Yeah man, it’s 80+ for the shorter distances, and my copy is 92kcd actually. Not a lot, but still there is a difference.
But 80k cd is quite low. Wonder if it’s really T6 3C.
Fenix TK70 is also T6. But there could be some output differences (slight) within the T6 bin as well.
3.6A is high enough, there probably won’t be much of a difference with the DRY at say 4.x amps. If this is 3.6A with PWM (however slight) then there is a very very slight loss as well. << — I noticed this with the DRY driver……the earliest ones are full blast with no PWM, and the latter drivers are with PWM even in turbo mode just that the PWM perhaps switches on and off at 95% power @ xxx Hz, ie a wee bit cut only… while the lowest modes are like 5% power @ xxx Hz. I do not have the latest 700Hz DRY driver.
I fail to understand the need to attack this light or my review of it, but I'd like to try to answer to some of points you brought up.
First of all, I didn't get this light for free. I paid the normal pre-order / introductory price, and i think Slewflash did the same for the light he reviewed.
1. T6 & output
As Slewflash pointed out, an U2 CW version is available. It was my own decision to go for T6 NW instead of U2 CW. The output is lower, but the tint is more important in my planned usage.
Over four times the throw of Skyray King is very impressive to me.
2. Battery carrier
I think the battery carrier is very high quality. Upside down springs look funny, but they work really good when inserting the batteries. I would take this carrier over the Fenix carrier (or the linked DIY carrier) any day.
3. Emitter mounting & Thermal paste
I agree that the thermal paste around emitter stars doesn't look good, but I'll explain how this has happened: The emitters are pressed against the heat sink by the aluminum reflector, which is tightened with the screw through the heat sink. So, during the manufacturing, some thermal paste is applied under the stars, after which the reflector is tightened so that the all extra paste comes out (as we know, less paste equals better thermal transfer)
This can be thought to be sloppy job, but it results in good thermal characteristics, as can be seen in the thermal graph.
4. Only Panasonics are good up to 3.5A
Not exactly true. Panasonics are good cells, but there are others that can be used too. I use XTAR 18700 2600mAh, which are based on Sanyo cells, and can easily provide 3.6A / cell. Even some cheaper cells can do this.
5. AR coating
I agree. This light would deserve an AR coated lens. I'll upgrade it with one if I manage to find a suitable one.
Final words:
I'm sorry if the review or light itself wasn't good enough for you, but I tried my best to describe what I think of the light and why. After all, I'm still very happy with this light.
I agree the tk75 is a better buy, even with slightly less throw you get 2600 lumens for longer with a superior build, although I wouldn’t mind owning the Btu as well
Every reviewer can put the rating he wants to. Of course, every reader can question his rating. I am one of them that question the 5 stars ratings.
To me BTU is really a lower quality job comparing the full package of TK70 or TK75. The UI, the AR lens, the HAIII body, the battery holder, the reflector finishing, all are not as good as Fenix. I really doubt this BTU worth USD150 where some can get TK70 for USD175, somemore it doesn’t involve R&D cost as much as it copy Fenix TK70 and can’t copy 100% as it involve a lot of R&D cost to copy 100%.
It is either the reviewer doesn’t own a TK70, else he won’t ignore the differences.