Depends on the LED, like XHP35.
Well yes, the XHP version uses a boost converter (TPS61088) but not buck-boost, I was referring to the 3V model.
I was just wondering if the SC64c (3V) used a buck-boost before because people (esp on reddit) seem convinced it uses a buck-boost converter.
I remember reading that too. I have the SC64c LE and I’m curious to know the truth of it.
It’s a buck, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing, it’s more efficient than a buck-boost and with low Vf LEDs like the LH351D 90CRI there isn’t that much boosting to do, Zak has a runtime measurement of the LE with sufficient cooling so that it runs at maximum output :
It starts to drop at the last 20% mark but only down to 70% (2.1A) at the very end, this is IMO minimal and even with a buck-boost converter it would still drop a bit at the end because available buck-boost converters are not very powerful.
(Edit : re-hosted the graph because it wouldn’t load)
TPS63020 can push up to 2Amps with empty 2.6V battery
In light of all this… is anyone else offput by what’s happened or is this par for the course for cheap(ish) flashlights?
Asking as I’ve got my first ZL on order but I’m now not sure whether I want this or something else.
Yes, the fact that this has happened disappoints me a lot. I understand that sometimes mistakes are made though and how they deal with this issue will have a big impact on how I feel about it as well. At worst it could have been ZL trying to pull a fast one, someone there was negligent and mixed up LEDs they have in stock, or at best (for Zebra’s competence) the supplier sent them mislabeled product.
I have had and seen others have even more serious issues from other brands, a number of which are selling light for the same or even higher price. There is going to be a number of “lemons” for any mass-produced product and how the company handles customers that receive them is what is really telling IMO.
if i really wanted that specific emitter in that CRI and didn't get it, i'd be pissed.
but if that's not the case, i don't think this affects you. also, it's possible that an informed consumer would take a gamble and buy it anyways in hopes of getting the bait-and-switch, lower-CRI emitter because supposedly it has a nice tint.
i still continue to buy ZLs as gifts for family and friends, and i'd buy replacements if i broke my headlamp or flashlights today.
the newest ones i got have the new battery cathode contact. i can see that it might be less prone to denting batteries in the event of a drop, but i wonder how it compares in terms of current carrying capacity (within the requirements of the flashlight) and long term durability. being optimistic, maybe it's all-around better?
Kinda sorta the same deal in this thread……. 
I don’t follow, that thread is about the mechanics of how spectral composition and Ra rating relate, not a product failing to meet it’s advertised specs.
You’re correct in exactitude. It was more related to some of the comments than the subject itself.
Bowing out.
Butt I did say, “kinda, sorta”. 
OK I’ve got to ask… what’s the go with your signature?
Sorry I’m not following.
Your signature is extremely long.
An SC64w HI arrived recently and there were a few changes:
- Pocket clip is thinner and easier to use.
- Button is flatter instead of round.
- Pogo pins have been replaced by a smaller 6 prong component.
Is the switch the same?
The button bouncing issue where my LE randomly gets stuck while switching on also happened with my HI, so that hasn’t changed:
Infrequent but widely known firmware bug?
I hadn’t noticed the stuck issue with either of mine but can attest to my batteries flat tops being dented in. Otherwise I love both lights.
OP, any word from Zebralight yet?
Not yet. They received my lights on July 17th but I’ve had no communication with them.