Thanks for your efforts! 
I think you’re pulling a double Steve, gotta run though, see ya! 
I have to agree Matt, I really like seeing …well…everything! The way the MT-G2 does it it’s just great all around. That tight hot spot of the XP footprint could be good for hunting or tracking though, wouldn’t disturb as much on the periphery and wouldn’t show you as much either. So each one would have a place with the XM footprint being the general all rounder. I had the shutter fast in an effort to show the hot spot, which there’s not much of in the MT-G2. In reality, they were much better at lighting up the room, especially the big guy!
I knew I was going to like seeing em side by side, but I’m gonna have to sell em off in the end to keep my wife from scalpin me! She’s got enough Native American Indian in her blood she can get scary! (Her great grandmother’s name was Faye Tiny Wolf, Mary’s 5’ tall and act’s 8’2” sometimes!) {just kidding, she’d never scalp me, but it’s always much better to make the attempt to keep the peace 
}
Excellent work. 
nice set of test C8's. I'll stay around for the final stages....
I think its worth to mention that you are comparing a 21,8$ emitter that is fed around around twice the energy of the XM-L and around 4 times the energy of the XP-G2. And you are comparing them indoors at close range with wide angle. Which is where a floody MT-G2 shines.
For 21,8$ you could get 10 XP-G2s. I wonder which would look brighter between 10 x XP-G2s @ 50W vs say an MT-G2 @18W.. 0:)
Just taking a look at the other complete other side of the coin, which is not directly relevant for this test.
I think we all know the winner of this exact comparison when it comes to light output.
I don't mean to sound negative though. Its a great comparison, and I look forward to the rest. It will be interesting to see runtime tests and everything you come up with. Seeing this stuff side by side is very nice.
Btw, as a little bonus on the side for us. Could you include a hotrod triple XP-G2 light and name the optics too? :)
Well Race, it’s designed as a test to show the various pros and cons of the 3 popular Cree emitters…as such there is no winner. And the first shots were indoors mainly because it’s freakin cold outside and I’ve had the Flu for a week. I do intend to show different beamshots so that there will be evidence to help someone pick which emitter would serve them best in their particular need. Which is really the whole point here. For those of us that have popped different emitters in and out of our favorite hosts for a while, there’s nothing new here. But for someone just joining our insanity this can be a very helpful comparison. Or at least that’s my thought process.
Not sure how you figure the XP-G2 is getting less energy fed to it than the XM-L2? Both are running the same cell and driver. The XP-G2 actually has a higher Vf, so if anything there’s more energy flowing through the XP-G2 than the XM-L2. Right? At any rate, the whole idea is to show the differences, good and bad, between the 3 primary emitters from Cree.
I do have a few very nice triples, 2 utilizing the XP-G2 R5 2B emitter. You would like to see one thrown in against these 3 C8’s for beamshot comparison? I can tell you that the Carclo 10507 Narrow Clear optics will compare favorably to the MT-G2 spread of light. Running at 3.75A, making 1173 OTF @ 30 sec, very comparable to the MT-G2 at 2.96A even though the big boy is making more total lumens by a wide margin.
Yes, the MT-G2 uses 8.4V to run it. Yes that’s an “unfair advantage”, or would be if this were a contest. But since it’s only a side-by-side comparison, with further testing to show how poorly cells will hold up to it’s abuse, the relevance still remains that these are the top 3 offerings from Cree as we use them in our flashlights. Each will have a totally different user set, as each will serve a completely different end line purpose. Perhaps I’ll throw in an animated GIF, showing how the tighter emitter puts a fire in the midst of the wide throwing Big Dome.
First things first, I have to modify the switch assembly in the MT-G2 C8…the 2 18350’s are too long by some 5mm and I need to gain some room so that the light will fully assemble and maintain the water tightness of the o-rings. I’ll get some more solid readings today once that’s accomplished, and hopefully some beamshots tonight, weather (and Flu) permitting.
If you don't mind, lets see your brightest triple. You choose the optics.
And don't get (more) sick by doing outdoor beamshots for me. There is no rush..
10507 has a HUGE hotspot (and almost zero spill), 10511 even with the frosted front surface still there is more like an OP reflector, smaller spot and more spill. I don't much like the 10507.
Nice comparison. I like the floody MT-G2 as well. As discussed, it is being fed a whole lot more power at the moment, and the run time will be a lot shorter. Comparing the XM-L2 with 8 added chips and the MT-G2 with the stock 8 could be more “fair”, I think. The MT-G2 will probably be at a small disadvantage due to less power capacity of 2x18350 compared to 1x18650. But on the other hand it should be a bit more efficient, as it’s not overdriven.
A triple XP-G2 or XM-L2 would be a nice addition to the test, as that would be a lot more floody and run the emitters at a level where they are more efficient. Running 3 XP-G2 in parallel at 3A or 6A total is a bit closer to spec. It would also not have the Vf issues that you would get at 6A. Maybe you can add 2 chips to the XM-L2 driver first and compare that to the triple XP-G2 you have at 3.75A? If the triple XP-G2 can easily be boosted to 6A, that would be every more awesome :).
Anyway, I don’t have any experience modding flash lights (yet), so not sure whether my ideas are correct or realistic.
My suggestion in PMs was to run them all at the same 15 watts, so maybe that's coming sometime soon.
That would be interesting too. Would be a lot of hassle for Dale to do though.
I checked your spreadsheet Dale. That is a nice information!
On top of the beamshots, numbers also backs up why XP-G2s in a C8 sized reflectors (or larger) are not for me. Not much more throw but considerably less output (lumen) at similar amps. And the XM-L2 can still go way higher and gain more output compared to what the XP-G2 can gain.
Again looking forward to the rest. Keep up the good work! :beer:
But Race, it all depends on WHY you need a light in the first place. We have a lot of hunters, so I’m sure they know exactly what I’m talking about. The hunters day starts off with a very early morning trek out to the deer stand. A pinpoint of light to watch the trail, without a lot of spill to have the whole forest awake, will easily allow that trek to be minimally invasive. The XP-G2. They get a good shot, bag a deer that runs. The XM-L2 will give plenty of illumination to follow the blood trail and watch out for obstacles. Once to the fallen game, the MT-G2 will light up the scene for field dressing that beauty! Different situations call for different lights, or the same light with different outputs.
15 watts each would of course be doable, but it’s just not practical. Of all the modders threads I’ve read here, including yours Comfy, I don’t recall ever seeing anyone find Vf on an emitter, divide a projected wattage by that Vf to determine amperage to set up the driver for and figure in some losses so the actual doesn’t fall short. Who does that? 15 watts would be at the top of the XP-G2’s game at around 4.2A, while the MT-G2 would be strolling along around 2.4A. But of course, I like a challenge as much as the next guy so I might actually try to pull it off….might being key.
I’m working with the straight up easy to duplicate drivers, stack some chips like everyone does and run it on copper for better hang time. If the test isn’t real world, what good is it? I guess if you have a bench power supply and bench heat sinks to find what a particular emitter requires to make a particular wattage, that’s all well and good. I don’t. I don’t have a wealth of electrical knowledge to enable me to ferret that kind of thing out, I DO have the desire to see amazing output, and like bumping a driver for all it’s worth to get there.
Race, an XP-G2, 1A tint, de-domed, in a big reflector, easily out throws an XM-L2 driven harder. All the light is going into the hot spot, or the vast majority of it, such that 600 lumens outdoes 1000 as far as the eye is concerned. Got a build coming up where I’ll do just that in a copper pill for an HD2010 at probably 4.5A or better. We’ll see how that looks. Some have said that it’s easier to see out to where the hot spot is, without all the spill contracting your pupils. Makes sense in a way, but you’re still looking at the light, so they’ll still be contracted as far as I can tell.
Like with most everything else in life, compromise is the key word. There is no all-encompassing answer.
I can't believe I missed this thread! Great work and I look forward to seeing the future updates!
Looking for the opportunity and a new place for comparative beamshots. Since there will be another round, or two, it’ll need to be easy access and easily duplicated. I’m tired of the red oil drum and white barn. Even if those are easy shots taken from just outside the front door. lol Been seeing those views most of my life, ready for some scenery changes.
What works for this? A hiking trail? Parking garage? Under the bleachers at a large (semi) football stadium? What real world setting would best show the differences in these 3 lights?
I was hoping for some feedback, we’ve got too many lurkers….458 reads and about 10 people actually have something to say. Tough crowd! Perhaps I need to figure out how to do a poll, maybe that would direct me to my beam shot battleground…
Dale, you dont need to come up with a story about hunters when I just said why a certain light/emitter combo is not for me. I have seen those combos myself in real life. I did not have the numbers to confirm what I saw, nor do I have beamshots out of many of the lights Ive modded. Which is why its interesting to see a good comparison like this. But personally I was not impressed with the XP-G2 compared to the XM-L2 (and I tried several different C8 reflectors and several different larger lights).
Your numbers shows:
The XP-G2 have about 6% more throw compared to the XM-L2. Which I consider to not be visible.
The XM-L2 have about 40% more light compared to the XP-G2. Its got stronger spill light and larger hotspot with pretty much the same throw. Easily visible.
I hear people say this all the time. The XP-G2 "throws soo much better at similar current in big reflectors". So why does your Convoy XP-G2 light only have 6% more throw than the XM-L2 light? Drive the XM-L2 harder and it will outthrow the XP-G2 (domed vs domed). Its also easier to drive the XM-l2 harder.
On top of that, the further towards 5A (or higher) you push those emitters, the more the XM-L2 will go for the lead...
I have done beamshots comparisons with de-domed XP-G2 running at MORE than 5A in large reflector. (The emitter died after some use btw) It did not live up to my expectations. De-domed XP-G2 in a bit more compact zoom light, totally different story. Cuts through fog and rain like nothing else and throws well for its size.
And yes, with less spill it is easier to see further, especially with rain/moist/fog/snow etc in the air. MT-G2 lights sucks in these conditions..
I certainly agree, there is a use for every light with every emitter combo. I just think that certain light/emitter combos are not as good as others..
As long as its not a parking garage, im good with the other suggested locations. Two sets of pictures (wide angle and tele). Mouseover pictures.
Could you check lux and lumen on XP-G2 vs XM-L2 at medium?
Would be interesting to see how numbers compares to high.
Race, new numbers in the spreadsheet covering lux and lumens for L and M ranges.
Where did you find centering rings for Convoy reflector for XP-G?
The XP-G2 fit’s diagonally into the centering ring for the XM-L footprint. Not the best solution perhaps, but it keeps the reflector off the pads.