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?
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.
It would’ve been more comforting to be informed about how the mistake occurred and what steps they’ve taken to ensure it won’t happen again. I presume that when a batch of LEDs is received from a supplier, there is a certain amount of testing done to ensure that the labeled bins & temperature match the actual emitters. One would expect this to be done prior to assembly, given the price point of their SC64 flashlights.
In any case, I’m glad there is some acknowledgement of the problem and I trust that they’ll be on mark to prevent this from repeating. I dread to think of buying an SC64 from a different retailer or from someone in the used market… as you’ve no idea if they’ve got one of those low CRI mistakes just waiting to be passed onto someone else.
If a manufacturer behaves like this, and a retailer doesn’t guarantee a good product, then buying it is a risk no matter what others could possibly say, and no matter how much you and others want it to be a good product.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I’ve just got 2 new SC64w HI, and I already had 2 “old” ones.
Besides the new positive contact terminal, I noticed that the lower moonlight level is half as bright now, finally. Have you noticed the same?
I’ve never had this button issue, and I have the original SC64w which was used extensively, also a VERY well used SC64w HI, another backup and now two new ones. And 20+ other Zebralight, never had this happen.
About the pocket clip I don’t mind, as I remove them and replace immediately with an old style chrome clip.
Now a word about the low CRI LE emitters… I work for manufacturing industry in Germany. I have also for many years worked inside Chinese factories for quality control. Things just don’t work like most people think it should. Testing new LED rolls to make sure it matches tint and CRI? Nope. Things run in a fast pace (with the boss and managers making you crazy working overtime), usually with late supplies and things must move quickly, they just install them and ship out the door. And for sure the boards are made by a third party factory and Zebralight only assembles the flashlight. The board manufacturer didn’t (or intentionally) see the low CRI emitters and Zebralight’s assemblers (and QC, if any) missed it. Especially in China where the workers don’t know what they’re doing and are misinformed about the product they make. Things are messy inside factories, and not only Chinese ones…
COVID has screwed all the supply chain, from the raw materials (metal, etc) to the final product. Everything is delayed, more expensive, worse quality or simply unavailable. We’re actually lucky that Zebralight is still in business and producing. Everybody is struggling.
I’m dealing with supply shortages everyday in Germany (from China and everywhere else).
