I see Int’l Outdoors is offering the C8 with the XP-L:
http://intl-outdoor.com/xintd-c8-v5-xml2-t6u2-multioption-18650-flashlight-p-308.html
Does anyone have one? How does it compare to an XM-L2 or XP-G2 one?
Would love to see some side by side beam shots.
Some of us have some of these on order from Aliexpress when 2 sellers posted them for sale at the wrong price -
I forget who else it was besides me, but basically we told the seller to honor the price and ship us our lights and we will leave 5 star feedback. Supposedly I have 3 headed my way, shipped out of HG yesterday.
I'll do some side by side beamshots when they come in, most likely late next week.
i’m itchin to see one dedomed with the BLGF driver
I’m in the same boat. The $5 XPL C12 boat that is.
seeing as the die size is closer to an xm-l2, that is what the beam pattern will be closest to.
Die size, bezm pattern and overall brightness are basically identical so you won’t see much difference compared to XM-L2.
how do we know it’s an XP-L?
Do you know any other LED's with a squared-off dome?
I built one C8 with an XP-L. The beam is essentially identical to an XM-L2, as the die is the same size. It just has an XP-sized footprint. I have found the XP-L to be a hair warmer in tint than their XM-L2 counterparts in the brightest bins, but that’s pretty anecdotal since I haven’t tried but three or so different XP-L tint bins.
Forgive my ignorance. But in this case, what is the point in the XP-L, as in why did CREE develop it and release it?
Density. They can be packed closer together, more die area per unit of substrate area. Everybody seems to forget that none of these LEDs are made with flashlight use in mind, it's just pure chance when the designs happen to work well in flashlights.
I remember djozz did give a fairly good explanation about this before, that the 3535 foorprint (XP size) are actually more popular in LED applications (other than flashlight!) and has almost become a industrial standard already. A lot of LED applications are using 3535 footprint and since XM-L2 substract is bigger it cannot be used in these places, thus the born of XP-L LED allows the 3535 footprints enjoy the power of XM-L2.
For instance, those who are currently using LUXEON Q LED has the chance to upgrade into XP-L LED (XM-L2 power) now.
It's useful for things like... say Solarforce Z1 & Z2, where there isn't really a known 7mm hole reflector that's a direct swap. Stock reflector uses the XP 5mm hole, XP-L will fit in there with no other changes, it'll even reuse the stock centering ring. I'm sure there are other small AA/AAA lights that are the same way.
I remember seeing an output graph that shows the XP-L has a slightly better output than the XM-L2. Not enough to warrant replacing existing XM’s, but enough that if there was not much of a price difference, I’d pick the XP when buying new emitters.
While I sincerely appreciate the testing efforts done by few members here, I’m afraid the comparison test of XM-L2 vs. XP-L are still not quite enough to conclude this yet since the difference is quite small. It can also be just production variation from one to another, who knows.
But the gist of all of this is, there is no point in paying extra for an XP-L if the torch comes with an XM-L2 anyhow? As in, you’ll see no benefit at all?
I may be wrong, but the real difference is when you dedome an XP-L. from my limited understanding, a dedomed XP-L will have better output than a dedomed XM-L2. There is little residual lumen loss from dedoming an XP-L compared to the XM-L2.
For the most part, yeah. The datasheets from Cree show it having slightly higher output than many XM-L2 bins, but not enough to be visible to anyone’s eyes.
Dedomed, however, what little testing has been done (by awesome BLF members) has shown the XP-L has relatively minimal lumen loss when dedomed compared to the XM-L2.
I personally like the tint of the XP-L V5 2A dedomed. It seems a lot less green than some XM-Ls dedomed. It does feel like the shift towards a warmer tint is significantly more pronounced with the XP-Ls though… Has anyone else noticed that?
So an XP-L is worthless since the selling point was supposed to be its die size being smaller than XM-L(2)s? If there is no real size difference, then why want it?
Posts 11, 12 and 13 address that pretty well. Die size is the same as XM-L/XM-L2 and has similar/marginally better output. Footprint is XP-sized, which is apparently more popular for commercial lighting applications (ie: not flashlights). So for those commercial applications already using XP mounts, the XP-L is a huge jump in output.