I think the only reason ramping is so trendy is because so many companies fail so badly on providing adequate mode spacing. Ramping fixes that issue as long as the light is capable of a low enough low.
This is a valid point.It is exactly what I think. I have multiple ramping lights,they’re fun to play with but Im not use them much.
If a light has good spacing and UI such as Zebralight, they would NOT need ramping feature at all.
For me the appeal of ramping was you could choose any brightness you wanted, and it was sort of a universal UI that would work for lots of different lights/uses. Typically different lights with different uses and max power levels would have different mode levels, and so in principle using ramping on all those lights could simplify the process of choosing a driver and modes for your lights.
The main drawback of ramping is that you don’t really know the power and runtime of any particular mode, but I think it’s still a good UI for a general use light where you are not concerned so much with runtime.
Output measured at 2s with Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights. Light parameters measured with Sekonic C-800-U
Manker E02II
Turbo
170 lumens
3963K
0.0008 DUV
96.6 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
90.3 R9
79.3 R12
93 Rf
101 Rg
Ladda 900
Manker E02II
High
81 lumens
3943K
0.0016 DUV
97.5 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 0.85
92.9 R9
77.7 R12
93 Rf
100 Rg
Ladda 900
Manker E02II
Low
29 lumens
3957K
0.0021 DUV
97.6 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 0.88
94.3 R9
76.0 R12
92 Rf
99 Rg
Ladda 900
Manker E02II
Moonlight
0 lumens
3974K
-0.0005 DUV
97.4 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 0.98
97.1 R9
75.8 R12
91 Rf
99 Rg
Ladda 900
Manker MC13
Low
70 lumens
6454K
0.0042 DUV
67.2 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
-36.1 R9
36.7 R12
63 Rf
95 Rg
included 18650 battery
Manker MC13
Mid
145 lumens
6974K
0.0004 DUV
67.5 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
-27.5 R9
38.6 R12
62 Rf
96 Rg
included 18650 battery
Manker MC13
High
292 lumens
7066K
-0.0006 DUV
67.1 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
-25.4 R9
39.7 R12
61 Rf
97 Rg
included 18650 battery
Manker MC13
Turbo
630 lumens
8686K
-0.0078 DUV
70.4 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
-1.0 R9
43.5 R12
62 Rf
98 Rg
included 18650 and 18350 battery
Manker E14 III
Low
144 lumens
4222K
0.0083 DUV
91.9 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
67.1 R9
68.4 R12
91 Rf
98 Rg
included 18350 battery
Manker E14 III
Mid
286 lumens
4234K
0.0079 DUV
91.8 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
66.6 R9
68.6 R12
91 Rf
98 Rg
included 18350 battery
Manker E14 III
High
627 lumens
4256K
0.0078 DUV
91.6 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
65.6 R9
69.0 R12
91 Rf
98 Rg
included 18350 battery
Manker E14 III
Turbo
2,069 lumens
4319K
0.0069 DUV
91.0 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
63.0 R9
70.1 R12
91 Rf
99 Rg
included 18350 battery
Manker E14 III
Turbo
2,328 lumens
4313K
0.0059 DUV
91.3 CRI
Blue light relative amplitude 1.00
63.9 R9
70.9 R12
91 Rf
99 Rg
included 18650 battery
I also have a MC13vn with W2.1 with boosted driver on order and will measure it once I receive it. The MC13 is actually a good bit larger than I thought as I was imagining something slightly bigger than a GT Mini. The optic appears identical to the one used in the Acebeam E10 and L17. Though for some reason the hotspot seems just a tiny bit smaller than in the E10 and hotspot is more uniform. Maybe its just the focus is a bit different between the two. The MC13 measures 630 lumens on turbo while E10 measures 562 lumens. I'm not sure how much of it is due to the MC13 using the CULNM1.tg vs E10 using CSLNM1.tg or whether it is just the driver pushing more output in the MC13. Build quality is very high on both the MC13 and E4 III.
With the E4III, the tint (positive DUV) is unfortunately too green for my taste, which is typical for all the LH351D 4000K 90CRI I've seen. I will see what I can do with some minus green filters and maybe swap in some UCL lens if I can find compatible diameter lens. Also I feel that with 18650, it should be able to output much higher but the potential is limited by high resistance due to springs barely pushing on the battery contacts. I guess it was designed to accommodate long cells with built-in USB-C charge.
The included Manker 18350 and 18650 cells measure 1,180mah and 3,063mah. The 1,180mah is higher than 7 out of 8 of the legendary Aspire 18350 and older batch of Vapcell 18350; both of which rewrapped the older, better batch of YDL cells. The YDL cells in the last two years went down hill a bit and measure under 1,100mah. Not sure if I won the cell lottery or if Manker got a really good or improved YDL cell. The 18650 is probably a Samsung 30Q.
Can this be confirmed? I don’t know why they’d sell a light with an LED that they felt the need to include a minus green filter. Why not just use a good LED like the SST-20s they are using in their E02 II?
Because not everyone are tint snobs like us. Also LH351D is much brighter and more efficient than the SST-20. Even with the minus green Lee Filter to achieve the same tint as the SST-20, the LH351D should still be brighter and more efficient.
Question about the UI: Does it have mode memory for the main mode group? It would be nice to go from the moon modes to the main modes seemlessly, but it’s ok if the main modes always start at low.
Yes. There was a thread somewhere on here with testing showing how it changes CRI (positively). There is also This Post on Reddit with test results showing how with a 4000k LH351D, it bumped R9 all the way up to 92