# Olight M30 Triton Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS and more!



## selfbuilt

_*Reviewer's Note: *The Olight M30 Triton was provided by MattK at batteryjunction.com and Olight. 
_
*Warning: very pic heavy, as always*

The Olight M30 Triton is the latest Cree MC-E light to cross my review desk. 







Specs (from the manufacturer):
Cree MC-E LED 
Max 700 lumens on Hi, 1.5 hours
Medium Mode 120 lumens, 7.5hours, 
Low Mode 8 lumens, 90hours 
Strobe 700 lumens, 1.5hours
Side switch on tail cap for direct access to strobe from power-off and changing modes from power-on 
Front & Rear removable strike bezel 
Full orange peel reflector 
Rugged aluminum body with type III hard anodization 
Water resistant to IP68 
Shatter-resistant ultra clear lens, anti-scratching and anti-slip 
Built-in stainless steel pocket clip 
Battery Options in 3 Cell config: 3xCR123A/RCR123A batteries or 2x18500 li-Ion. 
Battery Options in 4 Cell config w/included extender tube: 4xCR123A or 2x 18650 Li-ion 
Dimension 43.5mm/1.71"(D) X 176.9mm/6.96"(L) 
Dimension with extender tube 43.5mm/1.71"(D) X 210.9mm/8.3"(L) 
Weight: 165.2g/5.83oz (excludes battery) 














Unlike most of the competition, the M30 Triton comes in a presentation-style case with a lot of extras. :thumbsup: Inside the plastic carrying case, you will find cut-out foam that securely holds the light, battery extender tube, 3xCR123A battery holder, leather belt holster, and instruction manual. No extra o-rings or wrist-strap was included on my sample.














With battery extender in place:






The overall shape and design is similar to other Olight military-series lights. Rather than traditional knurling, the M30 has a raised checkered pattern to help with grip (not as raised as the Tiablo ACE-G). The M30 comes with black finish type-III hard anodizing. I typically find Olight lettering is bright and clear, and the M30 is no exception. Both the bezel opening and tailcap have raised scalloped edges – but unlike the earlier M20, this new M30 can also tailstand.

Note the attached clip can be removed by unscrewing the retaining ring above it and pulling the clip off. 

*Dimensions (no batteries installed):*
Height: 178mm (212mm with battery extender)
Width: 33.0mm (tailcap), 25.1mm (body tube), 42.9mm (bezel)
Weight: 164.0g (no extender), 180.8g (with battery extender)






User interface of the M30 is different from other Olights (see below for a discussion). Main activation is controlled by a forward clicky tailcap switch that has a good feel. Even with the raised and flared tailcap edges, I find it easy to access. The innovation of the M30 is the secondary switch on the side of the tailcap (again, see below). 






Screw thread action is smooth on all sections, with each component fitting well (note the double o-rings everywhere). My sample seems to have little or no lube, so you may want to add some to increase water resistance. The tailcap switch contact spring has a brass cover over it, but it still retains its spring action.

Unfortunately, the screw threads are not anodized, so there is no tailcap lockout possible. :sigh:

The included 3xCR123A/RCR battery holder is optional – you don’t need to use it in this configuration, but it does remove battery rattle if you choose to. The bore width of the body tube is wide enough to accommodate protected 18500/18650, so thinner CR123A cells are prone to some rattle. At the very least, it makes a good storage holder for an extra set of cells. 






Note the spring in the head, in addition to spring in the tailcap. 










The M30 has a surprisingly small head for a MC-E light, with a shallow reflector with heavy orange peel finish. The M30 is clearly designed to be more of flood-style light than a dedicated thrower, but that is common for MC-E/P7-based lights.










So far, this is probably the most compact and lightest MC-E light I’ve come across. :thumbsup: In the basic 3xCR123A configuration, this light isn’t that much larger than a number of dual-cell lights. But it still feels well made and substantial enough in the hand – I can see it being popular with those looking for a light cannon that doesn’t resemble an actual cannon.  

Here's how it compares to the competition (with and without battery extenders in place):








(from left to right, AW 18650 protected battery, Olight M30 Triton, JetBeam M1X, Tiablo ACE-G, Lumapower MVP TurboForce P7).
_
*UPDATE:* Here's a bezel shot to better allow you to compare the heads:_






*User Interface:*

As mentioned above, the M30 features a revised user interface controlled by the primary and secondary tailcap buttons. Press the main tailcap switch for momentary mode, click for lock-on. To change the output mode, press and release the secondary switch (sequence is Lo – Med – Hi – 13Hz Tactical Strobe, in repeating sequence). Interestingly, the light can go directly to strobe from off by pressing and holding the secondary switch. Light has a memory mode to retain the last setting when switching off by the main tailcap switch.

Although not immediately intuitive, this arrangement works well enough when you get used to it. But note that the secondary switch doesn’t have much tactile feedback, and doesn’t protrude very much from the curve of the tailcap, to prevent accidental activation (I found myself groping around for it on occasion). This will likely make it hard to use if wearing gloves, but at least you aren’t likely to accidentally strobe your loved ones in the middle of the night. :laughing:

Like the MC-E-based JetBeam M1X, the M30 uses a base configuration of 3xCR123A/RCR or 2x18500 Li-ion, with a battery extender to allow 4xCR123A or 2x18650 Li-ion (note 4xRCR is not supported). This is a sensible design in my mind, as 2xCR123A/RCR builds typically can’t offer full power or full runtime for long (and most don’t support 1x18650 – a notable exception being the Tiablo ACE-G).

Aside from the lack of tailcap lockout, my main disappointment thus far with the M30 is the visible pulse-width modulation (PWM). Typically, Olight lights featured highly efficient current-controlled low levels. The M30 is a departure from this tradition, as it uses PWM - and at a very noticeable frequency of 104/103Hz on the Lo/Med modes. :sigh:

The PWM issue is actually a bit more complicated on this light - it uses PWM on the Hi mode as well. This is relatively rare, since most lights set the max output at full power. In this case, you are unlikely to notice it - it doesn’t produce a noticeable perceptual flicker because the ON state lasts for the vast majority of the cycle. I don’t want the technical details to distract from the main review, so I’ve posted a more through evaluation of the PWM issue in post #2.

Strobe is indeed at a “tactical” (and highly annoying! ) 13 hz. 

*Comparison Beamshots*

All lights are on Max on 2x18650 AW protected Li-ion. Distance is about 0.5 meters from a white wall. 


















Here’s how it looks with the diffuser on:





And a few side shots with and without diffuser:









As you can see, the M30 has a fairly typical wide MC-E spillbeam profile (although triangulated somewhat by the removable scalloped bezel ring). Throw is respectable for this class (in comparison, the M1X is a dedicated thrower). Like most MC-E lights, the M30 does have a detectable “donut” hole in the centre beam at greater distances and the “crosshair” pattern up close, but it is not as bad as some. So far, only the Tiablo ACE-G seems to have virtually eliminated this pattern, but the M30 is not overly obtrusive.

Here are some outdoor shots focused on a point ~30 feet from the lights. 


























I'm particularly impressed by how well the diffuser spreads out the beam to true flood. :thumbsup:

And here are some lower exposures to better show you the hotspots:






















Overall output of the M30 is similar to the JetBeam M1X and revised Tiablo ACE-G (which are in turn brighter than the earlier Lumapower MVP offerings). Beam profile most closely matches the ACE-G, but without as much of a reduction in standard MC-E donut hole effect. The M30 also has the least throw of four lights shown above, but is still quite respectable.

_*UPDATE*: Some additional long-distance beamshots, to show you how the light compares to others in its class. 

Please see my recent 100-yard Outdoor Beamshot review for more details (and additional lights)._
















*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.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 5 meters from the lens, using a light meter, and then extrapolated back to estimate values for 1 meter. This will be my standard way to present throw on these types of lights from now on. The beams don't really have a chance to fully converge until typically several meters out

Some of the MC-E-based lights take a couple of minutes to settle into their regulated output state (i.e. their initial output is higher, but not for long). As such, all my output and throw numbers are taken after 2 mins of continuous runtime (on 2x18650 AW Protected cells).

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

Note that Tiablo has issued a revised ACE-G circuit/pill with much greater output than the pre-production sample I originally reviewed. This shipping version brings the ACE-G in line with the M1X and M30 for overall output. Please see my updated ACE-G/A10-G review for more info.






The ceiling bounce and lightbox tests confirm what the beamshots showed – that the Olight M30, JetBeam M1X, and recently revised Tiablo ACE-G all have roughly equivalent max output (although the M30 has technically a slight edge on my ceiling bounce). :thumbsup: Consistent with the smaller and shallower reflector, throw on the M30 is lowest of the class – but still quite respectable. 

*Output/Runtime Comparison*

I’ve identified the output levels for the Med/Lo on the runtime chart below. They are both a bit lower than typical for this class of light (although may suit your personal preference).






I don’t generally do 4xCR123A tests, but results on the other battery sources match my expectations. Note my 3xRCR runtimes are likely on the low side – I suspect all the recent high drain runs on these cells have reduced their charge-storing capacity.

_*UPDATE 06/08/09:* I've just updated the graphs with 4xCR123A runtimes for all lights that support this configuration. Also included are some recent additions to the multi-emitter class that I have recently reviewed._














The M30 puts out an impressive amount of light on Max – equivalent to the single-stage Tiablo ACE-G (with revised shipping circuit). 

On Med, the 2x18650 battery tests are consistent with Olight's published specs, although it is less than I would have expected for the output level (i.e. runtime is much less than some of the competition at this level). 










No real surprises here: on 3-cell configurations, Max performance is close to the M1X. 






The efficiency of the Med performance of the M30 (which is equivalent to the Lo of Lumapower lights) is definitely lower than the competition. As you can see above, the M30 runtime is much less than the M1X when matched for output, which is a bit disappointing given the defined output levels of the M30 (the M1X is continuously variable). I haven't done Lo mode runtimes on the MVP P7, but you can easily see here the benefit that current-control circuitry brings to runtime efficiency by looking at the MVP 3xCree. And note the Lumapower is only on 2xRCR compared the 3xRCR for the M1X and M30. oo:

As always, there is lot more than just output/runtime efficiency to consider when choosing a light. But typically, I think most users look for greater efficiency in defined-output level lights compared to continuously-variable ones. 

*Potential Issues*

Detectable ~100Hz PWM on all output modes, very noticeable on Lo/Med levels.

Light has the typical M-CE centre-beam "donut" effect, although not as bad as some of the earlier MC-E/P7 lights.

User interface is unusual and may take some getting used to. You may have difficulty in finding/accessing the secondary switch to change modes when wearing gloves.

Lo/Med modes are lower than typical for this class of light, and runtime efficiency is lower than the competition that offers matching output.

*Preliminary Observations*

The Olight M30 Triton has a very nice build and presentation package, IMO. With all the new M-CE “searchlights” coming out, I’ve been a bit disappointed to see the somewhat standard set of extras most manufacturers are bundling with them (i.e. standard shipping box, thin wrist lanyard, etc.)  Given the size of most of these lights, you are going to want a better way to carry it around with you. The M30 carrying case is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see everyone provide. :thumbsup:

The extras are also particularly welcome – it nice to see the belt loop and well-fitting diffuser tip. Even the optional battery holder is useful for carrying around extra cells. I am happy to commend Olight on their foresight on this issue (although extra o-rings should probably be standard as well). 

In terms of build, I was (pleasantly) surprised by the relatively small size of the M30. In its base 3xCR123A/RCR build, it is not that much bigger than a number of standard dual-cell lights. Despite the smaller size, construction still feels solid and well-made – I have no doubt this will be another durable offering from Olight. Tailcap screw thread anodizing would be a nice feature, though. 

I haven’t quite made up my mind about the interface. I personally liked the dual twist/click design of the M20, even though it required two hands to switch modes. The M30’s secondary switch means you now can access all features one-handed, but I have found the lack of obvious tactile feel means that I often have to look down at the light to see where the button is (although the flat area on the ring below is actually helpful for guiding your finger to the right spot). The flip-side is don't have to worry about accidentally changing modes too easily. :shrug: And the light has a memory feature, so it will retain the last setting use (i.e. you could set as a standard single output and not worry about it). 

My only real disappointment with this light is the visible PWM on the Lo/Med modes. I find ~100 Hz to be *very* distracting in actual use, especially at really low levels. It make me feel quite :green:. Honestly, I can’t really see myself using either the Lo or Med mode for this reason, which is very disappointing. I strongly urge Olight to find a way to get that PWM up to a higher frequency that is not visible. (UPDATE: Given the Med mode runtime results, I would also like to see increased output/runtime efficiency for the M30).

But to put things in perspective, the M30’s output/runtime performance on Hi (where is PWM is not generally noticeable) is very close to the single-stage-only Tiablo ACE-G. The M30 reflector is also very decent for a MC-E light, although still has a bit of the standard MC-E donut (the ACE-G is the best I’ve seen at minimizing this). As always, it comes down to what feature set and design elements you are looking for in a light (e.g. the M30 was primarily designed for tactical use). All lights have trade-offs, and I suggest you compare the features of the M30 to the other MC-E lights I have reviewed recently (I plan to do a round-up review eventually once a few more MC-E lights come in for testing ).

In the meantime, I can say the M30 is the smallest and lightest of all the recent MC-E lights I have tested, with a quality build in a good package with excellent accessories. Although there are a few oversights (e.g. lack of extra o-rings and lube, no tailcap lock-out), there are also a lot of thoughtful little touches (e.g. the cover retaining ring over the attached clip, included quality diffuser, etc.), along with some unique design elements (e.g. secondary switch) and a range of outputs and an easily-accessed tactical strobe. It is also one of the more attractively priced MC-E offerings in the quality brand-name space, especially considering the bundled extras. 

If Olight could just ramp up the PWM to an undetectable frequency - and increase the output/runtime efficiency on Med - then I think this light could serve well as a jack-of-all-trades.

*UPDATE June 13, 2009: * After playing with all my MC-E lights a little more, I have to say the M30 is growing on me. I quite like the smaller form factor in 2x18500/3xCR123A, as it is not that much bigger or bulkier than a standard 2xCR123A. Some of the other MC-E competition can be a bit difficult to carry. And the spacing of the levels is pretty good in actual use, even if their relative runtime performance is less than the competition. I also like the included diffuser. If the PWM on Lo/Med doesn't bother you (and I still personally think that is a big IF), then this is probably one of the better candidates for an everyday duty/carry light in the MC-E class.


----------



## selfbuilt

To follow up on a point I made in the review above, the implementation of PWM is little unusual in the M30.

To give you an idea visually of what the PWM looks like, here are some freeze-frame photos of the M30 in motion, taken at 1/10sec shutter time. Given the 99-104Hz PWM, you should thus be able to see 10-11 distinct after-images of the main beam:










Normally in PWM-based lights, max output is run at constant-current (i.e. PWM is only used to reduce output in Lo/Med modes). But for some reason, the M30 still has detectable PWM on Hi – although it is not generally noticeable. Let me show you how it looks, again at 1/10sec exposure:






At first, it appears that there is no PWM – you see a nice smooth “smear” of the main beam. But if you look closely, you can see the after-image of the outside edge of the light repeated at least ~10 times across the image (if may look like more to you, but that’s because of the overlapping effect of two sides of the bezel). According to my soundcard oscilloscope, PWM on Hi is 99Hz. 

Here are the oscilloscope traces to show you the PWM pattern. Each snapshot is taken at a time scale to show you ~2 pulses. The dashed blue cursor lines are positioned to show you the duration of a single pulse. Note that a negative deflection is an indication when the light is on, a positive deflection is when the light is off.

Lo mode:





Med mode:





Hi mode:





So why isn’t the PWM noticeable on Hi the way it is on Lo/Med? :thinking:

Simply put, it seems to be a perceptual issue with persistence of vision. Measuring the ON/OFF time of each cycle in the above tests, the Lo mode is only in the ON state ~1.5% of each pulse, and the Med modes is ON ~16.5% of the time. In contrast, the Hi mode is ON ~92% of the time. So despite the low PWM frequency, it seems the very high ON time makes it appear to be roughly constant output on Hi. In practical terms, it is thus very hard to notice the PWM on Hi – but it is detectably there.

FYI, this is why all the videos you will see of the M30 in action have a noticeable “flickering” effect, even on Hi. You do not see this in real life, but the low frame-per-sec capture of video is very susceptible to such low frequency PWM. As I say, this is not an issue for actual use - it is really only a problem for shutterbugs (or reviewers ) 

However, the PWM on Lo/Med is much more problematic, as it is very noticeable. :sigh: Note as well that it means that still photos of the beam (especially on Lo) cannot be fully trusted to show overall output. Depending on camera settings (especially shutter speed), you may not be ale to completely integrate all the light.

_*UPDATE:* Scroll down to my post in #14 to see an update on the source of this issue._


----------



## Sharpy_swe

Excellent review as always!

:bow:


----------



## DM51

Great review, as always. This looks a neat, compact light, with good output. A pity about the PWM being so noticeable. Maybe (let's hope) they'll deal with that in later versions.

Moving to the Reviews forum.


----------



## MattK

Awesome job as always!

I'd love to see 4 x CR123A runtime plots if you can find the time.


----------



## easilyled

Excellent review.

Why on earth was it contrived to have "92% ON" PWM on high, instead of
just reducing the current to the led by 8% and having no PWM at all on high?


----------



## MattK

I suspect it's because of the vast swing between min and max outputs. Constant current regulators are not capable of such wide input voltage and current output variance.


----------



## easilyled

MattK said:


> I suspect it's because of the vast swing between min and max outputs. Constant current regulators are not capable of such wide input voltage and current output variance.



Matt, I'm only referring to the PWM on the high setting. Seems strange to have PWM with a 92% ON cycle here.

This implies that the full current supplied to the led has been dampened down by 8% using PWM on this level.

Why not just supply 8% less current on high instead and have no PWM for this level?

There could still be the PWM on low and medium modes.

selfbuilt remarked that in lights using PWM, it was very unusual to see it on the highest level.


----------



## TRK

Great review! Thanks Selfbuilt!


----------



## SCEMan

As usual Selfbuilt, another definitive review - kudos!

I came close to buying the M30 but the raised crenallated tailcap, and inclusion of the strobe in the tailswitch mode sequence were dealbreakers for me. And now the PWM makes me glad I waited...

If subsequent versions offer alternatives (less intrusive tailcap, side-switch-only strobe, reduced PWM) - I'll buy as I love this form factor.


----------



## HKJ

easilyled said:


> Why on earth was it contrived to have "92% ON" PWM on high, instead of
> just reducing the current to the led by 8% and having no PWM at all on high?



There is a very good reason for the PWM being present in all output modes. OLight has the output regulations circuit* in the tail of the light (That was necessary to make the two buttons work), this circuit need some power to work, this power is supplied to the circuit when the PWM is in its off phase.
This type of design was last seen in the Tiablo A10 light, with the mulitlevel tailcap.

*This is not the same as the current regulation circuit, that is at the regular place in the head.


----------



## 1dash1

Selfbuilt:

Great review! I especially appreciate the runtime graphs. Thank you! :twothumbs

Will you also be doing a review of the Eagletac M2/M2X lights?


----------



## fugleebeast

After reading the reports of the PWM issue, I played with my M30 a bit at home. For the life of me, I couldn't notice any flickering at all. I tried everything I could think of, except using a fan as I don't have one. I also couldn't detect any buzzing on any of the levels like I can on my Fenix LD01.

Are some people just less sensitive to PWM?


----------



## selfbuilt

HKJ said:


> There is a very good reason for the PWM being present in all output modes. OLight has the output regulations circuit* in the tail of the light (That was necessary to make the two buttons work), this circuit need some power to work, this power is supplied to the circuit when the PWM is in its off phase.
> This type of design was last seen in the Tiablo A10 light, with the mulitlevel tailcap.


Thanks HKJ - as always, you are fount of knowledge when it comes to these circuits! :thumbsup:

Yes, the A10-G was the only other light where I noticed PWM on Max (on the continuously-variable switch). In that case, max output was significantly reduced compared to the single-stage switch. I have gone back to compare, and have measured the ON-cycle as only 78% on the A10-G (explaining it's lower output). PWM is ~123Hz on the A10-G.

I wasn't sure if the output regulator was in the tailcap of the M30, but what you say makes perfect sense. FYI, like the A10-G's tailcap, you will see a brief flash of light when you first make tailcap contact (immediately in the case of the M30, or after fully tightening past the lock-out on the A10-G). That should have been my tip-off that the regulator is in the tailcap.

In any case, I don't see the lower output modes having much value for me personally at a PWM of ~100Hz. I really hope they can improve that.



SCEMan said:


> I came close to buying the M30 but the raised crenallated tailcap, and inclusion of the strobe in the tailswitch mode sequence were dealbreakers for me. And now the PWM makes me glad I waited...


I have to admit I thought the flared tailcap looked a little wonky myself, but I haven't found it a problem in actual use. Part of the issue is the visual proportion compared to the rest of the light - in terms of its actual external dimensions and shape, it is is remarkably similar to the ACE-G tailcap.

As for UI, my preference would also be to not have strobe as part of the sequence, but I guess that was too difficult to arrange with the tailcap circuit design. :shrug:



1dash1 said:


> Great review! I especially appreciate the runtime graphs. Thank you! :twothumbs
> Will you also be doing a review of the Eagletac M2/M2X lights?


More runtimes to come, currently doing Med mode RCR.

And yes, Eagletac will be sending me the M2/M2X lights to review. No ETA as yet.



fugleebeast said:


> After reading the reports of the PWM issue, I played with my M30 a bit at home. For the life of me, I couldn't notice any flickering at all. I tried everything I could think of, except using a fan as I don't have one. I also couldn't detect any buzzing on any of the levels like I can on my Fenix LD01. Are some people just less sensitive to PWM?


Buzzing is typically inductor whine, and can affect all lights (not just PWM). I'm surprised you don't see the PWM effect, as I notice it immediately upon activation. Try waving your hand in front of the beam, with your fingers open.

When shinning at a fixed point, you aren't likely to notice it much - unless what you are looking at is moving (i.e. an animal, the wind on grass and trees, etc), or you yourself are swinging the beam. I'm curious as to how you find it if you take it for a walk outdoors at night. My cat walked into the beam while testing, and I have to say his white whiskers against black fur looked pretty funny! Think digitized in the Matrix ...  

I had a few non-flashaholics over on the weekend, and they all immediately noticed it when I turned the light on low (one commented on the strobing effect before I could even say anything).


----------



## ergotelis

Well done selfbuilt!How about waterproofness other than the non-lubed o-rings?


----------



## HKJ

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks HKJ - as always, you are fount of knowledge when it comes to these circuits! :thumbsup:



It is fun to figure out, how these circuits works.




selfbuilt said:


> In any case, I don't see the lower output modes having much value for me personally at a PWM of ~100Hz. I really hope they can improve that.



Do not count on any big change, this kind of design needs a low PWM frequency, the current regulator need time to start.

BUT by increasing the output in low mode, it might be possible to increase the PWM to a higher frequency, but this might also reduce the high output, because they might have to reduce the 92.3% high.
It would probably be possible to double the low and the PWM frequency, without decreasing the high (This is just a guess, I have not measured/analyzed with that in mind).



selfbuilt said:


> As for UI, my preference would also be to not have strobe as part of the sequence, but I guess that was too difficult to arrange with the tailcap circuit design. :shrug:



Both buttons is probably just sending a signal to the microprocessor in the tailcap, i.e. any kind of UI could be programmed in that processor.


----------



## zioparr

Thank you for your Superb Review selfbuild.
Perfect as always.

after reading your comment and the detailed specification about Olight M30 and JetBeam M1X.

I came to a conclusion that M30 is not as good as it said, the PWM is also bothersome. and M30 is not a thrower dedicated. But the size is very compact compare to the JB M1X etc.

I like M30 because the compact size of it. But after I read your review I got confuse which one should I chose.

Since my seller only have Olight, Jetbeam, Fenix
can you help me pick which is the best for me between this M30, TK40 or M1X.

My criteria is:
1. HI Lumen
2. Compact
3. Thrower Type

If you have other opinion about other torch in mind please tell me so.
Thanks again for such a superb review.
Regard's
Roy.


----------



## zioparr

Hi, selfbuild.
Sorry, but can you post the reflectors comparison between 4 of them.
since I cannot compare them directly by measurement.

Thanks again.


----------



## easilyled

HKJ said:


> There is a very good reason for the PWM being present in all output modes. OLight has the output regulations circuit* in the tail of the light (That was necessary to make the two buttons work), this circuit need some power to work, this power is supplied to the circuit when the PWM is in its off phase.
> This type of design was last seen in the Tiablo A10 light, with the mulitlevel tailcap.
> 
> *This is not the same as the current regulation circuit, that is at the regular place in the head.



Thanks for explaining this.

I'm pleased that there is a good reason for this as it shows that quite a lot of thought went into designing this.

So the low frequency PWM seems to be a sort of trade-off for the way the circuits were designed 
in order to achieve the unique UI in addition to achieving the intended output levels.

I do notice the PWM, although it doesn't bother me much just for walking around the house (on low or medium)

Maybe for trekking or camping outdoors, it would be different. 

I have to say that I like the UI. What I like most about it is the simplicity of setting the level with the side button
and then the fact that this level can be triggered with positive momentary in complete safety with the tailcap.
ie. its impossible to change the levels with the tailcap no matter how many times or how fast its pushed.


----------



## 1dash1

HKJ:

Thanks for your thoughts about the PWM issue.

So... it boiled down to a choice of either providing a sub-10 lumen low (with potential flickering issues, degree of consumer acceptability unknown) or providing a slightly higher low mode (still with potential flickering problems, albeit greatly diminished).

_Tough call._ oo:


----------



## MattK

zioparr said:


> Thank you for your Superb Review selfbuild.
> Perfect as always.
> 
> after reading your comment and the detailed specification about Olight M30 and JetBeam M1X.
> 
> I came to a conclusion that M30 is not as good as it said, the PWM is also bothersome. and M30 is not a thrower dedicated. But the size is very compact compare to the JB M1X etc.



Hi Roy and :welcome:

Buyers that have bought/received the M30 have been almost universally delighted. Remember, CPF is the kind of place where sometimes folks look for 'faults' to pick over and analyze. As you can see we have many technical minded folks who delight in analyzing these things and discussing them. It's the nature of CPF - no light has ever been made that was found faultless here 

If you read the reviews and comments discussing the PWM most have said that it's STILL a fantastic light and they love it but hope that this area can be improved.

Quotes from the primary M30 thread onthe LED forum:



1dash1 said:


> I hope I haven't come off as being too harsh on the M30.
> 
> It's an outstanding flashlight! Perfect size. Handsome. 3-flats feel so good in the hand. Weight evenly balanced. Well built. Innovative UI. Extraordinarily flexible battery options. Excellent runtimes. Fully regulated output. Great high mode! Comes with a nice case and a full complement of accessories. And backed up by great vendors and a great company.





yert43 said:


> While I'm an admitted newb to highend flashlights, I would never have noticed the slow PWM if I hadn't read it here. There have been a lot of little complaints, but I think this is a fantastic light. Unless you are really finicky with these things, as I'm sure many of you are, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm very happy with this light, and I definitely recommend it. I just got it today, and I cannot wait to see it in the night.





MattInTheCouv said:


> personally i could only notice the PWM issue if i tried to notice it (waving it around like a crazy person and seeing the trail of "dots" on the wall). i cannot foresee a situation in which this could be anything more than a very minor nuisance, if any at all (with my eyes and my light...yours may differ).
> 
> as far as the lost spill from the crenelated bezel goes, i really don't think it will be possible to make one that does NOT interfere at least slightly with the spill. if you remove it, turn the light on in the dark and look at the threads to which the bezel screws into, even they catch a wee little bit of light, so naturally anything you attach to those threads will too. life's full of tough choices... losing a couple percent of the very outer part of your spill or losing your ability to make someone need [as many] stitches after you hammer-blow them with the thing... the call is yours to make.
> 
> also it seems as though the strobe although totally overwhelming, doesn't have quite the same "i'm drunk" effect as my "first light tomahawk" or my gladius. i think this may be due to a faster strobe rate. i would be mucho curious for someone else to sacrifice their corneas as i have in a comparison with other known good tactical strobers.
> ...
> my only other negative is also one that has not been brought up as of yet, and it is probably nit-picky. the finish on the light should be matte. preferably the same sort of rough and battle-proven coating that is applied to firearms and knife blades and a lot of other "tactical" flashlights. it kind of has a semi-gloss thing going on and i'm not a fan of it.
> 
> with that being said, it's a solid 9 out of 10.





veleno said:


> IMO the PWM frequency is barely noticible, not a real issue for me.



Read selfbuilt's conclusions again; I think it's clear he really liked the product and this was the only 'flaw' that he found. That's like a getting an A- around here.


----------



## MattK

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks HKJ - as always, you are fount of knowledge when it comes to these circuits! :thumbsup:



:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Yes - and the clear explanations (no doubt in his 2nd or 3rd language) are particularly 'illuminating'.


----------



## selfbuilt

HKJ said:


> Do not count on any big change, this kind of design needs a low PWM frequency, the current regulator need time to start.
> BUT by increasing the output in low mode, it might be possible to increase the PWM to a higher frequency, but this might also reduce the high output, because they might have to reduce the 92.3% high.
> It would probably be possible to double the low and the PWM frequency, without decreasing the high (This is just a guess, I have not measured/analyzed with that in mind).


Interesting. It stands to reason there was an explanation behind this low PWM frequency (and by extrapolation, the A10-G's slightly higher PWM freq but lower max output). Thanks again for the insight - very helpful. :thumbsup:



ergotelis said:


> Well done selfbuilt!How about waterproofness other than the non-lubed o-rings?


Sorry, but I don't test for waterproofness. In my opinion, unless a light is rated as a dive light, I would only consider it "water-resistant". So, as long as it looks like the light would survive a bit of rain, or a splash in a puddle, I'm satisfied (and it looks to me like the M30 would do fine). I don't plan to start water immersion tests, since it is hard to know what variables to control for, and how to interpret any failure (or lack thereof) given a n=1 sample size.



zioparr said:


> I came to a conclusion that M30 is not as good as it said, the PWM is also bothersome. and M30 is not a thrower dedicated. But the size is very compact compare to the JB M1X etc.


I wouldn't say that exactly. And I try to avoid making a direct judgement about what is best for someone else . Certainly the M1X is the best throwing MC-E ... but the throw of the M30 and the other multi-emitter lights are all quite decent (and the M1X has a pronounced centre-beam donut hole). At the other end of the spectrum, the ACE-G has the least amount of centre-beam donut, but is larger and heavier than the M30, and single-stage only. Everything has trade-offs, so it all comes down to which of these things matter the most for you. 

In that same vein. I personally find low PWM very annoying (and I like to emphasisze the "personally" part in my reviews, since your experience could be different). This is an issue for me, it may be less so for others. 



1dash1 said:


> HKJ: Thanks for your thoughts about the PWM issue. So... it boiled down to a choice of either providing a sub-10 lumen low (with potential flickering issues, degree of consumer acceptability unknown) or providing a slightly higher low mode (still with potential flickering problems, albeit greatly diminished).
> _Tough call._ oo:


Yes, I think that sums it up well. All designs require trade-offs, and the different choices manufacturers make just increase the options for consumers.  That's why I like to cover everything in detail, so people can choose for themselves what matters most and vote with their $.

Personally, I would be willing to sacrifice some compromises in UI if it meant getting the PWM to undetectable levels. But I can appreciate how others would make a different choice (for example, if a given "tactical" interface was their key criteria). Life or death doesn't generally hang in the balance for me should it take a little longer to get to my desired output (whereas accidentally strobing Mrs. Selfbuilt could be quite dangerous indeed :laughing.



easilyled said:


> I have to say that I like the UI. What I like most about it is the simplicity of setting the level with the side button
> and then the fact that this level can be triggered with positive momentary in complete safety with the tailcap.
> ie. its impossible to change the levels with the tailcap no matter how many times or how fast its pushed.


Yes, that is a good point. It is not immediately intuitive to set the level that way, by the side switch. But once you do, it's nice to know the memory feature will keep it locked there no matter what you do to the main switch (i.e. don't have to worry about accidentally getting stuck in some strange programming mode). This does have a comfort and simplicity advantage. 



MattK said:


> Read selfbuilt's conclusions again; I think it's clear he really liked the product and this was the only 'flaw' that he found. That's like a getting an A- around here.


LOL, that's probably a pretty good assessment of my feelings for this light. :laughing: It is also why I put the PWM analysis into a second post, so that it doesn't cloud the main conclusions in the review. 

I try to stay away from a rating system for lights that I review, because any scale is just too subjective. Overall I find the M30 to be a quality product, even if I am personally disappointed by the PWM frequency (and potentially the efficiency - we'll see as I complete the Med mode runtimes). But again, that comment should be taken within the context of the typically outstanding Olight current-controlled efficiency goodness.  Runtime efficiency is just one variable to consider - as long as it lasts long enough for what you need at a given level, the exact comparison from one light to the next may not matter as much as UI, build, battery configuration, throw vs flood, etc.


----------



## 1dash1

selfbuilt said:


> Sorry, but I don't test for waterproofness. In my opinion, unless a light is rated as a dive light, I would only consider it "water-resistant". So, as long as it looks like the light would survive a bit of rain, or a splash in a puddle, I'm satisfied (and it looks to me like the M30 would do fine). I don't plan to start water immersion tests, since it is hard to know what variables to control for, and how to interpret any failure (or lack thereof) given a n=1 sample size.


 
_Come on now, Selfbuilt, 'fess up. You don't want to get involved with waterproof tests because - given your proclivity - that would mean constructing a 100meter tank in your backyard._ :devil:


----------



## zioparr

Hi Matt, Thank you for your welcomes.

The first time I see this M30 make me fell in love with it.
The size is very beautiful and proportional between the head and the body,
not like other light with big head and small body. This it self is a plus for the M30.

and I heard from my supplier which I did not know if it's true or not that in the future Olight will make a compatible or replacement body of M30 that can use AA battery instead of CR123A. This is a very very big PLUS.

Loose some and gain a lot then ^^

hopefully they will make smooth reflectors for this M30 like M20 did.

Thanks selfbuild and MattK for your replay.


----------



## octaf

ergotelis said:


> Well done selfbuilt!How about waterproofness other than the non-lubed o-rings?


 
I was hoping someone might perform this.


----------



## octaf

Very nice review, selfbuilt !!! :thumbsup:

I heard from a M20 & M30 owner that the switch of M30 works fine on M20 in the same manner, when using 2x123 (not 18650).







Now, I have a question, here.

Does this mean that the PWM flickering will disappear when you have the switch of the M20 on the M30???

I guess you have both M20 & M30. :wave:


----------



## HKJ

octaf said:


> Very nice review, selfbuilt !!! :thumbsup:
> 
> I heard from a M20 & M30 owner that the switch of M30 works fine on M20 in the same manner, when using 2x123 (not 18650).
> 
> Now, I have a question, here.
> 
> Does this mean that the PWM flickering will disappear when you have the switch of the M20 on the M30???
> 
> I guess you have both M20 & M30. :wave:



The PWM is from the switch, i.e. moving it to the M20 will move the PWM to the M20. But the electronic on the M20 might have some problems handling the PWM. I do not believe that the M30 will have any problems with the M20 switch.


----------



## octaf

HKJ said:


> The PWM is from the switch, i.e. moving it to the M20 will move the PWM to the M20. But the electronic on the M20 might have some problems handling the PWM. I do not believe that the M30 will have any problems with the M20 switch.


 
Thanks, HKJ! 

What kind of problem would you expect?


----------



## HKJ

octaf said:


> Thanks, HKJ!
> 
> What kind of problem would you expect?



The circuit in M20 is not made to be turned and off 100 times each second, how does regulator and the microprocessor handle that?
The regulator might not have time enough to stabilize the current, i.e. it might be running in a startup condition all the time, that the circuit was only designed to handle for a short time.
The microprocessor might store some settings in a eeprom each time the power is turned off and a eeprom lifetime of 1 million writes can be used up rather fast with 100 writes each second.
Usual equipment need some time off, before it is turned on again, to secure a clean startup, this time can some seconds (like on a PC), but can also be much shorter, but is the M20 designed for a off time of 0.001 second?

I do not say it has these problems, only it might.


----------



## daveman

Hot dang! Judging from selfbuilt's charts, the M30 has the most overall output.


----------



## octaf

HKJ said:


> The circuit in M20 is not made to be turned and off 100 times each second, how does regulator and the microprocessor handle that?
> The regulator might not have time enough to stabilize the current, i.e. it might be running in a startup condition all the time, that the circuit was only designed to handle for a short time.
> The microprocessor might store some settings in a eeprom each time the power is turned off and a eeprom lifetime of 1 million writes can be used up rather fast with 100 writes each second.
> Usual equipment need some time off, before it is turned on again, to secure a clean startup, this time can some seconds (like on a PC), but can also be much shorter, but is the M20 designed for a off time of 0.001 second?
> 
> I do not say it has these problems, only it might.


 

Thanks again, HKJ for your suggestion ! 

The switch of M30 surely looks good on M20, though.


----------



## ergotelis

octaf said:


> I was hoping someone might perform this.



Still waiting to receive mine!If no one till then has done so, i will!:wave:


----------



## octaf

ergotelis said:


> Still waiting to receive mine!If no one till then has done so, i will!:wave:


 
Hi, ergotelis.

Look forward to hear from you.

Please, lube your thread and orings well before you perform it, as many others suggest that. :wave:


----------



## ergotelis

octaf said:


> Hi, ergotelis.
> 
> Look forward to hear from you.
> 
> Please, lube your thread and orings well before you perform it, as many others suggest that. :wave:



Yes ,sure, i will take all the neccessary precautions in order to test it, anyway else it would be useless for me.


----------



## frosty

Another super detailed review. Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## jhc37013

I've had my M30 for a few days and I can't see any flickering on any mode no matter how fast or slow I move it back and forth.


----------



## baterija

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, I think that sums it up well. All designs require trade-offs, and the different choices manufacturers make just increase the options for consumers.  That's why I like to cover everything in detail, so people can choose for themselves what matters most and vote with their $.



Thanks for the in depth look at the PWM and thanks to HKJ for the explanation of the why to explain the tradeoff Olight made. I suspect this won't make it one of the more popular lights here in CPF. For anyone that wants a truly tactical strobe and high output though... :thumbsup:


----------



## wapkil

HKJ said:


> There is a very good reason for the PWM being present in all output modes. OLight has the output regulations circuit* in the tail of the light (That was necessary to make the two buttons work), this circuit need some power to work, this power is supplied to the circuit when the PWM is in its off phase.
> This type of design was last seen in the Tiablo A10 light, with the mulitlevel tailcap.
> 
> *This is not the same as the current regulation circuit, that is at the regular place in the head.



Thanks for the explanation. I have a question, if I may. Do you know the reason for this design? Why can't the tailcap circuit simply "borrow" some current when the LED is on? I would think that the current needed for the circuit is so small that it wouldn't be noticeable for LED driver...


----------



## zioparr

so in other word that if you want flicker free m30 then used m20 tail cap(but how to change the low-med-high?).
and for the m20 itself you better bought a new tail cap or get the pressure tail cap.

well not a bad idea at all.


----------



## HKJ

wapkil said:


> Thanks for the explanation. I have a question, if I may. Do you know the reason for this design? Why can't the tailcap circuit simply "borrow" some current when the LED is on? I would think that the current needed for the circuit is so small that it wouldn't be noticeable for LED driver...



The problem with that is voltage, usual you want 0 volt across the tailcab, when the light is on, with the pwm design they have 0 (nearly) some of the time and then full voltage (nearly) the rest of the time. This makes it very easy to capture some power and store some power, only a diode and a capacitor is needed for that.
If you want to extract power, without doing pwm, you ned to put in something with a voltage drop, you would want a low voltage drop and then you would need a boost converter to get enough voltage for the micro controller, and the minimum voltage for a boost convert will give a considerable lower overall power efficiency for the light.

It is possible to do someting in the head to get rid of the pwm, but it would complicate the circuit.
It would also be possible to add a dedicated signal wire, like LiteFlux and NovaTac and some other does, but to send information from two buttons would mean two signal wires or some coding of the signal, alle of these solutions would make the light more complicated to produce.


----------



## selfbuilt

Main post updated with an additional pic:







You can clearly see how much smaller the head of the M30 is compared to the competition. :thumbsup:

And the Med 3xRCR runtimes:






As you can see, the efficiency of the M30 on Med (which output-wise is equivalent to the Lo of Lumapower lights) is definitely lower than the competition. The M30 runtime is much less than the M1X when matched for output, which is a bit disappointing given the defined output levels of the M30 (the M1X is continuously variable). I haven't done Lo mode runtimes on the MVP P7, but you can easily see here the benefit that current-control circuitry brings to runtime efficiency by looking at the MVP 3xCree. And note the Lumapower is only on 2xRCR compared the 3xRCR for the M1X and M30. oo:

As always, there is lot more than just output/runtime efficiency to consider when choosing a light. But typically, I think most users look for greater efficiency in defined-output level lights compared to continuously-variable ones.


----------



## selfbuilt

1dash1 said:


> Come on now, Selfbuilt, 'fess up. You don't want to get involved with waterproof tests because - given your proclivity - that would mean constructing a 100meter tank in your backyard. :devil:


LOL, yeah that's part of it - if I can't do it thoroughly and in a consistent and valid manner, I'm not going to do it all. Should the light be on? off? switched on/off while under water? how much water? how warm? how long? etc. The list is endless, and may not tell you much if I happen to have a sample with a pinched o-ring (replace the ring first? add lube? don't add lube? etc.). I'm getting dizzy :sick2: ... and all this in lights that are not rated to be waterproof to begin with (i.e IPX standards are static standards, not the dynamic values people often expect).

Even doing runtimes where output is compared across lights is not a trivial matter. This is why I spent a lot of time developing my testing method, and continue to validate it (i.e. dedicated lightbox sensor and specific permanent placement to reduce variability and increase accuracy, calibrating the sensor, continuously verifying discharge capacity of Li-ion battery cells and discarding outliers to insure consistent comparisons, charging Li-ions to a consistent voltage, testing primary cell brands compare capacity and discharge characteristics, and verifying each new lot consistent with previous, etc.). I can tell you I have had to discard a lot of Li-ion and NiMH batteries over the last year or two, to keep everything on track. This all goes on "behind-the-scenes" to make sure the results stay are consistent and comparable between reviews over time. :sweat:



zioparr said:


> The size is very beautiful and proportional between the head and the body,
> not like other light with big head and small body. This it self is a plus for the M30.


Just added a head shot of the bezels to better allow you to compare.  See post above.



octaf said:


> I heard from a M20 & M30 owner that the switch of M30 works fine on M20 in the same manner, when using 2x123 (not 18650).





zioparr said:


> so in other word that if you want flicker free m30 then used m20 tail cap(but how to change the low-med-high?).
> and for the m20 itself you better bought a new tail cap or get the pressure tail cap. well not a bad idea at all.


Actually, it may be a bad idea. I had the same thought as HKJ - the M20 switch may work on the M30 (as single-stage only, much like the single-stage switch on the A10-G). But I wouldn't want to try the M30 switch (with its output regulator) in combination with the M20 head (which has its own circuitry that is not expecting it). We wouldn't a  now.

In any case, my M20 tailcap does NOT screw on to the M30 body. There seems to be a slight mis-match in thread thickness. Oddly, the M30 tailcap seems to screw on to the M20 body, but I would never test that with a battery in there.



HKJ said:


> The problem with that is voltage, usual you want 0 volt across the tailcab, when the light is on, with the pwm design they have 0 (nearly) some of the time and then full voltage (nearly) the rest of the time. This makes it very easy to capture some power and store some power, only a diode and a capacitor is needed for that.
> If you want to extract power, without doing pwm, you ned to put in something with a voltage drop, you would want a low voltage drop and then you would need a boost converter to get enough voltage for the micro controller, and the minimum voltage for a boost convert will give a considerable lower overall power efficiency for the light.
> It is possible to do someting in the head to get rid of the pwm, but it would complicate the circuit. It would also be possible to add a dedicated signal wire, like LiteFlux and NovaTac and some other does, but to send information from two buttons would mean two signal wires or some coding of the signal, alle of these solutions would make the light more complicated to produce.


Thanks HKJ, I always learn a lot from you on the intricacies of these circuit issues. :thumbsup: I've no doubt the Olight engineers wrestled with the issue themselves.


----------



## MattK

selfbuilt said:


> Thanks HKJ, I always learn a lot from you on the intricacies of these circuit issues. :thumbsup: I've no doubt the Olight engineers wrestled with the issue themselves.



They did - I have an email explaining things and it's basically as HKJ explained. I need to 'translate' it a bit and will do so/post when I get a chance.


----------



## SCEMan

Wow. It's amazing that Olight was able maximize the output of such a small reflector relative to the others. And the 2x18500 capability allows capacity and pocketability.

This is what I was hoping Dereelight would do with the DBS MCE but they've been sitting on their hands for quite a while now with nothing significant to show.


----------



## wapkil

selfbuilt said:


> As you can see, the efficiency of the M30 on Med (which output-wise is equivalent to the Lo of Lumapower lights) is definitely lower than the competition. The M30 runtime is much less than the M1X when matched for output, which is a bit disappointing given the defined output levels of the M30 (the M1X is continuously variable). I haven't done Lo mode runtimes on the MVP P7, but you can easily see here the benefit that current-control circuitry brings to runtime efficiency by looking at the MVP 3xCree. And note the Lumapower is only on 2xRCR compared the 3xRCR for the M1X and M30. oo:



Is this lower efficiency on Med present also for 18650 batteries? I couldn't find data for the medium mode for [email protected]% and [email protected] but maybe there is some similarity to what happens in the high mode? With 18650 batteries [email protected] runs almost the same time as M1X and longer than MVP (1h 29min, 1h 34min and 1h 7min respectively). With RCRs M30 on Hi runs much shorter than competition: 19 min vs. 32 min and 31 min. Maybe the M30 requires more current delivered from 18650 to perform better?


----------



## wapkil

HKJ said:


> The problem with that is voltage, usual you want 0 volt across the tailcab, when the light is on, with the pwm design they have 0 (nearly) some of the time and then full voltage (nearly) the rest of the time. This makes it very easy to capture some power and store some power, only a diode and a capacitor is needed for that.
> If you want to extract power, without doing pwm, you ned to put in something with a voltage drop, you would want a low voltage drop and then you would need a boost converter to get enough voltage for the micro controller, and the minimum voltage for a boost convert will give a considerable lower overall power efficiency for the light.



I though that with the minimum voltage input of 5.6V (2x 2.8V, from discharged batteries) the tailcap circuit can safely take, say, 1.8V. I didn't know that it may be too low for the micro controller. For some reason I also though that the MC-E dies are driven in parallel but I don't if that's true. Thank you once again.


----------



## selfbuilt

wapkil said:


> Is this lower efficiency on Med present also for 18650 batteries? ... Maybe the M30 requires more current delivered from 18650 to perform better?


I don't think so. On Med, the M30 on 2x18650 only lasts for ~9 hours. In contrast, the M1X on 50% and the MVPs on Med last for ~5-6 hours *at ~3X the brightness*. Considering that emitter efficiency increases as your lower the drive current (and output), I would expect that the M1X on ~20% or the MVPs on Lo would last for at least 20-25 hours on 2x18650, perhaps more. This is why I haven't done those runtimes - it ties up the box for a long time. 

Judging from all the Med/Lo results to date, I would expect the relative efficiency relationship to persist on 18650.


----------



## HKJ

wapkil said:


> I though that with the minimum voltage input of 5.6V (2x 2.8V, from discharged batteries) the tailcap circuit can safely take, say, 1.8V. I didn't know that it may be too low for the micro controller. For some reason I also though that the MC-E dies are driven in parallel but I don't if that's true. Thank you once again.



Lets do some math:
Batteries: 5.6 volt
Tailcap: 1.8 volt
led: 3.8 volt
We want 3 ampere current in the led, this gives
Battery delivers: 16.8 watt
Tailcap uses: 5.4 watt
led uses: 11.4 watt

We would get a very hot tailcap, a low efficiency and would be missing a regulation circuit.


----------



## wapkil

HKJ said:


> Lets do some math:
> Batteries: 5.6 volt
> Tailcap: 1.8 volt
> led: 3.8 volt
> We want 3 ampere current in the led, this gives
> Battery delivers: 16.8 watt
> Tailcap uses: 5.4 watt
> led uses: 11.4 watt
> 
> We would get a very hot tailcap, a low efficiency and would be missing a regulation circuit.



Heh, with that much power you could drive a full blown single board computer. Hopefully the algorithm to analyze which button is pressed doesn't require that 

I was also thinking along the lines of placing this chipset in parallel to the main current path and with some capacitor to power it but I know nothing about circuits design. Probably, as you wrote, that would simply make the light more complicated and costly to manufacture.


----------



## HKJ

wapkil said:


> Heh, with that much power you could drive a full blown single board computer. Hopefully the algorithm to analyze which button is pressed doesn't require that
> 
> I was also thinking along the lines of placing this chipset in parallel to the main current path and with some capacitor to power it but I know nothing about circuits design. Probably, as you wrote, that would simply make the light more complicated and costly to manufacture.



Yes, it is a lot of wasted power for that small computer chip.

Doing this kind of design (Two buttons in the tail), it not easy. OLight has decided to put some intelligence in the tailcap, this gives two challenges:
1: How to power the microprocessor, 2: How to communicate the setting to the driver in the head of the light.
In the M30 both are done with the PWM

1 could also have been solved by an extra connection to the tailcap or a small coin cell in the tailcap.
2 could be solved with the extra connection or by sending some code in the normal current draw.

The pwm solves all these problems in a simple way, but with Olights implementation you also have pwm in the light output, with a more advanced circuit in the head it would be possible to use this solution without pwm in the light


----------



## wapkil

selfbuilt said:


> I don't think so. On Med, the M30 on 2x18650 only lasts for ~9 hours. In contrast, the M1X on 50% and the MVPs on Med last for ~5-6 hours *at ~3X the brightness*. Considering that emitter efficiency increases as your lower the drive current (and output), I would expect that the M1X on ~20% or the MVPs on Lo would last for at least 20-25 hours on 2x18650, perhaps more. This is why I haven't done those runtimes - it ties up the box for a long time.
> 
> Judging from all the Med/Lo results to date, I would expect the relative efficiency relationship to persist on 18650.



Do you think it means that on Hi the driver in M30 is much less efficient with RCRs than in those two other lights?

LEDs driven with a higher current are less efficient but shouldn't it be around 20-30% loss? In your tests with RCRs the M30 runtime was approximately 60% shorter on Med and 30% shorter on Hi. If the efficiency loss would be 30% on the driver that would add up correctly - 30% from the driver on Hi, when all the LEDs are driven with the same current and 30% from driver plus additional 30% from PWM efficiency loss on Med.

I still don't understand though why the M30 driven with 18650s on Hi runs as long as the M1X. If there would be an efficiency loss on the driver, it should also be on 18650s, not only with RCRs. Maybe the driver works differently, with different efficiency, for 18650s and RCRs. The M30 output on Hi with 18650s is not fully regulated but with RCRs it is. Can this be the cause of the differences between runtimes with 18650s and RCRs? :shrug:

Well, before coming to CPF I would never thought that a question how long a particular light runs can be so complicated


----------



## selfbuilt

wapkil said:


> Do you think it means that on Hi the driver in M30 is much less efficient with RCRs than in those two other lights? ... If there would be an efficiency loss on the driver, it should also be on 18650s, not only with RCRs.


I think the problem here is pretty clearly with the limited storage capacity of RCRs, producing spurious results.

19 mins runtime means a >3C dicharge rate. I know from experience that anything that produces a 2C discharge rate or higher (i.e. 30 mins is 2C) on Li-ion is going to produce inconsistent results. A slightly higher current, and bam - you are suddenly at 3C, 4C or higher discharge rates. This is not good for the cells, as it lowers their long-term storage capacity. Simply put, you cannot trust any data on runtimes that exceed 2C.

At lower currents, the limited capacity of the RCRs is not a problem. But these high-drain M-CE lights should not be run on max on RCR, IMO, as you are drawing power faster than they can really handle it. I would completely discount that Hi RCR runtime data, if I were you (I only include it to show that it is not wise to run them that way).


----------



## mmajunkie

As to the PWM.

I see no strobing on low or med. Thinking I was defective, I asked the wife and she didn't see any either.

Is this something not all people can see? Or by a very slim chance did I receive one that doesn't have this problem.


----------



## fugleebeast

My wife and I couldn't notice it either, until we waved our hands in front of the beam on Low and Medium (not High) like Selfbuilt suggested. It was very noticeable doing that. 

Using it normally though, we can't see it. I imagine that the PWM will be more present doing certain things but we don't appear to be too sensitive to it so I'm not worried. 

I've used it for awhile and definitely haven't felt any of the nausea that some people are reporting. I was worried about it after reading all the reports but it seems to be less of an issue than I first thought. In my experience, anyways.


----------



## 1dash1

selfbuilt said:


> I think the problem here is pretty clearly with the limited storage capacity of RCRs, producing spurious results.
> 
> 19 mins runtime means a >3C dicharge rate. I know from experience that anything that produces a 2C discharge rate or higher (i.e. 30 mins is 2C) on Li-ion is going to produce inconsistent results. A slightly higher current, and bam - you are suddenly at 3C, 4C or higher discharge rates. This is not good for the cells, as it lowers their long-term storage capacity. Simply put, you cannot trust any data on runtimes that exceed 2C.
> 
> At lower currents, the limited capacity of the RCRs is not a problem. But these high-drain M-CE lights should not be run on max on RCR, IMO, as you are drawing power faster than they can really handle it. I would completely discount that Hi RCR runtime data, if I were you (I only include it to show that it is not wise to run them that way).


 
Selfbuilt:

Do you think the IMR16340's might outperform the regular LiCo RCR's, as far as high output runtimes are concerned?


----------



## jirik_cz

1dash1 said:


> Selfbuilt:
> 
> Do you think the IMR16340's might outperform the regular LiCo RCR's, as far as high output runtimes are concerned?



Why use 3xRCR123 when 2x18500 perform much better in the same size?:thinking:


----------



## Justin Case

HKJ said:


> Both buttons is probably just sending a signal to the microprocessor in the tailcap, i.e. any kind of UI could be programmed in that processor.



Any idea what uP is used in the tailcap for PWM multimode control?

In a similar multifunction tailcap with a main tailcap button and a side button, the AMTEL Tiny13V was used. Interestingly, this particular tailcap didn't seem to be compatible with all LED modules. It didn't like two DX drop-ins (SKU6090 and SKU11836), for example, but it did like a different module that used an ST1S03 step-down current mode PWM DC-DC converter.


----------



## jhc37013

mmajunkie said:


> As to the PWM.
> 
> I see no strobing on low or med. Thinking I was defective, I asked the wife and she didn't see any either.
> 
> Is this something not all people can see? Or by a very slim chance did I receive one that doesn't have this problem.




Like I said also I sure can't see it and I've looked really hard. Also my bubby got an M30 from a different vendor than me and we compared his and we could see no flickering in his either. I am curious as why some report seeing it and others not.


----------



## selfbuilt

1dash1 said:


> Do you think the IMR16340's might outperform the regular LiCo RCR's, as far as high output runtimes are concerned?





jirik_cz said:


> Why use 3xRCR123 when 2x18500 perform much better in the same size?:thinking:


It's possible IMR16340s may do better, but I agree with jirik_cz - 2x18650 gives better performance in the base size. And besides, 2x cell configurations are bound to be safer than 3x cell configurations.



fugleebeast said:


> Using it normally though, we can't see it. I imagine that the PWM will be more present doing certain things but we don't appear to be too sensitive to it so I'm not worried.


I've no doubt there is some degree of variability in people's ability to detect it (or more to the point, to be bothered by it).

In the old days of CRT monitors, I used to be amazed at how many people left theirs at 60Hz refresh rates. Walking down a hallway, I could spot them all out of the corner of my eye. I couldn't stand to work on them that way, the "flicker" made me feel just as :green: as 100Hz PWM. Even a slight bump to 72hz made a huge difference with CRTs (none of this is an issue for LCDs, different technology). For PWM, I find I can tolerate it >130 Hz or so (but I still notice it until much higher).

In fact, that's probably the best way to describe PWM or CRT refresh flicker - a sense in the corner of your eye (i.e. in your peripheral vision) that something just isn't "right". May or may not be distracting for you.


----------



## HKJ

Justin Case said:


> Any idea what uP is used in the tailcap for PWM multimode control?
> 
> In a similar multifunction tailcap with a main tailcap button and a side button, the AMTEL Tiny13V was used. Interestingly, this particular tailcap didn't seem to be compatible with all LED modules. It didn't like two DX drop-ins (SKU6090 and SKU11836), for example, but it did like a different module that used an ST1S03 step-down current mode PWM DC-DC converter.



I have no idea what microcontroller was used, but it has both a controller and a 5 ampere electronic current switch in that tailcap.

The requirement for the driver is very fast startup, in Olight it uses 0.00004 second (40uS) to turn on the light, I would not expect all drivers to handle that.


----------



## JKL

Nice review, as always.

Thanks Selfbuilt.






_jkl/klm_


----------



## Ecodelosandes

Selbuilt, another excellent review, as always! Thank you!
I do see the flicker caused by the PWM in low. The others settings have it too, but only if you "want" to see it, no problems for me at all in normal use of the upper two.
I've tried the tailcap switch with the M20 too, and experienced the same problem with the threads: the M30's fits (very loose) on the M20 (looks pretty too, but don't work to light on), but the M20's cap seems to be too tight in the M30, it will not fit on "normal" attempts. Am i seeing bad or the threads on the M30 are a little bit conic, kinda BSPT type?
My results? The M20 will remain as "the king of the pocket", and the M30 will remain at home, and when a "lighthouse" will be needed on the go. Great light, no doubts! :wave:


----------



## JKL

I see the flickering just on the low level, at any rate if I use two 18650, the flickering on low disappears. 

For Who is searching an holster for the M30 :

The Vega Holster make a black "Cordura expandable 21” baton holder" (Item *2P65*), 
in which the flashlight fit perfectly also with the extension for 18650's.

I have adopted this holster and the Maxpedition Universal Sheath.

Greetings from Italy

_jkl/klm_


----------



## jhc37013

Hey JKL thats a nice holster where is the best place to order one. As to the flickering, tonight I seen two more M30's so now I have seen four total and me and nobody else I have been around can see any flickering in any mode using 3xcr123 or 18650's.

BTW does the tailcap fit easily into the Vega holster or do you need to struggle any.


----------



## JKL

jhc37013 said:


> Hey JKL thats a nice holster where is the best place to order one. ....
> BTW does the tailcap fit easily into the Vega holster or do you need to struggle any.



Hi Jhc,

the tailcap fit very easily into the holster , no problem. 

I sent you a Personal Message, please check .





Item: *2P65* "Cordura expandable 21” baton holder".






In order to fit it perfectly could be better remove the strike bezel.






At any rate I like the configuration with AW 18500 batteries without extension.







_jkl/klm 

_


----------



## Edog006

This is the Ultrafire holster I keep mentioning, I accidently bought this for another light, but it did not fit. However it does fit the M30 extremely well in either configuration. It does have a piece of nylon covering the buttons internally so it will not scratch the light. I have *NO* affiliation with dealextreme.com in fact they suck in general but this a great holster for the M30. So dont get mad at me CPF moderators just letting the good people know of a solid holster for this awesome light! http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4517


----------



## easilyled

Edog006 said:


> This is the Ultrafire holster I keep mentioning, I accidently bought this for another light, but it did not fit. However it does fit the M30 extremely well in either configuration. It does have a piece of nylon covering the buttons internally so it will not scratch the light. I have *NO* affiliation with dealextreme.com in fact they suck in general but this a great holster for the M30. So dont get mad at me CPF moderators just letting the good people know of a solid holster for this awesome light! http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4517



Ok thanks I just ordered one.

Better be good or I'll hold you personally responsible. 

j/k


----------



## selfbuilt

Good info on the holsters, thanks for sharing everyone. 

I personally like a solid holster myself. The included belt holster works reasonably well if your belt fits through the sleeve in the back. I find that dangling the light and hoslter by the clip (i.e. attached to a loop on the your jeans) doesn't work too well.

The Stallion half-holster for the Inova T4/T5 works ok, but it does require some force to get past the flaired tailcap on the M30. It's available from batteryjunction (also fits most "thrower" lights).


----------



## selfbuilt

The last of the runtimes has just been added, finally did the 4xCR123A (Duracell):






(hit your browser re-load button if you don't see it).

Interesting that the time to 50% is the same, but light now exhibits a full regulation pattern (and hence has more output for a longer time). Goes to show you why you need to look at the graphs and not just rely on one time point, like time to 50%. 

I haven't done 4xCR123A runtimes on the other other MC-E lights yet (these Duracells are rather expensive ). But the M30 on Max was one of the best performers on 3xCR123A, so I imagine that pattern will hold.

A pity that the efficiency of the M30 Med mode is lower than the competition. Based on RCR results posted earlier, it seems like the continuously-variable JetBeam M1X is at least 2.5X more efficient when matched to the same output. And of course, current-controlled lights like the Lumapower MVP are far more efficient than PWM-based lights at these drive levels.


----------



## JKL

Very useful !

The performances of the batteries 18650 and 18500 are very interesting .

Even if surely M30 Med mode is lower than the competition, at any rate 
considering the good compromise between portability and efficiency,
the runtime of 18500's on med should be equally valid .

Thanks once again for another great review!






_jkl/klm _


----------



## selfbuilt

1dash1 said:


> _If you really want to pursue this further, stand in front of a mirror (the reflective surface of a window will also do nicely). Turn the lights off and turn the flashlight on low or medium. Do not move the flashlight. Instead, rapidly pan your eyes left and right. If you still don't see any strobe effect (trail of images), then you are truly blessed with a remarkable ability._
> 
> _If you do see the trail of multiple images, try a change of scenery. Go to your (dark) kitchen. Shine the flashlight on some shiny surfaces (stove, cutlery, pots, glasses, etc.). Again, rapidly pan your eyes left and right. You'll see the same sort of multiple trails, but to a lesser degree than the beam in the mirror. That's because the reflected points of light are not as bright. That's sort of what happens with the M30 in actual use. If you rapidly shift your vision, there's a subtle trail of images in your peripheral vision. _
> 
> _An object crossing your field of vision or the flashlight beam waving to and fro are the two ways most users tend to think of the PWM effect. However, in my opinion, the more common occurence is when objects are stationery and the flashlight beam is relatively steady. It's our eyes shifting attention left-right/forward-back that precipitates the effect. That is what the kitchen example above illustrates: fixed beam, fixed objects, changing focus. _
> 
> _The faster you shift your direction of focus, the longer your eyes have been in the dark to sensitize your nightvision, the darker the ambient conditions (thereby increasing contrast), and the greater the relative brightness of the object in periphery (size, reflectivity, distance); the greater the perceived effect._


The above was posted in one of the main M30 discussion threads by 1dash1, and I thought I would quote it here since it's an excellent summary of the issues around perception of PWM.  

I would just add that you don't have to be consciously looking for PWM by intentionally moving your eyes around. Although you are unaware of it, your eyes are constantly darting all over the place to help fill in your mental map of what you are seeing (known as saccades). In much the same way as your world doesn't go dark every time you blink, your mental image of what you think you are seeing stays constant as your eyes move. This is where I find ~100 Hz PWM most notable - as a "freeze-frame" effect in my peripheral vision.

There's a good description of the basic physiological phenomenon of saccadic eye movements on wiki.

Ultimately, I don't think much good comes from the endless back-and-forths going on in some of the other threads, especially those with extreme viewpoints (i.e. "I-don't-see-it-so-everyone-else-must-be-imagining-things" vs "I-see-it-so-you-must-be-blind-if-you-don't"). :shakehead 

The simple empirical fact is that unlike the other MC-E and P7 lights I've tested so far, PWM is present on the M30, and at a frequency that is generally perceivable by the human eye/brain (~100 Hz). Whether or not this bothers *you* is all that should matter.

If you are concerned by such things, and plan to use the light on Lo or Med, then I suggest you consider competing lights that are current-controlled or that use undetectable PWM. If it is not an issue for you, then there is no need to worry about it.


----------



## jhc37013

Thanks for those runtimes selfbuilt I was curious of the 18500 vs. 18650. I think its time for me to get some 18500 so don't have to use the extender tube. It appears also that 3xCR123 is only regulated for about 15mins. It seems if one wants to use CR123 the only way to go is x4.


----------



## selfbuilt

jhc37013 said:


> Thanks for those runtimes selfbuilt I was curious of the 18500 vs. 18650. I think its time for me to get some 18500 so don't have to use the extender tube. It appears also that 3xCR123 is only regulated for about 15mins. It seems if one wants to use CR123 the only way to go is x4.


Yup, I picked up 18500s for the same reason - they are a great way to get the best output and runtime in the base model M30 (and in a safer 2x format). I still think this 3x-4x length of the M30 (and JetBeam M1X) is a good overall balance, especially with 2x18500 support.

And I've glad I did the runtimes on 4xCR123A - good to see that solid regulation there on max with M30.


----------



## tab665

is there any chance youll do another cr123 run while on medium mode?


----------



## selfbuilt

tab665 said:


> is there any chance youll do another cr123 run while on medium mode?


Sorry, no, - but given the similarity to 2x18650 for total capacity, you can get a pretty good estimate from the 2x18650 Med run (i.e. I'd guess somewhere around 8 hours for 4xCR123A).

Note that I am doing runtimes of some of the other lights that have a similar output level to the M30 on Med (i.e. JetBeam M1X on ~15% and the Eagletac M2XC4 on Lo). Those comparison results will be posted in my upcoming M2XC4 review and eventual MC-E round-up review.


----------



## SnakeEyes20

is there any way of putting the m30 tailcap on to the m20? does anyone offer the tailcap similar to that to put on the m20?


----------



## MattK

It's not that simple; on the M30 there is circuitry in both the tailcap and in the bezel of the light. To have an M20 work like that it would have to be a purposebuilt version - always a possibility in the future.


----------



## maxilux

SnakeEyes20 said:


> is there any way of putting the m30 tailcap on to the m20? does anyone offer the tailcap similar to that to put on the m20?



I just tried it, there is only a very low strobe, nothing else, no other function !


----------



## selfbuilt

SnakeEyes20 said:


> is there any way of putting the m30 tailcap on to the m20? does anyone offer the tailcap similar to that to put on the m20?


As Matt pointed out, the M20 circuitry is not designed to accept the additional circuitry of the M30 tailcap. I would recommend people don't experiment with this, as there is the potential to damage one or the other circuits.


----------



## mpkav

removed!!


----------



## octaf

ergotelis said:


> Still waiting to receive mine!If no one till then has done so, i will!:wave:


 

Hello, ergotelis.

any news on this, yet?


----------



## run4jc

I've thoroughly enjoyed my M30 and have yet to notice the flickering - perhaps I am one of the folks who simply can't see it. I noticed in the initial review from selfbuilt mention of a 'donut hole' effect - can someone explain to me, other than the obvious, what this refers to? Is this simply a small 'hole' in the spot? I started noticing that with mine just yesterday - can't see it 10 feet in front of me, but if I shine the beam on the sidewalk or road out 50, 100 feet or more I can see it slightly. Can't see it if shining the light in a tree (not that I shine the light in a tree that often.):laughing:
Don't see that on my M20.
:thinking:


----------



## selfbuilt

run4jc said:


> I noticed in the initial review from selfbuilt mention of a 'donut hole' effect - can someone explain to me, other than the obvious, what this refers to? Is this simply a small 'hole' in the spot? I started noticing that with mine just yesterday - can't see it 10 feet in front of me, but if I shine the beam on the sidewalk or road out 50, 100 feet or more I can see it slightly. Can't see it if shining the light in a tree (not that I shine the light in a tree that often.):laughing:
> Don't see that on my M20.


You won't see it on the M20 - it's specific for quad-die lights like the Cree MC-E or SSC P7 (or earlier generation Luxeon V).

The "donut hole" refers to a slightly darker area right at the centre of the hotspot. The name fancifully refers to the fact that the surrounding hotspot area looks brighter in the circumference around the centre. The reason for this effect is the gap between the four distinct dies on the emitter (if you look at the emitter, you'll see the four separate dies). The M20 use the standard Cree XR-E single-die emitter, so there will be no distortions in the centre.

It is very hard to focus the quad-die beam in any meaningful way and not see the gap show up as either a "cross-hairs" pattern at close range, or a "donut" at moderate differences. In fact, lights that focus the combined beam into as tight a pattern as possible (e.g. JetBeam M1X) tend to show the greatest evidence of this. Lights that try to diffuse the beam as much as possible (e.g. Tiablo ACE-G) show the least evidence. The M30 is somewhat intermediate from these extremes. But you have to expect a fair amount of variability from one sample to the next. Earlier holders of the classic Surefire L2 and L4 lights (with the Lux V) are all too familiar with this.

In practical terms, it's not really a problem unless you are shinning it on a uniform light-coloured surface like a garage door or sidewalk. As you've noticed, you can't see the pattern on real-world foliage.


----------



## ergotelis

octaf said:


> Hello, ergotelis.
> 
> any news on this, yet?



I have received mine and i like using it around!Still not tested in waterproofness though i will for sure sometime this week! :wave:

If only it had a more efficient circuit in medium/low without pwm...
Then it would be the perfect flashlight!


----------



## Edog006

Sorry, I am sure this has already been answered concerning runtimes at the low and medium outputs. Granted efficiency might be lower than one might expect given the M30 uses PWM, but isn't it 7.5 hours on medium and 90 hours on low? These runtimes are still fantastic in my opinion. I know strictly speaking from an efficiency standpoint the low and medium settings are not optimized, but still that is a heck of a lot of runtime IMO. 

After messing with several battery configurations I found 2x 18500s work great and keep the light in a nice tight package. The 18650s were great too, but I would rather not use the extension tube unless I know I will be unable to load new batteries and need the uninterrupted increased runtime. Using the CR123s makes little sense to me in the M30 given the high drain and quick time I would blow through these guys in either configuration. Additionally, after seeing Selfbuilts review (thanks by the way!) regulation is questionable with CR123s. Overall I am 9.5/10 satisfied with my M30 it was a great purchase.


----------



## 1dash1

Edog006:

Your point is well taken on the CR123's. Like you, I much prefer the 2x18500 form.

_Nonetheless, I keep a half-dozen primaries in the M30 carrying case for use during emergencies. Selfbuilt's runtime graph doesn't faze me. The human eye is not that sensitive to changes in output. Unless I did a side by side test, I don't think I'd__ notice the difference in output for the first 45 minutes. And the M30 is still fairly bright (~250L) at the 1:30 hour mark, that's about when I would change batteries if I were using it on high._

_That's one of the features I appreciate about this flashlight - the flexibility in running different combination of cells. :thumbsup:_


----------



## BeachMan

Got my Olight M30 today and thought I'd contribute with a small review.

My previous flashlight experience: Surefire L4 (original), Lumapower M1, Lumapower M3 (edc), Lumapower MRV (original) and finally the M30.

I lost the MRV, btw.

First, some beamshots. The first pic is actually iso100, the bottom two are iso80. The M30 is run off two 18500s.







Yeah, that's my bike in the lower frame. Didn't bother bringing my tripod with me.

With this shot I'm trying to duplicate what I saw irl. The sky was pretty much dark and there were some floodlights coming from the right, but other than that it's pretty close.






And now, a forest shot comparing the M1 on the left and the M30 on the right.






The difference in spill should be obvious. It seems as if the M30 lights the forest up while the M1 only lights up a small part - and it doesn't even do that properly.

Here's a family pic of everybody. M3, Surefire L4, M30 and M1. 18650 in the front.






For those of you who are semi-observant: yes the M30 is actually wet. On my way home I got caught in a downpour which drenched my clothes and, because I used the M30 as a bicycle light, it too got properly wet.

What do I think about the M30?



It's big, not an EDC anymore.
It's very bright and the spill is great. Much more important than throw.
It can tailstand.
The clicky is great.
The side-clicky thing is not so great. In fact my programmer's fingers can barely feel it when casually gripping the tail.
It remembers that I always want it switched on to high. Good.
It gets lukewarm to the touch. The M3 gets warm. The M1 doesn't really do anything, temperature-wise. The L4 got very hot.
That pocket clip thing seems pointless and feeble and will probably be removed soon.
It's long enough in 2*18500 mode. It's not terribly longer in 2*18650 mode but more than I care to carry.
About the carrying... I'll be needing to draw it quickly. Flap holsters are out.

The perfect holster takes the light bezel-down and leaves the back half uncovered and ready for me to grip it - kinda like a baton holster.

It's either that or a magnetic holster... I'll figure out something.

Other than the almost-useless side-clicky and the fact that the Swedish customs took another 200kr from me... I'm relatively happy.

Props to Battery Junction for fast overseas delivery.


----------



## gbleeker

I love this light - I decided to modify mine with GITD powder...


----------



## Edog006

Beachman, thanks for the beamshots and your thoughts, I feel you on most of your comments. Is that the M30 also in the last unlabled photo? 

Gbleeker I'm digging the GITD addition for camping and such, great idea. Not sure that would be good for those covert type situations!


----------



## DM51

BeachMan... I have edited your post to remove a number of expletives. Please would you note that this is a family-oriented forum, and strong language is not allowed.


----------



## BeachMan

Edog006 said:


> Is that the M30 also in the last unlabled photo?



In the family shot? Yeah. Big black thing..


----------



## Edog006

Beachman, sorry I was not clear, I meant the last of the beam shots. The one after the labled M30 and before the forest shot.


----------



## BeachMan

Edog006 said:


> Beachman, sorry I was not clear, I meant the last of the beam shots. The one after the labled M30 and before the forest shot.



Oh yeah. M30, exposure time adjusted to be more realistic to what I saw.

The right of the building is what the whole building looked like, light-wise: you can see the text and that there are windows but nothing clearer.

The M30 just lights it up!


----------



## Edog006

Beachman, thanks for the clarification cool beam shots..

Power just went out at my house...now back on I had about an hour of fun. I strapped on my Brunton L5 headlamp with diffuser, and added the M30 to my waist for inspecting the battery sump pump.. This light is fantastic, my neighbor was a little shocked at how bright the M30 was compared to his huge plastic Everyready 6V P.O.S.


----------



## DimeRazorback

This torch really is bright!

I love putting it on high in the middle of the night when the house is pitch black... its just amazing the amount of light it produces!

I love it!


----------



## run4jc

Same here. It's amazing - when I walk my dogs I'll let my eyes adjust to the dark, then click the M30 on with the high setting. Not only does it light up the night, the beam looks very cool coming out of the light!


----------



## selfbuilt

ergotelis said:


> If only it had a more efficient circuit in medium/low without pwm... Then it would be the perfect flashlight!





1dash1 said:


> Selfbuilt's runtime graph doesn't faze me. The human eye is not that sensitive to changes in output. Unless I did a side by side test, I don't think I'd notice the difference in output for the first 45 minutes. And the M30 is still fairly bright (~250L) at the 1:30 hour mark, that's about when I would change batteries if I were using it on high.


While it's true the M30 seems to have some efficiency problems on the lower outputs compared to the competition, I agree this may not be an issue for most. It is still plenty bright for a good length of time (i.e. 9 hours on 18650 on Med), and there is always Low mode to switch for even greater runtime. This is a key point - most of the competition can't go as low as the M30 (although the M1X can go even lower).

The output/runtime efficiency results are here to make of what you will. I don't make any claim that this is the most important feature to consider in a light - I personally think beam characteristics and UI matter most in every day use. But data is data, and it is good to have all the facts.



BeachMan said:


> The right of the building is what the whole building looked like, light-wise: you can see the text and that there are windows but nothing clearer. The M30 just lights it up!


Thanks for the beamshots and perspective. These new MC-E lights are definitely pretty impressive.



Edog006 said:


> This light is fantastic, my neighbor was a little shocked at how bright the M30 was compared to his huge plastic Everyready 6V P.O.S.





run4jc said:


> Not only does it light up the night, the beam looks very cool coming out of the light!


----------



## BeachMan

Was out with the M30.

Since I bought the light to be used tactically, I asked my girlfriend to stand about 2m from me and shine it in my face.

Well, it works. I couldn't look directly at her: I just couldn't see her anywhere behind the light. Holding my hand up against the light or looking down allowed me to see her body and legs respectively.

My conclusion is that the light is an acceptable defense at short range. It should work to blind one assailant at a time.


----------



## TrevorP

selfbuilt said:


> The last of the runtimes has just been added, finally did the 4xCR123A (Duracell):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (hit your browser re-load button if you don't see it).
> 
> Interesting that the time to 50% is the same, but light now exhibits a full regulation pattern (and hence has more output for a longer time). Goes to show you why you need to look at the graphs and not just rely on one time point, like time to 50%.
> 
> I haven't done 4xCR123A runtimes on the other other MC-E lights yet (these Duracells are rather expensive ). But the M30 on Max was one of the best performers on 3xCR123A, so I imagine that pattern will hold.
> 
> A pity that the efficiency of the M30 Med mode is lower than the competition. Based on RCR results posted earlier, it seems like the continuously-variable JetBeam M1X is at least 2.5X more efficient when matched to the same output. And of course, current-controlled lights like the Lumapower MVP are far more efficient than PWM-based lights at these drive levels.



Hi,

From ur graph i notice the runtime for 18650 is longer than 18500. In this instance, why do u and others say 18500 is better for usage with M30? Im quite confused with this part.

Thanks for the advise


----------



## HKJ

TrevorP said:


> Hi,
> 
> From ur graph i notice the runtime for 18650 is longer than 18500. In this instance, why do u and others say 18500 is better for usage with M30? Im quite confused with this part.
> 
> Thanks for the advise



Runtime is not everything, the light is smaller with 2x18500.


3xRCR123 (16340), 3xCR123, 2x18500:







4xCR123, 2x18650:


----------



## selfbuilt

HKJ said:


> Runtime is not everything, the light is smaller with 2x18500.


Yes, that's it exactly - it is simply more convenient to carry the light in the shorter 2x18500 configuration.

Thanks for the comparison shot HKJ.


----------



## JKL

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, that's it exactly - it is simply more convenient to carry the light in the shorter 2x18500 configuration.
> 
> Thanks for the comparison shot HKJ.




I totally agree ! 2x18500 configuration is also my choice.







 jkl said:


> I like the configuration with AW 18500 batteries without extension.


----------



## Edog006

I originally carried mine in the 18650 configuration (with extension tube), but decided the slighlty shorter runtime was accepatable for the size advantage. I bought a total of 4 x 18500s, so when the 2 in run out I can quickly add the 2 fresh ones. So far this makes a heck of a lot more sense then using 18650s. Its like the old Surefire incandesecnts with about 60 minute runtime, but the beauty is dont chuck the batteries - recharge them and save a ton of money. 

Disclaimer...never charge CR123s. I mean only 18500/18650s/RCRs!


----------



## TrevorP

Ohhhh so u guys were referring to the convenience factor. Hmmm but the light i bought from my distributor came with 2x18650 Batts and there was no need for the extension tube. Hmmm???


----------



## DimeRazorback

TrevorP said:


> Ohhhh so u guys were referring to the convenience factor. Hmmm but the light i bought from my distributor came with 2x18650 Batts and there was no need for the extension tube. Hmmm???



Two won't fit without the extension tube...


I use mine with the extension tube.
I have no issues with it being a little longer, mainly because that way it doesn't feel so much like my M20


----------



## TrevorP

Erm im using Lition rechargeables.. and it fits without the extension tube..


----------



## DimeRazorback

I think you mean 18500 lithiums, 18650's physically will not fit.


----------



## easilyled

I'm mystified at the apparent confusion.

The different battery options are explained quite clearly.

Post #101 from HKJ shows nice, clear pictures of the options both with and without the extension tube.


----------



## jhc37013

TrevorP said:


> Ohhhh so u guys were referring to the convenience factor. Hmmm but the light i bought from my distributor came with 2x18650 Batts and there was no need for the extension tube. Hmmm???



Your definitely confusing 18650 with 18500. As mentioned the 18650 do require extender tube.


----------



## Edog006

Yeah has to be a simple mistake 18650s are bigger than 18500s, but if your're using RCR of CR123s they are not the same as 18650s or 18500s. Point is everything you need to know is post 101 showing the what types of batteries go with what M30 configuration


----------



## Edog006

Oh and by the way.. I lost power tonight again at my house for about 3 hours it was fantastic two outages in a week gave me some time to mess with my lights. I found the M30 with the added diffuser in medium mode was fantastic reading light. I actaully found a use for that holster clip. I attached it to a chandlier in the kictched and dangled the M30 with a great smooth diffuse light to read in, was perfect


----------



## MattK

Edog006 said:


> ... it was fantastic two outages in a week gave me some time to mess with my lights.



LOL - only on CPF.


----------



## selfbuilt

Edog006 said:


> ... it was fantastic two outages in a week gave me some time to mess with my lights.





MattK said:


> LOL - only on CPF.





Edog006 said:


> I attached it to a chandlier in the kictched and dangled the M30 with a great smooth diffuse light to read in, was perfect


Actually, that latter part of Edog's post was the part I thought was classic - don't think my wife would approve of it as a permanent addition to any of our chandeliers, though. :laughing:

Thanks for sharing Edog ...


----------



## Edog006

Thanks guys, its funny how when I posted I did not even realize the ridiculousness of the situation or the comments. :laughing:

Matt, I agree - only on CPF would/could this be possible..fantastic site

Selfbuilt, I also agree - dangling the the M30 off a chandelier is quite a sight, and it really ties the room together, but I dont think its gonna fly with the fam!


----------



## berfles

Edog006 said:


> Thanks guys, its funny how when I posted I did not even realize the ridiculousness of the situation or the comments. :laughing:
> 
> Matt, I agree - only on CPF would/could this be possible..fantastic site
> 
> Selfbuilt, I also agree - dangling the the M30 off a chandelier is quite a sight, and it really ties the room together, but I dont think its gonna fly with the fam!




No worries, we've had a few big thunderstorms lately and I've been wishing the power would go out so I could use mine too... That and so I could test my new UPS out for my PC, with my luck I'll never have an outage again.


----------



## MattK

You could always hit the master fuse and pretend it's a blackout....


----------



## selfbuilt

I've just updated the main review with some additional comments in my discusssion. To wit:
_
After playing with all my MC-E lights a little more, I have to say the M30 is growing on me. I quite like the smaller form factor in 2x18500/3xCR123A, as it is not that much bigger or bulkier than a standard 2xCR123A. Some of the other MC-E competition can be a bit difficult to carry. And the spacing of the levels is pretty good in actual use, even if their relative runtime performance is less than the competition. I also like the included diffuser. If the PWM on Lo/Med doesn't bother you (and I still personally think that is a big IF), then this is probably one of the better candidates for an everyday duty/carry light in the MC-E class._

I am still not entirely sanguine about the PWM or circuit performance on Lo/Med modes, but I'm finding the overall build size to be more useful for everyday carry. If Olight could improve those two circuit issues (and maybe trim down the size of the tailcap a little further), then this light would earn an unequivocal :thumbsup:. And if they could make the beam as pretty as the ACE-G, they'd get a real :twothumbs.


----------



## JKL

The portability is a key factor for me...






also for this reason I prefer the M30!











_jkl/klm _


----------



## jhc37013

MattK said:


> You could always hit the master fuse and pretend it's a blackout....



I actually did that one night, told my wife it was a brown out she still don't know i did it on purpose.


----------



## Edog006

jhc37013 said:


> I actually did that one night, told my wife it was a brown out she still don't know i did it on purpose.


 

Ha! I love it, I need to do that at some point!


----------



## TrevorP

Im sorry people.. Been awhile since i logged in.. Sorry about that, indeed i mistook the Battery for 18650..

Anyway before i do my research, since im here, may i ask how do u guys prolong the lifespan of the batteries?

I was told by different people to charge my batts regularly to maintain lifespan and ensure that each time after i use it. Irregardless of the remaining capacity, I`ve to completely drain it and re-charge for usage the next time.

On the other hand, some say not to charge it regularly otherwise the electrons in the battery will get mixed up causing some problem to the batts.

Thanks for the advise  Will start my research now 

Cheers!


----------



## mcm308

I have found out that the metal clip is useless and it bends to easy. It needs to be made better. Is anyone else having a problem with the strobe button not working properly? I am currently running the 123's I had in it and plan to purchase the 18500 batt and charger setup. Do these batts increase output over the standard 123's or just runtime??


----------



## Edog006

mcm308 said:


> I have found out that the metal clip is useless and it bends to easy. It needs to be made better. Is anyone else having a problem with the strobe button not working properly? I am currently running the 123's I had in it and plan to purchase the 18500 batt and charger setup. Do these batts increase output over the standard 123's or just runtime??


 


TrevorP said:


> Anyway before i do my research, since im here, may i ask how do u guys prolong the lifespan of the batteries?
> 
> I was told by different people to charge my batts regularly to maintain lifespan and ensure that each time after i use it. Irregardless of the remaining capacity, I`ve to completely drain it and re-charge for usage the next time.
> 
> On the other hand, some say not to charge it regularly otherwise the electrons in the battery will get mixed up causing some problem to the batts.


 
Well on the issue of runtimes

here is Selfbuilts fantastic relative output vs runtime with different battery configurations graph:








So basically you are getting the same output intially (relatively notcieable to the eye) but better runtimes and regulation with the 18500s and the 18650s. Seemingly it is inadvisable to use CR123s. I use 18650 and 18500s very pleased they last a long time and I own two sets of each. In other words I use 2 18500s or 18650s then have another 2 already charged to pop right in then I charge the discharged ones immediately. So far everything has been smooth with no problems and great runtimes well within range of Selfbuilts review. 

As for maintaing charge and mAh capacity i'll let the experts way in on that. I believe NiMH is where the issue arrises of not fully discharging and shortening battery life or battery "memory" but again I'll let the experts clarify that better

The metal clip I actually find very useful.. but you are not alone in your concerns about its durability, others have noted this. I use it for casual where, but when I need it secured I use the dealextreme holster I bought which i find excellent.

Strobe, I have had no issues. what exactly is happening with your strobe?


----------



## mcm308

The metal clip is very useful and I like it. I wear it on my belt this way. It's just that the slightest snag will bend the clip as I found out when my light went to the pavement. If the clip was beefier like on a good knife.. It would work really well. Now onto the strobe... The button sometimes does not make contact and takes awkward and excessive pressure to get it to work...Sometimes I have to click it a few times to get it to switch modes... Someone else on here had the same problem and his light finally got stuck in low mode...


----------



## selfbuilt

TrevorP said:


> I was told by different people to charge my batts regularly to maintain lifespan and ensure that each time after i use it. Irregardless of the remaining capacity, I`ve to completely drain it and re-charge for usage the next time.
> 
> On the other hand, some say not to charge it regularly otherwise the electrons in the battery will get mixed up causing some problem to the batts.
> 
> Thanks for the advise  Will start my research now


You will find a lot more on this if you search the battery sub-forum - advice is very specific for the battery chemistry in question.

But to put it simply, there is no need to drain Li-ion cells before topping up their charge. There is no "memory effect" for Li-ion like the old NiCd. You can top up as much as you want. In fact, it's probably not good to keep draining down to the low voltage protection cut-off.

Just don't overcharge (i.e. >4.2V resting). And note the long-term storage capcity of Li-ion is best maintained if stored in a relatively low charge state (not so low as to trigger the protection circuit - that would not be good). But it is also not good to store them at full charge either - somewhere in-between is best.


----------



## cbxer55

Well I just ordered one of these from Battery Junction, along with their combo deal charger and two 18500 batterys. Since my current bright light is an older model Surefire U2, I expect this one to blow me away output wise.

If I am impressed, it will become an edc replacing the U2. I also always have my Fenix P1D-CE on me, so the runtime will not be a big issue. The Fenix gets used way more often than the bigger light I carry due to its single-cell arrangement.

I'll let you ll know what I think once I get it. I am not a picture taking guy, so just impressions, no shots, which there are plenty of anyhow.


----------



## DimeRazorback

I'm sure you will be impressed!

The added diffuser is very useful aswell... using the M30 on high with the diffuser is just pure awesome!

:twothumbs


----------



## Edog006

The M30 is amazing... but a little big for EDC use. At least I find it a little big. If you have a utility belt then it will be great, but for the pocket it will be a little large.


----------



## run4jc

cbxer55 said:


> Well I just ordered one of these from Battery Junction, along with their combo deal charger and two 18500 batterys. Since my current bright light is an older model Surefire U2, I expect this one to blow me away output wise.
> 
> If I am impressed, it will become an edc replacing the U2. I also always have my Fenix P1D-CE on me, so the runtime will not be a big issue. The Fenix gets used way more often than the bigger light I carry due to its single-cell arrangement.
> 
> I'll let you ll know what I think once I get it. I am not a picture taking guy, so just impressions, no shots, which there are plenty of anyhow.


Used mine just this morning on the dog walk - I'm strange - I carried my M2XC4 and the M30 - when I want LOOONG throw I use the M2 - when I want to seriously illuminate the area around me and 50 or so feet head, I like the wide, bright spot and awesome spill of the M30. You'll love it - and I use the 18500 batteries as well.


----------



## DimeRazorback

Edog006 said:


> The M30 is amazing... but a little big for EDC use. At least I find it a little big. If you have a utility belt then it will be great, but for the pocket it will be a little large.



I agree with you on the edc idea!
But I know if I had an M6 I would edc it 


:laughing:


----------



## cbxer55

Well I received the M30 this morning. Impressive is all I got to say about this light. I was afraid it would be bigger than it is. I have carried it all day, clipped to my left front pocket, where the U2 used to reside. Did not notice any difference, except for a little extra length sticking up from my pocket. The extra width is not noticable to me.

It is way brighter than the U2 it will replace, lighting up parts of the neighborhood the U2 could only dream of. I do not notice the PWM flickering, even though I did my darnest to see it. I guess I am lucky in that respect, although a lot of other posters here say they do not notice it either.

I am running it on three CR-123 cells currently, as one of the two 18500 Ultrafire cells I received will not take a charge. It reads .44 on the voltmeter, and will not turn on the red light to indicate charging. So a call to Battery junction is in order on Monday morning.

What is the best brand of 18500 battery out there? AW?
Someone clue me in here.


----------



## lightmyway

AW batteries seem to be very popular,great service, fast shipping, great reputation, they have never failed me.


----------



## easilyled

lightmyway said:


> AW batteries seem to be very popular,great service, fast shipping, great reputation, they have never failed me.



+1


----------



## run4jc

I have a fairly new M30 that I am going to give up...please visit this link if interested...
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?p=2344094#post2344094


----------



## cbxer55

Too big for you?

I just got mine and am happy with it. I like that the mid-range 120 lumens is brighter than my old Surefire U2, but last for over nine hours, instead of the one the U2 manages on primaries. 

I have been carrying it clipped inside my left front pocket, and it is not much more noticable than the U2 was. 

This is my first time dealing with rechargable batteries for a flashlight, even though I have boxes and boxes of Surefire primaries. So far I am happy with this as well.

Nah, this is a keeper.


----------



## run4jc

cbxer55 said:


> Too big for you?
> 
> I just got mine and am happy with it. I like that the mid-range 120 lumens is brighter than my old Surefire U2, but last for over nine hours, instead of the one the U2 manages on primaries.
> 
> I have been carrying it clipped inside my left front pocket, and it is not much more noticable than the U2 was.
> 
> This is my first time dealing with rechargable batteries for a flashlight, even though I have boxes and boxes of Surefire primaries. So far I am happy with this as well.
> 
> Nah, this is a keeper.


Nah, not too big. It's a great light! Great size, too. What I have found is that if I want that much power, I carry my Eagletac M2XC4 and REALLy get throw - otherwise the Olight M20 is a favorite. I've been bitten by the Surefire 'bug' and can't justify the $200 expenditure without giving up something. Who knows, if no one bites on the M30 I may get the Surefire AND keep the M30. 

It's a sickness - really - this fascination with these pretty bright lights!

:devil:


----------



## Ozgeardo

Just received my M30 and so far I AM IMPRESSED!
I have been reading all the posts here and took the plunge as this light seemed to tick all my boxes for me. (Thanks everyone)

I do not seem to notice any excessive PWM on the lower modes.
Using 3 x CR123 there was a little but none when using 2 x 18650.
I am thinking 2 x 18500 will be my main power source.

The M30 seems to have good throw (as it should) and I really do like the UI switching. When used overhand it all makes sense to me.

Too be picky (just for the sake of it) The tail switch is very deep in the rear defence bezel which does have some sharp edges (nothing a quick dremel and black paint won't fix). Also noticed a very minor flaw in the reflector (a small bump/bubble about 2mm wide near the glass lens).
This is NOT a big dollar light by comparison and I am not complaining just making observations. 

I can see this animal getting a lot of use and possibly taking up residence in my EDC bag (Kifaru X-ray). :thumbsup:


----------



## JeffInChi

I'm lovin' mine too. I'm interested to see how it would look mounted on an M4 rail or similiar AR frame rifle. Anyone have any pics of something like that?


----------



## Edog006

cbxer55 said:


> One of the two 18500 Ultrafire cells I received will not take a charge. It reads .44 on the voltmeter, and will not turn on the red light to indicate charging. So a call to Battery junction is in order on Monday morning.
> 
> What is the best brand of 18500 battery out there? AW?
> Someone clue me in here.


 

Well I had the exact same problem from batteryjunction/Ultrafire cells. One of my 18500s and one of my 18650s was dead. In both cases neither cell would take a charge. The first time batteryjunction replaced the battery no problem as they should, but the second time I had to pay shipping back (not cool) for a defective battery! Anyway point is, I am no fan of UF batteries, I do not own any AWs, but from what I hear they are great. Batteryjunction was one of my favorite sites up to this incident, now borderline in my book. Oh and good luck with that phone call to batteryjunction, if they make you send it back too let me know, they will go from borderline to flatline immediately.


----------



## cbxer55

Edog006 said:


> Well I had the exact same problem from batteryjunction/Ultrafire cells. One of my 18500s and one of my 18650s was dead. In both cases neither cell would take a charge. The first time batteryjunction replaced the battery no problem as they should, but the second time I had to pay shipping back (not cool) for a defective battery! Anyway point is, I am no fan of UF batteries, I do not own any AWs, but from what I hear they are great. Batteryjunction was one of my favorite sites up to this incident, now borderline in my book. Oh and good luck with that phone call to batteryjunction, if they make you send it back too let me know, they will go from borderline to flatline immediately.


 

Just to let you know, I was able to revive the battery in question, and it has been A-Okay ever since. 

Simply, I took an old wall charger for some odd radio control accessory, cut off the attachment on the end, bared the wires. Then attached bared wires to probes for volt-meter using tie-wraps. Plugged wall charger in, touched wires to end of battery, and watched the volt-meter to see what happened. The voltage immediately jumped to 2.5 volts and started climbing. When it reached 3.0 volts after a few seconds, I placed the battery in the charger, the light turned red and started blinking. It eventually reached the same end voltage as the other cell I received.

So far, both cells are charging properly, and both read the same 4.21 volts when the flashing red light turns green.

So I have no complaints with Battery Junction as of yet.

Here is the link to the thread I posted about the battery.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/239471


----------



## Edog006

Thanks for the info Cbxer55. I just hope I didn't discard the 18650 I did not sent back. BJ only asked I return the 18500, but I will give the strategy a shot to the 18650 if I can find it. I'll let everyone know if I get it to work/find it


----------



## stallion2

Ozgeardo said:


> Just received my M30 and so far I AM IMPRESSED!
> I have been reading all the posts here and took the plunge as this light seemed to tick all my boxes for me. (Thanks everyone)
> 
> I do not seem to notice any excessive PWM on the lower modes.
> Using 3 x CR123 there was a little but none when using 2 x 18650.
> I am thinking 2 x 18500 will be my main power source.
> 
> The M30 seems to have good throw (as it should) and I really do like the UI switching. When used overhand it all makes sense to me.
> 
> Too be picky (just for the sake of it) The tail switch is very deep in the rear defence bezel which does have some sharp edges (nothing a quick dremel and black paint won't fix). Also noticed a very minor flaw in the reflector (a small bump/bubble about 2mm wide near the glass lens).
> This is NOT a big dollar light by comparison and I am not complaining just making observations.
> 
> I can see this animal getting a lot of use and possibly taking up residence in my EDC bag (Kifaru X-ray). :thumbsup:


 

it might be too late to stop you now but the M30 has no lockout. that bezel is really the only thing keeping your light from coming on if it were to be bumped while in a duffle bag


----------



## Billy Ram

I have been enjoying my M30. It's not too large to be handy and has a noticable larger beam than my M20. "Handy outdoors when you need to illuminate a larger area." My wife seems to like this light too and picks it up most of the time. About the only thing I don't like about it is when the batterys need changing. 4 ea. cr123s at a time cut into my battery supply a bit more than the other lights that only use 2 ea. So I think I'll be looking at rechargables.
Billy


----------



## WHT_GE8

I want this light... Mostly for the flood with the diffuser. Although I just purchased an M1X so im a little  The M1X sure can throw though :twothumbs


----------



## cbxer55

Billy Ram said:


> I have been enjoying my M30. It's not too large to be handy and has a noticable larger beam than my M20. "Handy outdoors when you need to illuminate a larger area." My wife seems to like this light too and picks it up most of the time. About the only thing I don't like about it is when the batterys need changing. 4 ea. cr123s at a time cut into my battery supply a bit more than the other lights that only use 2 ea. So I think I'll be looking at rechargables.
> Billy


 
I highly recommend you get this set up. In the end it will save you on battery costs. I use this set-up and usually only have to charge mine once a week. Of course I am not using the heck out of it, a few mnutes a day here and there. Still this set-up allows you to run the light without the extension, which makes it easier to EDC, which I do.
http://www.batteryjunction.com/combo-tl100.html
And I keep three 123s in the supplied battery tube as an emergency back-up. Have not had to use them yet!


----------



## cbxer55

WHT_GE8 said:


> I want this light... Mostly for the flood with the diffuser. Although I just purchased an M1X so im a little  The M1X sure can throw though :twothumbs


 
This light has plenty of flood without the diffuser. I had mine outside the other night when it was soup-thick foggy. WOW! Stood it on my mailbox and walked back 50 feet. Big wide inverted cone in the fog. A person that happened to be walking by asked what kind of light it was and where could she get one.:thumbsup:

She was impressed with the output for "such a small light!"


----------



## Larry237

Billy Ram said:


> I have been enjoying my M30. It's not too large to be handy and has a noticable larger beam than my M20. "Handy outdoors when you need to illuminate a larger area." My wife seems to like this light too and picks it up most of the time. About the only thing I don't like about it is when the batterys need changing. 4 ea. cr123s at a time cut into my battery supply a bit more than the other lights that only use 2 ea. So I think I'll be looking at rechargables.
> Billy


 
I use two 18500's (rechargeable) in mine and it runs quite a while on them, 3 or more nights on long walks. I don't have to use the extension tube, like I would with 2 18650's. When you use the rechargeables, you can charge frequently, and you have fully charged batteries as often as you like. My M30 is used regularly and it has functioned very well, putting out the wall of light, as well as very low level, when I want.


----------



## Billy Ram

cbxer55 said:


> I highly recommend you get this set up. In the end it will save you on battery costs. I use this set-up and usually only have to charge mine once a week. Of course I am not using the heck out of it, a few mnutes a day here and there. Still this set-up allows you to run the light without the extension, which makes it easier to EDC, which I do.
> http://www.batteryjunction.com/combo-tl100.html
> And I keep three 123s in the supplied battery tube as an emergency back-up. Have not had to use them yet!


 I tried carrying the light with out the extension tube with 3xcr123s to see if it was a bit handier but it didn't make much differance. So I ordered the WF-139 charger and some AW 18650 protected 2600mah batterys. The batterys came with just under 4 volts and the charger didn't take long to get the voltage up to 4.2 volts. I have four 18650 batterys so I can throw in a fresh pair after much use.
Billy


----------



## cbxer55

Whatever works for ya. I carry mine cliiped to my left front pocket, so the extra length is a problem when sitting. So for now I choose the short route, as it is not much longer than the Surefire U2 I previously edced.
If I was carrying it on my belt I would go the long route. I just have not found what I consider a good belt carrier. I do not like the one provided with the light, it is kind of flimsy, and hard to get the light in and out of handily.

I am still looking forward to Battery Junction getting the new tailcdaps without the crennalations.:thumbsup:


----------



## Billy Ram

I have several smaller lights when I want something to fit in my pocket. With the big head the M30 has it just didn't make much differance in ballance or handiness to leave the extension off to me. To me the Surefires have the best feel and ballance. One of my favorite is a plain old L5 but when I need a bunch of light I grab the M30. 
Billy


----------



## Sunnyvalejohn

Thanks for the great review! Really impressed with the level of detail. Based on this I was able to determine some of the tradeoffs/differences. I am a newbie here and just bought 2 --M30s. Love them! Sold one to a friend as he was pretty impressed as well. I can tell this is going to be a fun hobby! (I also picked up a Fenix PD30)

Cheers,
John


----------



## carrot

I have to say, I just got one of these and I am very impressed. I can almost instantly recognize the PWM on the lower modes but I can't see any of it on high. On low, it is not as bothersome as a lot of popular lights that I can't be bothered to remember. On medium it is a little annoying if you're moving quickly (room clearing maybe) but otherwise ignorable. In either case, both of the lower modes are usable, but if I want low output I have plenty of lights that can do that.

In any case, all of this is moot, since I got it purely for the high mode, which is excellent and quite stunning. It certainly does have good throw, although perhaps not as good as those being compared to it, it packs quite a punch and I rather like the large hotspot that it throws, which is very useful. All the accessories are a nice touch. I can see the Olight M30 Triton and I having some good adventures together, especially once I pick up some 18650's to use with it.


----------



## enots

1. Does the M30 have enough throw to light up a person for identification from 100 yards?

2. Has the flicker / PWM issue been fixed on more recently manufactured Olight M30's?


----------



## easilyled

enots said:


> 1. Does the M30 have enough throw to light up a person for identification from 100 yards?



Yes.



enots said:


> 2. Has the flicker / PWM issue been fixed on more recently manufactured Olight M30's?



I don't believe the PWM is an "issue" for most people and I don't think there have been any changes.


----------



## jhn.holgate

Hi Guys, just wanted to say thanks for the detailed review and all the additional info on this light. Purchased an M30 the other day and am very pleased with it. Good combination of spot and spill - I can light up rabbits/foxes at close to 100 yards with plenty of spill to see what's around me. I can see what you mean about the pwm when I shine it on something moving (windmill/wind toy/insects) or wave my hand infront of the beam, but in general use it just is not a problem. The side button is a little hard to locate to switch between modes but it's certainly an impressive light. 

Many thanks,

John


----------



## jhn.holgate

After maybe an hour or so of use over a few nights with the M30 on 3 x CR123's, the light suddenly switched to low mode. I turned it off for a bit, back on (in low) then turned it up to high and after a minute, it went back to low. I measured the battery 'pack' at 6.7volts or so shortly afterwards. 

Am I correct in assuming that this is protective circuitry kicking in to prevent over discharge of li-ion cells? I can find no mention of it in Olight's literature.

Also, is there any danger in over discharging lithium primary cells? (123's)

Have been so impressed with this light, I've ordered an M20 as well. I have absolutely no use for yet another flashlight.....but I guess I'm not alone there....!


----------



## selfbuilt

jhn.holgate said:


> After maybe an hour or so of use over a few nights with the M30 on 3 x CR123's, the light suddenly switched to low mode. I turned it off for a bit, back on (in low) then turned it up to high and after a minute, it went back to low. I measured the battery 'pack' at 6.7volts or so shortly afterwards.
> ... Also, is there any danger in over discharging lithium primary cells? (123's)


This is fairly common on a number of lights. I didn't elicit it in my testing, since I do continuous runs until the batteries are drained. But in the real world, where batteries are slowly drained through repeated on-off use, you often get to a point the light will not stay in the Hi mode upon re-illumination. This is normal, and simply reflects the fact that the batteries cannot provide the necessary current when placed under load (i.e. it is the circuit's response to insufficient power at startup).

As for primary CR123A lithium cells, you can't really "over-discharge" them (in the sense of Li-ion, where you can permanently damage their recharge ability if the voltage drops too low). It is generally safe to drain a CR123A until it is are dead, but I _strongly_ recommend against doing this in multi-cell setups (i.e. toss them once you start to see a drop-off, and never mix-and-match partially drained batteries). 

The problem is that different cells may have different capacities left, and you can get into a situation where one cell is being tasked with doing far too much work. This is where the danger of primary cells comes into play - single-cell setups are generally quite safe, but virtually all incidents of "venting with flame" have come from multi-cell setups where current was being drawn from batteries in an unequal state. It is also why you want to make sure you are always using brand new matching batteries from the same manufacturer (and same lot), and why you should store your lights in a locked-out state.

Some members like to use nearly dead CR123A batteries from multi-cell lights in low output single-cell lights (i.e. so-called "battery vampires", that can safely drain the rest of the remaining juice). :shrug: Personally, I prefer to immediately (and properly) dispose of nearly dead CR123As.


----------



## jhn.holgate

Thanks for the detailed reply Selfbuilt. :thumbsup:


----------



## chris monster

you review is awesome mister selfbuild!
i have a big question!? :laughing:

we run a photographers-forum
called www.talkurbex.com
and i buyed the m30 for about one week now.
and on our forum everybody asks me to write a review about.
but i aint have the time to do so. 

now i wanted to ask if i could use a copy of your preview.
of course i but your name as first and really big! :twothumbs and a link to the source!
this would be really cool.???:thumbsup::twothumbs

i know its not a job for about 2 minutes to write such an awesome preview. and you really can be proud of it! :twothumbs
please let me know what you think and dont be mad at me if you dont like it!:sigh:

would be a good promotion too, as wee have many torchusers on the forum.

please,please,please!

well greetings from vienna!

and thank you in advance!
chris


----------



## selfbuilt

chris monster said:


> now i wanted to ask if i could use a copy of your preview.
> of course i but your name as first and really big! :twothumbs and a link to the source!
> this would be really cool.???:thumbsup::twothumbs


Thanks for checking with me first. I am glad you enjoy the review, but I do not give permission to anyone to reproduce my review text on other sites. 

But of course, please feel free to link to review here. :thumbsup:

As the content copyright holder, my intention is to keep CPF as the sole repository for the reviews - and all the discussions which ensue. I actually think the discussions are an incredibly valuable resource, which is why I post my reviews here and not on a separate website. I also periodically update and revise the reviews, so don't want various versions of my text floating around out there.

I appreciate the support - but I think a link to CPF is the best way to go.


----------



## Quick Witted

I purchased the M30 because of the great review here. I have not been disappointed by the light or the performance. It is unbelievably bright and lights up a huge area when compared to other flashlights I work around all the time.

The PWM does not bother me when in normal use, and I use each of the settings as needed. 

It does affect pictures with digital cameras on low and medium settings. I was taking high detailed photographs and the lower light settings could be seen on the digital image of the camera. I had to have the flashlight on high and further away from the primary object to get the camera shots I needed. The photos were close-ups.

Other than using it as an alternate light source for digital photography, which has been the only slight hiccup with the light, I am thoroughly impressed with the light over all.

I am a flashlight novice and a digital photography novice as well. I am sure there is probably a better light for close up photos, but the M30 is a great light and I adapted the angle to get it to work just fine.

(When I get the money, I will get an M20 with the same interface)


----------



## viciousGLOCK40

*The runtime on 2x18650s is what made me stop using this light. I was only getting 35 min max. The dealer lives about 10 min away from my house and I have met with him several times, he has been great to me. I had problems with noise from the circuitry in the M30. I am a police officer and the high pitched dog whistle type sound was distracting at work. The dealer gave me a completely new light. Next, I had the problems with runtime. He gave me free CR123s and a total of (4) 18650s. I have had the light for almost 2 years now and harldy use it. All batteries have been cycled multiple times with the same result.

I use a Pelican 8060 as my primary light so I can tuck it under my arm while talking to people. This light is awesome all around. Our K9 took it out of my hand and chewed on it..it still works great with no serious marks on it. I always throw it back in the car, knock on doors etc... I'll buy another if need be.

I am now in the market for a Surefire R1 Lawman. This will be used for general everyday use for hopefully years and years to come. I just need to find a good deal
*


----------



## selfbuilt

viciousGLOCK40 said:


> *The runtime on 2x18650s is what made me stop using this light. I was only getting 35 min max. *


*
Something is definitely wrong with that light or the batteries - you should be getting three times that runtime, even on the lower capacity 18650s (more like four times with modern 18650).

In any case, this review is three years old now (time flies!), and there are much better lights on the market now for LEO work. If you check out my chronological list of reviews, and look at the Searchlights and the CR123A/18650 categories, you'll see dozens of newer lights tested since the M30.*


----------



## Ozgeardo

I have been using my M30 for several years, I run it in the 2 x 18500 configuration and I usually get heaps of run time (well in excess of 1/2 hour) on high, I have never have had any noise from the circuitry. I still love using it with the diffuser lens. Whilst I now have many other bigger brighter lights including a SR90 this is still my favorite light for giving various night navigation briefs and training. It lives with my training gear and I have no intention of replacing it for its current role.


----------



## viciousGLOCK40

Selfbuilt, I have hi cap li ions that the dealer gave me. I just got my SF R1 Lawman so i'm selling the M30. Im not buying another olight or any other lights for a long time now...i have plenty quality duty lights. I went through 4 different sets of batteries, 2 different chargers and had several m30s...it just wasnt working out so I went with SureFire.


----------



## zs&tas

Is anyone still using thier M30 ? ive always wanted one and i know they are old hat but im still thinking of giving it a try ? I have a M22, M20sxl2, M20sxpg2 i think i might be able to rotate it somewhere in there .........


----------



## walterr839

I have one in the entryway and use all the time. Mostly with the diffuser around the house. It was my first serious LED light


----------



## zs&tas

walterr839 said:


> I have one in the entryway and use all the time. Mostly with the diffuser around the house. It was my first serious LED light



Do you have something that others or on paper is 'better' but still grab the M30 ?


----------



## Ozgeardo

Yes I am still using my M30.
It is the only light I have that can use the 6 x (3 x pairs) 18500 batts that I have. _I like to use it in the short format_.
Batteries aside this light lives in one of my BOB bags with one spare set of batteries.
I often use this light when instructing and often use the diffuser to provide more than adequate light for numerous scenarios.

One of my work colleagues also bought one and I know he still regularly uses it when out walking his dogs.

I to also have many other lights but this one is still earning is keep.
I have even lent it out a few times and it has always come back with very impressed "newbies" to the world of illumination :thumbsup:


----------



## Billy Ram

Mine rides in my truck door pocket loaded with two 18650s. Seen plenty of hard use and still ready for more.
Billy


----------



## walterr839

I too like to run short mode with 18500's. It feels nice in my hand. It stands next to a Vinh modded TK 70. 
I wish the mode switch was near the head rather than the tail


----------



## Climb14er

zs&tas said:


> Is anyone still using thier M30 ? ive always wanted one and i know they are old hat but im still thinking of giving it a try ? I have a M22, M20sxl2, M20sxpg2 i think i might be able to rotate it somewhere in there .........



I came across this review when one of my good friends saw this light at my house and I forwarded it to him.

This light is STILL my primary bedside light, backed up by a ZL SC600. I share this with the forum because 'older technology' still works VERY WELL! Fresh 18650 batteries are always in this light and when I travel on the road, I take this light along with the SC600 and a personal SC52.

Like I said, 'older tech' still works as well ... now... just as the day I bought it.


----------



## Ozgeardo

Yes still using my M30.
It lives in the top pocket of my Kifaru XRay (Gen1).
I still have 3 x pairs of 18500 batts and use the M30 in the short format.
1 x pair of batts in service - 1 x pair spare in my bag and 1 x pair at home. All batts still performing well and holding charge etc after 7 years?
I still often use my M30 with the diffuser for delivering navigation briefings & lessons in the field. 
Occasionally I still use as a thrower but I must admit I now have other lights that throw much further.
I have no reason to think that I will be replacing it any time soon.
Cheers


----------

