Hmmm….very interesting. Not the warmest of receptions,understandably so. This is BLF and it is a decent amount of money,but not over priced in my mind. Michael doesn’t just throw something together. He puts a lot of time, energy, thought,precision and ingenuity into his work.
You can turn the light 1/4 of a turn to direct the light straight ahead instead of the 170 degrees of East to West peripheral light. This can be beneficial if your walking/hiking in a somewhat residential area. Also, the light can be dialed down. 20 lumens to 2500 lumens with the fully variable control ring.
The reception was much warmer on CPF! 8)
I just got my Shipping notice!!! I used up my Birthday[June 4th] presents,this is now a Christmas present to myself!
I’m not meaning to criticise as some are here, but there are other much cheaper (and yes probably not quite as well done) examples of a similar ‘revolutionary’ technology giving an elliptical beam.
It is a very useful trick for spreading the beam where you want it and minimizing losses of light going to high or too low from where it is most usefully directed. I find it is most useful in the application of the examples above (fixed mount on a bike) rather than in a handheld as the light will always be set at the best angle for the beam in these situations. Still it could be useful for a handheld too, but I would think best suited to one with a specific carry handle to keep the beam spread horizontally.
You are right,NOT as well done and cheaper. I am sorry,comparing Michaels REV Captor to an “Ultrafire” light is a joke!!! Actually it is insulting which is worse than criticizing!
Yet that is what the budget minded do, find cheap ways of doing something that is expensive. I can see both sides of this, I love the technology but cant afford to spend 350$. Comparing something that is cheaper and does a poor job at replicating the result is not an insult, it gives an option that fits the budget of some flashaholics.
Well I haven’t had both lights in hand, have you? There is a reason I said probably.
Both of my above links do a very good job at spreading an even elliptical beam and making ‘soft shadows’ with what could equally be termed ‘holographic’ beam technology. It’s the same principle.
Michael himself made the very clear point that it is NOT the quality/price range of the light that he is comparing to that matters but only the type of optic. The two items that I posted were of course also not comparable in quality/price range to Michaels light, but perfectly reasonable comparisons in terms of optic.
Your reply just makes no sense.
(Btw I would like to add that I am particularly pissed off as England have just lost to Uruguay in the World Cup so apologies if I’m being overly critical)
This seems like interesting product, and I will surely read reviews of it when they come out. I think the video describes well where the product is supposed to be good at, but how does it really compare to the competing products? Those videos are a bit like the “before and after” pictures of diet products - they cant really be trusted to give accurate information or comparison of the products performance, only a general guideline on what it is supposed to do.
So unfortunately there are not enough detailed information available yet to decide if it really is revolutionary or not.
We’re not out yet! But I agree it’s probably just a matter of time now… What’s frustrating is how well we played against Italy, passing and tempo was spot on in that game and we deserved at least a point. If we could’ve kept the same performance level up against Uruguay we would’ve walked it but we looked a different team with a slow tempo, sloppy distribution, poor finishing and panicky in defence too. It had to be that man Luis Suarez to step up and take advantage of it too.
I’ve sent him a PM, and I sent him a message from his contact link on his website. Have not heard back on either. Not that I was a buyer, but if I was, this alone would not bode well.
I'm sorry Rod but I really don't think comments like these are helpful.
I very much doubt you know just exactly what mods Michael does to his lights but suffice to say it wouldn't be as simple as an emitter swap and slapping a stick-on film over the lens.
BLF is probably not the target demographic for saabluster's products and yes, $350 is a helluva lot to ask for a light here, but the guy has a long history of making quality products and a very loyal customer base. He wouldn't have lasted so long simply selling to some kind of "more money than brains" fan club.
We also need to keep in mind the fact that many of us here mod lights but we don't all think about what our "budget" creations would really be costing us if we charged our time at commercial rates. I suppose the goodwill and generous spirit of many of the modders here can have the unfortunate side effect of eroding some people's understanding of what skills like these are worth when it is someone's food, mortgage and life to be supported. Have you checked recently how much it would cost you to get a sparky out to change a power point or a roofer to fix some broken tiles?
I'm not going to rush out and buy one of these, but I'm a little saddened at the hostile reaction that seems to have been exhibited here. The video was probably not the strongest or most interesting marketing pitch ever produced but I wonder how many of us would do better in his position?
I have a Deft X from Michael and it’s also a Supbeam K40 light. Having one in your hand and seeing how it performs, you will know and feel the effort put into this masterpiece of a light.
On a $200 house? You would have to think twice if it was $150 wouldnt you? Especially if in the end, all you had was a $200 house with good tiles and a power point. You would need to seriously consider if you need them, or just want them. Dont get me wrong, if someone is willing to make it, and someone willing to buy it, so be it. But the facts remain.
Many are here to mod. CPF seems to be about buying your stuff. A bit like the difference between car builders, and turn key car buyers. There are guys here who pour hours into the modded light they then sell for cost (maybe) absent any time value. Those same guys then give away all those secrets, groups of them build on it, someone buys a TK61 and risks its driver to test theories to share freely with all who read the thread, thats kind of the spirit here. When someone puts something up, its bound to be dissected, and then how can we replicate it cheap.
My uncle is an electrician so yeah, I know how much it costs.
Saab lists his light at around 2500 lumens. The standard X40 is 3400 lumens. He mentioned himself that he changed one of the emmiters to a high CRI leaving the other two emmiters alone. A modder here can safely say that he did the first mod I listed because we know using a high CRI LED drops the lumens. We know that an amp increase wasn’t done.The drop in lumens remain with the use of the high CRI LED - also no spring mods.
Now, the film that I linked may not be the same as the one he uses, but it does exhibit properties that he says his light has. The manufacturer even mentions one can use it on an LED light source, so you could potentially use it.
All in all, if one here could make a light that is sold at a less than budget friendly price for cheaper using similar parts, wouldn’t you?
