For comparison, here’s some lights so you can get an idea of the shade of grey of the FW3A
Beamshot comparison with different optics. The difference between 10508 and 10509 in the photos is very small, but measurably significant. It is possible though, that the optic installed in the light was 10509, since I don’t have a 10508 to compare it to.
GIF
Individual beamshots
Nice. Thanks
Very nice review for a very nice flashlight!
Question regarding updating the firmware, since there are no flashing vias, how does one update the firmware if that’s possible?
You’ll have to pull the driver out and attach the clip to the MCU (like normal).
Is that glued or soldered? Any idea how difficult it might be to remove and to reassemble back?
The driver is held by a retaining ring. There’s no glue, but it sits quite tightly in its recess so some gentle prying will be necessary.
Can one of you measure the physical dimensions (including weight) of the final light please? Thank you!
From page 1 of the review:
Measured dimensions and weight
Length: 92.5 mm
Head width: 25.5 mm
Handle width: 21.5-25.5 mm
Weight: 52 grams plus 47 grams for an 18650 battery
Thank you. Sorry I’m an idiot 
I’m still wondering why they put lens over the optic other than to “protect” it.
Does the bezel hole slightly larger than the optic’s diameter?
There are two purposes:
- To protect the optic
- To avoid blocking light from the edges of the optic
Most triples partially obscure the outer edge of the optic, which also blocks some of the light which would come out the front. The FW3A doesn’t do that.
For example, the FW3A (left, 10508 optic) next to a Rey Triple Ti (right, 10511 optic):
… and a Rey Dawn (left) next to a FW3A (right), both with 10507 optics:
The entire optic is exposed, which is a nice change from the usual.
Thanks TK, well explained.
I like the 10507 optic beam.
Have you tried one in person, with XP-L HI? It generally has a yellow center, almost no spill, and a bunch of fairly visible artifacts around the edges. It’s still quite popular, but I generally replace mine with other optics to get a nicer beam at the cost of some throw.
I have not.
I just liked the beam shape in the photo.
Would it act the same with the LH351D emitter?
XP-L HI in 10507 makes a nice photo, though the yellow center is still slightly visible.
LH351D in 10507 looks totally different. It makes a big wide circle with pretty much no spill and no artifacts, aside from some coloration at the very edge. It’s a lot like a zoomie on wide mode. Here’s a LH351D 5000K in a 10507 optic, on the right, next to a ROT66-219B on the left. White balance is set to “daylight” 5000K.
Ah.
Thanks for the comparison.
Very nice review Maukka!
Beam angle comparisons between three Carclo optics,
10508 (Medium Spot Frosted) - This was installed in my light when I got it
10511 (Narrow Spot Frosted) - Default optics in the production light
10507 (Narrow Spot Plain) - Clear optics with throwiest beam but more artifacts
Throw comparison (edit: 2019-02-12, fixed wrong cd for 10507 and 10511)
Color temperature shift within the beam. Limited to 2% output, that’s why 10511 and 10507 only cover up to 31°
Duv comparison. (Green-magenta axis)
Tint deviation (deltaxy). How much does the tint change within the beam. This illustrates the 10507 color artifacts the best as it has a big shift right in the bright part of the beam. The further from the hotspot the shift is, the less noticeable it is.
1 Thank