Lumintop EDC-05, Less Lumens than Utorch UT01... CONFIRMED

I think in these flashlights the LEDs are sticking to the ones they have at hand. My UT01 NW does not even have a gram of green, it’s pretty much yellow, but it’s because it really is 3800K and not 5000K as the manufacturer declares.
SKV89 can you take a picture?

See the graph of my UT01 color distribution:

Sorry guys I tried to get some beam shots this weekend from the night-trails, but I just failed miserably. I am just not steady handed enough, everything was a blurry mess. Its not as easy as everyone here makes it look.

Thanks for doing a ceiling bounce comparison SKV89, your bounce numbers back up what I am observing. Although I find my EDC05 switch a little more responsive… it doesn’t feel as “mushy” as the UT01. FWIW my UT-01 is over a year old.

I have no major complaints about my tints. My UT01 is neutral white, and true to spec I find its actual tint very good. My EDC05 is the cool white and it has a little more teal-green color in it, but not offensively so. Its only noticeable on a white wall comparison.

The biggest difference I find is the lumen output. At home its not really noticeable. In the field its more pronounced. The UT-01 is just a wall of light at ~25+ feet, the EDC05… slightly less-so. Both lights seem to run about equally hot, so I am not getting the impression the EDC05 consumes less current, or sends less to its emitter.

It would be interesting to see a Lumens per watt consumption comparison. My hunch is the EDC05 is less efficient than the 01. I already knew de-dome emitters emit less light overall than a domed counterpart. I did not think the difference would be this pronounced.

Sorry I do not have a picture hosting site to post beam shots. I always thought dedomed emitters would have more greenish tint. The tint on my EDC05 has no green in it at all and is very pleasant. Just that the lumens are far below advertised. Also on mine, it sometimes takes several clicks to turn on. I think the button is defective. That doesn’t happen on the UT01.

That’s all fine and dandy but we need testing results for people like me who own the cool white version. Need some lux comparison numbers. :stuck_out_tongue: Someone get on it!

I’ve done a little bit of comparisons between the UT-01 and the EDC05. It seems the build quality is a little better with the EDC05, thus this reflects the more expensive price. I’ve compared the EDC05’s driver board to posted reviews of the UT-01 and have noticed that the driver board for the UT-01 seems to not be as smooth as the EDC05’s. For instance, the UT-01’s driver board has perforation on the outer ring.

Typical to cheaper lights, at least from what I’ve noticed. Also the strange thing is what’s with the excessive amount of holes at the driver ring’s contact point?

The EDC05’s is smooth and much cleaner in appearance. Very few holes in the driver ring allowing for more electrical contact area. It’s this attention to detail, although minor, that impresses me the most.

The best advantage to the EDC05 is the ability to use protected 14500. This is where the E11 and UT-01 fall short.

I don’t doubt the EDC05 have better build quality than the UT01. But unfortunately, I might have a defective EDC05, where the button doesn’t always register clicks and I have to click multiple times. It is very annoying. Otherwise it would be a great nightime EDC for use in the house.

Well as the old saying goes, anything made by man will never be perfect. It is highly possible you’ve got a bad run. I can tell you though I’ve had no issues with the two I’ve owned already, a third is on the way. I’ll see how that one turns out and keep you posted.

I guess that is not just “typical of cheaper lights” in what concerns to this particular light (UT01). As you’ve seen, the driver there is the same from the Manker E11 (the first to appear in the market - to my knowledge - with this host design and UI).
And if you do a quick search, you will notice that the E11 is not that cheap, being more expensive than the LT EDC05.

Also, I have one E11 and that driver “survived” a very big heating (didn’t measured it, but almost burnt my hand) provoked by an inverted 14500 inside it and left unattended some minutes.

What leads me to this question: do the UT01 and the EDC05 have Reverse Polarity Protection (specially for Li-Ion cells)?

If not, please be very careful, specially with flat top / unprotected cells! I once put - absently, and for some minutes, until I noticed the heat - the Manker Li-Ion14500 cell in inverted position inside the flashlight, and it caused the light to heat like burning water.

This was how the battery looked like after taking if from the inside of the flashlight:

afiak the only revers polarity protection in these lights is the operator…. so in other words no.

I do not know if the EDC05 has reverse polarity protection. It’s not needed though if you are using protected cells in the first place. As mentioned before, that is the EDC05’S advantage is the ability to use protected 14500 cells.

Hum, that’s what I thought :person_facepalming:
I was a “faulty” operator when I put it inverted, but still, my opinion is that all the lights that are able to take Li-Ion cells should have RPP!! Thanks for the answer :+1:

sovereignknight, I will respectfully differ on this opinion as lots of people don’t have protected cells and it is possible to incur on the same mistake I did! I know that a owner must take care of the light and use it correctly, but…we know that mistakes happen.
Just an opinion of course!! :wink:

Other than these, both the E11, the UT01 and the EDC05 are pretty and good working lights, I can see from the user’s reports here

Sorry, my response was for answering your question stated earlier.
What leads me to this question: do the UT01 and the EDC05 have Reverse Polarity Protection (specially for Li-Ion cells)

Anyways, I agree, great care must be taken when dealing with lithium ion cells. Nothing replaces caution and diligence. With that, protection circuits can fail too so it’s best to use caution either way.

The UT01, EDC05 and Manker E11 do not have any kind of PHYSICAL reverse polarity protection. I highly doubt there is anything electrical in the circuit either.

I got a Lumintop EDC-05 two days ago. At first the button did not work.
After a while, I noticed that it needs to be pressed on the edge so that the flashlight turns on.
Now it works almost well. But now I have another problem.
If you turn off the flashlight, then you can turn it back on only
if you slightly open and close the back cover. That is, in fact, completely de-energized it.

I also saw that the tube does not press the entire surface to the contact of the head.
You can see it in the photo.

This is a long running problem with the UT01 as well. my EDC05 doesn’t have this though. Its a completely random occurring thing with the UT01… some have it some do not.

Have people on the forum already found a solution?
Or is it a death sentence?
(My UT01 have this problem only with 14500,
with Ni-Me 1.2v it’s work propertly)

I found this:

So, it’s tha same story with EDC-05.
The manufacturer simply changed the design, but kept the defective stuffing.

I just received my third EDC05 and while my other two work well so far, the third one I just received has some switch issues. It clicks but some presses do not register. I may have to return it. I’ve emailed lumintop on the matter but I don’t expect a response any time soon as it’s Chinese New year.

I was having issues with the button not registering clicks but today I tested it again but it seems to work fine. weird.

When I got this third light it was having allot of issues with the button. The more I clicked it, the better it became. However, the problem is still there it just doesn’t happen as much. Still I find this unacceptable.

Just for comparison, I measured the Zebralight SC5w mkII advertised at 550 lumens at only 44 lux. I tried swapping multiple fully charged eneloops and no change. Cannot believe a $10-$20 UT01 is brighter than a $70 SC5w mkII. I just wish the tint on the UT01 weren’t so green.