Hi all,
It’s my first “rewiew”, i’ve a lot of limitation so my tittle.
But I would try to be able to explain my deception to the EC06 by other than a “conventional” test and make a try for the futur.
*I want to thank The_Flashaholic to give me permission to use screen off his video for example
Link to his BLF topic for this link with the link of his video*
Link to an other topic who speak about this light more enthusiastic that me
Astrolux EC06 by Banggood:
Astrolux EC06 by rare footage in their natural environment
For specs ,
The problem that I met with is light has been its weight especially its repartition.
I use Astrolux MF01S for base compare.
When see the specs MF01S as only 10 grams more EC06
With the exterior designe of EC06 with low heat sink I’ve think they have put weight in head for tank heat
Finaly, no.
EC06
MF01
I had an immediate disappointment at the opening when I separe head from body.
The body weighs as much as the head.
While trying it I realize, heat quickly off course, but above all a very strong output regulation.
As it was predictable high outpout is not substainable, but my biggest deception was is in low capacity to maintain respectable output in more casual use.
I’m not fan tho the base UI version put inside, smooth ramping mode never provided a precise and reproducible idea if you found a good output power for our use, Stepped mode can do that, i can tell you 2 step under max step ramp is a good compromise between heat generation/sustainable runtime.
EC06 have stepped mode by output power 25,50,75,100% (it must be able to modify it without much searching I have not found)
With EC06 only 25% have little chance tu be sustainable.
With my eye and smooth ramp mode i can say around 35% can be usable beam but with very low runtime
It’s the problem with this light, this beam profile (wide, spread out) must be have X Thousand lumens inside to have good rendering.
I cannot measure lumens output but i’ve the impression 4000-5000 lumens give usable output, but cannot be maintained, compare to Astrolux MF01S
And i speak with cold start (around 0 degres) by not using especially high mode, if you use just only 50% power the decrease is hard and come you quickly under 1000 lumens.
and I really confirmed in The_Flashaholic’s test
EC06
MF01S
We can see at the screen EC06 a first turbo can’t maintain constant output, little stepdown by stepdown falls to 0 compare to MF01S
Second turbo activation is terrible down quickly and especially so low, near to 0.
This is this problem who affect a eventual 4000 lumens sustainable
You can see the MF01S after first turbo decrease and maintain his output, after second turbo activation first decrease, 1 step, second decrease and maintain equal output than the first turbo activation.
Its may seem small gap but that’s the difference between a light who can tank and evacuate heat and a light who can’t.
The difference between usable and not usable.
The weight at the top of this rewiew is not to be neglected.
EC06 with is very low thermals design would have been heavier head compare to MF01S to hope usable 4000 Lumens beam, but they did the opposite.
I can agree the design of EC06 only for short and high output with hard thermal stepdown to allow time for the heat to pass in the massive battery carrier and offer little more short burst.
When you look specs with EC06 to compare with MF01S it’s hard to see that
You can see less heat sinking but not the weight repartition.
And that, therefore MF01S is very good usable light and EC06 is a WOW light.
You can see the enthusiastic post for the good thing to this light
By way of conclusion I let you with pics of two lamps capable of give 4000 durable output to compare weight and thermals design
Acebeam X45
BLF Q8 (Thorfire)