful for a right angle light, and it kind of blocks the tailcap. Confused.

OTOH, the floody beam is _perfect_ for tint, and no Cree rainbow, compared to the SC53c.


----------



## radellaf

Official ZL answer is that no, you can't use the headband and the clip. So, if you want to switch between them, you'll probably end up with a scratched light.

They also say that blocking the tailcap happens with "all deep carry" clips. I'd say that makes the light incompatible with deep clips, personally. And really tight metal clips in general.

Which makes me wonder what this group of "upside-down deep-carry" people are doing with their lights that make those two attributes important vs the not-deep head-up positioning that seems the intuitive way to do it. But, it was sold as a head light, not a clipped light, so I'll just ignore the clip. I ignore it on the SC600/700, so nothing new. I like solid screwed on clips, not a clipped clip, though I can see with a right angle there's a reason to let the clip be able to rotate around the light. Still, rather it just had a SC53 style screwed on clip 180 from the lens.


----------



## LightObsession

radellaf said:


> Official ZL answer is that no, you can't use the headband and the clip. So, if you want to switch between them, you'll probably end up with a scratched light.
> 
> They also say that blocking the tailcap happens with "all deep carry" clips. I'd say that makes the light incompatible with deep clips, personally. And really tight metal clips in general.
> 
> Which makes me wonder what this group of "upside-down deep-carry" people are doing with their lights that make those two attributes important vs the not-deep head-up positioning that seems the intuitive way to do it. But, it was sold as a head light, not a clipped light, so I'll just ignore the clip. I ignore it on the SC600/700, so nothing new. I like solid screwed on clips, not a clipped clip, though I can see with a right angle there's a reason to let the clip be able to rotate around the light. Still, rather it just had a SC53 style screwed on clip 180 from the lens.



I prefer clips that rotate around the body on right angle lights, because that allows me to adjust the angle of the light when I have it clipped to something. A fixed position clip doesn't work for me on a right angle light.


----------



## eh4

LightObsession said:


> I prefer clips that rotate around the body on right angle lights, because that allows me to adjust the angle of the light when I have it clipped to something. A fixed position clip doesn't work for me on a right angle light.



Yep, it's the best for me as well. 
I use the zebralight clip on both of my H600 and made them permanent with a carefully trimmed strip of gorilla tape, doubled adhesive side to adhesive side to allow rotation, sticky side on the clip to prevent shifting. 
Originally I used heat shrink tube, but that would wear out in a season or two, the gorilla tape seems like it's going to last as long as the light. 
Light lives in pocket 365/24/7.


----------



## radellaf

eh4 said:


> made them permanent with a carefully trimmed strip of gorilla tape, doubled adhesive side to adhesive side to allow rotation, sticky side on the clip to prevent shifting.



Having trouble imagining that. You're covering the metal where the clip goes over the tube to prevent scratching, or you're covering the clip itself to make it hold on better?



> I prefer clips that rotate around the body on right angle lights



I agree about rotation (though I'd prefer it didn't scratch up the light in the process), but am curious why it's on the tailcap end, and what's the advantage of it being "deep carry"? 

Since it has the disadvantage of blocking the tailcap, I assume there's some compensating advantage?

Without having much right angle light experience, I'd think a rotating clip that attaches just under the head would have been the most useful.

I'd assumed I could use a right angle light instead of sticking an iPhone in my pocket with the flashlight facing forward. That's the closest thing to a headlight I had before. Sits in the shirt and lights things up hands-free. Can't really figure out how to do that with the H53. Weight is part of the problem. Clip it to your shirt and it may weigh the same as a phone, but it's less spread out.

IDK, just trying to figure out what I'm missing about how to use it, that may not be obvious. Last RA light I had was one of those 2 D military surplus things, back in the 80s.


----------



## bdr

Did you know that h53 can work on aaa? Yes it's work!


----------

