Last night I changed the stock emitter with an 3000K 80CRI one…
and this happened!
Forgive the ignorance…but WHAT happened? I see two E11 variants at $30….is that a new price or is the 3D a new tint? Orrrrrrrrrr………did a hyperlink just automatically get added to your post because you changed out your emitter in the E11? 
I’m guessing he put in a 3K and Tint was Toooooo… yellow…and now E11 is offered in 5K 3D nice neutral tint
It was available in two tints (NW and CW) right from the start … don´t get his post either… :question:
I think he means Manker E11 became available at GearBest, something we thought isn’t going to happen.
Which 14500 battery would you recommend for Manker E11?
Will Sanyo UR14500P (800 mAh) work?
Just ordered Manker E11.
Which 14500 to order for it, flat top or button top (both unprotected)?
Yeah, but it’s the same price, so…
In your beamshot the E11 looks to have wider spill than the Mi7, but this one says something totally different.
They both can’t be right…
The last picture (gif) is obviously crap or faked. The camera was likely set to auto-exposure, and the exposure time or other settings are completely different between the two images.
I completely disregard that gif image, unless the settings are detailed in full. Don’t believe it. And given that the photographer doesn’t know how to operate a camera, I wouldn’t be surprised if he also doesn’t know how to set the flashlights to max.
Actually in that comparative beemshot the spill of Mi7 is wider, just like in the gif.
It sure looks to me like the E11 is wider in the beamshot.
Anyway, my point was that nothing in the gif can be believed, without seeing the exif data from the image (and believing that the photographer isn’t faking something else, which I’m not even sure of, given the more believable beamshot comparison picture).
That gif is from review done by kj75, who does a lot of very competent reviews. There is always a possibility of mistake of course, but faking is definitely out of the question in this case.
Actually, he might be right. After looking closer it looks like it has a faint wide spill in the middle you can barely see in the picture.
Here is the same Klarus Mi7 review by kj75, where the animated gif comparison comes from, this time in English.
Well, maybe he knows his flashlights. But it doesn’t appear he knows how to use the manual settings on his camera.
I suppose it’s possible he got a bum E11 light, or a bum battery. But given the huge difference in his gif, compared to side-by-side beamshots, I think he left the camera on auto. Or perhaps he let the camera blow out some of the highlights or something. Anyway, something is definitely off about it.
Can anyone who has the 2 lights comment on the difference in throw between them …… I would have thought the Mi7 with the XP-L Hi would have a tighter hotspot and longer throw but I know that’s not the only contributing factor …. mainly interested in if one has a much better throw than the other???
I agree something looks very odd about this image, but the spill of Mi7 is wider on the beamshot comparison image also, so that itself is not the problem.
He says all camera settings are always on manual and always the same for every review. He also says the two images were shot one after another both with fresh batteries.
Okay, looking at the beamshots again, yes, I agree the Mi7 spill is wider, however it is very faint.
In any case, I think the gif images are very misleading. They imply the Mi7 is far brighter than the E11, which just isn’t the case. If he really did keep all the camera’s settings the same, then the scene topography is misleading the viewer. i.e., the scene is chosen to give a bonus to a light with a large, faint, spill.
I just thought about something else. What is the distance between camera and the flashlight mount? If it isn’t negligible, that would explain why flashlight with wider spill looks so much better in the image.