Yes, D1 and D4 tubes are interchangable, meaning D1 can also use the 18350 tube to become a tiny thrower.
D1 around 40Kcd, 1*XP-L HI, ultra small body, slightly bigger than D4 as it can be seen above, true all arounder for size and throw
D4 around 120Kcd,1*XP-L HI, excellent throw, small body
Iād call D1 a pocket thrower. Less throwy than D8, but much smaller.
D1S is 110 kcd, so just a small thrower.
D7 has 7 emitters and 3 18650s, most likely very floody, though if they keep the styling (head significantly larger than body), it could be throwier than D4 (w.r.t. beam profile, not just intensity). I havenāt seen any pictures or written details, so this is a wild guess.
Iām not aware of any other Emisar lights in the pipeline. Iād love to see some zoomies. And 21700 battery tubesā¦
I asked the same question. It seems (did not look above :person_facepalming: ) there is definitely a D7 coming 3x18650. My question is more of a DQG Tiny 26650 III size (but a little bit longer to avoid the issues shortness causes) so maybe with support they will go for a D? like we keep asking about?
I epoxied a pretty thick and strong magnet to the outside of the tailcap. Not as clean looking as CRXās magnet inside the tailcap, but it works for me.
Iām not convinced the D7 is a flooder. The DQG has seven emitters from a single 26650, so from a thicker triple 18650 you have significantly more space in the head. I canāt imagine the individual optics just placed further apart.
It would be more interesting to have larger reflectors, so probably metal reflectors instead of optics as losses would be high with the latter? With these larger reflectors, the light would move away from the typical flooder beam weāve seen from the M43 and D7, and have a much higher lux/lumen ratio. So in terms of beam profile, it would be something between a flooder and a thrower, something comparable to an L6 or Q8?
A pure flooder would make the D7, although perfectly executed no doubt, just āanother flooderā in a slightly different form factor. But this light could be a game changerā¦ Just my thought I had for a whileā¦ :partying_face:
I really would like to see the introduction of a shortcut to maximum sustainable level in the next release of firmware. Maybe even make it a selflearning function, based upon the max temp setting and real use of the flashlight (with the particular LED:s and cell).
I love my D4:s and will purchase the D1 and the D7 when available.
Lanyard hole and optional real high CRI versions would make my day.
DQG Tiny 26650 3th has 33 mm head diameter. This is enough for a TIR with individual lenses of a size similar to Carclo 10 mm ones, like in D4. I donāt know what the lens size actually is there or what lens is it. I tried to find the manufacturer, without success.
D7 body size is going to be like 42-43 mm in diameter. With a somewhat larger head, itās going to fit a TIR with 16 mm cups. This is enough for 10 cd/lm with a good lens. I guess with a perfect lens this could be beaten somewhat. Use of a floodier lens wouldnāt surprise me either. Somewhat larger head (and thus lens) is possible too. Anyway, I donāt view D7 as anything but a flooder, though I do expect it to be somewhat throwier than D4.
ADDED:
Forgot to mention, throw figures above assume XP-L HI.
Thanks for the figures Agro. With increasing reflector and head size, so does the lux/lumen ratio. Iām more interested in lux value of the D7 than amount of lumens.
Just wanted to add: Q8 is a little under 10 cd/lm. So D7 may actually be slightly throwier and in general is likely to be in the same ballpark (as long as you pick it with XP-L HI).
Thrunite Mini TN30 (2016) has 7.1 lux/lumen and only 3660 lumens, and I find this light āpretty throwyā for a soda can light. With higher lux/lumen value, you need less lumens for a satisfying experienceā¦ :sunglasses:
i think the D4 should have been using D1 head to sink more heat and D1 should be using a smaller D4 head, D1 with D4 head and XPL Hi should give enough throw i think.