# Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+



## selfbuilt (Mar 26, 2012)

*Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1/2x18650) *Collimator* Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+*

*Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *

*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:*_ This review has been revised with the results of the new aspheric Collimator head for the 7G5V2. Scroll down to the individual sections for updated info. I have also summarized all my Collimator head findings in post #58 of this thread, making it easier for you to see what is new about this head all in one place._ 

_*UPDATE November 27, 2012:* A revised model line, the 7G5CS, is now available with an improved user interface and build._















Welcome to the new second edition of the 7G5, a high-output thrower light from Crelant. 

So, how much has changed from the first version of this light? You might be surprised … 

But first, here is new optional Collimator (aspheric) head:










*New 7G5 V2 Manufacturer Specifications:* _(changes from V1 reported specs identified in brackets)_

LED: CREE XM-L U2
Hi mode brightness: 850 lumens _(previously 860 lumens reported on 2x18650 for the V1)_
Low mode brightness: 240 Lumens
Modes: High-Low-Strobe
Input voltage: 2.7V - 12V _(previously 3.7V to 16V for the V1)_
Power supply, not included: 1x or 2x 18650 Li-ion battery _(previously 3xCR123A, 4xCR123A, 3x16340, 2x18650, 2x18500)_
Runtime:
1*18650 (650 lumens) - 90 minutes _(not previously supported for the V1)_
2*18650 (860 lumens) - 110 minutes _(previously 90 mins for the V1)_
Switch: Forward tactical clicky switch
Material: T6061-T6 Aircraft Aluminum _(previously T7075 for the V1)_
Finish: Hard Anodized (type III)
Stainless steel bezel _(previously aluminum for the V1)_
Tactical grip ring _(not present on the V1)_
Lanyard ring _(not present on the V1)_
Waterproof: IPX-8 rating, beyond 5 Meters
Length 251mm, Head 62mm, Body 25.4mm 
Weight: 287 grams (without batteries) _(previously 315g for the V1)_
Note: The GITD O-rings on the extension tube are replaceable with the included black o-rings.
_Note: the V1 included anodized square-cut threads, not included on the V2_
ncludes extension tube, spare o-rings, lanyard _(previously no lanyard on the V1)_
MSRP: ~$92
Ok, so a lot has changed here. :sweat: Let's go through it all a step at a time …














 _First point – the printed packaging specs have NOT been updated yet, at least on my sample. The printed specs are no longer correct, please refer to the reported specs cited above (especially in terms of supported cells – 4xCR123A will blow the circuit on the V2). Hopefully these will be corrected on the packaging soon._

Packaging remains fairly basic. Inside the clamshell plastic, you will find the light, spare o-rings and GITD boot cover switch. New on the V2 is a basic wrist lanyard (as the light now comes with a removable lanyard ring). 

_*UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head*_






The optional Colimator head comes in its own cardboard box, wrapped in plastic. Scroll down for more pics. 













From left to right: 4GREER 3100mAh 18650; Crelant 7G5-V2, 7G5-V1; Niwalker 750; Tiablo A60G; Thrunite Catapult V3, Sunwayman T40CS.

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

*Crelant 7G5-V2*: Weight: 282.6g, Length: 251mm, Width (bezel): 61.4mm
*Crelant 7G5-V1*: Weight: 321.3g, Length: 247mm, Width (bezel): 61.4mm
*Niwalker NWK750*: Weight: 392.3g, Length: 264mm, Width (bezel): 59.0mm
*Sunwayman T40CS*: Weight: 296.7g, Length 227, Width (bezel): 63.5mm
*Thrunite Catapult V3*: Weight: 434.8g, Length: 254mm, Width (bezel) 58.0mm, Width (tailcap) 35.1mm.

Since the V2 now fully supports 1x18650, here are some additional comparisons to that class of light:

*Crelant 7G5-V2*: Weight: 247.6g, Length: 247mm, Width (bezel): 61.4mm
*Tiablo A9 Flood (XM-L U2):* Weight: 156.7g, Length 158mm, Width (bezel) 45.1mm
*Xeno G42:* Weight: 224.3g, Length 161mm, Width (bezel) 46.6mm
*4Sevens X7*: Weight 146.9g, Length: 151.5mm, Width (bezel): 38.7mm
*Scorpion V2 with Turbo Head*: Weight: 188.3g, Length: 171mm, Width: 41.0 (bezel), 37.0mm (tailcap grip ring)

Here's a few shots of the Collimator head, compared to some other well-known aspherics. 





From left to right: 18650, Crelant 7G5V2-Collimator, Dereelight DBSV2-Aspheric, Tiablo A9 R2 "Throw King".

_*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:* Dimensions of the Collimator head_

*Whole head:* Weight: 255.6g, Length: 79.2mm, Width (bezel): 67.1mm
*Aspheric Lens:* Weight: 98.8g, Height (center): 24.0mm, Width (base): 66.7mm






I will talk more about the Collimator head internals at the end of the build section of this review.

Stock 7G5 V2 body:






















The V2 7G5 appears to be a completely different build. oo: There is really nothing similar to the old model, except for the user interface, emitter and reflector. The light engine "guts" thus seem the same, but in a new shell – note however that the circuit has gone through a voltage range revision (see below discussion below). 

The original 7G5 build seemed very basic, somewhat reminiscent of a number of the budget lights - except with a few nice features like anodized square-cut threads and a 1xCR123A-size battery extender (allowing for 3x or 4x CR123A/RCR, and 2x 18500 or 2x 18650). The new model is completely different, with a 1x18650-sized extender (giving you 1x or 2x 18650). That physical change has necessitated a circuit change, to fully support 1x 3.7V Li-ion. As a result, 4xCR123A is no longer supported (i.e., the voltage range has been reduced to ~12V max). More on this later … 

This new build seems a lot more robust. The wall thickness seems higher now - but overall weight has decreased. This seems mainly due to a weight reduction in the head, with the V2 head being 42g lighter than the V1. This may indicate reduced heatsinking. :shrug:

Physically, the aluminum body has apparently changed from T7075 to T6061. These are both "aircraft grade", but I understand that 6061 is somewhat softer than 7075 (and supposedly less prone to break or crack). Given that we aren't likely to be directly subjecting our lights to take-off and landing stress, I don't imagine this really matters much in a flashlight. 

The anodizing is a glossy black now. Lettering is a much brighter white, standing out better against the background. There are a series of GITD o-rings along the battery extender tube (presumably to help with grip). These can be replaced with the included black extras supplied.

There is no knurling on the V2 light, but there is a removable rubber grip ring now. I generally like rubber grip rings, but I find this one to be a little too small (i.e. I prefer a wider ring, for more stable finger support).

The V2 can no longer tailstand, but the forward clicky tailcap is much easier to access now. There is a removable metal clip ring, allowing you to use a wrist lanyard now (oddly, there were no attachment points of any kind on the V1). 

Sadly, screw threads are no longer square-cut or anodized for tailcap lock-out. :sigh: Triangular threads seem of good quality, though.

There is now a slightly scalloped stainless steel bezel ring around the head. There is a GITD o-ring below the new bezel. The lens is of improved quality - it is much clearer now, with a definite anti-glare coating. :thumbsup: The reflector appears completely unchanged from the earlier 7G5, and should continue to provide excellent throw. 

There is still a spring on the positive contact plate in the head, so flat-top batteries should work fine. 

Is it just me, or does the overall build look a lot like the Sunwayman T40CS (which in turn looked a lot like the Surefire UB3T Invictus?).  

FYI, Tiablo is apparently the owner/manufacturer of all Crelant lights (you'll note the same Canadian source address for both companies in the promotional material).

_*UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head*_


























Ok, that's a big aspheric lens up there. :sweat:

The Collimator head replaces the stock 7G5V2 head/reflector, and screws right on the the base of the head (i.e., the pill/emitter area). As you can see, it is rather large (and a bit ungainly looking), but it fits on solidly. Light may feel a little top heavy in the 1x18650 size shown earlier, but it pretty well balanced in 2x18650 with batteries loaded.

The head features cut-out holes around the circumference, similar to the Tiablo A9 (recall the close relationship between Tiablo and Crelant).  But this head feels more solid and sturdy than the A9 aspheric head. :thumbsup:

This head uses a similar focusing mechanism to the A9 aspheric - you can unscrew the top half of the head relative to it's base, defocusing the optic. In my case, I found ideal focus was pretty much full tight.

There is a glass lens just below the bezel - I'm not sure why (perhaps to protect the aspheric optic?). It is certainly not going to provide additional waterproofing, given the cut-outs around the circumference.

There's a plastic plug that screws into the unused head when not in use, which is a nice touch.

_*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:* Head disassembly_






First thing to notice if you unscrew the focusing feature all the way (and open the head up completely), is the back of the aspheric lens is held in place by a metal retaining ring. You will need a very wide set of tweezers to fit into the holes on either side of the ring to unscrew.






Once you do, you aspheric lens pops out the back. As you can see above, there is indeed an o-ring above the lip of the aspheric lens that makes contact with a lip inside the head, to maintain waterproofness of the light.  Note that it can be a bit tricky to re-seat this o-ring within the head when tightening the lens back into place, so I don't recommend you don't open it up as a matter of course. If you do, mount the o-ring back into the head first, and then carefully re-tighten the retaining ring with the aspheric lens in place






You can unscrew the bezel ring separately, and the front glass lens and o-ring pop out. Again, I am not sure why this lens is here – it provides no extra water-proofing, since there are cut-outs on the head below this point (and the aspheric has its own o-ring). :thinking:

*User Interface*

The 7G5 V2 has the same interface as the V1 - which is very basic. Turn the light On/Off by the tailcap forward clicky switch. Press for momentary on, click and release for constant on. 

Mode switching is controlled by soft-pressing or rapid Off/On clicking of the tailcap switch. Mode sequence is Hi > Lo > Strobe, in repeating sequence. Light has mode memory, so if you leave it off for more than 2 secs, it remembers the last mode used and returns to it upon activation.

Personally I would rather see Strobe "hidden" in some way, and not on the main sequence. :shrug:

For a more detailed examination and comparison of the build between V1 and V2, please see my video overview: 



I have provided a quick video overview of the Collimator head below:



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

*PWM/Strobe*

There is no sign of PWM that I can see, at either output level – I presume the light is current-controlled.  






Strobe was unchanged, measured at a very fast ~16 Hz. 

Also as before, there was some high frequency noise detectable on my oscilloscope setup at each level. This not visually noticeable.










Basically, the circuit seems completely unchanged from before (aside from the altered voltage range, that is).

*Beamshots:*

I will start with the stock reflector head, and discuss the optional Colimator head at the end.





Crelan 7G5-V1 on the left, 7G5-V2 on the right.

7G5-V1





7G5-V2





As before, 7G5 has a large head, with a deep and smooth reflector. This means excellent throw – I would expect the V2 to be unchanged from the V1. 

And now the white-wall beamshots.  All lights are on 2x AW protected 18650. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 

_Note: My positioning seems a little off with the V2, which was recessed a little further back from the wall (giving a wider spillbeam width). In real life, the two versions have exactly the same beam characteristics._





























































The V1 and V2 have virtually identical beams. The only real difference comes from minor focusing variations. Note that as before, you can unscrew the bezel, which may help with fine-tuning the adjustment. 

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






Again, the 7G5 V2 is unchanged from the V1. I'm also added the Tiablo A60G above, so you can see how the latest thrower made under the Tiablo label performs in comparison. Tiablo seems to be the maker for Crelant, but the 7G5 uses a larger reflector than the A60G.

From my original 7G5 V1 review:






As you can see, the 7G5 has a more focused hotspot than the Thrunite Catapult or Olight SR51. Scroll down for full ANSI FL-1 testing results.

_*UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head Results*_

There's not much point in doing white wall beamshots of aspherics at under 1m.  So instead, I will focus on 100-yard outdoor shots.

To start to compare beam profiles, here is how the 7G5V2 output differs between 1x18650 and 2x18650 batteries, on both the standard smooth reflector and the new Collimator head:











Here is how the smooth reflector directly compares to the Collimator head (on 2x18650):






To help you see that better, here is a zoomed perspective on the hotspots:






As with all aspherics, the Collimator head for the 7G5 V2 gives you a projection of the emitter die image at a distance, with little side spill. That said, there is always some degree of chromatic aberration with aspherics (i.e. that colorful blue-red fringing around the edges) – this is more noticeable at closer distances, though.

Peak throw has increased with the Collimator head, but not as much as you might have expected. This is due to the relatively large die size of the XM-L emitter. For aspherics to produce very tight throw, you need to start with a very small die. To show you what I mean, below is a comparison to a couple of classic aspheric lights – the Dereelight DBS XR-E R2 EZ900, and the Tiablo A9 XR-E R2 "Throw King":






And again zoomed:






Overall, the 7G5V2 Collimator puts out about the same peak throw as the premium EZ900 XR-E DBS aspheric does. _But the 7G5V2 Collimator does so over a wider area._

Although hard to give exact measures, I would estimate that the DBS aspheric illuminates an area ~10ft x 10ft (i.e. ~100 square feet) at this 100-yard distance, and the 7G5V2 Collimator illuminates an area ~14ft x 14ft (i.e. ~200 square feet). So effectively, the 7G5V2 is putting out the same intensity of light, but spread out over twice the surface area. 

*Testing Method:* 

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

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info. 
*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables.

Again, I will start with the standard reflector head, and discuss the Collimator head at the end.






Although my V2 sample has slightly lower output and throw, I don't consider this to be significant. There is bound to be some variability between samples, due to circuit/emitter differences. Exact positioning of the emitter and reflector will also affect throw.

As a reminder, the best way to compare overall throw among lights is by looking at beam distance, not raw lux at any given distance. As you will see, my V2 has ~2.5% less output, and ~6% less throw. This is within normal variation.

Since the V2 can now run on 1x as well as 2x battery sources in the 1x18650 size, let's put it through its paces relative to that class:






The output of the 7G5 V2 on 1x18650 is quite good – I get almost 600 estimated lumens, with over 30K [email protected] throw. That makes it the best throwing reflectored 1x18650 light in my collection at the moment. oo:

Because the 7G5 V2 takes 2x18650, it can also run on 2xRCR or 2CR123A (in theory). But here is where the problem comes in – the nearly 800 initial lumens on Hi is a heavy drain for these low capacity cells.

*Note that the new specs for the 7G5 V2 specifically to NOT support 2xRCR or 2xCR123A.* But since I know some of you are bound to try it, here is what happens if you do: 










*I STRONGLY urge you NOT to try 2xCR123A on Hi on the 7G5 V2.*  My experience of other heavily driven >700 lumen XM-L lights is that this kind of drain is bound to trigger the PTC safety circuits within minutes. This is NOT something you want to do intentionally. In addition to cell (and user) safety, those kinds of cell temperatures can also easily damage circuits.

If you are going to try running 2xRCR on Hi (again, not recommended), you should only consider using good quality IMR cells rated for this current drain. Unfortunately, IMR cells are not protected, so please use caution not to over-discharge them. And again, there are no guarantees the light will be able to handle the heat in the smaller configuration. 

Note that the ~300 lumen Lo mode should be quite safe for 2xRCR or 2xCR123A.

As a last word, do not even think about trying 4xCR123A. I tried this on the first V2 I was sent (before I was advised of the revised specs), and blew the circuit within the first few mins of runtime. :sigh: The V2 no longer supports anything higher than ~12V max.

_*UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head Results*_

Ok, this is going to require some explaining. :sweat:

Measuring peak intensity/beam distance according to ANSI FL-1 is problematic. The standard requires you to hunt around the hotspot with the light sensor for the point of highest intensity. This was clearly intended for standard reflectors or TIR optics. But aspherics produce a direct projection of the emitter die, which has tiny regions of unusually high intensity that are NOT representational of overall output. So if you just reported those, you would get a misleading impression of actual throw.

What I have done instead is provided two numbers in the tables below – the first refers to the "average" or typical center-beam intensity, the second refers to the absolute max I was able to measure (i.e. presented as Average Center Lux – Max Lux). Overall, the hotspot of the aspheric will more closely match the lower average number.






As expected, the Collimator head throws further than the standard reflector. 

But how does it compare to other common aspherics? Below are some tables comparing the reflector and aspheric versions of the 7G5V2, Tiablo A9 variants, and Dereelight DBS XR-E R2 EZ900.










Ok, that's a lot of data – the main take home message is that the 7G5V2 Collimator head throws about the same peak intensity as the DBS XR-E R2 EZ900. But as we saw in the outdoor shots earlier, the 7G5V2 actually lights up about twice the surface area at that level. 

I realize that people are very sensitive to minor differences in raw lux @1m numbers for these thrower lights. But as with lightboxes, you can only really compare throw values to other lights tested with the same meter, under common conditions (i.e., calibrations vary, sometimes widely). Up until now, the light meter used for beam intensity/distance measures in all my summary tables has been the budget Cer CT1330B (which is generally believed around here to commonly have lower numbers than some others lux meters). I recently picked up the slightly more expensive budget-model V&A VA8050, which gives me higher lux readings.

Here is a comparison of the 7G5V2 on both lux meters:






As I have no idea which of these lux meters is closer to the "true" value, I have recently ordered a proper NIST-calibrated and certified Extech meter. This should resolve the matter, and I will update this review with new (accurately calibrated) throw measures once it arrives. :wave:

_*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:* Front Lens Removal_

The extra glass lens in the front of the Collimator head is bound to cut down on light transmission, and is not necessary since the aspheric lens has its own o-ring for waterproofness. I have re-tested the throw measures of the Collimator head without it in place:






 _Don't read in too much into the increased transmission above._ It is VERY difficult to get accurate intensity measures from aspheric beams due to the die projection (i.e., intensity is highly variable, with regions of relatively high readings). This is why all my measures in the table are approximate (~) for both average intensity and the peak readings. 

To get a better idea of the true effect of the glass, I defocused the aspheric to produce a blurred image, and held the light fairly close to the lux meter's sensor diffuser cover in such a way that the projected hotspot just barely exceeded the diffuser dimensions. This way, I could "even out" the regional imperfections and get a fairly stable reading on the lux meter.

When I did this, I got a fairly consistent ~8% increase in lux readings with the lens removed, on both the Cer and V&A meters. Take it for what it is worth. :shrug:

Personally, I will be running the light without the extra front lens in place … 

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*










No real difference in the 2x18650 performance of the V2 compared to the V1. The 7G5 performance remains quite good for this class.










As with most multi-power lights, the 7G5 V2 appears to be direct-drive-like on Hi on 1x18650, with good efficiency. On Lo, the light is fully regulated, and quite efficient for this class.

Again, I don't recommend you try running the 7G5 V2 on 2xRCR, but here is what you could expect on Hi on IMR cells: 






I will NOT be attempting 2xCR123A on Hi, since those drive levels would be bound to trigger the PTC safety circuits. But here is how the light performs on Lo on 2xCR123A:






*Potential Issues*

The V2 no longer supports 4xCR123A, but does fully support 1x18650 now. 

Strobe is still on the main sequence, along with Hi and Lo.

As before, the light lacks a true "Low" mode (more like Hi and Med, compared to most lights).

Light can no longer tailstand, but it is easier to access the forward clicky switch.

Light no longer uses square-cut threads, and is no longer anodized for tailcap lockout.

Weight of the head has decreased on the V2, making me wonder about the level of heatsinking on this new version.

There was a very noticeable hum on all levels on my first V2 sample. Hum is a common feature to many lights, but its presence and relative intensity are highly variable and hard to predict (it is believed to be due to inductor whine on the circuit). My second V2 sample was relatively quiet, but hum was still present to some degree.

As before, the reported ANSI FL-1 output specs seem overstated. Output and runtime efficiency are in keeping with other good quality, heavily-driven lights in this class. 

The optional Colimator head throws further than the standard reflector head, but has typical chromatic aberrations common to all aspherics (i.e., blue/red fringing).

*Preliminary Observations*

The original 7G5 V1 was basically a no-frills, high-output thrower. Throw was particularly good – it was the best throwing reflectored XM-L light that I had tested in the 2x18650-class. The new V2 is driven to the same level, and uses the same emitter and reflector, providing comparable output and throw. :thumbsup:

That said, a lot has changed in this new version. To start, the light no longer supports 3xCR123A/RCR or 2x18500 in the base configuration, and 2x18650, 4xCR123A in the extended. This new V2 is rated for 1x18650 in the base configuration, and 2x18650 only in the extended. In my view, the light is too heavily driven on Hi to support 2x CR123A or standard ICR-based RCRs, and 4x sources are definitely NOT supported (i.e. 4xCR123A will blow the circuit, as I can verify). 

That said, the full support for 1x18650 on the V2 is a definite bonus now. Although output is lower than 2x18650, it is still high enough to make this the best throwing reflectored 1x18650 that I have tested to date. :twothumbs

In terms of the physical build, it feels like the V2 was manufactured by an entirely new factory (except for the circuit and reflector). On the whole, I like the higher quality feel of the new V2 parts. The stainless steel bezel is welcomed, and the lens seems of much higher quality (with excellent anti-glare coating). The tailcap is much easier to access (although can no longer tailstand), and the lanyard ring and wrist lanyard are appreciated additions.

That said, I regret the loss of screw thread anodizing for lock-out (and the reversion to standard triangular-cut threads) on this new build. Moreover, the head has much lower mass now, making me wonder about potentially reduced heatsinking. :shrug:

What hasn't changed is the circuit performance. As before, you still get very high max drive levels, and overall output/runtime efficiency (on both Lo and Hi) that is on par with well-established, brand-name current-controlled lights.  But you still have the fairly basic interface, with a relatively bright Lo mode and strobe on the main sequence (but at least you still mode memory).

Although the price has increased somewhat, the 7G5 V2 remains a good bargain for a max-throw style high-output XM-L light. While you can no longer run 4xCR123A, the ability to run 1x18650 at a reasonable output level is likely a feature that will appeal to many.

_*UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head*_

The optional Collimator (aspheric) head for the 7G5V2 is well made and does the intended job well. Build-wise, I would consider it a step-up from the common Tiablo A9 aspheric head. 

In terms of the beam pattern, it is about what you would expect for an aspheric coupled with an XM-L emitter. By that I mean it projects a larger die image than most aspherics coupled to smaller XR-E emitters do. In actual fact, the larger head and optic here are required to produce _comparable_ peak throw to the smaller (and lower output) XR-E aspherics out there.

This might be surprising to some, given that the 7G5V2 has more than 3 times the output of those XR-E lights. But it doesn't throw further because it is working off a much larger emitter die. Instead, it projects that die image/hotspot over a wider area (i.e., I estimate about twice the area of the DBS XR-E R2 EZ900, with comparable intensity).

Check out the 100-yard beamshots earlier in the review – they explain it better than any words will.  You can also check out my Tiablo A9 XR-E R2 "Throw King", XP-G R5 "Special Edition" and XM-L U2 "Flood" comparison review for a further examination of the effect of aspherics on different types of emitters. :wave:

----

Crelant 7G5 V2 was supplied by Intl-outdoor.com for review. Collimator head supplied directly by Crelant.


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Mar 26, 2012)

IMO If you are considering the 7G2 then the Olight M3X is the better choice in term if performance.


----------



## Freeze_XJ (Mar 26, 2012)

It's a pity it has the same output numbers as the V1... The circuit going  is also not exactly great, I suppose they'll fix that. My main problem though is that these things are so thin on the tube-end... Props (and my money) to the first to make these things run on 2x26650!


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 26, 2012)

vinhnguyen54 said:


> IMO If you are considering the 7G2 then the Olight M3X is the better choice in term if performance.


Quite possibly, but I unfortunately have never been sent one for review. 



Freeze_XJ said:


> It's a pity it has the same output numbers as the V1... The circuit going  is also not exactly great, I suppose they'll fix that. My main problem though is that these things are so thin on the tube-end... Props (and my money) to the first to make these things run on 2x26650!


Note sure what you mean there about the tube. The body tube wall thickness diameter has increased noticeably from the V1, and is definitely above average (it's no Catapult, though). Body tube internal diameter is quite reasonable, and all my protected 18650 cells fit fine (even my widest ones).

As for the circuit, that is not likely to be "fixed" - I suspect it is a function of the wider support at the low end (i.e. fully supporting 1x 3.7V Li-ion now). The high end has been correspondingly reduced (i.e. 4xCR123A is not supported). I just hope they get the proper specs listed on the packaging as soon as possible.


----------



## Freeze_XJ (Mar 26, 2012)

I meant the total size, not the inner size of the tube. If I look at my throwing flashlights, I'd rather have them be a larger size, instead of being long and thin. Probably because my hands are large as well, so gripping an AA or 18650-sized tube (or any small tube actually) isn't as comfortable as a C-cell or likewise-sized light. I don't doubt these lights are more than solid enough to handle abuse, though


----------



## roadkill1109 (Mar 26, 2012)

Hmm, correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't the 1st table should be titled 2x18650 Protected AW's?


----------



## roadkill1109 (Mar 26, 2012)

Also, didnt you have one on the Olight M3X? How come the data is not here? Would have made a good comparison.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 26, 2012)

roadkill1109 said:


> Hmm, correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't the 1st table should be titled 2x18650 Protected AW's?


So it should, that's a typo in the table. I'm away at the moment, so will fix the image in a couple of days.



roadkill1109 said:


> Also, didnt you have one on the Olight M3X? How come the data is not here? Would have made a good comparison.


It sure would ... but I've never tested a M3X.  I reviewed the M31, which was its predecessor using a SST-50 emitter. Throw is lower on the larger-die SST-50 lights, so I don't typically include them in the tables.

My understanding is the M3X throw is generally comparable to the 7G5, but I don't have first-hand experience.


----------



## roadkill1109 (Mar 27, 2012)

Yeah the top three that were recently tested here were the M3X, the Catapult V3 and the 7G5 V1 wherein the 7G5 seemed to be the winner. Too bad thought the V2, though make look a bit better, lacks the same punch at the old V1. 

But still, overall a good thrower. Beam's nice and tight, good to 300 meters thereabouts.


----------



## Matt7337 (Mar 27, 2012)

I just want to say well done on yet another fantastic review, SelfBuilt. I don't think I've ever commented on a review thread of yours before, but I _have _read most of them and made quite a few purchases in the past based on your reviews. You write the best flashlight reviews I've ever seen :twothumbs:


----------



## candle lamp (Mar 27, 2012)

Excellent review as always. Selfbuilt! Thanks for the posting. :thumbsup:
It's just a shame that screw threads are no longer square-cut or anodized for tailcap lock-out. Hope they will release upgaded version has anodized screw threads for tailcap lock out.

I can see a little bit yellowish large ring outside of the hot spot on the white-wall beamshots. Is it very noticeable? (But looks not noticeable as much as T40CS.)


----------



## Diablo_331 (Mar 27, 2012)

Matt7337 said:


> I just want to say well done on yet another fantastic review, SelfBuilt. I don't think I've ever commented on a review thread of yours before, but I have read most of them and made quite a few purchases in the past based on your reviews. You write the best flashlight reviews I've ever seen :twothumbs:


I could have said the exact same thing. Great review as always SelfBuilt! 


candle lamp said:


> Excellent review as always. Selfbuilt! Thanks for the posting. :thumbsup:
> It's just a shame that screw threads are no longer square-cut or anodized for tailcap lock-out. Hope they will release upgaded version has anodized screw threads for tailcap lock out.
> 
> I can see a little bit yellowish large ring outside of the hot spot on the white-wall beamshots. Is it very noticeable? (But looks not noticeable as much as T40CS.)



The threads on my sample are rather beefy. I also wish they were anodized for tailcap lockout as I can see it turning on in a bag if care isn't taken. Maybe a tailcap shroud of some sort will fit? The outer diameter of the tailcap is 1". My sample also has the typical XML tint shift but I can not remember the exact colors off of the top of my head. The hotspot is a bice creamy white. Maybe a little toward the neutral side. I haven't even had the chance to take mine outside yet so this review just got me way too excited lol.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 27, 2012)

Thanks everyone, glad you are enjoying the reviews. :grouphug:



candle lamp said:


> I can see a little bit yellowish large ring outside of the hot spot on the white-wall beamshots. Is it very noticeable? (But looks not noticeable as much as T40CS.)


Can't say I really noticed much of a tint shift in real life. On some lights with very defined coronas it can be noticeable, but it is typically pretty negligible on these throwers. 



Diablo_331 said:


> The threads on my sample are rather beefy. I also wish they were anodized for tailcap lockout as I can see it turning on in a bag if care isn't taken.


Yeah, the triangular-cut threads definitely seem of good quality - beefy is a good descriptor. A shame about the lack of anodizing, though. :shrug:


----------



## SinrSavdByGrace (Mar 27, 2012)

lovecpfthank you selfbuilt for the time you take on these lights.......i cant seem to get away from your reviews.......lovecpf
i have 2 of your lights that you have tested, 4sevens g5 v2 ,and the crelant 7g5 v2...the 7g5 v2 is a beast,but i hate that it hums alittle. my wife and friends call me a light whore :naughty: lol. i may have a problem

thanks again


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (Mar 28, 2012)

Here is what I think about the M3X XML vs The Crelant 7G5 V2 in terms of performance: 

Both has similar reflector diameters but the 7G5 V2 is quite deeper. To me, this mean same hot spot intensity on both lights due to the similar diameter but smaller hot spot on the 7G5 due to a deeper reflector. It also mean that that the M3X will have a wider more useful hot spot. In reality, everything I believe was what I saw when I compared them. I definitely a fan of *large and shallow reflector *as oppose to a relatively deep one. Too bad I don't have a M3X at the moment to send to Selfbuilt for review. 

The Crelant does come stock with a very nice PURE WHITE tint XML. While all the M3X I tested came with a GREEN tint XML.


----------



## dudu84 (Mar 28, 2012)

Thank you for another excellent review, Selfbuilt!
I also got my Crelant 7G5v2 about 2 weeks ago and have been wondering how it is against the old version. It's good to see the output is on par between the 2 versions.

I however got ~89 minutes of runtime on max using 2x TF2400mAh (flame wrap, 6 month-old) when the light was cooled in water. And I got 6 hours on Mid (batteries measured 3.43V when I pulled them out, protection didn't kick in). 
At the same time, my 2.5 yr-old TF2400mAh flame wrap batteries couldn't keep the light on Max for a full 55 mins, the light keeps switching to low probably because the batteries are old and can't sustain such high current draw.

I think the light gets hot very quickly, after turning it on for ~6-7mins, I can no longer hold its head comfortably . We need more mass in the head just as you pointed out earlier :/


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 29, 2012)

SinrSavdByGrace said:


> the 7g5 v2 is a beast,but i hate that it hums alittle.


I forgot to mention it, but my first V2 sample had a very noticeable hum on all levels. Hum is a common feature to many lights, but its presence and relative intensity are highly variable and hard to predict (it is believed to be due to inductor whine on the circuit). 

My second V2 sample was relatively quiet, but hum was still present to some degree if you listen carefully (same can be said for my V1 sample). I've added a comment to the potential issues section of the review, just in case this is a relatively more common feature of this light. Hard to know without more samples being examined.



dudu84 said:


> I however got ~89 minutes of runtime on max using 2x TF2400mAh (flame wrap, 6 month-old) when the light was cooled in water. And I got 6 hours on Mid (batteries measured 3.43V when I pulled them out, protection didn't kick in). At the same time, my 2.5 yr-old TF2400mAh flame wrap batteries couldn't keep the light on Max for a full 55 mins, the light keeps switching to low probably because the batteries are old and can't sustain such high current draw.


Sounds very good for 2400mAh-rated cells. As cells age (and they get a lot of cycles on them), I would expect performance to degrade. But for everyday use, the older cells should be fine - as long as they have been carefully treated up to now. Over-charging or over-discharging is quite hard on cells.

As an aside, this is why I go through so many cells in my testing - all those runtimes to the protection circuits kick in is not healthy.  I toss cells before significant degradation occurs.


----------



## BLUE LED (Mar 30, 2012)

The whine is present in both my Crelant 7G5 original and 7G5 V2. I reduced the loud whine by cleaning the threads of the pill section. It stills whines a little on both my units. I am still very happy with both, but prefer the aesthetics of the Surefire, I mean 7G5 V2.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 30, 2012)

BLUE LED said:


> The whine is present in both my Crelant 7G5 original and 7G5 V2. I reduced the loud whine by cleaning the threads of the pill section. It stills whines a little on both my units. I am still very happy with both, but prefer the aesthetics of the Surefire, I mean 7G5 V2.


Interesting. There are likely different factors that control the intensity of the hum. In many cases, it is probably intrinsic to the circuit and can't be helped (e.g. in cases where it is only present on certain voltage inputs and drive levels). But in cases where the hum is present on all modes (including strobe), I suppose it is possible that some sort of amplification is occuring between the various metal interfaces. A good cleaning is always worth a shot.


----------



## madecov (Apr 9, 2012)

Guys,
just a teaser, but the 7G5 V2 is coming to the USA soon. I know the guy who is going to be bringing them in.


----------



## BLUE LED (Apr 13, 2012)

madecov said:


> Guys,
> just a teaser, but the 7G5 V2 is coming to the USA soon. I know the guy who is going to be bringing them in.



So you look in the mirror everyday. 

I have a Crelant 7G5 V2 and extremely happy with 53,300 lux, especially in the short configuration :devil:


----------



## herculaneum79 (Apr 17, 2012)

I've got my 7G5-V2 since one week. 
The Throw is very very good, even the LumaPower MRV SKIV with Turbo Force Head is not so good!

By the way, I heard that Crelant is developing a third flashlight with even more Throw … let's see!


----------



## madecov (Apr 18, 2012)

herculaneum79 said:


> I've got my 7G5-V2 since one week.
> The Throw is very very good, even the LumaPower MRV SKIV with Turbo Force Head is not so good!
> 
> By the way, I heard that Crelant is developing a third flashlight with even more Throw … let's see!



There is another light coming very soon. I can't give any specifics but it is in the testing phase.


----------



## madecov (Apr 25, 2012)

There is also a Collomiter head coming soon. It is also in the test phase


----------



## BWX (Apr 26, 2012)

V1 or V2....

I don't know which one to get!!

I want a 2x 18650 thrower for my collection.. the Crelant 7G5 (both) price is good... but why did they reduce output on V2? It makes it so much more difficult to decide. I wonder on average, how much less output there is on V2? I wish it was the same or higher on V2, not same or lower on average. Oh well.. The flat black on V1 is cooler too. 

*EDIT* Just ordered the V2 from CPFMarketplace seller.. All the extras make V2 hard to pass up. 

Found something labelled wrong maybe:
''From left to right: 4GREER 3100mAh 18650; Crelant 7G5-V2, 7G5-V1; Tiablo A60G; Niwalker 750; Thrunite Catapult V3, Sunwayman T40CS''

I think Tiablo and Niwalker are backwards..


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 26, 2012)

BWX said:


> V1 or V2....
> 
> I don't know which one to get!!
> 
> ...



If I understand correctly, Selfbuilt is saying that the output differences between the V1 and V2 are probably more due to unit to unit variations than a real model difference:


_*Although my V2 sample has slightly lower output and throw, I don't consider this to be significant. There is bound to be some variability between samples, due to circuit/emitter differences. Exact positioning of the emitter and reflector will also affect throw.

As a reminder, the best way to compare overall throw among lights is by looking at beam distance, not raw lux at any given distance. As you will see, my V2 has ~2.5% less output, and ~6% less throw. This is within normal variation.*_

and

_*That said, the full support for 1x18650 on the V2 is a definite bonus now. Although output is lower than 2x18650, it is still high enough to make this the best throwing reflectored 1x18650 that I have tested to date.




*_




Sooo, it sounds like the V2 is a no brainer.


----------



## BWX (Apr 27, 2012)

@TEEJ After reading a lot of other posts about peoples' experiences with their V2 compared to V1, I think overall the V2 doesn't have quite as much output -on average.. that's info gained after this review.. But like you said, it probably depends on the variation of the one I happen to get anyway.. that still has a lot to do with it. It could be better or worse just depending on pure luck. 

V2 has so many other things going for it, I just ordered that one.


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 27, 2012)

The way I see it, if its within normal variation, some people WILL report it as having less oomph...and some won't.

In the chart, we're talking about 440 meters vs 469 meters...BUT, we are ALSO seeing people who tested the Lux on the [email protected] as being in the mid-50k range, as opposed to the 48k range in this review.

So, normal variation means some are stronger, and some are weaker....and, so far, there is evidence that both stronger and weaker versions are out there.

It was probably that way for V1 as well, but there was nothing to compare it to. 

I have not measured mine...but it throws pretty good, and I like it.


----------



## BWX (Apr 27, 2012)

Cool.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 3, 2012)

BWX said:


> I think Tiablo and Niwalker are backwards..


Thanks, fixed.



TEEJ said:


> So, normal variation means some are stronger, and some are weaker....and, so far, there is evidence that both stronger and weaker versions are out there. It was probably that way for V1 as well, but there was nothing to compare it to.


Yes, exactly - it is hard to know what the variation in the V1 was like, as I only tested one sample. The reflector appears to be same, and the runtime on Hi on 2x18650 is the same (within normal variation limits), so I have no reason to expect the average throw/output to be all that different between V1 and V2. But you would need to have a good number of samples of each - tested under exactly the same conditions - to know for sure.


----------



## BWX (May 3, 2012)

Mine seems crazy bright and has insane throw. I'm happy with it.. no tools to measure output.


----------



## TEEJ (May 3, 2012)

Its been rainy stormy here for days on end...I think Sunday is the next day projected to NOT be icky out....and, with any luck, I 'll ALSO have a chance Sunday night to go out and play.

:devil:

I'll do a bunch of beam shots then if I can.


----------



## madecov (May 15, 2012)

One of these days Ill have the time to do some beam shots also.


----------



## TEEJ (May 16, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> Its been rainy stormy here for days on end...I think Sunday is the next day projected to NOT be icky out....and, with any luck, I 'll ALSO have a chance Sunday night to go out and play.
> 
> :devil:
> 
> I'll do a bunch of beam shots then if I can.



OK, I snuck in some shots back on the 6th. :devil:






Crelant 7G5 V2






That round tree is ~ 400 meters away from the light.





Those telephone poles on the left of the path are 87 meters apart for scale, and the camera and light are situated about even with a pole. That tree from above is lined up about even with the space between the 4th and 5th pole, but the convergence in the pic's angle makes it hard to tell the poles from each other out that far.








As a comparison - The Nitecore Tiny Monster TM11 is still a decent thrower due to shear horsepower, but can't quite throw like the above examples.






The TM11 is good for a coupla hundred meters, very good, but not in the same league as the Crelant 7G5 V2





TM11 beamed down the same path


----------



## BWX (May 16, 2012)

The beam reminds me a lot of my first real flashlight, the Fenix LD20 premium R4 w/ smooth reflector. Very similar looking hotspot.. about 20x the power though obviously.


----------



## madecov (May 26, 2012)

Selfbuilt should be receiving the new Aspheric head for this light shortly. I would imagine he will supplement the review with some new readings.

He should also be receiving the new Crelant 7G9, if it is al I expect we should have a really great review of that one also.


----------



## HotWire (May 27, 2012)

I've found the Crelant 7G5 V2 to be a wonderful low-cost light. Bright. throw. Some spill. What else could we want? When the aspheric heads become available, I would like to buy one.


----------



## pobox1475 (May 27, 2012)

I have been holding off for a "hand held thrower" for a while. This one looks like it may be ideal.

Will it accept AW flat top cells?

Would TrustFire protected's be OK to use?

If so, how will performance be affected by using 3000mAh over 2400's?

I will probably primarily use in 2x18650 configuration.

Are Xtar WPII chargers any good? I have a Pila IBC, but want a low cost option to give as a gift with a 7G5.


----------



## madecov (May 27, 2012)

pobox1475 said:


> I have been holding off for a "hand held thrower" for a while. This one looks like it may be ideal.
> 
> Will it accept AW flat top cells?
> 
> ...




Lots of questions.

The 7G5v2 will work with any 18650 since the head and tail have springs at both ends.
The lower mah batteries will have a correspondingly lower run time, XXXfire batteries may or may not be from recycled laptop cells and are subject to wild swings in quality.
The Xtar chargers are great no issues with them. I have PILA and Xtar chargers I use all the time.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 4, 2012)

Just an update - the collimator (aspheric) head for the 7G5 V2 is on its way to me for testing. I will update this review with beam measures, pics and beamshots as soon as I can.

In response to questions I have received, please note that the thread style, diameter and thickness are different at all points on the 7G5 V2 compared to the original V1. The overall width of the battery tube and head base are also different. So the collimator head for the V2 cannot possibly fit on the V1. Crelant has directly confirmed to me that the collimator will only fit on the V2.


----------



## MUSTARD (Jun 5, 2012)

SELFBUILT
WHEN you do the review on the crelant collimator head can you please include the following for us modders

- actual lens dia. and front to back thickness of lens
- coverage of the beam hot spot on throw at 100 yds, or close to it.
for example- it covers an area 30ftx30ft,etc

would be much appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## reuben (Jun 8, 2012)

vinhnguyen54 said:


> IMO If you are considering the 7G2 then the Olight M3X is the better choice in term if performance.


I just purchased the 7g5 v2...m3x and the sunwayman t40cs and the difference, although not a ton..is easily recognizable without any special optics. As soon as I get a good camera, I will post some pics of mine. I tested these in the back of a school yard near my house, where there are no other lights. I also found a new way to test the brightness of any flashlight. Rather than going to a DARK place and let the lights do battle....Go to a HALF dark place or even a well lit place. Which ever light shows up the best on a well lit wall or whatever is the clear winner...Just thought I would share that with my fellow flashaholics! Anyway the order of THROW for the three of my lights are
1. sunwayman t40cs w extender tube
2. crelant 7g5 v2
3.olight m3x
I also thought the m3x would win...NOT!!! 
PS...I am not biased to any of the brands...Just telling it like I see it. 
Keep up the good work guys...I LOVE this forum!!!


----------



## madecov (Jun 8, 2012)

The new head makes it look like an old WWII German grenade. It is an interesting accessory

Selfbuilt, can you also please make sure it is tested on a single 18650 and see how it does.


----------



## rufus001 (Jun 8, 2012)

madecov said:


> The new head makes it look like an old WWII German grenade. It is an interesting accessory



I do feel a strange urge to throw it at people wearing a military uniform.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 8, 2012)

madecov said:


> Selfbuilt, can you also please make sure it is tested on a single 18650 and see how it does.


Will do, should be heading out in few days, depending on weather conditions.


----------



## VIET PRIDE BULLIES (Jun 9, 2012)

Does any of you have modes problem???
I see many say such as stuck on 1 mode etc...


----------



## Diablo_331 (Jun 9, 2012)

Just a quick reminder for anyone with switch problems.. A McClicky drops right in with a few washers for spacers. Very easy mod.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 9, 2012)

Mines been fine...but for throw lights, I pretty much only use high anyway....otherwise, I didn't need a thrower.


----------



## tobrien (Jun 9, 2012)

Diablo_331 said:


> Just a quick reminder for anyone with switch problems.. A McClicky drops right in with a few washers for spacers. Very easy mod.



nice, and still retains differing modes?


----------



## Diablo_331 (Jun 9, 2012)

Yes it does. Mode changing is taken care of by the driver not the switch.


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 9, 2012)

rufus001 said:


> I do feel a strange urge to throw it at people wearing a military uniform.



Maybe that's what makes it a...... thrower?


----------



## tobrien (Jun 10, 2012)

Diablo_331 said:


> Yes it does. Mode changing is taken care of by the driver not the switch.



ah I didn't know that, thanks!

edit: what size washers? i'm gonna do that mod


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Jun 12, 2012)

After I looked at this review a few times I had to try one for myself, quality is on par with other Chinese throwers and the price is excellent. Another Great Review!!! Thank You Selfbuilt..


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 12, 2012)

Thanks. FYI, I am just finishing up my beamshots and pics of the collimator (aspheric) head for the 7G5 V2. Should have this review updated with it in the next day or two. :wave:


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jun 13, 2012)

Mine is coming today ... Very interested to see vs deerelight aspheric


----------



## Draven451 (Jun 13, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks. FYI, I am just finishing up my beamshots and pics of the collimator (aspheric) head for the 7G5 V2. Should have this review updated with it in the next day or two. :wave:



Selfbuilt,

Always looking forward to your reviews 


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk


----------



## Draven451 (Jun 13, 2012)

jmpaul320 said:


> Mine is coming today ... Very interested to see vs deerelight aspheric



Let us know how they stack up 


Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 13, 2012)

I have just updated the main review with the results of the new Collimator (aspheric) head for the Crelant 7G5V2. 

Since that is a lot to wade though, I have extracted all the Collimator specific bits in this post.







The optional Colimator head comes in its own cardboard box, wrapped in plastic. Scroll down for more pics. 










Here's a few shots of the Collimator head, compared to some other well-known aspherics. 





From left to right: 18650, Crelant 7G5V2-Collimator, Dereelight DBSV2-Aspheric, Tiablo A9 R2 "Throw King".

_*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:* Dimensions of the Collimator head_

*Whole head:* Weight: 255.6g, Length: 79.2mm, Width (bezel): 67.1mm
*Aspheric Lens:* Weight: 98.8g, Height (center): 24.0mm, Width (base): 66.7mm






Head build:


























Ok, that's a big aspheric lens up there. :sweat:

The Collimator head replaces the stock 7G5V2 head/reflector, and screws right on the the base of the head (i.e., the pill/emitter area). As you can see, it is rather large (and a bit ungainly looking), but it fits on solidly. Light may feel a little top heavy in the 1x18650 size shown earlier, but it pretty well balanced in 2x18650 with batteries loaded.

The head features cut-out holes around the circumference, similar to the Tiablo A9 (recall the close relationship between Tiablo and Crelant).  But this head feels more solid and sturdy than the A9 aspheric head. :thumbsup:

This head uses a similar focusing mechanism to the A9 aspheric - you can unscrew the top half of the head relative to it's base, defocusing the optic. In my case, I found ideal focus was pretty much full tight.

There is a glass lens just below the bezel - I'm not sure why (perhaps to protect the aspheric optic?). It is certainly not going to provide additional waterproofing, given the cut-outs around the circumference.

There's a plastic plug that screws into the unused head when not in use, which is a nice touch.

_*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:* Head disassembly_






First thing to notice if you unscrew the focusing feature all the way (and open the head up completely), is the back of the aspheric lens is held in place by a metal retaining ring. You will need a very wide set of tweezers to fit into the holes on either side of the ring to unscrew.






Once you do, you aspheric lens pops out the back. As you can see above, there is indeed an o-ring above the lip of the aspheric lens that makes contact with a lip inside the head, to maintain waterproofness of the light.  Note that it can be a bit tricky to re-seat this o-ring within the head when tightening the lens back into place, so I don't recommend you don't open it up as a matter of course. If you do, mount the o-ring back into the head first, and then carefully re-tighten the retaining ring with the aspheric lens in place






You can unscrew the bezel ring separately, and the front glass lens and o-ring pop out. Again, I am not sure why this lens is here – it provides no extra water-proofing, since there are cut-outs on the head below this point (and the aspheric has its own o-ring). :thinking:

I have provided a quick video overview of the Collimator head below:



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

*Beamshots:*

There's not much point in doing white wall beamshots of aspherics at under 1m.  So instead, I will focus on 100-yard outdoor shots.

To start to compare beam profiles, here is how the 7G5V2 output differs between 1x18650 and 2x18650 batteries, on both the standard smooth reflector and the new Collimator head:











Here is how the smooth reflector directly compares to the Collimator head (on 2x18650):






To help you see that better, here is a zoomed perspective on the hotspots:






As with all aspherics, the Collimator head for the 7G5 V2 gives you a projection of the emitter die image at a distance, with little side spill. That said, there is always some degree of chromatic aberration with aspherics (i.e. that colorful blue-red fringing around the edges) – this is more noticeable at closer distances, though.

Peak throw has increased with the Collimator head, but not as much as you might have expected. This is due to the relatively large die size of the XM-L emitter. For aspherics to produce very tight throw, you need to start with a very small die. To show you what I mean, below is a comparison to a couple of classic aspheric lights – the Dereelight DBS XR-E R2 EZ900, and the Tiablo A9 XR-E R2 "Throw King":






And again zoomed:






Overall, the 7G5V2 Collimator puts out about the same peak throw as the premium EZ900 XR-E DBS aspheric does. _But the 7G5V2 Collimator does so over a wider area._

Although hard to give exact measures, I would estimate that the DBS aspheric illuminates an area ~10ft x 10ft (i.e. ~100 square feet) at this 100-yard distance, and the 7G5V2 Collimator illuminates an area ~14ft x 14ft (i.e. ~200 square feet). So effectively, the 7G5V2 is putting out the same intensity of light, but spread out over twice the surface area. 

*Testing Method:* 

Ok, this is going to require some explaining. :sweat:

Measuring peak intensity/beam distance according to ANSI FL-1 is problematic. The standard requires you to hunt around the hotspot with the light sensor for the point of highest intensity. This was clearly intended for standard reflectors or TIR optics. But aspherics produce a direct projection of the emitter die, which has tiny regions of unusually high intensity that are NOT representational of overall output. So if you just reported those, you would get a misleading impression of actual throw.

What I have done instead is provided two numbers in the tables below – the first refers to the "average" or typical center-beam intensity, the second refers to the absolute max I was able to measure (i.e. presented as Average Center Lux – Max Lux). Overall, the hotspot of the aspheric will more closely match the lower average number.






As expected, the Collimator head throws further than the standard reflector. 

But how does it compare to other common aspherics? Below are some tables comparing the reflector and aspheric versions of the 7G5V2, Tiablo A9 variants, and Dereelight DBS XR-E R2 EZ900.










Ok, that's a lot of data – the main take home message is that the 7G5V2 Collimator head throws about the same peak intensity as the DBS XR-E R2 EZ900. But as we saw in the outdoor shots earlier, the 7G5V2 actually lights up about twice the surface area at that level. 

I realize that people are very sensitive to minor differences in raw lux @1m numbers for these thrower lights. But as with lightboxes, you can only really compare throw values to other lights tested with the same meter, under common conditions (i.e., calibrations vary, sometimes widely). Up until now, the light meter used for beam intensity/distance measures in all my summary tables has been the budget Cer CT1330B (which is generally believed around here to commonly have lower numbers than some others lux meters). I recently picked up the slightly more expensive budget-model V&A VA8050, which gives me higher lux readings.

Here is a comparison of the 7G5V2 on both lux meters:






As I have no idea which of these lux meters is closer to the "true" value, I have recently ordered a proper NIST-calibrated and certified Extech meter. This should resolve the matter, and I will update this review with new (accurately calibrated) throw measures once it arrives. :wave:

_*UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012:* Front Lens Removal_

Since the extra glass is bound to cut down on light transmission, I have re-tested the throw measures of the Collimator head without it in place:






 _Don't read in too much into the increased transmission above._ It is VERY difficult to get accurate intensity measures from aspheric beams due to the die projection (i.e., intensity is highly variable, with regions of relatively high readings). This is why all my measures in the table are approximate (~) for both average intensity and the peak readings. 

To get a better idea of the true effect of the glass, I defocused the aspheric to produce a blurred image, and held the light fairly close to the lux meter's sensor diffuser cover in such a way that the projected hotspot just barely exceeded the diffuser dimensions. This way, I could "even out" the regional imperfections and get a fairly stable reading on the lux meter.

When I did this, I got a fairly consistent ~8% increase in lux readings with the lens removed, on both the Cer and V&A meters. Take it for what it is worth. :shrug:

Personally, I will be running the light without the extra front lens in place … 

*Potential Issues*

The optional Colimator head throws further than the standard reflector head, but has typical chromatic aberrations common to all aspherics (i.e., blue/red fringing).

*Preliminary Observations*

The optional Collimator (aspheric) head for the 7G5V2 is well made and does the intended job well. Build-wise, I would consider it a step-up from the common Tiablo A9 aspheric head. 

In terms of the beam pattern, it is about what you would expect for an aspheric coupled with an XM-L emitter. By that I mean it projects a larger die image than most aspherics coupled to smaller XR-E emitters do. In actual fact, the larger head and optic here are required to produce _comparable_ peak throw to the smaller (and lower output) XR-E aspherics out there.

This might be surprising to some, given that the 7G5V2 has more than 3 times the output of those XR-E lights. But it doesn't throw further because it is working off a much larger emitter die. Instead, it projects that die image/hotspot over a wider area (i.e., I estimate about twice the area of the DBS XR-E R2 EZ900, with comparable intensity).

Check out the 100-yard beamshots earlier in the review – they explain it better than any words will.  You can also check out my Tiablo A9 XR-E R2 "Throw King", XP-G R5 "Special Edition" and XM-L U2 "Flood" comparison review for a further examination of the effect of aspherics on different types of emitters. :wave:


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jun 13, 2012)

Draven451 said:


> Let us know how they stack up
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk



Lol its not dark yet


----------



## tobrien (Jun 13, 2012)

thanks for the update selfbuilt! mine comes tomorrow in the mail!


----------



## Draven451 (Jun 13, 2012)

Selfbuilt,

Another great review! :twothumbs

I have been thinking about purchasing this light but wow that head is HUGE! It makes the overall size of the light rather large. While I like the fact that it illuminates a wider area than the dbs and tiablo with just as much throw it sacrifices too much in the sense of added size and bulk for my edc needs.


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 13, 2012)

Great update coverage on the Collimator Head! Thanks selfbuilt. 

I had no idea the head could unscrew slightly for focus. I'll have to test that feature tomorrow night when I run it for the first time with 2x 18650's... finally!

Is the focus feature particularly useful or is that there for some other purpose maybe?


----------



## roadkill1109 (Jun 14, 2012)

been waiting for this!  

the only issue i think that might come up with the double glass head is that while the smooth flat glass protects the aspheric below, once dust enters through the side holes, you'll have one dirty aspheric lens. Oh well, i'll just nitpick when my order arrives! LOLZ!


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 14, 2012)

roadkill1109 said:


> been waiting for this!
> 
> the only issue i think that might come up with the double glass head is that while the smooth flat glass protects the aspheric below, once dust enters through the side holes, you'll have one dirty aspheric lens. Oh well, i'll just nitpick when my order arrives! LOLZ!



Mine just arrived, and I had the same impression, this was a nice piece...much higher quality than I was expecting. As the head unscrews, if the aspheric gets dusty, its easy to clean. I am also a little confused by the extra plate in front of the aspheric, and as to if it does anything optically, or is merely to provide a layer of protection lacking for the Deerelight, etc. I would think that removing that outside lens would increase transmission of light.

I have to wait for an opportunity for some beam shots....but, I might try it with/w/o that lens across the face.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 14, 2012)

zenbeam said:


> I had no idea the head could unscrew slightly for focus.... Is the focus feature particularly useful or is that there for some other purpose maybe?


Yes, it is much the same on the Tiablo A9 apsheric - you can unscrew the aspheric-linked front part of the of the head from its base. The reason for this is so that you can fine-tune the focus without actually unscrewing the whole head from the body (which would be a bad idea).

My only concern in this case is that the perfect focus point is pretty much fully tight on my 7G5V2 sample. So if your sample needed to be tightened further, you would be out of luck.

Still, this is better than my Tiablo A9 samples, where the perfect focus point is so loose the aspheric lens actually rattles. :shakehead

The 7G5V2 collimator is definitely a more solid feeling head. :thumbsup:



roadkill1109 said:


> the only issue i think that might come up with the double glass head is that while the smooth flat glass protects the aspheric below, once dust enters through the side holes, you'll have one dirty aspheric lens. Oh well, i'll just nitpick when my order arrives! LOLZ!





TEEJ said:


> I am also a little confused by the extra plate in front of the aspheric, and as to if it does anything optically, or is merely to provide a layer of protection lacking for the Deerelight, etc. I would think that removing that outside lens would increase transmission of light.


Yeah, I don't get the point of the extra lens. :thinking:

Optically, it is bound to reduce the amount of light transmitted. I don't see any practical benefit that offsets that loss.

_*BTW, I am not done with the testing* - I plan to provide overall measurements of the head and its components. I just didn't get a chance to get it all done for last night. By end of day today I will post additional internal pics and measures. If I get a chance, I will also redo luxmeter readings without the front glass lens._ :wave:


----------



## BWX (Jun 14, 2012)

Interesting. If I end up ordering this it would be my first and only aspheric. It's cool and everything, but the light throws so great even with the regular head.. Not sure if I need it!


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 14, 2012)

BWX said:


> Interesting. If I end up ordering this it would be my first and only aspheric. It's cool and everything, but the light throws so great even with the regular head.. Not sure if I need it!



The Collimator Head is not needed..... it is wanted!


----------



## SCEMan (Jun 14, 2012)

roadkill1109 said:


> been waiting for this!
> 
> the only issue i think that might come up with the double glass head is that while the smooth flat glass protects the aspheric below, once dust enters through the side holes, you'll have one dirty aspheric lens. Oh well, i'll just nitpick when my order arrives! LOLZ!



Side holes and outer glass seems like an odd combination...


----------



## BWX (Jun 14, 2012)

zenbeam said:


> The Collimator Head is not needed..... it is wanted!



Yeah, I guess what I meant was, do I really even want it? No one NEEDS a bunch of expensive, high quality, bright as hell flashlights... but yeah.. I dunno.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 14, 2012)

I have just updated the main post and my summary post #58 on the Collimator head with my disassembly analysis. The new results are summarized below. :wave:

Head disassembly:







First thing to notice if you unscrew the focusing feature all the way (and open the head up completely), is the back of the aspheric lens is held in place by a metal retaining ring. You will need a very wide set of tweezers to fit into the holes on either side of the ring to unscrew.






Once you do, you aspheric lens pops out the back. As you can see above, there is indeed an o-ring above the lip of the aspheric lens that makes contact with a lip inside the head, to maintain waterproofness of the light.  Note that it can be a bit tricky to re-seat this o-ring within the head when tightening the lens back into place, so I don't recommend you don't open it up as a matter of course. If you do, mount the o-ring back into the head first, and then carefully re-tighten the retaining ring with the aspheric lens in place






You can unscrew the bezel ring separately, and the front glass lens and o-ring pop out. Again, I am not sure why this lens is here – it provides no extra water-proofing, since there are cut-outs on the head below this point (and the aspheric has its own o-ring). :thinking:

Dimensions of the Collimator head:

*Whole head:* Weight: 255.6g, Length: 79.2mm, Width (bezel): 67.1mm
*Aspheric Lens:* Weight: 98.8g, Height (center): 24.0mm, Width (base): 66.7mm






Since the extra glass is bound to cut down on light transmission, I have re-tested the throw measures of the Collimator head without it in place:






 _Don't read in too much into the increased transmission above._ It is VERY difficult to get accurate intensity measures from aspheric beams due to the die projection (i.e., intensity is highly variable, with regions of relatively high readings). This is why all my measures in the table are approximate (~) for both average intensity and the peak readings. 

To get a better idea of the true effect of the glass, I defocused the aspheric to produce a blurred image, and held the light fairly close to the lux meter's sensor diffuser cover in such a way that the projected hotspot just barely exceeded the diffuser dimensions. This way, I could "even out" the regional imperfections and get a fairly stable reading on the lux meter.

When I did this, I got a fairly consistent ~8% increase in lux readings with the lens removed, on both the Cer and V&A meters. Take it for what it is worth. :shrug:

Personally, I will be running the light without the extra front lens in place …


----------



## Draven451 (Jun 14, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> Personally, I will be running the light without the extra front lens in place …




Living on the edge selfbuilt! :laughing:


Nice to see the disassembly process. Has crelant mentioned the reason behind the front lens?


----------



## tobrien (Jun 14, 2012)

very nice


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jun 14, 2012)

i removed the lense and did some tests with my cheapo light meter from across the room... i took an average of 12 tests and got that the light is approx 5-6% brighter with no lense...

good find selfbuilt!


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 14, 2012)

Thanks to selfbuilt, we now know more about the Collimator Head than perhaps even its creators. 

Thanks selfbuilt for taking the risks with the equipment and products so we don't have to!


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 14, 2012)

Nice....133 k Lux at 1 M.


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jun 14, 2012)

this is really a great light, even without the collimator head. Highly recommended


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 14, 2012)

Draven451 said:


> Nice to see the disassembly process. Has crelant mentioned the reason behind the front lens?


I've checked with them, and they confirm that it is just for added protection of the aspheric and cosmetic reasons.



jmpaul320 said:


> i removed the lense and did some tests with my cheapo light meter from across the room... i took an average of 12 tests and got that the light is approx 5-6% brighter with no lense...good find selfbuilt!


Glad to hear you are finding comparable results.



TEEJ said:


> Nice....133 k Lux at 1 M.


Don't make me regret posting that. 

Aspherics give abnormally hgh readings just below the bond wires, but they are not indicative of the overall throw at a distance. I would say ~75K-95K, depending on the meter, is a reasonable estimate.


----------



## VIET PRIDE BULLIES (Jun 15, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> Mines been fine...but for throw lights, I pretty much only use high anyway....otherwise, I didn't need a thrower.



Yes, that's right.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 15, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> I've checked with them, and they confirm that it is just for added protection of the aspheric and cosmetic reasons.
> 
> 
> Glad to hear you are finding comparable results.
> ...




In real life, I don't really care about the numbers, as to me, the numbers are simply a way of guessing what you might SEE in real life.

I depend upon real life more than the numbers in of themselves. Of course, the numbers DO provide a guess as to what MIGHT work best in real life...and, help to prioritize what lights might get a shot at getting to the field.

For example, the Deft edc LR+ has too small a patch of square light for me to use for searching, but, has a warm tint that is good for color rendition, and I find I use it more indoors, like in long/dark under ground areas, or for targeting purposes.

The Deerelight aspheric gives me a more useful beam _size_ than the Deft, still too small for search purposes, but, it won't fit in my pocket....and NOTHING that fits in a pocket can out throw the Deft.

The Crelant aspheric looks like its going to be the Deerelight on steroids, and the double sized beam will now potentially make the search function an option....as it will be an aspheric with the range and BEAM SIZE that can actually see enough at a time to potentially be useful. I am looking forward to the weekend when I get to stretch the Crelant's legs, and see what she can do.

IE: The Crelant is not going to replace the teeny DEFT, its gunning for the slot currently occupied by the Deerelight.....and, so far, it looks like its going to kick the Deerelight's Deere-aire.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 15, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> The Crelant aspheric looks like its going to be the Deerelight on steroids, and the double sized beam will now potentially make the search function an option....as it will be an aspheric with the range and BEAM SIZE that can actually see enough at a time to potentially be useful.


Yes, this is a good point (frequently lost by people searching for the highest peak throw value ). Size of the hotspot matters at least as much as its peak intensity.

I think this zoomed animated GIF from my post #58 and full review sum it up well. As I mentioned in the review, at this ~100 yard distance, I estimate the 7G5V2 die projection is ~14x14 ft (i.e. ~200 ft2​), and the DBS EZ900 is ~10x10 ft (i.e. ~100 ft2​).


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 15, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> In real life, I don't really care about the numbers, as to me, the numbers are simply a way of guessing what you might SEE in real life.
> 
> I depend upon real life more than the numbers in of themselves. Of course, the numbers DO provide a guess as to what MIGHT work best in real life...and, help to prioritize what lights might get a shot at getting to the field.
> 
> ...



Selfbuilt nice review  Thank you for this...

TEEJ I don't think it will out throw deerelight. 

It has wider throw but overall it is much bigger flashlight. I just wonder whhy they did not put xre inside? I know that beam would be to small because of xxl lenses but it would throw about 150 kilo lux


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 16, 2012)

I took my 7G5 V2 out to the front of my home tonight for the first time with 2x 18650 (Keeppower 3100mAh Protected) fresh off the charger - with the Collimator Head attached. I really didn't think it would be all that much more to the naked eye than with 1x 18650 - but BLAM was it ever!

I wish I could take better beamshots at night. I'm sure my cameras can do it with the right settings and a tripod. Anyway... 

I lit up the neighborhood water tower "bulb" at around 3-4 blocks away and made it glow like a sunbeam cutting through the clouds hit it! And pointing this thing straight up in the air turns it into a 1/4 mile long light saber! I didn't want to aim it straight up for too long for fear of guiding a low flying aircraft in for a landing!

Just unbelievable! This is the handheld, long distance, retina searing, wireless Q-Beam I've wanted for most of my life... lol!
Just WOW! 

Heck - tomorrow night I'll run those 2x 18650's with the stock 7G5 V2 head and probably be every bit as amazed!

Great light *Crelant*! Great review and expanded review *selfbuilt*! Thanks for the great price on the light and service *madecov*! Oh yeah, and thank you *Teej* for the very first beamshots I saw of the 7G5 V2 - which made me sniff around for more info!

Okay, so yeah... I did get a bit excited tonight!


----------



## biglights (Jun 16, 2012)

zenbeam said:


> I took my 7G5 V2 out to the front of my home tonight for the first time with 2x 18650 (Keeppower 3100mAh Protected) fresh off the charger - with the Collimator Head attached. I really didn't think it would be all that much more to the naked eye than with 1x 18650 - but BLAM was it ever!
> 
> I wish I could take better beamshots at night. I'm sure my cameras can do it with the right settings and a tripod. Anyway...
> 
> ...



Awesome, sounds very nice!!


----------



## Diablo_331 (Jun 16, 2012)

zenbeam said:


> I took my 7G5 V2 out to the front of my home tonight for the first time with 2x 18650 (Keeppower 3100mAh Protected) fresh off the charger - with the Collimator Head attached. I really didn't think it would be all that much more to the naked eye than with 1x 18650 - but BLAM was it ever!
> 
> I wish I could take better beamshots at night. I'm sure my cameras can do it with the right settings and a tripod. Anyway...
> 
> ...



You being this excited just made me smile. I think I'll go terrorize the neighborhood now with my 7G5 V2 now just for the heck of it! I LOVE THIS TORCH!:twothumbs


----------



## Budda (Jun 17, 2012)

Thanks for the review SelfBuilt. I onw the 7G5 V1, does the threads of the collimator work with the old version?


----------



## rufus001 (Jun 17, 2012)

Budda said:


> Thanks for the review SelfBuilt. I onw the 7G5 V1, does the thrad of the collimator works with the old version?


No.


----------



## Budda (Jun 17, 2012)

what a shame. Thank you.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 17, 2012)

Budda said:


> what a shame. Thank you.


That's right, the collimator head only fits on the V2. It is basically an entirely different build between V1 and V2, except for the actual reflector. None of the interfaces or threading are comparable.


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 19, 2012)

Went out in the backyard with the 7G5 V2 stock head mounted - but with 2x 18650 (for the first time using the stock head). We need an animated emoticon of a jaw dropping!
Spotted a possum (giant rat!) and gave it a dose of strobe and then just kept the high beam on it - didn't take long for it to say bye bye!

If I never get another "long distance thrower" specialty light - I will feel complete in that dept. as long I own this light!


----------



## BWX (Jun 19, 2012)

I did the same last night and spotted a huge racoon and a deer. Before long I was swarmed with bugs so I went back in.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 19, 2012)

BWX said:


> Before long I was swarmed with bugs so I went back in.


One of the hazzards of using high-output lights outdoors in the summer. :laughing:

You can start to notice the blury bug trails in some of my outdoor beamshots lately. I typically take 2-3 successive shots of every beam, so that I can select the most pristine/clear shot for presentation. But I am finding it hard lately - because I typically wait for nights with low wind (to minimze motion blur in the trees), the bugs tend to be out in full force. Also, long pants and long sleeves aren't too comfortable in high heat/humidity, but it's better than getting eaten alive.


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 20, 2012)

I have a few large shrubs out front that attract 100's of "potato bugs" this time of year. When I shine a light at them, you see 100's of little pairs of glowing eyes staring at you - and then slowly closing in on you! It gets creepy!


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 23, 2012)

I tried using a fixed exposure/shutter speed for the below shots, so they might look a little different than prior shots...generally, to the eye they were brighter than in the pics here, but, you can still compare them.








Deerelight Aspheric







DEFT edc LR+







Crelant 7G5 V2 Aspheric


By eye, the Crelant was brighter than the Deerelight, and, lit up a wider area to boot. This has a very useful beam, unlike most aspherics which tend to be one trick ponies.

I'm super happy with it.


----------



## SCEMan (Jun 23, 2012)

Very impressive! 
If all the exposure settings are identical, why is the DBS shot the darkest?


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 23, 2012)

I have Crenlant aspheric on its way... So Teej hope your review is right  ... 

But either way even if it beats deere in throw(I doubt in that but it really has nicer and wider beam profile)....

It will still not serve well for hunting purposes because it is to big, non practical, and not gun mountable, and plenty of other stuff that deerelight as a modular flashlight has(so it is upgradeable + reflector + aspherical lenses+ interchangeable emitters + better aluminum body with anodized threads + better parts support and probably much better heatsink than tiablos Crelant but I will judge that when I receive it)

That are pure fact I am not lying here... Try to buy Tiablo A9 Crelants older brother so U will see what I am talking about... Same thing will be with this one...

I hope that will throw that far as on your pictures although your picture with DBS shot is the darkest? And maybe I say just maybe you have deere with slightly blurrier lenses that throws only about 80 kilo?

TEEJ I don't want to offend you but please look at your older picture of Deerelight aspheric here... On this picture everyone can see that it throws further than Crelant... ??? Or maybe just I see so?





And now please look newest picture in this thread:


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jun 23, 2012)

i have both the aspherical deerelight and the aspheric crelant

i have found there is really no "observable" difference in beam intensity, however the crelant hot spot is about 4x bigger

also, be sure you remove the "second" lens in front of the aspheric lens


----------



## zenbeam (Jun 23, 2012)

The real winner is the light that enables its master to read the following chart through and including the bottom line at 400 meters:




:naughty:


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 24, 2012)

Actually you can read this with a little help of high magnification scope...

Yes I will take that front lenses off... Really don't know what they have meant by putting them on?... Putting glass that unnecessarily diffuses beam is not bright idea. 

It really does have nicer and wider beam... I don't even have to receive it to see that... 

It will find use however... From 2009 till now I spend so much $ on flashlight that I could actually buy very good used car


----------



## jmpaul320 (Jun 24, 2012)

Tatjanamagic said:


> Actually you can read this with a little help of high magnification scope...
> 
> Yes I will take that front lenses off... Really don't know what they have meant by putting them on?... Putting glass that unnecessarily diffuses beam is not bright idea.
> 
> ...



just keep telling yourself that there are a lot more expensive hobbies... even though ive spent 2k in 4 months... that is still less than maintenance would be on my sunday car if i hadnt sold it in the winter... at least thats how i justify it


----------



## BWX (Jun 24, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> I tried using a fixed exposure/shutter speed for the below shots, so they might look a little different than prior shots...generally, to the eye they were brighter than in the pics here, but, you can still compare them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think something is different with white balance or exposure or something.. look at the sky and power line pole.. the last pic is a lot brighter than first pic. Somehow the camera changed settings on you I think.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 25, 2012)

My earlier pics were taken on auto...the above set on set aperture and shutter speed, etc....hence the beams looking a bit darker than on auto.

The background does change due to the large complex on the other side of the tree line...so the sky glow does vary as you are watching it...which is why I took most pics of targets below the tree line/in the shadow of the sky glow.

As for the pole, the wider beam of the Crelant simply hits more stuff on its way downrange...and the air around the beams tends to glow due to the ton of airborne shmutz...which of course disperses light as well, and so forth.




To truly tell the ultimate range of the Deerelight and Crelant, I'd need a target far enough away that it was barely visible. I'm pretty sure the ultimate ranges will be similar...but that the size of the illuminated area for the Crelant will be larger, at least based upon what I'm seeing at intermediate distances. I HAVE found, with other lights, that this can be deceptive...so, until I have actually found a good comparison target set and had a fair throw down...I don't know for sure which has the ultimate range.

When I tried to zoom too much more than I did in the above pics...the camera shows NOTHING due to the increased focal length's f stop increase....and I'd need to find a crazy long exposure time (The above's a 0.5 second exposure at F 2.0 IIRC) to be able to capture the target lux at the projected 600+ meter ranges.

My problem is the CAMERA screen is blank....and I am writing on a note pad to describe what I see....and then going home on the computer and adjusting the pic until I see what was in my notes.


----------



## BWX (Jun 25, 2012)

''and then going home on the computer and adjusting the pic until I see what was in my notes.''
Just wondering, did you adjust anything in above pics? 

BTW, what I meant about pole is that very large structure to the right of the tree. Don't know what to call it.. It's more than a pole. Look how it is almost totally blends in with dark sky in first pic, ''Deerelight Aspheric'', and how you can't hardly see power lines at all and overall picture is smooth and dark and not grainy. 


Now look at bottom pic- ''Crelant 7G5 V2 Aspheric''. Look how big power line structure totally stands out from much brighter sky. Look how individual power lines are all completely visible against much brighter sky. Look how overall pic is much grainier and brighter.

I'm far from a photography expert but it looks to me like a higher ISO setting or something else got past you. I'd bet my left nut something in the camera settings changed between those shots.. My first guess would be shutter speed, but you said you fixed those settings. Something is different, not just sky brightness.

I'm viewing these on my PS3 browser on a $3,600 52'' 1080p Sharp Aquos- with fixed settings. On a computer monitor I'm sure it looks different.. what I mean is everyone is seeing something slightly different no matter what, but I have a very high end display.


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 25, 2012)

TEEJ brings us nice pictures...

Everybody said that I buy generic camera tripod and I bought it but I still can not take good night pictures... I can but not on distances that are greater than 50 meters...

Probably because I have generic camera Olympus VR-320, and I really don't know how to set up camera...

So my hat down to TEEJ...

Please bring us more nice pictures...


----------



## BWX (Jun 25, 2012)

I love those comparison shots too! Don't get me wrong.


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 26, 2012)

Hmmm... 


Deerelight is developing new XML flashlight so probably Crelant(Tiablo) won't be on throne for a long time in XML aspheric category...

I know that it will be bigger like Crelant..., and I hope it will be modular so for example U could just swap aspheric heads between new XML and old XRE...


And my wallet goes thinner every day...


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 26, 2012)

LOL

Yeah, my wallet seems to have anorexia too....its so skinny, yet throws up anything I put into it.





As for the pics, yeah, its hard to show what I SAW.

I set the camera to manual, but when I saw the pics, it was waaaay darker than what I saw that night....as in some you could not even see the light on the target...the pic was all black.

I took notes, and if the tree looked brighter in a shot, or dimmer, or less covered, the sky was brighter or darker, etc...I wrote it down.

You can't tell in the pics, but there's traffic...and the headlights, etc, are changing the background lighting the entire time....hence my focus on that shadowed area where its consistently dark.

Its a good control location for me because of that dark area, and because by EYE, I can't SEE the target at all, I can't even see the fence or telephone poles down the left side of the path...even night adapted...w/o the flashlights.

That means that I KNOW whatever I CAN see is because of the flashlight.

So, I took the black or dark pics and adjusted it on the computer until the TARGET looked right according to how I remembered it/noted it.

As the light of the sky and towers and so forth are not stabilized/consistent....(Big metal things on right are transmission towers, smaller wooden poles on the left are telephone poles) due to headlights and the facility on the other side of the tree lines to the right and striaght ahead, I did not attempt to make them look "right", as its beyond my limited iphoto capabilities. 

The target itself is "right", at least for the night of any given shoot though. Some nights, there's so much stuff in the air its crazy, and, sometimes its more clear. The shmutzy nights really make the beam itself glow...and the light saber effect is extremely pronounced. The more stuff in the air, the less light gets to the target though...and the more dispersed the beam gets on the way there, etc.


I'm still looking for a nearby target site that has the range I need to really test the beams. I was thinking a graveyard would be at least perfect in that it has fairly regularly spaced markers spread out over a large tract of land...so that there would be a large number of reference points to compare the beams in both spread/scope and strength....but worried that it might be either too macabre to too likely to get me in trouble, etc.


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 26, 2012)

You could really get in trouble... I think police officers would not have sense for night shots at graveyard... 

But however I support you... Very nice to have someone who can take nice pictures for our forum.

And of course Selfbuilt reviews are planetary popular. Sometimes I disagree with him but that is life


----------



## JudasD (Jun 27, 2012)

Has anyone experienced any hissing or audible noise from their 7G5? I can hear some pretty loud noise on all of the modes.

Thanks,
JD


----------



## BWX (Jun 27, 2012)

JudasD said:


> Has anyone experienced any hissing or audible noise from their 7G5? I can hear some pretty loud noise on all of the modes.
> 
> Thanks,
> JD



Yeah my 7G5 is super loud - on high and strobe with 2x 18650 especially loud. It's inductor whine. Some have it some don't. 

Another thing - apparently my example didn't come with AR coated glass either. Was looking the other day and it looks like regular glass.


-----------
About the pics:


TEEJ said:


> So, I took the black or dark pics and adjusted it on the computer until the TARGET looked right according to how I remembered it/noted it.


So are you saying with the pics above labeled ''Deerelight Aspheric'' and ''Crelant 7G5 V2 Aspheric'', That you adjusted them in photoshop to match what you saw? Or some other pics? 

If you did do that, but you're first words in post are : ''I tried using a fixed exposure/shutter speed for the below shots,...'' - and then showed picswithout saying you adjusted brigtness or whatever.. well, that's not cool at all. 

I hope I'm reading your post wrong.


----------



## Tatjanamagic (Jun 28, 2012)

I think this would be good DBS vs Crelant comparative shot from TEEJ for deerelight because beam at night looks just like on this pictures on about 300-400 meters distance. I guarantee that DBS looks like on this picture belov... Not shure for Crelant on picture because it looks dimmer than DBS...

*DBS*




vs 
*Crelant*


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 29, 2012)

JudasD said:


> Has anyone experienced any hissing or audible noise from their 7G5? I can hear some pretty loud noise on all of the modes.


The original 7G5 V2 sample I received from Crelant had noticeable whine on all levels. This circuit was damaged by 4xCR123A use (before Crelant changed the listed specs), and the replacement sample was much quieter. Although you can still hear it if you listen carefully (as on many lights).

As BWX points out, inductor whine (the presumed source of the hum/hiss) is highly variable, although it is possible that some brands/batches may suffer from it more than others. I discuss it a fair amount at the end of my video primer #4 on circuits, as shown here.


----------



## JudasD (Jun 29, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> The original 7G5 V2 sample I received from Crelant had noticeable whine on all levels. This circuit was damaged by 4xCR123A use (before Crelant changed the listed specs), and the replacement sample was much quieter. Although you can still hear it if you listen carefully (as on many lights).
> 
> As BWX points out, inductor whine (the presumed source of the hum/hiss) is highly variable, although it is possible that some brands/batches may suffer from it more than others. I discuss it a fair amount at the end of my video primer #4 on circuits, as shown here.



Thanks selfbuilt. I do have some other lights that whine but they are known to do so. I hadn't seen anyone mention whine on the 7G5 so i was just curious if it was mine. As long as someone elses whines as well then i am ok with it. 

JD


----------



## BLUE LED (Jun 30, 2012)

JudasD said:


> Thanks selfbuilt. I do have some other lights that whine but they are known to do so. I hadn't seen anyone mention whine on the 7G5 so i was just curious if it was mine. As long as someone elses whines as well then i am ok with it.
> 
> JD



See post #18
I hope it helps.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 30, 2012)

JudasD said:


> Thanks selfbuilt. I do have some other lights that whine but they are known to do so. I hadn't seen anyone mention whine on the 7G5 so i was just curious if it was mine. As long as someone elses whines as well then i am ok with it.
> JD


I did mention it in the review, under the "Potential issues" section. This is where I present any findings related to functioning on my samples. If I don't mention anything related to hum, it is because my sample was within a typical range. If I find audible hum (as I did on the 7G5 V2), this is where it goes.


Sent from my handheld device


----------



## JudasD (Jun 30, 2012)

I had searched for "hiss" and "screech" but never for "whine" or "hum". Funny thing is i also read selfbuilt's review a good 3-4 times and just never saw the mention of the whine
Thanks for all the help guys and pointing me to the correct information.

JD


----------



## david1235102 (Jul 6, 2012)

wow selfbuilt, another amazing review. I just ordered one with the aspherical lens because of this review: can't wait for it to arrive!


----------



## Sintro (Jul 20, 2012)

Ever since I saw your review on it Selfbuilt, I knew I had to have one as my first xml light. It's been like 4 months but my birthday party from my dad was finally today, so I got it charged it up for 3 hours and ran it. Boy is it bright, the memory is nice too! And the strobe is really fast also. My dad got tenergy 2600's instead of the orbtronic 3100's i wanted but it's fine. When I took it on a quick ride to behind an old picknsave it would switch modes with the flat top tenergy's every 10 seconds or so from the bumps. But that's no biggie, can always put some more metal in between. I hope these flashlight companies let you keep the lights, because you really are a great advertiser for them!

I also expected it to be way longer and thicker! This is a good thing though, it'd fit great in a pocket if I took out the extender too!

Am I right in saying the light is driven at 3.4 amps? Or is some lost in the switch or somewhere and it goes down to 3 amps? Because I'm already thinking about getting a new driver with a nice low of say 50 lumens lol. But, I still have a small flashlight for that, so I'm fine for now.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 21, 2012)

Sintro said:


> Am I right in saying the light is driven at 3.4 amps? Or is some lost in the switch or somewhere and it goes down to 3 amps? Because I'm already thinking about getting a new driver with a nice low of say 50 lumens lol. But, I still have a small flashlight for that, so I'm fine for now.


I'm not aware of anyone measuring it, but that would sound about right given the apparent drive level. Note that you can only accurately measure the circuit drive currents with proper equipment (i.e., a bench-top power supply, as HKJ does). Tailcap current draws with a DMM don't actually tell you what it directly happening with the circuit (and resistance can modify circuit functioning).


----------



## BWX (Jul 21, 2012)

I showed my 7G5 V2 and XTAR S1 to a few people, they all loved the 7G5.. but were amazed by both obviously. 

One guy - my much younger cousin actually (mid twenties), wants to buy one, but doesn't understand these lithium batteries and the dangers.. even if small, he's not the type who would spend much time caring or reading about such things. He is a mechanic though and smart, just a little wreckless in my judgement.

I'm going to recommend the XTAR 2 bay recharger and Xtar 3100 Panasonic batteries and just warn him they could explode or pop if miss-handled... I'm still woried though, LOL.

I wonder if there are pages or websites with very simple short warnings about how to handle these cells he can refer to. I know of long drawn out explinations on websites, not a very simple short guide though. Something I can give him in a link, that covers basic safety and charging / discharging precaution. Something his girlfriend could easily read quickly and refer back to if she was charging the batteries. 

Is there such a page somewhere?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 21, 2012)

BWX said:


> Is there such a page somewhere?


A little off topic, but I recall Redilast typically provides a decent safety sheet with their cells. Looking at their webiste (www.redilast.com), there is a good, simple "FAQ" page (and a slightly more technical "Li-ion tips" page). Of course, they apply equally to all brands - it sums things up well.

Maybe the folks in the batteries sub forum could recommend something further ...


----------



## BWX (Jul 22, 2012)

Ok, thanks!


----------



## Sintro (Jul 25, 2012)

Hey Selfbuilt/Anyone with this light, I had a few questions I really wanted to know the answers to.

#1- I've noticed it gets pretty hot on high. So I decided to do a test. I left the light on high until it would turn off from the heat basically. It lasted 13 minutes on top of a wooden table in my 69 degree condo. When I say lasted, I mean, it turned off on it's own. After it turned off, I touched the light, and since it wasn't extremely hot, just pretty hot, I held onto it for a minute. So obviously, it wasn't burning hot. *I was just wondering, is this normal?* (Xml at 3a for 13 to turn off from the heat) I'd say that this light was as probably between 100-150 degrees.
#2-one battery does PCB After the light overheats, which I've made happen multiple times on purpose, the light won't turn on. Even if I wait for like 5 minutes and then reinsert the batteries the same order. So, next I put each battery in the light in single 18650 setup. Only one ever works. The other one won't work until I put it into the charger for 5 seconds. I don't know what I'm talking about, only I thought it might be something with the PCB going off. The battery that doesn't work is always the one closest to the led in order. Anyone know why this happens?
#3- And I don't notice this from 30 plus feet, but heres what happens in he beam. Even when I shine it at the wall from like 2 feet away, the beam has a hotspot, but then has two less intense interlocking ovals going through the center around 3 the diameter of the hotspot, and then there's a couple rings off different brightness, but they are small and I assumed they came with having a smooth reflector. Are these ovals normal? I looked at your review again, where you have beamshots, but you used autobalance so the hotspot is just a big white blob. So I can't tell if it's normal.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 26, 2012)

Sintro said:


> I left the light on high until it would turn off from the heat basically. It lasted 13 minutes on top of a wooden table in my 69 degree condo.


I presume that was with 2x 18650 protected cells? If so, do you have a DMM to check voltage? It sounds like one of the protection circuits tripped.



> #2-one battery does PCB After the light overheats, which I've made happen multiple times on purpose, the light won't turn on. Even if I wait for like 5 minutes and then reinsert the batteries the same order. So, next I put each battery in the light in single 18650 setup. Only one ever works. The other one won't work until I put it into the charger for 5 seconds. I don't know what I'm talking about, only I thought it might be something with the PCB going off. The battery that doesn't work is always the one closest to the led in order. Anyone know why this happens?


It is common for the battery near the LED to be drained slightly faster than the one near the switch. Not entirely sure why, but it may have to do with heat (i.e., the main source of heat is coming from the head). I've done temperature measures, and there can be quite a gradient across the batteries in series.

Again, it sounds like your front-most cell is triggering its protection circuit. I am going to guess that your cells are not in very good shape. Are they old, or of uncertain quality (i.e. Ultrafire?). Quality cells should give you a lot longer. There's certainly seems to be a lot of old laptop pulls floating around under new Ultrafire wrappers out there ... that would explain the poor performance.



> #3- And I don't notice this from 30 plus feet, but heres what happens in he beam. Even when I shine it at the wall from like 2 feet away, the beam has a hotspot, but then has two less intense interlocking ovals going through the center around 3 the diameter of the hotspot, and then there's a couple rings off different brightness, but they are small and I assumed they came with having a smooth reflector. Are these ovals normal? I looked at your review again, where you have beamshots, but you used autobalance so the hotspot is just a big white blob. So I can't tell if it's normal.


There is often some degree of artifacts in the beam corona with smooth reflectors. These are hard to capture with a camera, but can you post a picture? If it seems really bad, you could consider returning it. Hard to advise without seeing it.


----------



## Sintro (Jul 26, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> I presume that was with 2x 18650 protected cells? If so, do you have a DMM to check voltage? It sounds like one of the protection circuits tripped.
> 
> 
> It is common for the battery near the LED to be drained slightly faster than the one near the switch. Not entirely sure why, but it may have to do with heat (i.e., the main source of heat is coming from the head). I've done temperature measures, and there can be quite a gradient across the batteries in series.
> ...




Thanks for the quick reply!

The cells I used were Tenergy 2600mah 18650's with PCB. I just got them a week ago from battery-junction, I can tell they aren't old because they don't heat up at all when charging. (I might ask them for replacement for one of the cells, because I suspect it might just have a higher than normal temp trip. My DMM is in the mail as we speak, should be delivered tomorrow. 

I mean, the artifacts aren't terrible, I was just wondering if those are normal, just plain curosity, doesn't affect my usage of the light. They aren't a big a deal enough to get an exchange. I bought it from easylightbuy, the u2 version, for $77. But, the shipping was like a month, so it'd take two months to get a replacement. And that's not acceptable. Guess that's what I get from not buying from madecov . I'll try to get some beam shots on Sunday when I go to the racetrack with my dad and brother (dad's the one with the nice camera). So I'll probably have them on here on sunday night.

Also, is the PCB set off by a temperature? Which is usually gained through extreme current? So, can the PCB be tripped just from the temp of the light?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 26, 2012)

Sintro said:


> Also, is the PCB set off by a temperature? Which is usually gained through extreme current? So, can the PCB be tripped just from the temp of the light?


Not to my knowledge, but best to ask the experts in the batteries forum.

With primary CR123A, the PTC (basically a thermoresistor) limits current to the battery once a certain temperature threshold is reached. But you don't see an abrupt shut-off of the cell - current (and output) just drops rapidly once it engages, and then slowly recovers as the cells cool. You can see evidence of this on some of my high-output runtimes (especially 4xCR123A ones), but the Thrunite Scorpion V2 review also has a link to an extensive discussion of this.

Of course, some lights also have circuit-based temperature sensors and cut-off features that will shut a light down abruptly once a circuit temperature is reached. But the cells would still re-activate in a cool light. It definitely sounds like one your cells is tripping pre-maturely.

Once your DMM arrives, I would verify the resting voltage of the cells fully charged, and periodically stop the run and measure again (to see if they are remaining balanced during the run). If not, I'd return the malfunctioning battery.


----------



## Sintro (Jul 26, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> Not to my knowledge, but best to ask the experts in the batteries forum. With primary CR123A, the PTC (basically a thermoresistor) limits current to the battery once a certain temperature threshold is reached. But you don't see an abrupt shut-off of the cell - current (and output) just drops rapidly once it engages, and then slowly recovers as the cells cool. You can see evidence of this on some of my high-output runtimes (especially 4xCR123A ones), but the Thrunite Scorpion V2 review also has a link to an extensive discussion of this. Of course, some lights also have circuit-based temperature sensors and cut-off features that will shut a light down abruptly once a circuit temperature is reached. But the cells would still re-activate in a cool light. It definitely sounds like one your cells is tripping pre-maturely. Once your DMM arrives, I would verify the resting voltage of the cells fully charged, and periodically stop the run and measure again (to see if they are remaining balanced during the run). If not, I'd return the malfunctioning battery.


 I'll have to check out those, and I'll be sure to do the voltage test multiple times. I'll also do it after the pcb is supposedly tripping. I'm assuming it should read 0v, or around there.


----------



## asval (Oct 4, 2012)

Nice review 

To anyone that has this light, do you think it would be a good idea to place a diffuser on candle light mode? In other words with the reflector head off and the emitter exposed.

Also, any suggestion as to which diffuser from another light might fit?


----------



## papershredder (Jun 20, 2013)

Well, because this thread includes the aspheric, I'll post here.

I just got the 7G5CS as well as the aspheric lens today. I'm running 4xCR123A (they rattle around a bit inside.) The 7G5CS with the stock reflector is quite awesome. This is my first searchlight, keep in mind.
I put the collimator on there, and I really did not notice any increase in throw. The spill obviously went away--into the hotspot. I was doing this in an alley, 100 meters to the end. Walls were about head height, 14 feet apart.
I've picked out an open area, hopefully I'll get to it tomorrow, where it's 300 meters from end to end. Perhaps then I'll see some benefits from the aspheric, but the stock reflector seems to do a pretty good job concentrating that beam.
The only benefits I think are happening (but I'm not sure I'm seeing) is that the collimator does not make imacts to my night vision at close range.

Updates to follow.


----------



## BWX (Jun 20, 2013)

Just used this flashlight to spot a damn bear that was attacking my (both empty) bird feeders and garbage can. He didn't like the strobe and ran back into the woods.


----------



## lintonindy (Jun 20, 2013)

papershredder said:


> Well, because this thread includes the aspheric, I'll post here.
> 
> I just got the 7G5CS as well as the aspheric lens today. I'm running 4xCR123A (they rattle around a bit inside.) The 7G5CS with the stock reflector is quite awesome. This is my first searchlight, keep in mind.
> I put the collimator on there, and I really did not notice any increase in throw. The spill obviously went away--into the hotspot. I was doing this in an alley, 100 meters to the end. Walls were about head height, 14 feet apart.
> ...




The head also needs to be focussed to the LED to gain the maximum advantage. If you were just shining it down an alleyway then you might not have enough distance to see the gains in throw. Looks can be deceiving when talking about a high throwing device. For even more throw I suggest dedoming the LED and refocusing the head.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 20, 2013)

lintonindy said:


> The head also needs to be focussed to the LED to gain the maximum advantage. If you were just shining it down an alleyway then you might not have enough distance to see the gains in throw. Looks can be deceiving when talking about a high throwing device. For even more throw I suggest dedoming the LED and refocusing the head.



This.

At shorter ranges, a lot of lights can appear to have similar throw, as there's nothing to base a judgement on, its a bright light several meters away for all for all of them, and the cd makes the eyes stop down the same after a point, so they all look as "Bright".

When you get to ~ 300 - 400 meters, it starts to separate the men from the boys a bit more.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 20, 2013)

lintonindy said:


> The head also needs to be focussed to the LED to gain the maximum advantage. If you were just shining it down an alleyway then you might not have enough distance to see the gains in throw. Looks can be deceiving when talking about a high throwing device.


Yes, this is likely a big part of why you are not noticing a significant gain in throw - you need to focus the aspheric until it projects the sharpest image of the die (looks like a "space invader"). If you still don't notice the difference, it is like due to the distance now being far out enough (as TEEJ pointed out).

If it helps, here is an updated table with my current NIST-calibrated Lux light meter throw measures (in orange).


----------



## papershredder (Jun 20, 2013)

lintonindy said:


> The head also needs to be focussed to the LED to gain the maximum advantage. If you were just shining it down an alleyway then you might not have enough distance to see the gains in throw. Looks can be deceiving when talking about a high throwing device. For even more throw I suggest dedoming the LED and refocusing the head.




Agreed on the distance problem. I'm planning on heading out tonight to a place where I can do 300 meters.

I got a bit confused about how to focus the aspheric lens... There is a threaded part on just the lens itself. There are two o-rings on there. It's pretty tough to turn, I can't get a good grip on it. I've got some super-lube that I can throw on there, should I?
Then there is unscrewing the lens from the led base.

Which one should I be turning?

I can see the die image when I have the collimator on. It's pretty close to what I see when I put a loupe up to a smaller light.
Can I do the focusing inside my house, or do I need to do it outside?


----------



## papershredder (Jun 20, 2013)

Like this?


----------



## lintonindy (Jun 21, 2013)

papershredder said:


> Agreed on the distance problem. I'm planning on heading out tonight to a place where I can do 300 meters.
> 
> I got a bit confused about how to focus the aspheric lens... There is a threaded part on just the lens itself. There are two o-rings on there. It's pretty tough to turn, I can't get a good grip on it. I've got some super-lube that I can throw on there, should I?
> Then there is unscrewing the lens from the led base.
> ...



By all means lube your light at any and all threads.

One place to turn turns the entire head. One place to turn, turns the front bezel off. Turn this off and take out the top lens. It is not needed and does degrade the light brightness a little. The place to focus the head is in between the two previous places.

You can do it inside but it will then be optimised for the distance you focused it at. I did find however, that if I step outside and use a tree about 50 feet + away, it seems to keep the same constant state of focus even out to a couple hundred meters. 

When properly focused this light is an impressive thrower, and was my go to neighborhood walking light (for throw without disturbing the neighbors), until I got my Dereelight with a modified pill. I can use the Dereelight with one 18650 and no power loss, which is a nice advantage, and the throw is on another level.

I did do a simple dedome job on the Creelant with a straight razor, utilizing the plastic centering ring to make sure I didn't cut too much off. I then used a polishing wheel on a dremel to fix any inconsistencies with the cut. After refocusing the head (again) it showed some good gains as well as a more pleasing color temperature. Now my son loves to use it on our walks at night.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 21, 2013)

papershredder said:


> I got a bit confused about how to focus the aspheric lens... There is a threaded part on just the lens itself. There are two o-rings on there. It's pretty tough to turn, I can't get a good grip on it. I've got some super-lube that I can throw on there, should I?
> Then there is unscrewing the lens from the led base.
> Which one should I be turning?
> Can I do the focusing inside my house, or do I need to do it outside?


Ideally, you should be turning the top part of the collimator relative to the bottom part - not unscrewing the entire head assembly from the light. You want to make sure the o-rings remain engaged on the body. It should loosen with practice - but once you get the focus right, you are unlikely to be changing it anyway.

The pic you show looks pretty focused. You can possibly do this indoors, but you would need a really long hallway (i.e., 10m would be good - less than that may be sub-optimal). Ideally best to do outdoors.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 21, 2013)

When the focus is perfect, you see the LED itself very sharply, as if it was a slide projector picture of the LED on the wall.







The above is actually from a ZL SC600 shined through a loupe as an aspherical lens, as part of an experiment I was doing....not from the Crelant, but, it gives an idea of the LED it self's appearance.


----------



## papershredder (Jun 21, 2013)

Okay guys, I took the light with the stock reflector and the collimator head out last night. I started out with the collimator focusing part loose and tightened it down until I got the best focus at range. I compared the reflector to the collimator.

I can notice a difference in throw with the collimator. I could make out a tree about twice as well at 400 meters than I could with with just the reflector. However, I had a hell of a time making it out in the first place. So, yes, the collimator seems to be making a difference, but I'm not getting the "WOW!" factor I was hoping for. I think this is in part due to the wider profile of the XM-L emitter. Now I'm wondering how much better a Dereelight or a Tiablo could do due to the tigher beams. 200 meters seemed to be about the extent of what I could reasonably make out with either head.

I've seen some material on dedoming, looks risky. I was wondering if anyone had some thoughs about replacing the emitter entirely? Or would that not work with the reflector and the collimator? I can do the soldering work if I can figure out how to get that plastic cover off the PCB, preferably without destroying it.

What's next if I really want to push the limit? Is it HID? Am I doing it wrong with the collimator? Something with 3 or more LED emitters in one light?


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 23, 2013)

papershredder said:


> Okay guys, I took the light with the stock reflector and the collimator head out last night. I started out with the collimator focusing part loose and tightened it down until I got the best focus at range. I compared the reflector to the collimator.
> 
> I can notice a difference in throw with the collimator. I could make out a tree about twice as well at 400 meters than I could with with just the reflector. However, I had a hell of a time making it out in the first place. So, yes, the collimator seems to be making a difference, but I'm not getting the "WOW!" factor I was hoping for. I think this is in part due to the wider profile of the XM-L emitter. Now I'm wondering how much better a Dereelight or a Tiablo could do due to the tigher beams. 200 meters seemed to be about the extent of what I could reasonably make out with either head.
> 
> ...



You are bumping into what I call "Trying to see".



The Deerelight, etc, also projects a teeny spot of LED shaped light onto distant objects. The spot of light from that Crelant is larger by a large margin. 

Now, when you are tying to see something, part of the issue is enough lux from the target to resolve it, and part is enough illuminated surface area to have a context for what you are looking at or for.

If the light is visibly brighter with the collimator at 400 yards, it will be even brighter at 200 yards, and so forth.

Dedoming tends to make the tint a bit warmer, and, concentrate the light more in the hotspot, and less in corona or spill. This increases throw, but makes the area illuminated even smaller and brighter. If you wanted a larger area to be lit up, dedoming will go the other way. If you wanted a distant target to have a smaller brighter spot on it, dedoming works very well.

You don't need to solder to dedome, you just pry off the little bubble over the LED, its only held there by a bead of silicone, which is soft...like caulk, etc. 

A scalpel or xacto knife blade, etc, works to pry it off with.


BTW - the Deerelight, etc, use a smaller die to increase throw, but, the smaller die has very few lumens compared to an XM-L or XM-L2, etc...so the spots are VERY teeny. An XP-G2 for example might be between those extremes, and so forth.


----------

