# Fenix LD10/LD20-R4 (XP-G R4) Reviews: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, COMPARISONS and more!



## selfbuilt (Jun 1, 2010)

_*Reviewer's Note: *The Fenix LD10 (R4) and LD20 (R4) were provided for review by the Canadian Fenix distributor Notosora International Imports Ltd._

*Warning: pic heavy as usual! *

*Specifications for LD10/20 (R4), adapted from Fenix, Notosora and other websites:*

Cree XP-G R4 LED
Two modes of output, selected by turning the bezel:
LD10-R4 General Mode: 9 lumens (34hrs) -> 50 lumens (6hrs) -> 105 lumens (2.2hrs) -> SOS
LD10-R4 Turbo Mode: 132 lumens (1.5hrs) -> Strobe
LD20-R4 General Mode: 9 lumens (71hrs) -> 50 lumens (13hrs) -> 105 lumens (5hrs) -> SOS
LD20-R4 Turbo Mode: 205 lumens (2hrs) -> Strobe
Digitally regulated for constant brightness
Uses one (LD10) or two (LD20) 1.5V AA ( Alkaline, NiMH, Lithium ) battery (not included)
LD10-R4: 100mm (L) x 21.5mm (D)
LD20-R4: 150mm (L) x 21.5 mm (D)
Removable titanium-coated steel pocket clip
Made of T6 aircraft-grade aluminum
Type III hard-anodized finish
LD10-R4: 50g weight (excluding batteries)
LD20-R4: 56g weight (excluding batteries)
Water-proof to IPX8 standard
Toughened ultra clear glass lens with AR coating
Push-button tail cap switch
Capable of standing up securely on a flat surface to serve as a candle
Includes a holster, a lanyard, two spare o-rings, and a rubber switch boot
MSRP: LD10-R4 ~$59; LD20-R4 ~$63
It’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed a member of the standard AA-class of Fenix lights.  Here’s a chance to see how the new LD10/20 versions equipped with XP-G R4 emitters stack up to the earlier “torch-bearers” from Fenix. 

As it just so happens, I have the earlier LD10/20 Q5, as well as all iterations of the original LxD (Q5, Q2, P4 and short-lived Rebel R100) to compare to. Time for a 

Since the lights use the same head and come in effectively the same packaging, I will focus on the LD20 for most of the product shots below (the LD10 looks the same, just shorter! ). Where the difference is important, I’ll show both lights.







The LD10/20-R4s come in the new standard Fenix packaging. Included inside the thin cardboard box with molded plastic insert is the light along with a manual, warranty card, titanium-coated clip, spare o-rings, extra black tailcap boot cover, wrist lanyard, and belt pouch with closing flap. 

















From left to right: Duracell alkaline battery, Fenix LD20-R4, Fenix L2D-Q5, 4Sevens Quark AA-2, NiteCore D20, EagleTac P20A2-II. 









From left to right: Duracell alkaline battery, Fenix LD10-R4, Fenix LD10-Q5, Fenix L1D-Q5, 4Sevens Quark AA, 4Sevens Mini-AA, NiteCore D10. 

Externally, the new LD10/20-R4s appear very similar to the original LD10/20 series lights. The most significant body change is that knurling has been added the body/battery tubes, and seems slightly more aggressive than what was previously used on the tailcaps. Identification labels are clear, although not as bright as the previous versions. Fit and finish are very good on my samples, with no flaws in the matte black type-III hard anodizing. :thumbsup:

New with these lights is the removable Fenix stainless steel pocket clip (with black titanium coating), very similar to the TK12-R5 I reviewed previously.










One thing that has changed is the screw threads – they are now square-cut on both the tail and head sections. While this is a nice feature in-and-of itself, it means the new versions are no longer backward-compatible with the parts from earlier generations. Up until these new lights, you could happily mix-and-match body and tailcap tubes from any previous Fenix version (i.e. LDx0-Q5 all the way down to the original LxD-P4). Now, you will need to stick with parts from this new generation. :shrug:

The tailcap threads are still anodized for tailcap lock-out, like before. Both LD10 and LD20 lights can still tailstand in their default stock forms.










The new LD10/20 uses the new Cree XP-G emitter, with a cool-white R4 output bin (no tint bin reported). As you can see above, my samples came with a smooth reflector, but I believe OP textured is also available. Note that the reflectors are NOT user-swappable. You must buy one version or the other, so make sure you check first if it matters to you. 

And now for the white wall hunting.  Since both use the same head, I’m only showing the LD20 below. All lights are on Max on 2x Sanyo Eneloop NiMH, about 0.5 meters from a white wall. 

_Note: I accidentally put the wrong labels on the images below – they should all say LD20._ 

















Even with the Smooth reflector, the LD20-R4 has a very even beam with no obvious rings (thanks to the XP-G emitter). It also has a larger and less defined hotspot than the L1D-Q5, with reduced centre-beam throw.

Like with many XP-G-based lights with smooth reflectors, there is some evidence of a slightly dark centre to the hotspot (i.e. a faint donut pattern). This is only noticeable at a distance – and only if you are looking for it. It is not at all distracting in this case.

*User Interface*

This hasn’t changed from earlier model LD10/20 lights. All standard Fenix lights use a similar mechanism – tighten the head for Turbo modes, loosen the head slightly for the General modes.

For General modes, starting with the bezel slightly loosened, click on to activate Lo mode. Soft-press to advance to Med, Hi, SOS in sequence.

With the bezel fully tightened, activation yields Turbo. Soft-press to advance to rapid Strobe. 

If you turn the light off-on within ~2 secs, you will advance to the next mode (i.e. acts as a soft-press). If you wait longer than that, you will return to the first output state (i.e. Lo or Turbo, depending on the bezel state). There is no long-term mode memory. 






Strobe frequency was measured at a very fast 14Hz. :green:

*No PWM (Pulse-Width-Modulation)*

Consistent with other Fenix lights, I was unable to detect any signs of PWM.  As the runtimes clearly indicate, lower output levels appear to be current-controlled.

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

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

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*















Ok, this is where things start to get interesting.  

Turbo output of the LD10-R4 on standard batteries is remarkably high – higher than any other 1xAA light I’ve tested. oo: On previously models, Turbo wasn’t noticeably brighter than Hi mode. At least initially, the LD10-R4 is almost as bright as the LD20-R4 on Turbo!

Note that the LD10-R4 still lacks defined initial output levels on 14500. :sigh: In other words, the light always comes on in max output direct drive, and regulation only kicks on once the light decays to the regulated output level (at which point the battery is almost exhausted anyway),

The LD20-R4 doesn’t seem that much brighter than the earlier generations on Turbo.

Throw is reduced on these new XP-G R4 versions compared to the earlier XR-E Q5s, when matched for the same output level.

The Lo modes of LD10/20-R4s are higher than my first generation LD10/20-Q5s. :shrug: In fact, they are closer to my earlier L1D/L2D-Q5s. 

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

To start, how do these new XP-G R4 Fenix lights compare with earlier XR-E generations?






Now that’s interesting! For the first time in the history of the L1D/LD10 lineage, the 1xAA light is now much brighter on Turbo than it is on Hi. I’ve shown the LD10-R4 on Hi to allow you to better compare to earlier lights … but that Turbo performance is very impressive. In fact, the LD10-R4 Turbo is pretty close in initial output to the LD20-R4 (see below).






For the LD20-R4, the difference is pretty modest. Yes, there is a small increase in output, and runtime has improved over my LD20-Q5 model. But I suspect most people would have expected to see more of a bump in output here. 

How do these new lights stack up to the competition?
































































Ok, there’s a lot of data up there. :sweat:

Simply put, the LD10-R4 blows away the competition in terms of output on standard cells (NiMH, alkaline, L91).  This is a major departure for the line, and I’m impressed that Fenix managed to get the power level up there. 

The Turbo output of the LD20-R4 seems a little lack-luster in comparison – it’s not that much brighter than my earlier Q5 versions (or the 1xAA LD10-R4 for that matter). In this case, the 2xAA version of this light seems to be optimized for runtime – as expected, at all levels the LD20-R4 beats out the competition for runtime. The Hi mode alkaline run is particularly impressive. 

*Potential Issues*

There is a quirk in the circuit in 2xAA form – you loose the Lo-Med modes on 2xL91 lithium batteries initially (i.e. Lo and Med are the same as Hi at first). I recall something similar used to happen on the lowest mode of the Olight T25, but in this case, both Lo and Med are affected on LD20-R4. 

I suspect this has something to do with the Fenix lights lacking a buck circuit, and the new XP-G R4 emitters having a relatively lower Vf than previous emitters. As such, any voltage above the emitter’s Vf will cause issues. Presumably, after running for some period of time, the voltage of your L91s will drop low enough to fall below the Vf of your emitter, and full multi-mode regulation through the boost circuit will be restored. But how long it will take is hard to predict – it depends on the exact Vf of your sample.

Fortunately, this issue is restricted to 2xL91 – rest assured, all modes work as expected on 1xL91 in the LD10-R4. But of course, 1x14500 is a problem here – as with all earlier versions, the LD10 lacks all defined lower output modes (Lo-Med-Hi) on 3.7V Li-ion. The light instead runs max output direct-drive at all levels, and only enters regulation when the battery is almost exhausted.

As with all XP-G lights with smooth reflectors, there is a slight dark-centre effect in the hotspot (i.e. a faint donut pattern to the hotspot). It is mild on my two samples, but you may want to consider the OP reflector versions, just in this case.

The Lo mode of both my samples is higher than previous LD10/LD20-Q5 versions. Basically, the Lo mode is comparable to the earlier L1D/L2D Q5 versions. If you are looking for a true moonlight mode, you will need to look elsewhere.

The belt pouch seems kind of cheap, compared to earlier Fenix pouches.

*General Observations*

The LD10/LD20 line is one of the most venerable in Fenix’s history – it can trace its way back to the first multi-mode Fenix lights, the L1T/L2T. I think most users will be pleased to see how it has developed with the latest XP-G R4 output editions.

One thing that really stands out for me is the greatly increased output of the LD10-R4 on Turbo on standard batteries (i.e. alkaline, NiMH, L91). This is by far the brightest 1xAA light I’ve tested to date – initial output is in fact pretty close to the 2xAA LD20-R4.  

Put it another way, the LD10-R4 on standard batteries is as bright as most 1xCR123A lights! oo: No doubt about it – if you want to impress someone with how bright a 1xAA light can be on standard batteries, this is one to do it with. :thumbsup:

In comparison to that, I’m afraid you may find the LD20-R4 to be a little lack-luster - Turbo output is only marginally brighter than previous generations. But both regulation and runtime are top-of-the-line for this class of light (2xAA). And though I generally don't recommend alkalines, the LD20-R4 is probably one of the best lights you could run them in (i.e. look at the Hi mode LD20 run).

Basically, the LD20-R4 is the one to turn to if you want the best possible runtime on standard batteries, in a fully regulated fashion. As for the battery quirk of loosing Lo-Med initially on 2xL91, this is part of the flip-side to excellent performance (i.e. no buck circuit, which would reduce overall efficiency). In some ways, it’s similar to the continued inability of the LD10 to run multi-modes on 14500 – the circuit isn’t designed to fully support >~3V battery sources. :shrug:

Build-wise, I like the extra knurling on the body and good-quality removable clip. Otherwise, not much has changed from previous versions. One exception – the screw threads have been improved to a thicker square-cut type. This means that older style body tube/tailcaps will no longer fit with the new heads – you need to buy modern parts if you want to play “Fenix-lego.”

The beam is pattern is quite good on my samples, especially considering that they have a smooth reflector coupled with the XP-G emitter. I believe you can also buy these with OP-reflectors installed (note you can’t swap them later!). The main difference with an OP reflector would likely be slightly reduced throw and a greater corona around the hotspot (i.e. smoother transition of spot to spill). 

At the end of the day, Fenix continues to show why it’s the efficiency-king in these classes of lights - if you are in the market for 1xAA/2xAA light, these deserve serious consideration. I just wish Fenix could come up with a true “moonlight” low output mode – it is one thing this series lacks.

Personally, I don’t imagine there is much to compel you to upgrade your earlier Q5-equipped L2D/LD20s to this R4 version (unless you are a real runtime or knurling junky). But the much higher Turbo output of the LD10-R4 is a real eye-opener.


----------



## GarageBoy (Jun 1, 2010)

Long live the Fenix circuits! That is utterly impressive


----------



## COAST (Jun 1, 2010)

Another GREAT review!! Keep up the good work!!


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2010)

Questions: You tested the L1D rb100, but you also tested the L2D rb80? What happened to the L2D rb100? [go rebel alliance!]

How much shorter would the 'overdrive' period of the LD20 xp-g R4 be, if you used EA91 instead of L91?

Medium output runtime of new LD10 xp-g R4 on alkaline. High output runtime of new LD20 xp-g R4, also on alkaline.


What would a NiZn do to the Turbo output of LD10 xp-g R4? any more light
How about LD10 xp-g R4, with 14500 primary (split CR-V3)


Good work.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 1, 2010)

MichaelW said:


> Questions: You tested the L1D rb100, but you also tested the L2D rb80? What happened to the L2D rb100?


Ah sorry, typo in the graph - that should have read L2D (R100). I've just fixed it.



> How much shorter would the 'overdrive' period of the LD20 xp-g R4 be, if you used EA91 instead of L91?


Don't know for sure, since I don't have any EA91 to test. But since I believe the nominal voltage the L91 and EA91 is the same, I doubt it would make a difference. The Vf of your particular sample's emitter is likely to be the determining factor.



> Medium output runtime of new LD10 xp-g R4 on alkaline. High output runtime of new LD20 xp-g R4, also on alkaline.


Ummm, the Hi alkaline runtimes for the LD20 and the 2xAA class are already there in the review.  Sorry, don't plan to do Med alkaline runtimes ...



> What would a NiZn do to the Turbo output of LD10 xp-g R4? any more light How about LD10 xp-g R4, with 14500 primary (split CR-V3)


Again, the LD10 with 14500 runtime is posted in the review. Don't know what you mean by CR-V3?

And no, I don't have and NiZn batteries to test, but I expect you would have a similar issue as the L91s, due to their higher nominal voltage.


----------



## Stereodude (Jun 1, 2010)

Did you try swapping the heads of the LD10 and LD20 to see if the high output and so-so output were consistent between the two heads?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2010)

Okay, another question: Shouldn't the L2D rb100 put out more light than the L2D q2, unless Fenix changed the current on turbo mode? 

No, I mean high mode, not turbo mode.
Fenix is pretty smart, they know that some people will resolutely not give up alkaline batteries. So, in the past, they have made it so that you get pretty flat regulation on medium mode-with 1xAA alkaline, and flat regulation on high mode with 2xAA alkaline.

I was wondering if Fenix is changing things up?

CR-V3 has a two primary 3 volt 14500 cells (in parallel).
Spliting one was the obtuse, expensive, alternative to using a P2D body with L1/2D head.
Doesn't really seem worth it, if the LD10 (on turbo) is nipping at the heels of LD20 on turbo.
I wasn't suggesting using NiZn in LD20 configuration, but only for LD10 (turbo).
I am surprised at how, non perfectly flat, the turbo output is when using Eneloops. (because the power draw much be something :devil
Granted high mode is rock solid flat.

Thanks again selfbuilt


----------



## NightTime (Jun 1, 2010)

Once again the LD10 R4 becomes THE reference for 1xAA flashlights.
Another great day in flashlight history :twothumbs.

I was born in the right decade...

Thanks Selfbuilt for this great moment !


----------



## Dioni (Jun 1, 2010)

thanks for the great review!


----------



## richardcpf (Jun 1, 2010)

WOW brightest single AA light!!

I wonder how does it compare with the Ti Quark AA R5? Mine is pretty bright with a single alkaline/nimh, almost as bright as the P3DQ5 on RCR123!

Selfbuilt is it amazing what you do, elaborating all those charts and graph must have take some time.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 1, 2010)

Stereodude said:


> Did you try swapping the heads of the LD10 and LD20 to see if the high output and so-so output were consistent between the two heads?


First thing I thought of.  

There's basically no difference in output (e.g. my LD10 head on the 2xAA body gave 8.1 on ceiling bounce, compared to 8.0 with the LD20 head). The LD20 head on 1xAA is also comparable to the original LD10 head in output. :shrug:



MichaelW said:


> Okay, another question: Shouldn't the L2D rb100 put out more light than the L2D q2, unless Fenix changed the current on turbo mode?


Yeah, it didn't work out that way (typically, the R100 gave better runtimes). Probably has to do with how the circuit handles the different emitters. After all, the Fenix LXD series was designed for Cree (i.e. optimized for it). The Rebel versions were short-lived - I'm guessing they didn't have a chance to really optimize for output.



> No, I mean high mode, not turbo mode.
> Fenix is pretty smart, they know that some people will resolutely not give up alkaline batteries. So, in the past, they have made it so that you get pretty flat regulation on medium mode-with 1xAA alkaline, and flat regulation on high mode with 2xAA alkaline.


Ah, right, sorry. Yes, that might be interesting. I'll see if I can squeeze a run or two in.



> I wasn't suggesting using NiZn in LD20 configuration, but only for LD10 (turbo). I am surprised at how, non perfectly flat, the turbo output is when using Eneloops. (because the power draw much be something :devil
> Granted high mode is rock solid flat.


Ah, I see ... I'm not familiar with the characteristics of NiZn cells, so I couldn't predict how well they'd work. But I too was certainly impressed to see what much runtime from the Eneloop in 1xAA Turbo. oo:



NightTime said:


> I was born in the right decade...


:laughing:



richardcpf said:


> WOW brightest single AA light!!
> I wonder how does it compare with the Ti Quark AA R5?


Good question. The LD10-R4 on Turbo is certainly driven at a much higher level than my original Quark AA R2. But I don't know what the new Quark AA R5s are like. :shrug:


----------



## LightningRod (Jun 1, 2010)

Great timing for the review! Mine just came today  I bought this light based more on your prior reviews of older Fenix L series lights. The super turbo mode is a nice surprise bonus to have.


----------



## berry580 (Jun 2, 2010)

thank you for the great review!


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 2, 2010)

Here's the LD20-R4 on Hi on alkalines (included on the Turbo graph):






As you can see, that's impressive regulation and runtime on 2xAA alkaline. :thumbsup:

I'm currently doing a Med mode on the LD10-R4 on alkaline ... we'll see how it does there.


----------



## Stereodude (Jun 2, 2010)

That's pretty wild. They seem to have used unobtainium in the driver circuit or something. oo:



selfbuilt said:


> First thing I thought of.
> 
> There's basically no difference in output (e.g. my LD10 head on the 2xAA body gave 8.1 on ceiling bounce, compared to 8.0 with the LD20 head). The LD20 head on 1xAA is also comparable to the original LD10 head in output. :shrug:


I should have known you would have been all over that idea from the start.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 2, 2010)

Stereodude said:


> That's pretty wild. They seem to have used unobtainium in the driver circuit or something. oo:


Well, I suspect the lack of a buck circuit has something to do with it (i.e.boost only). But Fenix has always been a leader in efficiency - especially where alkalines are concerned.

Speaking of which, the Med mode on 1xAA is now done:






A nice bump up in output for equivalent runtime. But that 2xAA sub-Turbo performance is probably the most impressive.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 3, 2010)

If I remember when the L1D rb080 was for sale, the difference in output from high to turbo was 80 to 90 [emitter lumens]
So, presumably the L1D rb100 should be 100 (high) and 112.5 (thereabouts)
The L2D rb100 was 175 (emitter), so your graphs look spot on.

Yeah, I guess Fenix didn't get a chance to optimize for the Rebel. Rebel and XR-E seem at odds. Rebel has low Vf, and small thermal contact, XR-E has high Vf, and huge thermal contact area.

If NiZn cells were used in the LD10, the output shouldn't increase, but the runtime should. The line of reasoning being-reduced driver losses, because of higher voltage under load: 1.6 to 1.2


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 3, 2010)

MichaelW said:


> If I remember when the L1D rb080 was for sale, the difference in output from high to turbo was 80 to 90 [emitter lumens]


Hmmm, it's been awhile, but I don't remember a L1D with R080 - only the L1T/L2T v2.0. IIRC, the R100 were reserved for the LxD series, with the R080 relegated to the LxT v2.0. Maybe I blinked  ... these sure weren't on the market for long (especially in LxD form).



> If NiZn cells were used in the LD10, the output shouldn't increase, but the runtime should. The line of reasoning being-reduced driver losses, because of higher voltage under load: 1.6 to 1.2


That sounds like a reasonable presumption.


----------



## photonstorm (Jun 3, 2010)

Very nice review Eric. Top notch as usual.

The Fenix LD20 Q5 was my first decent light. I was impressed by its output and efficiency. It has a sturdy feeling to it giving the impression of durability and a quality build.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 3, 2010)

I remember that 4sevens, in the sales thread-circa 2007, said Fenix wouldn't make L1D rb100, so just get L2D rb100 and L1D tube. But the L1D rb80 is still around (at eliteled, I think)
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=167963
If you want to get into esoteric testing... How about low mode of LD10 on a zinc-chloride cell, medium mode of LD20 with 2 x zinc-chloride, low mode of LD20 on 2 x zinc-carbon :tinfoil:

You are a gentleman, and a flashlight scholar.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 3, 2010)

MichaelW said:


> If you want to get into esoteric testing... How about low mode of LD10 on a zinc-chloride cell, medium mode of LD20 with 2 x zinc-chloride, low mode of LD20 on 2 x zinc-carbon :tinfoil:


LOL, that would be esoteric. Like most everyone, I try to stay away from anything worse than an alkaline cell.  

Not sure where one would buy the old zinc-carbon primary cells (aka "General Purpose") directly, since the improved zinc-chlorides came out (aka "Heavy Duty"). The latter I know you can buy at Canadian Tire or Radio Shack/The Source here in Canada, and I suppose they might carry the older primaries as well. 

FYI, I know this confuses consumers, but those batteries which come bundled with remote controls, clocks and cheapo consumer flashlights are typically not alkalines. Alkalines are zinc and manganese dioxide (Zn/MnO2), and have a higher energy density and longer shelf-life than older primary cells. But the older cells are cheaper to make, and do an ok job in low-drain devices (which is why MichaelW is suggesting I give them a try at low levels).

Hmmm, checking my battery drawer, I see an unused pair of Panasonic "General Purpose" and UEI "Heavy Duty" that I pulled from the packaging for remote controls. I don't want to tie up my lightbox on this, but I'll see about doing a Med LD10 run, to directly compare to the alkaline. Might be fun!


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 3, 2010)

If alkaline = Ramen noodles (cheap, plentiful, good in a pinch)
what does that make 'heavy duty'? spam 

I think that an LD10 on 'heavy duty' is going to fall out of regulation pretty quickly. The LD20 should do acceptably. CPF doesn't really need that test, unless you are REALLY bored.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 3, 2010)

MichaelW said:


> I think that an LD10 on 'heavy duty' is going to fall out of regulation pretty quickly. The LD20 should do acceptably. CPF doesn't really need that test, unless you are REALLY bored.


Well, I went for the LD10 Med simply because it wouldn't take as long. Here's the result:







In a word - ugh. :laughing:

Would be worthwhile doing the comparison Lo mode run ... only problem is, based on previous performance of my LD10-Q5, I suspect the LD10-R4 will last over 24 hours on Lo on alkaline.

Not exactly BORED here, but I have until tomorrow morning before the next wave of lights arrive for testing. May be able to get the Lo-mode 1xAA Zinc-cabon and Zinc-chloride done by then, and then try the alkaline one day next week when I'm too busy to test the new ones. We'll see ... 



MichaelW said:


> what does that make 'heavy duty'? spam


Hmmm, I would say "general purpose" is spam, and "heavy duty" is corned beef. :laughing:


----------



## thedeske (Jun 4, 2010)

Thanks selfbuilt - another great bit of work

I assumed the LD10 r4's extra 12 in Turbo was minimal. Sound's like
it might be more than the small increase suggests.

There are 2 q5's around and they are used in on/off turbo only. I and the other owner agree with you - there's really no perceptible difference between High And Turbo.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 4, 2010)

Hot off the presses: Lo mode 1xAA alkaline/general purpose/heavy duty run:






Ok, the cheapo primary cells do a little better here than on the higher-drain Med mode. But I think this make a good argument not to even consider those older primary cells in a modern flashlight ... 

And that brings to a close my LD10/LD20 runtimes. :bow: Onto other lights ...


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 4, 2010)

Wow thanks for your hard work. I read that the LD10 had a rather high output on turbo but good to see proof here on CPF. Based on this review I won't upgrade my L2D-Q5 but thinking of getting a LD10 R4 to replace my Olight T15 for 1XAA in the backpack. Did you hear any hum/buzz/whatever sounds from the new R4 Fenix lights on any mode?


----------



## Nake (Jun 4, 2010)

I got my LD10 R4 today and fired it up with a NiZn 1.6V. My box shows 146lm, "ho chi mama" that's bright. For comparison an Eneloop shows 128lm and a 14500 175lm.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 4, 2010)

I read someplace the LD10 R4 had 170ish lumens with NiMH on Turbo but don't have one to compare.


----------



## 3rd Degree (Jun 4, 2010)

Great review... I've had the LD20 for about a month now and had to find out about the problem using L91 batteries the hard way. I wish now that I had waited on a review. Oh well.... It's still a great light if you plan to us rechargable. I'm just a little disappointed that it can't support lithium primaries.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 4, 2010)

Nake said:


> I got my LD10 R4 today.


 
Is your reflector smooth or textured?


----------



## Nake (Jun 4, 2010)

Woods Walker said:


> Is your reflector smooth or textured?


 
It's smooth, but has a nice beam, not like an XR-E with a smooth.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 4, 2010)

Nake said:


> My box shows 146lm, "ho chi mama" that's bright. For comparison an Eneloop shows 128lm and a 14500 175lm.





Woods Walker said:


> I read someplace the LD10 R4 had 170ish lumens with NiMH on Turbo but don't have one to compare.


I don't have a calibrated integrating sphere, so it's hard to give estimates. But based on how other lights of known "torch lumens" have behaved in my box, I think 170ish is a bit high (although it may be close to that at ignition). Note there is a rapid drop-off of >10% in the first few minutes of the run. 

Simply put, I think Fenix's 132 lumen estimate for LD10-R4 is an underestimate, and their 205 lumen estimate for LD20-R4 is an over-estimate. I also suspect the 132 estimate is from the regulated portion of the LD10 run - a bit misleading if people are taking their estimates at only the first few mins of the run.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 5, 2010)

3rd Degree said:


> Great review... I've had the LD20 for about a month now and had to find out about the problem using L91 batteries the hard way. I wish now that I had waited on a review. Oh well.... It's still a great light if you plan to us rechargable. I'm just a little disappointed that it can't support lithium primaries.



It is not that it does not support L91 primary cells, it is just a quirk. That is the price of not having a buck circuit, and the low Vf of the xp-g.
The 'overdrive' period is short, look at the low mode of the this L2D, it is 25% of the total runtime.
http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/fenix_l1dce-l2dce.htm
The percentage of total runtime decreases with ouput, that L2d ce doesn't 'overdrive' on medium & high.
With L91 on the new xp-g LD20, maybe 5% of total runtime on high, 15% on medium, 30% on low.

Using EA91, which were 0.075 to 0.10 volts less, under load,
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/210335
versus L91 in the discharge test, will reduces this 'overdrive' period to an almost trivially matter.
Maybe nothing on high, 10% on medium, 20% on low.

Consider it a battery tester


----------



## marc123 (Jun 7, 2010)

Hi guys,

Doe this new model have the same soft feel (digital) switch like the TK40 or is it more like the original mechanical switch of the first series of LD10? 

Cheers.


----------



## manitoe (Jun 7, 2010)

marc123 said:


> Doe this new model have the same soft feel (digital) switch like the TK40 or is it more like the original mechanical switch of the first series of LD10?



It has a mechanical switch just like the previous LD10.


----------



## ky70 (Jun 24, 2010)

Selfbuilt,

Is the LD10 on turbo noticeably brighter than the Nitecore D10 R2 on high? I've been impressed with the D10 on a NIHM as I think its very bright powered by a regular AA, but if the LD10 is even brighter, then wow.


----------



## Teobaldo (Jun 24, 2010)

I have the two flashlights and for my eye both have the same shine. But the difference with this review is the battery life. In LD20 in Turbo with NiMh 3000 mAh is 1:35 - 1:40 hour; in LD10 is 45 minutes. Another difference is that never they diminished their shine during all this time. In the end the light diminished unceremoniously its power until disappearing in thing of minutes. I tested both in my room while was using mi netbook and this was my impression.

In any case, they are some marvelous flashlights that have served me a lot. Thanks for the review, it is a very useful source of information for the ones that seek which flashlight to buy. Congratulations.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 5, 2010)

ky70 said:


> Is the LD10 on turbo noticeably brighter than the Nitecore D10 R2 on high? I've been impressed with the D10 on a NIHM as I think its very bright powered by a regular AA, but if the LD10 is even brighter, then wow.


While it is technically brighter, I don't think you would notice the difference after a few mins of runtime (at which point, the diff is only ~10-15%). 



Teobaldo said:


> In LD20 in Turbo with NiMh 3000 mAh is 1:35 - 1:40 hour; in LD10 is 45 minutes.


Given the higher output batteries, that sounds pretty consistent with my LD20 performance (although the LD10 seems low). Of course, there is bound to be a fair amount of variability from one sample to another.


----------



## SmurfTacular (Jul 6, 2010)

When the description on the LD20 says it can accept lithium's, does that mean it can accept two 14500 batteries? Or is it referring to the 1.5v lithium cells?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 6, 2010)

SmurfTacular said:


> When the description on the LD20 says it can accept lithium's, does that mean it can accept two 14500 batteries? Or is it referring to the 1.5v lithium cells?


No, it can accept only 1.5V lithium primary cells (i.e. energizer L91). It cannot accept 2x14500 Li-ion - that would fry the circuit.


----------



## cave dave (Jul 7, 2010)

Something doesn't seem right with the below graph. The time is clearly at least 120min mark for all lights, but the table says ~ 1 hr for some. 
***EDIT** *The below graph has been updated by selfbuilt and is now correct ***

Thanks for the awesome review. People are all over the Quarks (including me), but clearly there is an efficiency penalty for adding a buck/boost circuit. If you never use LiIon and don't care about sub 10lm levels then Fenix is still an excellent choice.



> Originally Posted by *selfbuilt*


----------



## SmurfTacular (Jul 8, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> No, it can accept only 1.5V lithium primary cells (i.e. energizer L91). It cannot accept 2x14500 Li-ion - that would fry the circuit.





I would buy it right now if it could accept two 14500 cells. The runtime would be through the roof!


----------



## NightKids (Jul 8, 2010)

Hmm so how long can the LD10 retain it's turbo for until the drop?

I'll be running it with Eneloops.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 8, 2010)

cave dave said:


> Something doesn't seem right with the below graph. The time is clearly at least 120min mark for all lights, but the table says ~ 1 hr for some.


Ah yes, thanks for the catch. Excel sometimes drops the correct X-axis scale when I add/remove data - it's been fixed.



SmurfTacular said:


> I would buy it right now if it could accept two 14500 cells. The runtime would be through the roof!


It would also require a vastly different circuit, which would hurt overall efficiency at all the other modes (including on the LD10 and PD20, which share the same head). Off-hand, I can't think of a single 2xAA light which supports 2x3.7V Li-ion ... it's just too difficult for the manufacturers.



NightKids said:


> Hmm so how long can the LD10 retain it's turbo for until the drop? I'll be running it with Eneloops.


From the review:


----------



## Mr Floppy (Jul 9, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> And no, I don't have and NiZn batteries to test, but I expect you would have a similar issue as the L91s, due to their higher nominal voltage.



The NiZn has an initial voltage of around 1.78 so that's closer to the 14500 battery but it tends to run around 1.61 so 3.2V, which is closer to the L91 before they drop off completely. Do you have any ouput/throw/ceiling bounce figures for 2xL91?

It's a shame that this torch isn't supported well for voltages above 3V. 

Ok, what do we have to do to get you some NiZn batteries? Are you interested? Your graphs are some the best I've seen and they need to be graphed!


----------



## MichaelW (Jul 9, 2010)

*Vf typical (your mileage may vary)*

Cree
xp-g: Vf 3.0 volts @350mA, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
xp-e: Vf [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
xr-e: Vf [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
xp-c: Vf [email protected], [email protected]
xr-c: Vf [email protected], [email protected]

Lumileds/Luxeon
K2: Vf [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
K2 tffc: Vf [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Rebel: Vf [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Rebel es: Vf [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]


----------



## SmurfTacular (Jul 9, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> It would also require a vastly different circuit, which would hurt overall efficiency at all the other modes (including on the LD10 and PD20, which share the same head). Off-hand, I can't think of a single 2xAA light which supports 2x3.7V Li-ion ... it's just too difficult for the manufacturers.



:ironic: Well I guess I'd sound stubborn to say that I don't plan on buying a relatively expensive *2 AA torch that doesn't support two 14500 cells. Because I'm a big believer in rechargeable lithium ions. So much power, with such a long runtime, you can't go wrong. Im almost temped to buy the LD20 and replace the driver. But with AA lights you have very little room for a driver.


----------



## garden (Jul 11, 2010)

Once again, an excellent review, but I don't like the fact that Felix just put in a new LED without very few (if any) changes in the digital functions or physically. I would much prefer if the body clip went the other way, so you can quickly draw it from a pocket or belt, and also for them to get rid of the strobe and SOS... 

In my personal opinion, Fenix's products no longer have the innovation it first started off with years ago, or even the innovation present in 2009 models... However, this remains my favourite AA light, even though I would prefer the Q5 to R2 version


----------



## williaty (Jul 12, 2010)

OK, I've got something I don't understand. Looking at the 2xAA Eneloop charts, the graphs don't agree with the labels on the graphs. For instance, in the 2xAA Eneloop Max chart, the LD20 R4 Turbo drops past 50% at ~170min yet the label for the chart claims this happens at 1hr 27min (87min). All of the other 2xAA Eneloop charts contain similar oddities.

What's going on?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 13, 2010)

williaty said:


> OK, I've got something I don't understand. Looking at the 2xAA Eneloop charts, the graphs don't agree with the labels on the graphs.


The Max Eneloop 2xAA chart was fixed last week - try your browser reload if it isn't showing up correctly. 

I see a couple of the other 2xAA charts were also affected - they have been fixed, and should be showing correctly now (again, a refresh should show them).

The problem is with excel - it sometimes deletes the x-axis scale when generating the graphs from the master files, and reverts to a default scale based on the raw data (which is sampled at at 30sec intervals). I usually check to make sure everything is correct, but it sometimes slips past.


----------



## Overclocker (Jul 13, 2010)

garden said:


> Once again, an excellent review, but I don't like the fact that Felix just put in a new LED without very few (if any) changes in the digital functions or physically. I would much prefer if the body clip went the other way, so you can quickly draw it from a pocket or belt, and also for them to get rid of the strobe and SOS...




not a fan of SOS but strobe is very useful


----------



## Hitthespot (Jul 13, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> Put it another way, the LD10-R4 on standard batteries is as bright as most 1xCR123A lights! oo: No doubt about it – if you want to impress someone with how bright a 1xAA light can be on standard batteries, this is one to do it with. :thumbsup:
> 
> .


 
Just had a chance to read this Eric. Nice Review. It's hard to believe we can get this kind of photon power out of (1) 1.5volt AA battery. I have been doing a good job at resisting the new R4-R5 lights because I figured it didn't offer enough of an improvement over my Q5-R2 lights. However the new LD10-R4 may just be a must have.

Thanks for the Review.

Bill


----------



## j0sh (Jul 19, 2010)

I'm looking to purchased one of these for my first "nice" flashlight. Trying to decide on the 10 or 20 though. Any input to help make the decision?


----------



## MichaelW (Jul 19, 2010)

j0sh said:


> Trying to decide on the 10 or 20 though. Any input to help make the decision?



Just purchase an extra body tube, when you want runtime use the LD20 tube.
When you want minimum size, use LD10.


----------



## Nake (Jul 19, 2010)

MichaelW said:


> Just purchase an extra body tube, when you want runtime use the LD20 tube.


 
Where are these extra body tubes available?


----------



## PirateBoy (Jul 19, 2010)

i have mine and i love it


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 19, 2010)

Nake said:


> Where are these extra body tubes available?


I'd like to know that as well. Although extra body tubes were widely available on the old series LxD and early LDx0, these new XP-G R4 series have different threading. Not sure if anyone actually stocks the new battery tubes separately ... please chime in if anyone knows where to find these.


----------



## j0sh (Jul 19, 2010)

Thinking about the ld10 and maybe a tk12 or tk11 R5 a little later :shrug:


----------



## destro23 (Jul 20, 2010)

Hey guys first post <quack> <quack> 

BUT i've been looking for a small gift for my dad... he's in love with his old school mini mags 2xAA

My search has brought me to the Fenix LD20 R4 , Olight T25 v2010


Any others i should consider? It's looking like the Fenix is the best of the road with battery usage throw and other words i'm slowly gleaming from the million posts i'm looking at.. 





( does anyone have the T25 v2010 one yet? tested this yet? all i can find with the google search is the 2008 T25)


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 21, 2010)

destro23 said:


> ( does anyone have the T25 v2010 one yet? tested this yet? all i can find with the google search is the 2008 T25)


I will likely be receiving one of these soon ... but given my extensive review schedule, it may be a few months before I can get the results up. 

For now, I suggest you decide on what interface you like the best - the output shouldn't be hugely different.


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Jul 30, 2010)

I've seen enough people report that their LD10 R4 has a donut hole that I'm hesitant to buy one.

I looked into buying one with an OP reflector, but I was surprised by my findings. Out of twelve flashlight retailers, just three specify the reflector. Out of those three retailers, just one (4Sevens) says that it is selling an LD10 R4 with an OP reflector.

BUT ... 4Sevens' sister site fenix-store says that the LD10 R4 it sells has a smooth reflector. I don't think that 4Sevens would sell the LD10-R4 on one of its sites with a smooth reflector and an OP reflector on one of its other sites, right ?

Can anyone offer any input about this matter ?

Here are my findings: _(link)_


----------



## Nake (Jul 30, 2010)

4sevens says smooth, must have corrected it.


----------



## evgeniy (Jul 30, 2010)

is now available LD20-R4 (XP-G R4) with OP reflectors ?

is now available LD20-R4 with flat back button case (as in old L2D CE) , for stable standing ?

---
R4 is cooler , than q5 ? (Ideal for me is old XR-E P4 color ~~ 5600 K)


----------



## Andrius (Aug 13, 2010)

I was testing my flashlight Fenix ld10 r4, conclusions:

Med level: the elements of race and Panasonic infinium Recyko +

Panasonic infinium: 5h 12min
GP Recyko + 5h 26min

Hi mode:
Panasonic infinium: 1h 51min

Turbo mode:
Panasonic infinium: 50min

By the way my charger: BC-700


----------



## Minjin (Aug 15, 2010)

I still use an L2D CE, probably P4, from a little over 3 years ago. I love the light. I can see from the graph that a new version would put out a decent amount more light. Would it actually be noticeable though and worth an upgrade?

Another question, from looking at this graph:







It seems like the L2D is superior to the LD20 when using the same bin LED (Q5). Did the circuit change for the worse when it went from L2D to LD20? That seems like a pretty significant difference.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 15, 2010)

Minjin said:


> I still use an L2D CE, probably P4, from a little over 3 years ago. I love the light. I can see from the graph that a new version would put out a decent amount more light. Would it actually be noticeable though and worth an upgrade?
> 
> It seems like the L2D is superior to the LD20 when using the same bin LED (Q5). Did the circuit change for the worse when it went from L2D to LD20? That seems like a pretty significant difference.


Although it would be brighter, probably not enough to really make you sit up and take notice.

The reason for the runtime difference on my Q5 samples is unknown. I suspect it likely just reflects batch variability in Vf.


----------



## BGater (Aug 31, 2010)

I just got an LD10 R4 from 4Sevens, it has the smooth reflector . I didnt see an option at the time for OP. It has a very faint donut hole. I can only see it on an indoor wall shot, outdoors its amazing. Its not nearly as bad as the hole on my Solarforce XPG-R5 drop in's .


----------



## bbb74 (Aug 31, 2010)

My LD20 R4 (which has exactly the same head as a LD10 R4) has a somewhat noticeable donut, even outside. It does annoy me a bit, but others have reported it didn't annoy them so your mileage may vary. There's no donut on my nw quark (floody and smooth), and maybe(??) a very faint donut on my quark turbo but not really sure on whether I'm seeing things there or not - definitely far better than the ld20 anyway.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 31, 2010)

BGater said:


> it has the smooth reflector . I didnt see an option at the time for OP.


Yeah, I don't understand why so many makers are using smooth reflectors with XP-G emitters. Unless throw is critical (which would only be the case for dedicated throwers), OP reflectors seem to do a much better of reducing the centre beam donut effect. :shrug:


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Sep 13, 2010)

Earlier this month, *fonarik* conducted several interviews with Fenix in person. In the third interview _(link)_, I saw information regarding two aspects of the Fenix LD10/LD20 R4 that were brought up by *selfbuilt*.




selfbuilt said:


> One thing that has changed is the screw threads – they are now square-cut on both the tail and head sections. While this is a nice feature in-and-of itself, it means the new versions are no longer backward-compatible with the parts from earlier generations. Up until these new lights, you could happily mix-and-match body and tailcap tubes from any previous Fenix version (i.e. LDx0-Q5 all the way down to the original LxD-P4). Now, you will need to stick with parts from this new generation. :shrug:




Fonarik.com: Why did you change the thread type in the new models?

Fenix: The new thread type is more up-to-date and of better quality and the grip is better.




selfbuilt said:


> Yeah, I don't understand why so many makers are using smooth reflectors with XP-G emitters. Unless throw is critical (which would only be the case for dedicated throwers), OP reflectors seem to do a much better of reducing the centre beam donut effect. :shrug:




Fonarik.com: In the new flashlights there are no texturized reflectors. Are you planning to make them in the LD and PD series?

Fenix: No, the heating temperature for plain reflectors is less then in the texturized ones. If the temperature goes higher than 130 C, then it’s not safe.


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 16, 2010)

MojaveMoon07 said:


> Fenix: The new thread type is more up-to-date and of better quality and the grip is better.


I can certainly believe that - square-cut threads are definitely more durable, and it makes sense that Fenix would improved them over time. It is just unfortunate that they are no longer backward-compatible with early editions. 

A solution would be to make the new body tubes and tailcaps widely available individually, but I don't seem to see that anywhere. Of course, that could simply be a dealer issue, not a manufacturer issue (i.e. low demand?)



> Fenix: No, the heating temperature for plain reflectors is less then in the texturized ones. If the temperature goes higher than 130 C, then it’s not safe.


Frankly, I'm finding that a little hard to understand. Textured reflectors have been in use for a long time - they were originally developed to smooth out imperfections in filament-based incandescents. As we all know, those run run extremely hot! 

I don't know what exactly "not safe" refers to here (i.e. safe for what, the emitter or the user?). But there are a lot of more heavily-driven LED lights that use textured reflectors. :thinking:


----------



## safety first (Sep 20, 2010)

Are Fenix lights recommended for mounting to weapons, i.e AR15?


----------



## thedeske (Sep 25, 2010)

Impressive a/b on the LD10 Q5/R4 here.
http://fonarik.com/test/indexen.php

selfbuilt is not overstating in his review


----------



## noisebeam (Oct 5, 2010)

Are LD20 or 10 bodies with the new square thread available anywhere?


----------



## Batang Regla (Oct 6, 2010)

Thanks for this review.

Correct me if im wrong. 

The light output of ld10 and ld20 are the same the only difference is the longer battery life of the latter. 

Here in my country the q5 is still available. Do i buy the q5 or r4?


----------



## tandem (Oct 6, 2010)

Batang Regla said:


> Correct me if im wrong. The light output of ld10 and ld20 are the same the only difference is the longer battery life of the latter.



Almost but not quite fully correct. In the max-output ("Turbo") mode you get a little more output, with a flatter output trace (meaning more consistent output at max), in addition to more runtime. 

In high (not max), medium, and low modes you basically get more runtime with about the same output.

You should note that the author performed these tests with Sanyo Eneloops, a high quality low self discharge rechargeable cell - you need to use a similar quality of cell to achieve similar output levels, consistency, and runtime. Alkaline (non rechargeable) cells won't give you maximum performance. (edit: but if you need to use Alkaline cells, the LD10/20 is one of the very best lights to use them in!)

The output difference is noticeable but not huge. Here are some beam shots using different scenes for the LD10, and here is the same for the LD20.



> Do i buy the q5 or r4?



With the links above you can compare. Aside from the obvious output differences, check the output-runtime charts in selfbuilt's review. More light for more minutes seals the deal for the R4 for me at least. (edit: I bought a LD10 for its small size; it lives in my pocket virtually all of the time. The larger LD20 wouldn't be as comfortable to carry every day.)


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 7, 2010)

Batang Regla said:


> The light output of ld10 and ld20 are the same the only difference is the longer battery life of the latter.


tandem explained it well - you can see all the differences in my output/runtime figures.

I would personally recommend the R4 version for the improved performance, but you can judge for yourself from the output/runtime figures.


----------



## Batang Regla (Oct 7, 2010)

tandem, sefbuilt

Thank you very much.

For beginners like me, where can i read beginners led flashlights techinical stuff. I backread at led flashlight thread but the conversation is so advanced. I cannot understand the terminologies.


----------



## tandem (Oct 7, 2010)

Off topic but: You could do worse than to read carrot's guide to high-end flashlights -- maybe start at the "basic terminology" page. Also check within the forums to posts made "sticky" - often these have lasting knowledge value which is why they are made to show up at the top of other, newer, posts. Welcome to CPF, stick around and the knowledge will flow to you to be sure.


----------



## Batang Regla (Oct 7, 2010)

tandem,

I will study the link you gave me. 

Xpg, Xre...Xr xr....... I got confused when i backread.

Thank you so much for your help


----------



## cistallus (Oct 8, 2010)

For terms like that, see the Wiki Terminology page, in this case look at the Cree entry: http://www.cpfwiki.com/Wiki/index.php/Terminology

If you haven't already, also take a look at The Welcome Mat: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/277224


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 8, 2010)

All good links - they should help with the background.

The specific emitter types (e.g. XR-E, XP-E, XP-G) and output bins (e.g. Q5, R4, etc.) are a little more complicated. csshih has a stickied guide to them here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/270419

That will help you understand what they look like and their basic characteristics. But there are subtleties to their performance (when paired with different kinds of reflectors) that would take more time to explain. 

Output and tint bins are nicely captured in a thread by DiFlorentino:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/156772 

In general terms for these Cree emitters, the later in the alphabet and the higher the number of the output bin, the higher the output you would expect for the same current (i.e. R4 would be brighter than Q5, run at the same level).

:wave:


----------



## Notsure Fire (Oct 8, 2010)

Very nicely done report, bravo!


----------



## technous (Oct 8, 2010)

As usual nice review lovecpf


----------



## Sarlix (Oct 13, 2010)

I've read through this review several times but I'm still uncertain on on point. If I wanted to buy an LD10 that would give the most throw - would I be better off with the LD10 Q5 with a smooth reflector or the LD10 R4. I know the charts suggest the R4 has more throw but I just wanted to get a second opinion.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 14, 2010)

Sarlix said:


> I've read through this review several times but I'm still uncertain on on point. If I wanted to buy an LD10 that would give the most throw - would I be better off with the LD10 Q5 with a smooth reflector or the LD10 R4. I know the charts suggest the R4 has more throw but I just wanted to get a second opinion.


In LD10 form, you would be better off with the R4.

Although at 1m the Q5 and R4 seem equivalent in measured center beam lux (with the R4 having much greater overall output), in real life the R4 version throws a brighter spot further out.

Part of the reason for this is that 1m is not really sufficient to allow the beams to fully converge. Also, the LD10-R4 uses a XP-G with a smooth reflector - that tends to produce a relatively darker center to the hotspot (all my lux measures are done from the beam center). But in real life, you will find the hotspot brighter on the R4 version.

For the LD20 version it is different - because output is not that much greater on the R4, the Q5 version still throws further.


----------



## Sarlix (Oct 14, 2010)

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation Selfbuilt. I've been pondering over this for a week or so. I keep on reading that the new emitters have less throw than the earlier versions...

..And you say in your review that when matched for output the Q5 will out throw the R4. So I was having a hard time trying to figure out which one to choose. Now I know :thumbsup:


----------



## Batang Regla (Oct 20, 2010)

Hi

I checked the fenix store website.

What does Current-regulated output means vs Digitally regulated for constant brightness. Or just the same meaning?


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 20, 2010)

Batang Regla said:


> What does Current-regulated output means vs Digitally regulated for constant brightness. Or just the same meaning?


"Digitally-regulated" could mean just about anything - all it really means is that there is a circuit that regulates the output. The pattern of that regulation, or the means by which it is achieved (e.g. current-controlled, PWM, etc.), is not specified.

"Current-controlled" is a specific form of regulation where a lower current is supplied to the emitter. Since emitters are more efficient at lower drive currents, this invariably results in one of the most efficient means to produce dim output. All Fenix lights (except for 1xAAA ones) are current-controlled

The other main method for dimming output - PWM (pulse width modulation) - results from rapid cycling from off to full power (potentially producing a visible flicker, but not necessarily so). It is also less efficient, since the emitter is driven at a higher current when on (there's also some minor power loss due to the cycling). However, it does allow you to go to much lower output levels than current-controlled, which does have an ultimate runtime advantage.


----------



## Batang Regla (Oct 20, 2010)

^
Thank you selfbuilt

If I undertand it correctly the term constant brighness that all fenix light (except 1aaa) even my batteries are near low-batt will still produce the same light as newly charge batts?


----------



## HKJ (Oct 21, 2010)

selfbuilt said:


> The other main method for dimming output - PWM (pulse width modulation) - results from rapid cycling from off to full power (potentially producing a visible flicker, but not necessarily so). It is also less efficient, since the emitter is driven at a higher current when on (there's also some minor power loss due to the cycling). However, it does allow you to go to much lower output levels than current-controlled, which does have an ultimate runtime advantage.



I believe that on of the lights with the widest output selection (i.e. with bot high and a very low level), is the current controlled Quark.

Both technologies (pwm and CC) has some challenges:
On pwm you need a very high control frequency, i.e. a light with 1% output need the control frequency to be 100 times the pwm frequency. This can give problems with the regulator not having time to stabilize the light output. This can be seen when the pwm measures to 1%, but the brightness is 2%, i.e. the current is higher at low brightness.

With CC you need to measure the current to regulate, and it can be a problem measuring both very high and low currents with good precision (at least with a cheap microprocessor), with only one measure range. Another problem is keeping a good efficiency at both low and high current.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 22, 2010)

Batang Regla said:


> If I undertand it correctly the term constant brighness that all fenix light (except 1aaa) even my batteries are near low-batt will still produce the same light as newly charge batts?


Any flat-output regulated light (current-controlled or PWM) will strive to maintain a constant output, regardless of the charge state of the cell. But of course, it can only do so within certain limits. Battery chemistry is also a key point - a nearly dead alkaline is not likely to give you much output for long.



HKJ said:


> I believe that on of the lights with the widest output selection (i.e. with bot high and a very low level), is the current controlled Quark.


True, you caught me on that one.  But as a general rule, current-controlled lights don't typically seem to have as low a "moonlight" mode as PWM-based lights can (likely in part for the reasons you mentioned). The Quark being the exception, of course.


----------



## gunga (Oct 22, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Quark use a combination of current control and PWM for the lowest mode? Again, please let me know if I am incorrect.


----------



## HKJ (Oct 22, 2010)

gunga said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Quark use a combination of current control and PWM for the lowest mode? Again, please let me know if I am incorrect.



You are wrong, it does not use both, but only CC. The CC is not very smooth at the low levels, because the micro has some difficulties controlling the power at this low level.

The brightness looks likes this on the 2xAA Quark (This is from my Danish review of the Quark AA-2, the same can be seen on my other Quark reviews).







Note: This is measured on the first generation Quark, the current version might be different.


----------



## gunga (Oct 22, 2010)

Oh cool, thanks for the correction. Wasn't sure. Do you have info the Nitecore D10? I think that one uses CC and PWM, or is it just PWM?


----------



## HKJ (Oct 23, 2010)

gunga said:


> Oh cool, thanks for the correction. Wasn't sure. Do you have info the Nitecore D10? I think that one uses CC and PWM, or is it just PWM?



With infinite variable output I would guess that it uses pwm, but I have not checked it.

ZebraLight uses both CC and PWM, they uses CC for the 3 main modes and pwm for the extra brightness settings.


----------



## Woods Walker (Nov 2, 2010)

Based on this review I got a LD01 R4. I was looking for a bright 1XAA to light up the woods during night hikes to camp as sometimes finding white blaze markers can be hard and more so during fall and winter as the trail can get iffy. Wow this thing is bright and it seems almost brighter than my XR-E R2 EX10 (LD10 on turbo) when first fired. How the heck did they pull that off using 1XAA LSD NiMH? My Fenix HL20 using an XP-E R2 is also bright but the LD10 on turbo beats it. Come to think of it all the modes look bright.

Pros.

1. Very very bright. Not sure if the turbo can be run this bright for more than a short time but this is all I need. The low is much like my L2D-Q5 which is ok as can actually hike using the low on known trails.
2. Great beam. The Fenix HL20 is a winner in that regard as well but think the R4-XP-G has more flood. Somehow there is still enough throw as well for my needs. There are no rings and I can’t pick out any doughnut holes etc. Just a darn nice clean beam.
3. Ok tint. I prefer warmer tints but will tolerate cooler ones. I just dislike a strong blue or squid **** green and there isn’t any of that. 
4. I like the anti roll bezel and new threads.
5. The clicky takes enough force to activate that maybe it won’t turn on in my pack. I tend to lock lights out but sometimes will forget.
6. I can see the turbo mode is brighter than the high. I couldn’t tell the difference between my Olight T15’s highest two modes. Well maybe for a few seconds with a Duraloop fresh off the charger but even then a blink of the eye and it was indistinguishable. 

Cons.

1. There were a two very small chips (if they could even be called that) on both sides of the light equally spaced near the clip. Maybe the clip did this when put on at the factory? No big deal as they are very small and no question that I will be dropping this light ASAP on the road/trail as always seem to.
2. A can hear a very very faint buzz on the high setting. The light must be very near my ear (almost inside) for me to hear it and there is no sounds whatsoever on the rest of the modes.
3. Higher low mode. I guess this is a pro or con depending on use. I like that the higher low plus flooder beam makes it more usable during a hike than some of the other low modes on some lights I own. Also this may work well for a hanging lantern setup. Just the same some people prefer a lower low. 
4. I like the larger lanyard holes in the tall cap but find the cutout sections actually makes activation a bit harder than the L2D-Q5. Also it can’t be as stable when tail standing though it will stand. Not sure why everyone seems to be making tail caps this way.
5. Between the new bezel front plus anti roll feature, tail cap, and clip I find the light less comfortable in my hands than the older/smoother Fenix lights. I may remove the clip.

Overall this light is very nice. If someone told me a 1XAA light could be this bright 10 years ago I would have thought them crazy.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 12, 2011)

_Written by *selfbuilt* on 11-02-2010 07:30 AM GMT_



gunga said:


> Oh cool, thanks for the correction. Wasn't sure. Do you have info the Nitecore D10? I think that one uses CC and PWM, or is it just PWM?


HKJ is correct - the infinitely-variable D10 uses PWM across the range. Unfortunately, even the defined 3-level outputs of the D10SP use PWM as well. I don't recall the original D10 off-hand, but the D10SP uses 7.8 kHz. HKJ is correct - the infinitely-variable D10 uses PWM across the range. Unfortunately, even the defined 3-level outputs of the D10SP use PWM as well. I don't recall the original D10 off-hand, but the D10SP uses 7.8 kHz.



Woods Walker said:


> I like the larger lanyard holes in the tall cap but find the cutout sections actually makes activation a bit harder than the L2D-Q5. Also it can’t be as stable when tail standing though it will stand. Not sure why everyone seems to be making tail caps this way.
> 
> ...
> 
> Overall this light is very nice. If someone told me a 1XAA light could be this bright 10 years ago I would have thought them crazy.


Thanks for sharing your perceptions, I agree with them. And yes, I also found tailstanding was typically better on my earlier LxD series lights (although I remember one being a bit wobbly with a protruding tailcap). Thanks for sharing your perceptions, I agree with them. And yes, I also found tailstanding was typically better on my earlier LxD series lights (although I remember one being a bit wobbly with a protruding tailcap).

FYI, check out the more recent Zebralight SC51 for yet another jump in 1xAA NiMH performance. 



> Written by *noisebeam* on 11-09-2010 09:15 AM GMT
> 
> The LD20 R5 version is now available. I would have expected a very slight increase in ouput, however the specs indicate something different (maybe)
> 
> ...





> Written by *Mr Floppy* on 11-09-2010 11:17 PM GMT
> 
> I'll guess it's the new ANSI rating. Anyway, the best thing to do is wait for the review in this thread.
> 
> Cool, assuming the threads are the same, my LD20 R4 will be able to mix and match with a LD10 R5!





> Written by *Woods Walker* on 11-09-2010 11:57 PM GMT
> 
> LD20 R5
> 
> ...





> Written by *noisebeam* on 11-10-2010 08:05 AM GMT
> 
> This has to be just the new lumens spec method. R5 results in only a tiny bit more output with same input if I understand correctly, so little as to not be noticeable by eye. (I think even the R4/R5 bins may even overlap at extremes) Someone will chime in to correct.
> 
> ...





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 11-10-2010 08:22 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *tandem* on 11-10-2010 09:04 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Mr Floppy* on 11-10-2010 05:15 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *noisebeam* on 11-10-2010 05:45 PM GMT
> 
> Speaking of tubes...
> 
> ...


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 12, 2011)

> Written by *Mr Floppy* on 11-10-2010 10:04 PM GMT
> 
> Yes, they already do have those tubes. Check out torchworld.com.au. Under 'accessories', they have both the LD10 and LD20 V2 tubes. I know I have asked them about this and they have confirmed that they are the for the new LDx V2 series. You may want to send them an enquiry just in case.
> 
> Funny, I could never find spare LD x V1 tubes but given that the LxD ones fit, they may not have made. I hope this the new LD20 R5 is still a LDx V2 tube. It would annoy me to no end if it wasn't.





> Written by *noisebeam* on 11-11-2010 09:11 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *standmixersguide* on 11-11-2010 11:26 AM GMT
> 
> but I guess for someone like me it would be nice to know how this flashlight compares (in simple terms) to a mag light of equal size





> Written by *Mr Floppy* on 11-11-2010 07:20 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Woods Walker* on 11-11-2010 08:12 PM GMT
> 
> I can't find just the LD20 v2 body without the tail cap. Darn shame as when the L2D/L1D was out this seemed a bunch easier. In any case here are a few outside beam shots of the LD10-R4.





> Written by *noisebeam* on 11-11-2010 10:06 PM GMT
> 
> I don't mind getting a tailcap too, just as long at the price point justifies not getting the whole light.





> Written by *gunga* on 11-12-2010 01:48 AM GMT
> 
> Yes, I'm also looking for an LD10+ body.
> 
> ...





> Written by *Batang Regla* on 12-11-2010 02:12 AM GMT
> 
> Hi again Sefbuilt,
> 
> ...





> Written by *Russ Prechtl* on 12-11-2010 11:44 AM GMT
> 
> Thanks for another great review!
> 
> LD10- another one I have to add to my collection. Dang! :devil:





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 12-12-2010 08:51 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Batang Regla* on 12-13-2010 01:26 AM GMT
> 
> If i understand it correctly, buying either ld20 or ld10 is redundant for my e21?
> 
> Im starting to like the light output of tk40 but i want to make sure that its worth it because it will cost me 158 dollars lovecpf





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 12-13-2010 08:02 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *fishwatcher* on 12-13-2010 10:25 AM GMT
> 
> Thanks Selfbuilt, this is a terrific review.
> 
> ...


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 12, 2011)

> Written by *noisebeam* on 12-13-2010 10:32 AM GMT
> 
> I have two L2D/L1D Q5's and both have notability higher Turbo vs. High configured either way.


 


> Written by *Mr Floppy* on 12-14-2010 09:30 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 12-15-2010 08:21 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Lionhill* on 12-16-2010 06:24 PM GMT
> 
> Weird. I too just bought a LD10 after reading this thread. The vendor assured me I had the newest, brightest light that Fenix sold for AA. It has R5 on the head but looks exactly like the image of R4 with the knurling on the body. The reflector is smooth. It's very bright compared to a Olight T10 with new CR123a's.
> 
> ...





> Written by *willgraeme* on 12-22-2010 02:50 PM GMT
> 
> please review r5 versions of ld10 and ld20 selfbuilt, much appreciate your reviews they are the best





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 12-23-2010 09:07 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *willgraeme* on 12-26-2010 05:43 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Lionhill* on 12-27-2010 04:45 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *dragonphoenix* on 12-27-2010 05:22 PM GMT
> 
> FENIX ld10 is really a nice torch, I have an old edition of CREE Q5 WC





> Written by *Tierdaen* on 12-27-2010 10:42 PM GMT
> 
> The R5 version is indeed pretty bright, but my R4 version is a little brighter in the hotspot. I posted this picture in another thread, but I'll toss it up here too just for reference.
> 
> ...





> Written by *mistertech* on 12-29-2010 10:51 AM GMT
> 
> I have both an R4 and R5. I am very disappointed with the R5 as I'm seeing that all levels are brighter on the R4. In fact, level 3 on the R4 is the same brightness (by my eyes) as the turbo on the R5.
> 
> This is the very first time I've been disappointed with a Fenix light. I hope they fix this in their next version.





> Written by *fannin* on 12-29-2010 09:11 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *macnoodle* on 01-01-2011 10:11 AM GMT
> 
> The LD20 R5 seems as bright as the R4 version, from everything I've seen online (no personal experience), so I'm a little surprised that the LD10 would be different. Unfortunately, going by the beam shots above, it looks like that is the case.
> 
> We really need a LD10/LD20 R5 review.





> Written by *Mr Floppy* on 01-04-2011 03:24 AM GMT
> 
> Here's my quick ceiling bounce test.
> 
> ...


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 12, 2011)

> Written by *tandem* on 01-04-2011 11:21 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 01-04-2011 11:44 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Tierdaen* on 01-04-2011 12:22 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *ledjunky* on 01-06-2011 05:10 PM GMT
> 
> :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


 Written by *Ranrod* on 01-20-2011 04:26 PM GMT

I registered just to post this!

I purchased the LD10 R5 for use at work and the only thing bugging me is the pinhole in the middle of the beam. I see it everywhere, very distracting even in real world use, on all settings at beyond 1.5m or so.

Here are a couple of quick handheld shots that I took just now of my white ceiling on a half-depleted Eneloop. To my eyes it's only a bit greenish on low, looks white-ish on other settings but I'm dead tired atm

http://imgur.com/ohuNx
[img]http://i.imgur.com/ohuNx.jpg[/img]

http://imgur.com/KiO9k
[img]http://i.imgur.com/KiO9k.jpg[/img]




> Written by *lopezepol75* on 01-28-2011 09:05 PM GMT
> 
> thanks for the review. I got the r4 version of the LD20 2-3 months ago, found it to be a very worthy light only thing i would have asked for would be deep carry pocket clip, the whole head sticks out. but whatever, great light.





> Written by *hoebawt* on 01-28-2011 10:34 PM GMT
> 
> great review...i think i can pick out my backup flashlight for work now..thanks





> Written by *maba* on 01-30-2011 07:03 AM GMT
> 
> LD10 R4 vs R5
> 
> Beamshots ~> http://fonarik.com/test/





> Written by *mggm* on 02-03-2011 12:37 PM GMT
> 
> Thank you so much for this great review! :twothumbs now I have a LD10 R4


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 12, 2011)

> Written by *mggm* on 02-03-2011 01:24 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *Fluffy Ops* on 02-10-2011 10:41 AM GMT
> 
> The quirk of losing low-med modes with the use of lithium AAs in a Fenix LD20 is only limited to the LD20? Is there the same issue with the LD10 (powered by any kind of AAs)?
> 
> ...





> Written by *MichaelW* on 02-10-2011 11:14 AM GMT
> 
> Maybe with the first minute with the new 3 volt primary 14505 (basically a CR123 in AA form factor), depending on Vf of your particular xp-g.





> Written by *selfbuilt* on 02-10-2011 02:31 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Written by *yagit* on 02-10-2011 06:21 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 12, 2011)

The main review post has been updated with the final review text.

The thread discussions for the last few months have been *fully restored* from the search engine cache data (thank you tandem!).

Please carry on!


----------



## moonwind (Mar 23, 2011)

I'm now decided in getting a LD10 R4/R5. I currently have the LD20 R4 but I want something that I can EDC. Thanks for the review selfbuilt!


----------



## WYheard (Apr 4, 2011)

I have been carrying my LD10 for a few now. And i love it, its build like a tank and super powerful for the size. A lot of light for the money!

ThX 

WH


----------



## pblanch (Apr 6, 2011)

Just received mine yesterday.

Tried it out last night and a very nice low. 

Love it. Gives the same max output as my LD15 but now I have a very nice 3lm low which I can start with. 

Been used to 10lm from my PD30 and have been finding it a little bright for sneaking around home at night. 

Powered by enloop and recharged via solar. Perfect combo.


----------



## vianocka (Mar 29, 2013)

Thanks selfbuilt, I need exactly this kind of push towards buying this lamp. Already ordered, and couldn`t wait to try it in the spring woods


----------



## Labrador72 (Jan 31, 2014)

Post removed as in the wrong thread.


----------



## efoo (Jun 16, 2015)

Hi all. I received my Thrunite TN4A (neutral white version) last week and captured some shots, posted on its thread: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...EO-and-more!&p=4672024&viewfull=1#post4672024

While I was testing it, thought I might as well compared it to my Fenix LD20 Q5 (turbo mode 180 lumens):


























Cheers


----------

