# ITP C6/C6T Review: Interesting new lights - RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, etc.



## selfbuilt (Jul 21, 2008)

_*Reviewer's Note: *This is a comparison review of two versions of the C6 flashlight model from new manufacturer iTP. Please see their Manufacturer's thread in CPFM. The flashlights were provided by iTP for review._

*Warning: Pic heavy!*

*Part I: Build Overview*







iTP is a new entry into the flashlight business, and the C6 series is their first offering here at CPF. These multi-power lights feature continuously-variable output levels and come in two variants that share basically with the same build - the C6T (Tactical) comes with a forward clicky and lacks the strobe/SOS modes (which are accessed by soft-pressing the reverse clicky on the regular C6 model). A smooth or OP textured reflector is available for either version. For full detailed specs, please check out the box label pics or visit iTP's Manufacturer's thread in CPFM 











The packaging is identical for the two C6 variants. Inside the box, wrapped in individual plastic pouches, are the light with attached wrist strap, a package of spare o-rings and extra tailcap cover, and a carrying pouch. Quality of the pouch is pretty good, but the quality of the wrist strap is consistent with budget lights. I'd recommend they provide a better one.  Instructions for use are on the back of the box:





















Design is interesting, with the "pineapple" body and tailcap grip ring. Both work well to help improve grip, and the light is well-balanced and comfortable to hold in any format, including cigar-grip fashion. I find the shape of the head to be a little uninspiring, but the texture ring does help for grip (you twist the head to activate the ramp). Both lights come with a scalloped bezel. Fit and finish is good on my samples, with clear lettering and type III hard anodizing (according to the manufacturer). 






Both lights use a Cree Q5 emitter, and are available with either of the two reflectors shown above. Both of my lights came with the standard "yellow" backed Crees (as opposed to the asian "silver" ones). Texturing on the OP reflector is heavier than on most lights, producing a beam pattern that is virtually devoid of rings. Of course, this also greatly reduces max throw compared to the smooth reflector.














As you can see, spillbeam profile is a little square at close range due to the four-corner scalloping of the bezel (beamshots taken at ~0.5m from a white wall). I'd recommend iTP shorten the bezel to reduce this. Harder to see in the pics, but the smooth reflector is quite ringy (like most throwers). The heavy OP textured reflector produces a very smooth beam profile - it's actually somewhat SSC-like in its beam pattern. 

IMO, this is a point in iTP's favour - many vendors sell lightly textured OP reflectors that don't really help with Cree rings, but still reduce throw. If you are going to offer both smooth and textured reflectors, probably best to go with a heavier texture like this one. If you are only going to offer a single reflector, a light OP makes sense to me (i.e. intermediate solution). Just my $0.02. 











Overall build quality of the light seems quite good. Weight is a respectable 154g. Reflector and emitter assembly are easily accessible. Body tube comes with anodized tailcap threads, so tailcap lock-out is available on both models. :thumbsup:











Tailcaps are pretty much identical except for the greatly protruding forward clicky on the C6T (Tactical) version. Both switches have good tactile feel, and are easy to access. Note that tailcap cover on the regular reverse-clicky C6 version protrudes slightly, preventing tailstanding (the forward clicky certainly can't tailstand).

*Features and User Interface*

User interface is interesting. As mentioned before, the difference between the two lights is that the C6T (Tactical) comes with a forward clicky and lacks the strobe/SOS modes (which are accessed by soft-pressing the reverse clicky on the regular C6 model). Both lights share the same continuously-variable ramping mechanism (scroll down to Part II to see a time comparison of the C6 ramp to other lights).

The UI is straight-forward - turn the light on/off by pressing the tailcap clicky (press for momentary-on in the tactical version, press and click for sustained on in both). 

To activate the ramp, simply loosen the head slightly. This immediately starts the output ramping (to reverse the direction of the ramp, tighten and loosen again). When the light reaches the level you like, simply tighten the head to memorize that setting. This is actually quite a smart design, very intuitive. There's no need to perform a rapid "switch" within a narrow time-window, and you don't need to turn the light off to save the setting (i.e. as in the original NiteCore offerings). Simply loosen to ramp, tighten to save the setting. The light flashes 3 times briefly to let you know when you have reached the min or max of the ramp.

On the regular version, soft-press the clicky (or click off/on quickly) to advance to strobe and then SOS modes. Strobe is set to 9.6Hz on my sample. Note that both strobe and SOS are always set at max brightness - the ramp doesn't work in these modes.

The lights uses PWM for low modes, and the frequency is high enough so that I was unable to detect it by eye or my setup. The output/runtime efficiency is also surprisingly good for this circuit - scroll down to my runtime comparisons for more info. 

One minor quibble - on turning on my reverse-clicky C6, I notice there's a brief flash of low output before the light jumps to whatever output level you have set it at. Sort of the opposite of the high output flash that some Fenix models use to have. Just an observation - note my C6T doesn't show this behaviour. Not a big deal to me.

Note also that the light comes with reverse polarity protection. I've tested it, and it seems to work well. :thumbsup:

*Part II: Comparison Review*

For comparisons, I've chosen (from left to right): the iTP C6, iTP C6T, JetBeam Jet-III PRO IBS, Romisen RC-M4 P-60 host (with DealExtreme sku.11074 continuously-variable drop-in), Regalight WT-1, Dereelight DBS V2 with continuously-variably DI pill (not shown), and the Fenix T1 (not shown).






The most obvious comparisons are to the continuously-variable competition (i.e. Jet-III PRO IBS, DBS DI-pill, DX sku.11074 drop-in for P-60 hosts). However, unlike those lights, the iTP C6 has a multi-power circuit that allows you to run 2xCR123A and 2xRCR in addition to 1x18650 (the other 3 lights are all 18650-only). The Regal WT1 is a multi-power light, but uses a resistor for its low mode (not variable). And the Fenix T1 is a two-mode only light that is current-controlled for its low mode and doesn't take single Li-ions. Keep those caveats in mind as we compare apples-to-oranges here ... 

*Weights:*
iTP C6/C6T: 154g
Jet-III PRO IBS: 107g
Romisen RC-M4: 87g
Regal WT1: 134g
DBS V2: 194g

*Comparison Beamshots*

All lights are on max/100% on 18650 (AW Protected), about 0.5 meters from a white wall. 




























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

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

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






As you can see, the overall characteristics of the C6s are pretty similar to their other continuously-variable competition (Jet-III, DBS DI-pill, DX sku.11074 drop-in for P-60 hosts). Max throw is roughly comparable to the Regal WT1, with both using smooth reflectors. The OP textured reflector for the C6 greatly reduces throw.

*Variable Output Ramping*






As you can see, the C6 ramp is relatively linear and faster than most of the competition. The light flashes 3 times rapidly to let you know when it has reached the end of its ramp (either min or max).

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*























*Output/Runtime Pattern:*

If you just looked at the Max output runs, you might be disappointed to see the standard direct-drive pattern of the C6s on 18650. But first appearances can be deceiving in this case. A few points to keep in mind: 

Unlike the continuously-variable competition, the iTP lights are multi-power and fully regulated on 2xCR123A and 2xRCR.
The C6 is regulated at lower output modes on 18650 - until the battery is nearly exhausted and then it drops out of regulation. An advantage to this pattern is that you don't suddenly hit the battery protection circuit without warning - you have a long period of declining low output light first.
C6 lights feature a low voltage warning flash (i.e. all the spiky noise at the ends of the traces). This is a rapid triple flash of the light (similar to the max and min flash at the ends of the ramp). It occurs at a freq of ~6 secs once the low voltage trigger is reached. Personally, I find this a bit superfluous, since the lower output tells you that you are out of regulation and thus nearing the end of useful battery life.
Max output seems a little lower than some of the lights tested here, but with corresponding longer runtime. The max output/runtime variation between my two samples likely just reflects Vf differences between the emitters (which would be expected to have a significant impact when direct-driven).
*Output/Runtime Efficiency:*

*Personally, I was pretty blown away by the Medium runtime test on 18650.* As you can see, the 18650-only DX 11074 drop-in has roughly equivalent output/runtime as the DBS DI pill (also 18650-only). The JetBeam IBS circuit (which has a higher burden since it also has to support lower voltage standard alkaline/NiMH batteries in the Jet-I/II format) pulls ahead with a significant increase in runtime. But the C6s just blows right past even the IBS!  Frankly, this is remarkable performance for a multi-power setup that can also handle 2xCR123A and 2xRCR in fully-regulated fashion. :twothumbs

On primaries, the C6s don't do quite as well as the current-controlled low mode of the Fenix T1, but that's hardly surprising in PWM-based lights like the C6s. And again, keep in mind the T1 only has a single defined low mode (and isn't compatible with single Li-ions). Unfortunately, I don't have the newer multi-power TK10 or TK11 to compare.

*Part III: Preliminary Discussion*

*General Observations*

The C6s are the first offerings by iTP here on CPF, and they have a lot going for them. These are actually the first lights with continuously-variable circuits that I've tested that also feature regulated multi-power compatibility.

Build is interesting. I personally like the "pineapple" body design and built-in grip ring. Option for both smooth and textured reflectors, and both forward and reverse clickies (albeit with strobe/SOS feature only with the reverse clicky) adds to versatility. The textured reflector does a great job of reducing rings, but at the expense of throw. Anodized tailcap threads are also a plus. :kiss:

But there are some minor tweaks that would make these lights even better (e.g. tailstanding in the reverse clicky model, shortened bezel to reduce square beam effect, better wrist lanyard, etc.). Personal preference again, but I find the head of the unit looks fairly plain in comparison to the stylish and functional battery tube/tailcap. At the end of the day, build quality is definitely better than any of the inexpensive DX/Kai lights, through not quite up to the standard of some of the more established (and expensive) makers here. But they definitely seem like good value for the money. 

User interface is good IMO - very simple and straight-forward. No need for multiple clicks or twist switches in short periods of time. Just loosen to ramp, tighten to save. Can't get much simpler than that. 

But the most impressive thing for me is the output/runtime pattern. Although some may decry the direct-drive characteristics of these lights on max on 18650, this actually has some significant advantages at lower output levels. Simply put, *output/runtime efficiency on 18650 is better than any of the other continuously-variable 18650-only lights tested here.*  

You also get a long "moon mode" of reduced output on 18650 before the protection circuit kicks in (although with the low voltage flash during most of this low-mode time). I let it run for ~12 hours on one test, and it was still producing light without triggering the protection circuit. Oh, and did I mention they are multi-power circuits that take 2xCR123A and 2xRCR in a regulated fashion? 

As you can probably tell, I'm quite impressed for a first offering. With some tweaks and thoughtful built improvements, I expect these lights will be serious contenders here.


----------



## Crenshaw (Jul 22, 2008)

THats a pretty interesting review....

I had not expected these lights to offer much to the world of flashlights, but they look good from there. They also seem to be pretty decent throwers! and edge out the fenix T1 in output. THe C6T look really really bright! i have to saw that they look, MEAN in that picture of them next to the jebeam and reglight.

Crenshaw


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 22, 2008)

Crenshaw said:


> I had not expected these lights to offer much to the world of flashlights, but they look good from there.


Agreed - I was quite pleasantly surprised with their performance. FYI, I've just updated the main text with some additional points and clarifications.

I personally quite like the fact that they drop out of regulation on 2xCR123A and 18650 near the end of their runs - giving you a prolonged "moon mode". I let one 18650 run go for ~12 hours, and it was still producing measurable light without triggering the protection circuit.  All of which is another reason why I don't find the low voltage warning flash very useful, since you might want to take advantage of this low mode.

FYI, ITP is eager to get feedback from CPF, so I encourage everyone to join in on any other aspects they would like to discuss.


----------



## I came to the light... (Jul 22, 2008)

Thanks for the great review :thumbsup: From the information, these lights amaze me too, mostly because they seem to have the most versatile fully adjustable circuit to date  

I agree that there are just a few problems that need fixing, but not quite on which. Most importantly, I think they could have a truly revolutionary circuit if they could regulate 18650s on high levels without sacraficing anything about their current circuit. Second, tailstanding for the regular version would be nice, because the tailcap design seems like it wouldn't make it too hard to press. However, I don't think the bezel should be shorter. The increased length protects the lens more, a huge plus for me. And its effect isn't nearly as bad a some lights (*cough* nitecore *cough*). 

BTW, the scale in the 18650 max output graph is messed up. just a heads up 



Crenshaw said:


> ...and edge out the fenix T1 in output. ...


 
I see the opposite - which graph are you referring to? Or are you talking about throw?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 22, 2008)

> BTW, the scale in the 18650 max output graph is messed up. just a heads up


Thanks, just fixed it. Excel likes to drop scale digits every now and then, for no apparent reason. Usually I catch it, but a few sometimes slip by.



I came to the light... said:


> I agree that there are just a few problems that need fixing, but not quite on which. Most importantly, I think they could have a truly revolutionary circuit if they could regulate 18650s on high levels without sacraficing anything about their current circuit. Second, tailstanding for the regular version would be nice, because the tailcap design seems like it wouldn't make it too hard to press. However, I don't think the bezel should be shorter. The increased length protects the lens more, a huge plus for me. And its effect isn't nearly as bad a some lights (*cough* nitecore *cough*).


Thanks for the comments, I see where you are coming from. Personally, I don't mind the direct drive on 18650 on max (since internal battery resistance provides a fairly good form of decent regulation on its own, and this is certainly a very efficient setup). But it's good to get everyone's feedback on new lights like this, to help the manufacturer move ahead.

Keep 'em coming everyone ...

P.S.: and I agree with Crenshaw, these lights do look mean - in a good way, of course!


----------



## Crenshaw (Jul 22, 2008)

I came to the light... said:


> Thanks for the great review :thumbsup: From the information, these lights amaze me too, mostly because they seem to have the most versatile fully adjustable circuit to date
> 
> I agree that there are just a few problems that need fixing, but not quite on which. Most importantly, I think they could have a truly revolutionary circuit if they could regulate 18650s on high levels without sacraficing anything about their current circuit. Second, tailstanding for the regular version would be nice, because the tailcap design seems like it wouldn't make it too hard to press. However, I don't think the bezel should be shorter. The increased length protects the lens more, a huge plus for me. And its effect isn't nearly as bad a some lights (*cough* nitecore *cough*).
> 
> ...


Oops, yes i mean throw.  

Crenshaw


----------



## phantom23 (Jul 22, 2008)

But better regulated (or regulated at all) max mode would be nice.


----------



## I came to the light... (Jul 22, 2008)

Crenshaw said:


> Oops, yes i mean throw.
> 
> Crenshaw


 
lol, then I'd call it killing, not edging out


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 22, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> But better regulated (or regulated at all) max mode would be nice.


I suspect you are not alone there. 

I'm probably an anomaly at being ok with the current circuit. If it came down to sacrificing full regulation on max for excellent regulation and efficiency on lower modes, I would make that trade. But I know not everyone else would, so its good for ITP to get the feedback of what matters most to users.


----------



## TDKKP (Jul 23, 2008)

I was their first customer of the ITP C6T and I love it a lot. The UI is my favor EXTREMELY SIMPLE. I have quite a few user defined lights such as Novatac, MPJ Extreme III, Nitecore, Jetbeam ... with all twists/turn or clicking in a very short time and this ITP C6T is on top of all those lights about UI. And because its ramp is very quick so most of the time I just use min and max.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 24, 2008)

TDKKP said:


> I was their first customer of the ITP C6T and I love it a lot. The UI is my favor EXTREMELY SIMPLE. ... And because its ramp is very quick so most of the time I just use min and max.


Good points - the UI is a model of simplicity, very well done. I'm surprised no one else thought to go for such a straightforward mechanism to activate a ramp (i.e. no messy rapid switching or multiple clicking needed). The quick ramp should also be very popular with members here.  

Nice to see ITP is introducing themselves well to the CPF community with a member discount on their first offering. :thumbsup: It's an attractive package for the price. They are also very keen to get member feedback, which is another point in their favour.


----------



## Gunner12 (Jul 24, 2008)

I'm surprised at how close I got to the lux numbers by guessing. The OP does seem to be more textured then most and my guess there was off.

Looks like a good light with good design and though put into it. Price is good too.

Thanks for the review!


----------



## ss3 (Jul 28, 2008)

Great reviews,thanks,selfbuilt.:twothumbs
Good feature for protection reverse-polarity,sometimes,I put the battery for wrong polarity,:shrug:
I love iTP first model!


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 30, 2008)

ss3 said:


> Good feature for protection reverse-polarity,sometimes,I put the battery for wrong polarity,:shrug:


Yes, it's good to see manufacturer's finally paying attention to this. Kudos to ITP for starting right out of the gate with reverse polarity protection.


----------



## TDKKP (Aug 3, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, it's good to see manufacturer's finally paying attention to this. Kudos to ITP for starting right out of the gate with reverse polarity protection.


 

+1.

This C6 impresses me a lot. The look is similar to Surefire M6, isn't it?

And I just discovered a new "feature" you can read it here.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 6, 2008)

TDKKP said:


> This C6 impresses me a lot. The look is similar to Surefire M6, isn't it?


FYI, ITP has just announced their new 1xCR123A light:
**Pre-order** iTP C9 light(Beautiful bullet model)

Pre-order price seems pretty good, based on the performance of the C6.


----------



## lightbug (Aug 6, 2008)

Hi Guys,

I have the ITP C6 Tactical version on my website if any of you are interested. 

http://www.shiningbeam.com/servlet/the-70/ITP-C6-Tactical-Edition/Detail


----------



## jirik_cz (Oct 2, 2008)

I've finally got my hands on ITP C6T and I'm impressed. The UI is so simple and easy to use. Clearly the best from all continuously-variable lights. Great job ITP!


----------



## jirik_cz (Oct 14, 2008)

Did they make any changes to the circuit? The one I had has flat regulation with 18650 and no low battery warning. I've repeated the runtime test twice to be sure.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 14, 2008)

jirik_cz said:


> Did they make any changes to the circuit? The one I had has flat regulation with 18650 and no low battery warning. I've repeated the runtime test twice to be sure.


ITP had mentioned to me that they were planning to removed the low battery warning on their C7/C8/C9 series lights - looks like they have also done it for the C6 series. :thumbsup:

The regulation on 18650 is surprising for a multi-power setup. Although you are using different batteries, your 18650 runtime is a lot shorter than mine, consistent with the higher regulated output you've found. Are you using a home-made lightbox or center throw for runtimes?


----------



## jirik_cz (Oct 14, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> Are you using a home-made lightbox or center throw for runtimes?



I use camera built in exposure meter https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/209202 (post 9 and 13). It is good for measuring runtimes but I can't measure center throw or overall brightness.


----------



## Long RunTime (Jan 4, 2009)

With this good UI, I Wish they used P7 instead for this light.


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Mar 18, 2009)

Is the SMO reflector the only reason the C6T outperforms the C6R in throw results, besides that and the tail switch is their that much difference in the 2??????


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 19, 2009)

d1live said:


> Is the SMO reflector the only reason the C6T outperforms the C6R in throw results, besides that and the tail switch is their that much difference in the 2??????


The beam difference is entirely due to the reflector. The R version has strobe and SOS modes accessed by the reverse clicky, the T version doesn't have these modes (and has a forward clicky).


----------



## alfreddajero (Oct 30, 2009)

I know this is an old thread but i just wanted to say that i have one on the way.


----------



## alfreddajero (Nov 3, 2009)

I got mine on monday and all i can say is wow.....i havent messed around with 18650's yet but plan to.


----------



## kramer5150 (Nov 7, 2009)

alfreddajero said:


> I got mine on monday and all i can say is wow.....i havent messed around with 18650's yet but plan to.



Can you confirm yours is or isn't regulated on an 18650?

thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## alfreddajero (Nov 7, 2009)

I cant confirm as of yet since i dont have any 18650's.......but i do plan on ordering some.


----------



## bluepilgrim (Nov 28, 2009)

I found them on sale at http://www.techtoolsupply.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=ITP-C6R for $29.99 & free shipping. :naughty:


I couldn't resist -- even though I don't have any batteries for it. That'll come later... 
Why did I buy this? I don't NEED it.. :thinking: 
(NICE light...)
OH MY GOD --- I'M a flashoholic!


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 29, 2009)

bluepilgrim said:


> I couldn't resist -- even though I don't have any batteries for it. That'll come later...
> Why did I buy this? I don't NEED it.. :thinking:
> (NICE light...)
> OH MY GOD --- I'M a flashoholic!


Although it never garnered a lot of attention here, it is a nice light at its price point. I keep my C6-R in the trunk of my car for emergencies. I like the tailcap lock-out and easily available but not obtrusive strobe feature.


----------



## alfreddajero (Nov 29, 2009)

Taking a look at the reviews here wanted me to get one.....i didnt get one at that price but oh well the light gets used......looking for an 18650 charger combo now. It really shined when the noreaster hit Va and we didnt have power for 2days.


----------



## eradimatrix (Jan 18, 2010)

Just ordered this light. I can't wait to receive it.


----------

