[♛ FreemeGB] Fireflies PL47 Gen II 4*XP-L/ Nichia/ SST20 Hi CRI 21700 Right Angle Flashlight - ENDED

[Freedom]

…battery fitment issues? Hard to believe…

[Nite_Shadow]

@shirnask

I am using the 50e in the PL47 nichia with out issue, but I had to put a copper washer in the tail cap because otherwise I had to tighten the cap so hard to make a good connection that I was crushing the springs. You may not have a solid connection

Edit: I was too slow

This advice is still good. With the copper washer in the tail cap I don’t have to tighten as hard on the 50E, so better long-term IMHO (or if/when longer tube sections become available). Only downside is part of tail-cap O-ring is exposed with 2mm thick washer.

[shirnask]

I use a 1.5 mm washer - then the o-ring can barely be seen

[Nicolicous]

Got my E07 today from Nealsgadets. The finish quality of E07 is much better than Pl 47 and it is much noticeable brighter.

I think i love E07 than Emisar D4S due to compact size.

[P33]

How would you compare throw to D4S?

[Nicolicous]

Here are quick beamshots comparison E07 Vs D4S.

Camera setting is fully manual to lock the exposure and focus.

FireFliesE07 - LED SST20 5000K VS Emisar D4S - LED XP-G2 S4 3D 5000K

Fireflies seems to be more bloodier whereas D4S is throwy. I also notice Fireflies is more brighter than D4S .

FireFliesE07 ceiling bound lux reading on turbo mode (439 lux)
Camera exposure turned down

Emisar D4S ceiling bound lux reading on turbo mode (331 lux)

[PBWilson]

Thanks for the beam shots! If the E07 gets some of the minor bugs worked out, it just might be my next light.

I still have no idea about which emitters I’ll choose.

[P33]

So sad it’s got less throw then D4S, guess I’ll just get another Emisar instead.
Wonder if PL47 isn’t throwier with SST20 emiters.

What is the appeal of such floody lights actually? Is it meant to be used as lagrish EDC light?

[degarb]

What is the lux at 1 meter on 5000 lumen setting? Or at 400ma cc?

[Tom_Tom]

@Nicolicous

Here are quick beamshots comparison E07 Vs D4S.

Camera setting is fully manual to lock the exposure and focus.

FireFliesE07 - LED SST20 5000K VS Emisar D4S - LED XP-G2 S4 3D 5000K

Fireflies seems to be more bloodier whereas D4S is throwy. I also notice Fireflies is more brighter than D4S .

FireFliesE07 ceiling bound lux reading on turbo mode (439 lux)
Camera exposure turned down

Emisar D4S ceiling bound lux reading on turbo mode (331 lux)

D4S wins by miles. No comparison.

But, obviously the FF torch should be so much brighter. It has nearly twice the number of LEDS.

However it seems not.

I think that that the Emisar uses a decent well designed Carclo optic, with well understood consistent results.

Unlike the other FF one. With that hole in the middle of the beam, and wasting all that light, splattered around uselessly to the edges.

Who made that optic, and why do Fireflies insist on using multiple emitters and TIRs instead of learning how to put a powerful single emitter into a properly designed, aligned and focussed reflector ? Or even just doing TIR stuff correctly. Maybe that would take research, skill, experimentation and tight tolerances. None of which I have observed so far.

These tiny TIRs cannot ever produce a powerful focussed long range beam. It is impossible, laws of physics apply. If all that you want is to splatter your over-cooked lumens across a very wide area, then this is of course one way to do it, if that is what you want.

[Bob_McBob]

Day 45, no PL47 or working tracking number in Canada.

[lionheart_2281]

@Coyotehawk

@lionheart_2281

@Coyotehawk

@lionheart_2281

H02 headband works, but it’d be even better if one existed where the rubber rings are even closer together than the H02’s

I have mine in a zebralight band. The rubber rings fit just perfect in my opinion. Right behind the head and just in front of the tailcap.

Yeah that looks way better. See how the H02 rubber is “buckled”?

Zebralight headband with silicone holder. 6.95 before shipping.

Thanks! I ordered one, I love ZL products

[SKV89]

What the heck are you talking about. I measured the E07 XPL-HI v2 at more than double the output of the D4s XPL-HI v2 despite being smaller. I love multi emitter lights because more emitters allow them to each run more efficiently than single emitter lights. More emitters also allow higher output. The only thing I wish for is if there are different optics to choose from. I like both flood and throw. Floody optic is more useful for indoor applications and photo taking. Throwy optic is more useful for outdoors.

Also there’s no hole in the middle of the beam.

@Tom Tom

D4S wins by miles. No comparison.

But, obviously the FF torch should be so much brighter. It has nearly twice the number of LEDS.

However it seems not.

I think that that the Emisar uses a decent well designed Carclo optic, with well understood consistent results.

Unlike the other FF one. With that hole in the middle of the beam, and wasting all that light, splattered around uselessly to the edges.

Who made that optic, and why do Fireflies insist on using multiple emitters and TIRs instead of learning how to put a powerful single emitter into a properly designed, aligned and focussed reflector ? Or even just doing TIR stuff correctly. Maybe that would take research, skill, experimentation and tight tolerances. None of which I have observed so far.

These tiny TIRs cannot ever produce a powerful focussed long range beam. It is impossible, laws of physics apply. If all that you want is to splatter your over-cooked lumens across a very wide area, then this is of course one way to do it, if that is what you want.

[BurningPlayd0h]

@Tom Tom

D4S wins by miles. No comparison.

There literally are points of comparison though, the E07 is smaller in some dimensions, uses a smaller cell and has higher max output

But, obviously the FF torch should be so much brighter. It has nearly twice the number of LEDS.

However it seems not.

But it literally is

I think that that the Emisar uses a decent well designed Carclo optic, with well understood consistent results.

And also has the advantage of larger optics for each emitter for the specific goal of increased throw vs a quad with the bezel diameter of a D4, PL47, etc.

Unlike the other FF one. With that hole in the middle of the beam, and wasting all that light, splattered around uselessly to the edges.

Have you not seen comparisons of floodier vs throwier beams before? The “hole” is simply because the intensity is more consistent across the beam vs the D4S which has a fairly defined hotspot. Look at these vids and you’ll see the same “illusion”: https://www.youtube.com/user/0401andreas

Who made that optic, and why do Fireflies insist on using multiple emitters and TIRs instead of learning how to put a powerful single emitter into a properly designed, aligned and focussed reflector ? Or even just doing TIR stuff correctly. Maybe that would take research, skill, experimentation and tight tolerances. None of which I have observed so far.

Because they don’t want to make reflector lights apparently. If you don’t have use for a TIR multi-emitter light it isn’t made for you. There are plenty of reflector-based lights out there to choose from.

These tiny TIRs cannot ever produce a powerful focussed long range beam. It is impossible, laws of physics apply. If all that you want is to splatter your over-cooked lumens across a very wide area, then this is of course one way to do it, if that is what you want.

Good thing that clearly wasn’t the goal for any of these lights. I’m sure all the people that love the Zebralight mules are just 100% completely wrong for wanting wide area illumination.

[Scientist]

@Bob_McBob

Day 45, no PL47 or working tracking number in Canada.

Right with you Bob. I got a reply from Freeme saying the tracking is not good for the shipper used by FF. And I did get a reply mail from Jacky at FF saying he would check into it. Looks like it will take a lot longer for us…

[G.P]

@SKV89

What the heck are you talking about. I measured the E07 XPL-HI v2 at more than double the output of the D4s XPL-HI v2 despite being smaller. I love multi emitter lights because more emitters allow them to each run more efficiently than single emitter lights. More emitters also allow higher output. The only thing I wish for is if there are different optics to choose from. I like both flood and throw. Floody optic is more useful for indoor applications and photo taking. Throwy optic is more useful for outdoors.

Also there’s no hole in the middle of the beam.

Tom Tom has been trolling this thread. Just don’t engage.

Thank you for the pics and the write up!

[Nicolicous]

Come on guys. lets keep this topic friendly mode

Most people are referring to XPL-HI which have more output and throw than SST20 & XP-G2.

[BlueSwordM]

Ah! The SST-20 version actually has more throw than the XP-L HI in terms of cd/lm.

[Nicolicous]

hmmm then it’s strange the SST20 is less throwy than D4S XPG2 .

Maybe it’s to do with bad optic ?

i also notice the centre hot spot E07 is abit dark (like donut shape) in long distance.

[ToyKeeper]

The throwiness of a light is a combination of the emitter and the optic. Sometimes one emitter will be throwier, sometimes another… and this changes depending on which optic is used. There is no hard rule that emitter X will always be more throwy than emitter Y, because it’s only part of the equation.

Admittedly, a larger emitter will usually be floodier… but when two LEDs are closer to the same size, it’s not unusual for them to trade places on a throwiness ranking depending on which optic they’re in.

It’d be nice if cd/lm was part of the ANSI standard flashlight metrics, and this value was measured on sustainable medium modes to maximize accuracy. Simply dividing the maximum cd by the maximum lm doesn’t always give representative results, especially if one is taken at 30s and one at turn-on.