Review: Romisen RC-C6 (Q3)

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland
Review: Romisen RC-C6 (Q3)

Romisen RC-C6

Reviewer's Overall Rating: ★☆☆

Romisen RC-C6

 

Summary:

 

Battery: CR123/RCR123
Switch: Reverse clicky
Modes: 3 - H L Strobe
LED Type: Cree XR-E Q3
Lens: Plastic
Tailstands: No
Price Payed: $11.59
From:Dinodirect

 

 

Pros:

  • This guy is tiny!
  • I prefer a screw mechanism for focus to a push-pull
  • Well enough put together
  • Runtime is ages
  • Light weight

Cons:

  • Could do with some lube in the focus mechanism - it graunches and squeaks
  • Plastic lens. But it'd be a lot heavier with a glass lens and probably way more expensive
  • Could use some more threads on the body tube
  • The tailcap! It came from the same place as the $1 cheapies tailcaps. Excusable for a dollar but not $12
  • Why does one put strobe on such a device? In fact why does one want modes on it at all?
  • The zoom loses 50% of output at narrowest focus. This is a lot to lose.

 

Features / Value:  ★★★

This is a nice little light. It came as a surprise to me how small it was. It is actually shorter than my Tank007 E07s and they are very small. I reckon the price was right at $11.59.

It has three modes. I can't see any point in this. One could argue it actually has six because at tightest focus the optical system eats 50% of its output. In addition to high and low, it also has strobe which I never want. No marks off for strobe, there may be someone out there who wants it. That person isn't me though. Like all these zoom lights, they will get used at the extremes of their ranges, either full flood or full zoom. Or at least I do so I really don't care much about what happens in between. In practice it is only going to get used in "project and image of the LED as far away as possible" mode.

Personally, I prefer the screw to focus mechanism over the push-pull type. There is a downside to the screw to focus mechanism though. Don't hold on to the tailcap while you do this or you will unscrew it. Followed by grovelling on the floor trying to find the battery and tailcap.

It has been lubed, but not sure if the lube has got to where it needs to be or if it has migrated elsewhere since it was made. I took off the bezel ring to have a look inside and it came as a pleasant surprise that the (plastic) lens was also held in place by an O ring. This thing may actually have some water resistance.

The tailcap is definitely from a "value" manufacturer. It is horrible. It lets down the rest of the light. It could do with more threading there but it works and keeps costs down. If it were an expensive light it would lose marks big-time but it costs about the price of a Chinese takeaway meal here so no marks lost. Apparently, the more expensive Q5 version has a better body tube and tailcap. I didn't reckon it was worth 50% for for a less than 10% increase in light output.

Obviously its main feature is the zoom mechanism and IMO this is better implemented than most so I'm giving it a 5-star value. If I were rating it for general utility, rather than the specialised device it is I'd probably give it 3-4 stars.

 

Build Quality:  ★★★

Adequate. The tailcap ought to be better IMO. However, the bits that need to be good are. I have deducted marks for the tailcap - but remember this is a pretty cheap light so expecting perfection is plain silly. I am assessing it by the same standards as I'd assess any light here - price does not come into it. Nasty tailcap

Could use some more threads on the body tube. Not knocking much off for this as it works and is faster to remove and replace. I would like to see more threading though.

body and tail

There is an O ring holding in the lens. This did come as a pleasant surprise. This is as well as the O ring on the bezel ring.Bezel ring

The lens itself is moulded plastic and doesn't look too pretty but it gets the job done.

Lens

 

The switch is good. firm and positive - just the way I like them. You can certainly hear the click in here though it isn't as loud as my typing.

 

Battery Life: ★☆☆Copy and paste, maximum ★★★★★

Measurements need doing.

 

Light Output: ★☆☆Copy and paste, maximum ★★★★★

Beamshots need doing. Here are some close up shots. It needs about 1.5 metres to the wall to image the LED.

5cm from the edge of the coffee table, tightest focus

tight focus close up

 

Same distance widest focus.

wide

 

About 2.5m from the ceiling. The LED images far better than that but the camera's autofocus wasn't playing nice. All three of these shots were taken in the afternoon with a lot of ambient light.Tight focus 8 feet.

 

Summary: ★☆☆Copy and paste, use rounded average, maximum ★★★★★

Worth the money.

 


 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...

Edited by: sb56637 on 09/02/2017 - 12:00
sb56637
sb56637's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 01/08/2010 - 09:29
Posts: 6950
Location: The Light

Thanks Don! This is going frontpage whenever you have time to finish it.

I also like the idea of a screw mechanism for focusing instead of a simple slider.  Another nice, affordable Romisen product.

Budget Light Forum ...where Frugal meets with Flashlight!

Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland

sb56637 wrote:

Thanks Don! This is going frontpage whenever you have time to finish it.

I also like the idea of a screw mechanism for focusing instead of a simple slider.  Another nice, affordable Romisen product.

 

That's how I see it. Compromises have been made to keep the price down, but not where it hits function.

 

The only surprise was how much light got eaten at full zoom. I have only one other working zoom light - there is a another but it shorts out an 18650 taking 7 amps out of it and produces only bad smells. Will check it to see if the light losses are as bad in the optical system - it may be intrinsic to the design.

 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...

midieval10
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/23/2010 - 00:05
Posts: 396
Location: California, USA

Thanks for working on the review. My RC-C6 Q5 has different threads. Both sides are covered in black, not exposed aluminum like yours. It also has has more threads than yours.

Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland

Glad that you get better for the money. My pet hate is the tailcap which will likely be neither moddable or repairable. It might be possible to dig it out and replace the tail with something better but as long as it actually works I'll not bother.

 

Does yours have more than one mode?

 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...

midieval10
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/23/2010 - 00:05
Posts: 396
Location: California, USA

Don wrote:

Glad that you get better for the money. My pet hate is the tailcap which will likely be neither moddable or repairable. It might be possible to dig it out and replace the tail with something better but as long as it actually works I'll not bother.

 

Does yours have more than one mode?

I still haven't received my batteries from DX yet. I'll report back when I do.

how2
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 06/01/2010 - 10:26
Posts: 2417
Location: london

This light is available from

 

http://www.manafont.com/product_info.php/x2000-floodtothrow-zooming-glas...

Before it had the words x2000 and the image of the romisen got and email saying it a romisen.

Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland

I've not yet torn it apart fully and photographed it and have been landed with an IT job on Saturday. Yet another @£$% 7 day week. I'd hoped for dry weather and some free time on Saturday to do some light dismantling, testing and photographing. Especially as the Trustfire Z1 that I've been eagerly awaiting arrived today. First impression of it is "Why did I wait so long to buy one?" It came from the lightake special offer a couple of weeks ago.

 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...

midieval10
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/23/2010 - 00:05
Posts: 396
Location: California, USA

Hey Don, how many amps is your light pulling at the tailcap on high? Mine is only pulling 0.64amps.

Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland

midieval10 wrote:

Hey Don, how many amps is your light pulling at the tailcap on high? Mine is only pulling 0.64amps.

 

1100mA on high.

 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...

midieval10
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/23/2010 - 00:05
Posts: 396
Location: California, USA

Don wrote:

midieval10 wrote:

Hey Don, how many amps is your light pulling at the tailcap on high? Mine is only pulling 0.64amps.

 

1100mA on high.

Are you using a 3.0V or 3.6V? I'm using a 3.6V rechargeable.

Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland

midieval10 wrote:

Don wrote:

midieval10 wrote:

Hey Don, how many amps is your light pulling at the tailcap on high? Mine is only pulling 0.64amps.

 

1100mA on high.

Are you using a 3.0V or 3.6V? I'm using a 3.6V rechargeable.

 

Same here - cheap protected RCR123 - I must try it with an IMR 16340 cell to see if it makes any difference. This measurement was not with a fully charged cell, but the one that has been in it since I got it.

 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...

midieval10
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/23/2010 - 00:05
Posts: 396
Location: California, USA

Don wrote:

Same here - cheap protected RCR123 - I must try it with an IMR 16340 cell to see if it makes any difference. This measurement was not with a fully charged cell, but the one that has been in it since I got it.

That's a huge difference. 1100mah vs. 640mah. Yours must be twice as bright as mine.

Don
Don's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/12/2010 - 16:32
Posts: 6617
Location: Scotland

Maybe not. Mine likely has a less efficient driver as well as the lower bin LED. It was after all cheaper. I'll see when I get it on the lightbox.

 

The numbers from my light tests are always to be found here.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApkFM37n_QnRdDU5MDNzOURjYllmZHI...