Because both groups are aware of the situation and potential buyers are the ones who found that mode spacing unacceptable. Actual owners are ok with it.
Not only on paper - on practice there’s no mode to lighten up objects 20-40m away. Low is too low, high is too bright with short runtime. 4 modes in G25C2 are easily accessible as well. TX25C2 may have just modes because of different design (but not different diameter - battery tubes have almost the same diameter) but that doesn’t explain why they got rid of the most useful mode and didn’t reduce high mode.
It was well received because it’s bright, throwy, small and well built flashlight light and actual owners were aware of mode spacing. But out of all aspects UI got the most compalints.
the first preliminary readings from the Fenix sphere are out!, and repeated measurements at different conditions (room temperature, cell model, cell quality, with SS bezel, without SS bezel) are carried out in order to ensure data integrity and reproducible data under the same conditions, and to guarantee definitive numbers to be published.
since the tests and results are very positive, already a heads up for the moment: Fenix lumens scale and EagleTac lumens scale are not too far apart, they are definitely in the same ballpark for the below so far tested ET lights! Well, the TX25C2 Hi-mode (40%) seems to be spec'ed too high but that's 1 outlier only.
In the review text i had called the light a "1000 Fenix lumen light" (before this very post) and that's true at 1sec after activation (996.6 lumens on the Fenix scale). After 30secs on Turbo, the output is 899.5lm on the Fenix scale, so Fenix would have printed "900 ANSI lumens" on the retail package, because ANSI measurement is taken 30secs after activation. In this sense, i should call it a "900 Fenix ANSI lumen light". It doesn't matter how i call the light. The point is that it is brighter than any Fenix light which is spec'ed with 899 Fenix ANSI lumens or lower. In the current Fenix catalog, the TX25C2 beats for example the output (at t=30sec) of:
The above numbers (blue boxed) may not be the very final numbers to be published in the review text, repeated measurements will show if they can be even bettered. Cell was protected NCR18650A.
selfbuilt had published "900 SB ANSI lumens" for the NW. The above (preliminary) table shows that Fenix would have spec'ed the NW with "821.1 Fenix ANSI lumens", which means that selfbuilt's numbers are
900/821.1 = 109.6% of the Fenix number.
On the one hand his "900" hit the (calculated NW) ET spec of "897" spot on, on the other hand both numbers are ~10% over the Fenix scale. Consequently, in his lightbox the CW would read 109.6%*899.5 = 985.9 SB ANSI lumens.
With this number, the TX25C2 CW would still be the lumens leader in the current table (with peak throw 109.6%*20,200 = 22,140 lux@1m):
That's today's info update. More to follow when more's available. Thanks for your attention.
Finally got a TX25C2 (did NOT pay $95) and….you’re right, it is SMALL! Smaller than the numbers and images can convey. It’s a hair brighter than the C12 (measured via the totally unscientific ‘bathroom bounce test’) but the C12 outthrows it by a good margin. Here’s a pic next to a Convoy S3 to help with perspective…
Got mine modded by Vinh. I'm fairly certain it's pushing well over 1000 lumens on high now, and the throw, for such a small light is spectacular. On par with much larger lights.
