UF-1504, 1503, 1505 - multiple LED's tested for throw (just what you have been waiting for!!!)

198 posts / 0 new
Last post
MEM
MEM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2015 - 00:51
Posts: 294
Location: Amongst Cornfields, Illinois, USA

Again remember that although you can calibrate different meters from the same LEDs placed in a host, the argument against many meters is that they are highly spectral dependent. The moment that one new tint (basically any different LED) enters the group, the calibration is once again reset to being in an unknown relation to it. An LED’s true lumen rating is going to be based on an average curve of light energy that is a result of a combination of colors, but like a CFL bulb, they have spectra falling “all over the place” you might say. The optimum way to do it, would be to purchase 1 single JETI Specbos 1211 reference spectroradiometer, and then the lights are sent to the holder of that unit for testing. In other words, your throne seat here costs about $8500.

I would like to have this one tested:

I like bright lights, and I cannot lie.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18309
Location: Amsterdam

As much as we may wish to measure our lights perfectly, it is not going to happen, the variation between lights and between people will not get closer than a few percent, perhaps even 10. The attempt here is to get the measurements a bit less all over the place, and that is feasable.

luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2291
Location: X

I think MEM is cooking something good Smile

This is around 2MCD?

We need the man who can brake all records...

n10sivern
n10sivern's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 days ago
Joined: 11/09/2014 - 21:37
Posts: 1550
Location: biloxi, ms

Holy crap MEM. That’s a fire setting laser!!!

Three tomatoes are walking down the street- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and smooches him… and says, Catch up.

Kloepper Knife Works
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 12/07/2014 - 21:28
Posts: 1405
Location: Lincoln, NE
djozz wrote:

As much as we may wish to measure our lights perfectly, it is not going to happen, the variation between lights and between people will not get closer than a few percent, perhaps even 10. The attempt here is to get the measurements a bit less all over the place, and that is feasable.

That’s exactly right, everyone wants to get all perfect and other nonsense, not possible with the quality of meters, and time most of us have. I’ll be happy to get everyone corrected to within 5% of each other for the people who have consistent, but inaccurate meters. Doing a CW, NW, and WW version and having them measured and passed around eliminates the error causes by variations in lenses, and LED’s, and should bring us closer to the 5% mark than 10% I would hope.

Perfect is for theory, we work in reality.

MEM
MEM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2015 - 00:51
Posts: 294
Location: Amongst Cornfields, Illinois, USA

I like to believe I work in reality. If I could be paid for working in dreams, I would have been a made-man long ago. Smile

Not trying to batter your idea(s) down. I was merely expressing the idea that maybe the planning/structure of this method could possibly be improved, such as using those with the same meter types first, etc. Or at least make requirements: measure at a specific distance of 10 meters, and post some certain data from those calibrating (before/after calibration measurement-ranges and differences with tints that are well under or over the expected ranges I.E. Hi-CRI 3000K & a lower CRI ~7000K or even one or two different tint CFL bulbs passed around as a secondary way to compare variance). Yes it would be a good idea if a meter type was made a standard, at least for a group of testers. That way if you owned meter type “X”, those meters are part of the group once calibrated. I would purchase whatever meter you guys choose to calibrate on just to be a part of a testing standard that is BLF-native. Smile

I guess what I’m hearing that sounds slightly off, is that you are saying to pass around these different tints, with the new calibration occurring on different meters, with other data showing how a “good calibrated meter” is varying vast percentages higher than 10% from a reference meter between light sources. Then, finally saying that people will be calibrated to within hopefully 5-10% of one another.

The 5-10% expectation would have to come from somewhere. See what I mean? There would need to be calibration sources that first document TINT effects on the primary meter type vs its lux output readings. To create calibration sources that are known in their differences when tested on meter “X”, you must first start with known calibration sources. That points right back to a professional spectroradiometer to document the calibrating sources to take back to your meters and pass around.

What may be unrealistic to some is the notion any will pay $8500 for a spectroradiometer to test budget lights. I understand that. What might be a little more realistic, would be finding a source to one of these meters, and then simply paying that owner to document the calibration sources. This should be quite feasible and easy to do. There are most likely labs/owners of the equipment that would be willing to do it and provide the test data for a little $ I would imagine.

I like bright lights, and I cannot lie.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18309
Location: Amsterdam

The 5-10% accuracy compared to the real value is ambitious, and may indeed not be realistic.

That said, the inaccuracy of luxmeters are caused by many variables of which some do not apply to the way we measure. Example: angle response variations are not much of an issue with throw measurements because all light will be as good as perpendicular to the sensor. So the total accuracy of a luxmeter will be bit better than the specified value (if an accuracy is at least given, my two chinese meters did not come with accuracy numbers at all).

The same meter types will at least have the same spectral response (I would hope), but in case of chinese meters will certainly not have the same calibration. (I had a Ceto CT1330B luxmeter that read 30% too low!!)

Two years ago, a TLF-member had the opportunity to output-test a series of flashlights at the integrating sphere-facility of the Ledlenser company. But other than that I have not heard of a succesful access to a light-lab.

I had a look around in the Netherlands for official calibrations of light sources, and found a small company that does just that (lichtconsult.nl), but even though they are extremely nice and helpful people (they were very enthousiastic about my amateur attempts at light measurements), having a light source measured is still 325 euro's for the first source, a bit less for subsequent measurements.

Kloepper Knife Works
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 12/07/2014 - 21:28
Posts: 1405
Location: Lincoln, NE

I just want us to be comparable to each other. That’s why I suggested calibrating to djozz’s Mobilux A.

cajampa
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/01/2014 - 01:55
Posts: 1963
Location: Sweden

Interesting you djozz had a CT1330B, that read that much to low.

Because i know KKW are using that & strongly suspect it is reading to low, compared to n10sivern’s meter at least.

Kloepper Knife Works
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 12/07/2014 - 21:28
Posts: 1405
Location: Lincoln, NE

I’ve got no idea if mine reads low or his reads high. Our differences on modified lights that are theoretically identical is what got me interested in finding out more.

If mine really does read low then it’s possible my 400+kcd lights would be a lot different than what I’m telling people they measure, when compared to the other modified lights here it means it’s harder to sell them if I’m at a 20% disadvantage on output because of my meter being a lot more conservative.

cajampa
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/01/2014 - 01:55
Posts: 1963
Location: Sweden

Today i built my next 1504 pill, with a fully (no driver ;)) DD, with the dedomed XM-L2 U4 1C from MTN Smile

And YEAH Big Smile that was a proper upgrade from the dedomed XP-L V6 1A in my first pill. Even when i knew (thanks to n10sivern’s testing) it was going to be stronger, i was visually surprised how much more intensive it looked & how much further it throwed, enough for many giggles in the chilly spring night :bigsmile: It looked almost like 1/3 or 1/4 longer at least. And noticeable sharper in output, i mean the beam really looked more solid & present in the night sky.

And the XM-L2 U4 looked & felt much more efficient also, by lasting longer & not dropping so fast in output & it didn’t get so warm as the XP-L. Of course all of this says the same thing, more light (flux) efficiency for less wattage Wink but in around 1A more efficient or more plus lots, if we go by n10sivern’s testing an estimated 20% extra output is a great deal, when you are running it with such a limited powersupply as a single 18650.
I wish i had more brass pills, so i could skip the led – wire & connection & driver connector board ground connection, for a little more boost.

Is there anyone who want to trade/sell a brass pill Wink Big Smile

Next step is to charge up some battery’s to 4.25v to see what max output looks like Big Smile

And then i need to wait for an IOS order, with a XP-G2 S4 2B, to replace the XP-L V6 1A in my brass pill.

If i keep building throwier lights than this, i am going to have to invest in some binoculars, because this is fast approaching the limit of my unaided ability to see the furthest point of light on objects, in a slightly light polluted environment.

Bribo
Bribo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/05/2012 - 20:46
Posts: 226
Location: vancouver

I did some testing tonight to see if i could match your numbers. made 2 different lights w FET driver and dedomed xml2 led’s from MTN Elecronics and did a tailcap spring bypass with wick.

I get the following using dual hs1010’s (i got a second one cause i was never seeming to get the same numbers as posted here but the both read exactly the same) at 6’ 30s after turning on
XM-L2 U4 1C 363kcd
XM-L2 U3 1A 300kcd

Tried changing lenses, making it direct drive and bypassing the switch. None of these mods made any appreciable difference to the result.
cheers

cajampa
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/01/2014 - 01:55
Posts: 1963
Location: Sweden

What battery did you use Bribo? And when you say you never got the same numbers as posted here, does that mean your number are usually low or all over the place?

N10sivern, KKW, djozz & whoever else are reading this and are measuring with light meters, where do you count the distance from? the led, the top of the lens, the end of the bezel, the bottom of the lens…….or? And do you count from the surface the light meter are on, or from the top of the diffuser or the bottom of the diffuser on the light meter.

Or does that not make any difference at all?

Bribo
Bribo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 09/05/2012 - 20:46
Posts: 226
Location: vancouver

efest IMR 4200 26650 gives the highest numbers but i also tried with a 18650 sony vtc5 and a 26650 evv 4200’s from rmm and got similar #‘s. I set the meter to measure maximum reading and slowly traverse the entire hot spot starting from the wires. I also measured and converted from 20 feet as well and got similar numbers. Definitely not sure what if anything I am doing wrong with this light. I get identical throw readings to the manufactures stated values on my M43 and Javalot lights, just cant seem to get these asperics to go as high as others. i think im just going to have to move to the 2 cell light and and modify it to take a 5A driver.

Kloepper Knife Works
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 7 months ago
Joined: 12/07/2014 - 21:28
Posts: 1405
Location: Lincoln, NE

I go from lens to white sensor face, but I cheat. I measured the distance from the front of the speakers by my TV to the curtains on the other side of the room. I lay the light on top of the speaker and just line the lens up with the front. I line the meter up with the front of the curtains. A couple inches at the almost 20’ I’m measuring at means almost nothing so I don’t sweat it being any more perfect than that.

cajampa
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/01/2014 - 01:55
Posts: 1963
Location: Sweden

Yeah that is a very good point, over longer distances those inches amounts to almost nothing.

MEM
MEM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2015 - 00:51
Posts: 294
Location: Amongst Cornfields, Illinois, USA

After testing some different 1504s, I have an understanding of their factory lenses fairly well. They lose about 15% of potential output. The problem I see with the 1504’s design, mainly is that the lens diameter is uncommon when trying to replace it with a better lens. Uniquefire isn’t going to use an expensive lens, but we could be lucky if it were a different size. I would consider “common” to be something like: 15, 25, 25.4, 30, 35, 40, 50, 50.8, 75mm, etc. In this case, and due to quality of the starting lens (or lack thereof), it may be possible to obtain higher output by use of two lenses or one slightly smaller.

The way I look at it is like this. The 1504 body is just slightly wider than the lens used—bezel walls stay inside lens diameter mostly. When I hold up a pair of calipers set at 77mm roughly, and I place them against the bezel imagining a 75mm lens, I see that it would barely change the overall shape and size of the 1504/1405. Heck, the 1405 would look better with larger bezel. A 75mm lens in this light would have not only been better, would have opened gates to a quick 1mcd light. There are lenses at that size which would ensure 700,000cd without RA.

As far as different lenses go that are not from the UF “150X” factory lights, I am on lens #3 for the 1504. I attached pictures below of it, and showing why it isn’t so great. Not just on visible cast marks, but the kcd is just low with it. Losing 40% of light because of the lens surfaces and profile. It is a 67mm lens. Still, there is one last lens I am waiting on that has a better, polished quality, that I think will beat the factory lens, but not by extremes.

A final option I thought about would be this, make a bezel that holds a 75mm lens for the 1504. :quest:

What do you guys think? Plastic black-ABS bezel holding a 75mm lens on the 1504/1405? Evil

I like bright lights, and I cannot lie.

n10sivern
n10sivern's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 days ago
Joined: 11/09/2014 - 21:37
Posts: 1550
Location: biloxi, ms

I think the problem will be maintaining the focal length for a bigger lens. I am interested in what you can come up with.

Three tomatoes are walking down the street- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and smooches him… and says, Catch up.

luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2291
Location: X

MEM wrote:
Plastic black-ABS bezel holding a 75mm lens on the 1504/1405? :evil:

Why not... And especially if it will be plug and play.

I was hoping that there is some hope for main lenses in combination with mini RA...

cajampa
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago
Joined: 08/01/2014 - 01:55
Posts: 1963
Location: Sweden

Going up in size to 75mm or maybe even up to 100+, if we or you can find a good lens with the correct focal length sound like a good plan Smile And one i have been thinking about to possible using lens hoods/adapters to be able to fit, but a custom 3D printed new bezel sounds interesting.

These big lights are hardly a EDC anyway so going bigger i don’t really see as a problem.

To be honest i find i very much prefer the “lens” type die spot, to the reflector type spot with much spill in the beam that light up everything around, & interferes with night vision adaptation & making the spot beam feel less impressive.

I still hope a small little drop in RA could be produced for the 1504 though.

luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2291
Location: X

cajampa wrote:
To be honest i find i very much prefer the "lens" type die spot, to the reflector type spot with much spill in the beam that light up everything around, & interferes with night vision adaptation & making the spot beam feel less impressive. I still hope a small little drop in RA could be produced for the 1504 though.

+1

When you turn on reflector LED light, your night vision is killed by spill light that is reflecting from nearby objects & environment. Your pupil of the eye narrows and you see less. The brighter the environment is, the narrower is the pupil of the eye, so there’s a reduction in light that hits the fundus. Aspherical type of beam has sharp borders, so there is better contrast between illuminated area and dark area. The enhanced contrast lets you to perceive objects/persons/things better.

Mine 300kcd reflector light does not seems to out throw mine 270 kcd NMV2 aspheric (eye perception, of course reflector wins on lux meter). I see further in a night with aspheric.

MEM
MEM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2015 - 00:51
Posts: 294
Location: Amongst Cornfields, Illinois, USA

I suppose the “photo” I referred to in my very last post of this lens would have helped if it were actually in the post.

Here is a simple example of how to demonstrate aspheric lens cast quality, especially when it is very poor, so an audience who cannot see your same close-up view can see what you are talking about. I used a bright contrasted image behind the two differing lenses on the computer monitor, then the inconsistencies of the poorer lens really jumped out. Beam shots can show intensity loss, but this is the reason why light is lost—imperfections. It’s somewhat hard to show the imperfections on the factory 1504 lens without knowing which image you are looking for when viewing it, but once you see the inside surface of the asphere reflecting an image, suddenly you will realize how bumpy and wavy it is. Also strange things such as image boundaries that occur can be used to view overall curvature consistency. When I take a good polished (not cast) lens, and view the dark spot occurring that moves across the (upper) lens as it is tilted, it will have a very consistent, rounded edge which is what I would call “predictable” as it moves. A cast lens will show this same dark mark as nice and smooth at some points of its border, and at other points it will sort of jump around becoming inconsistent with the lens’ overall shape which is producing it. This is harder to show sometimes in a photo though you probably have an idea of what I’m talking about. To the naked eye, it is very apparent, though.

I suspected this lens would not be great when I bought it, but I had to try it to confirm. Once in a blue moon a grade “C” lens will arrive as a better grade lumped in with the others, but typically it is old projector/condenser light stock items that were cast in the 1950s and 1960s at low quality levels, like this one is:

The FL is shorter, and there’s still a good 5mm travel left after focus—even though it is very similar in all dimensions to the factory lens.

…So, yet another lens is added to my lens container to be placed into the eternal darkness of sealed storage. Smile I’ve officially passed the $400 mark in two weeks on potential project lenses. Doing this is not cheap; it’s furthest from “budget”. (In my house it’s her and me. I can assure that only one knows what has been spent on lenses, and I’d prefer to keep it that way, or I may receive an involuntary, and likely painful organ removal during my sleep.)

Speaking of projectors. When I was thinking about condenser setups from long ago, I thought about what had given me some of my first ideas for my original RA design. Those projectors often used hemispherical or near-hemispherical recycling lenses for their bulb, to redirect the source image back onto the emitting surface. Looks like there’s a lot of hemispherical mirrors with holes in them that should fear the development of the time-machine. Smile

(“Rear Reflector” here:)

On the topic of “mini-RAs”, simply put, it won’t work right. I have tried this (I have made a few hundred of them, there is a boundary for every LED size). At extremely small sizes, what happens is the simple phenomenon of localized heating, and a highly deformed projected image that will not fit the die properly to cover it right. The light is far too concentrated in too small an area, and what’s trapped under the tiny space actually gets very heated up. (even 5% of lost lumens recirculating in a very small space can make a lot of heat from an XM-L2/XP-G2. Also, the aperture effect is thrown all out of whack by the small size—the reason I say that the image is incorrect (the corner FL points are different from the center, and a . I won’t go into great detail, but height is important for the lens being used. If the egg-holder is very very short, it needs a large hole in ratio to width to allow the yolk through. This diminishes the effect. If it is too tall, the egg will sit very nicely, but the entire egg will not cover the skillet. Meaning you bought a big skillet, but you’re only getting the performance of a smaller skillet’s surface area. So it will be the same performance as a grill with small skillet. The balance has to be just right to use the entire surface area of your skillet! Big Smile Big Smile

Honestly, don’t try to fix the design by using the wrong parts. Just fix the design. The problem is the pill. It is recessed. The pill needs to lose the recess. Then a regular size egg-holder will sit on top. When that happens you have far better cooling and mass because the recess will be filled with copper (= higher kcd). I can provide the copper slugs, and modify the pills so they are pressed-in, then faced off so they are smooth all the way across. You’re likely thinking, “but then the lens will not focus…”, which is exactly right. But, you’re forgetting something.

What you are likely forgetting is that the mod is done so that the correct size RA can be used, for full theoretical output. Once the proper RA is in place, a second (well, first) collimating lens placed on the RA is how the problem is then solved. The first lens on the RA captures every bit of available light, the light is slightly collimated, and the next lens (the 67mm) doesn’t have to be so far away to finish the collimation. There is no real problem with FL after all when this is done. The correct lens #1 needs to be used. This is the easy part. It doesn’t have to be large or thick since it’s just allowing lens #2 to focus. If it is too thick, lens #2 simply focuses at a shorter distance. I can guarantee I can find coated lens #1 to work for likely $10-$15. For better quality, $20-$25 for an achromat doublet, which is what I would personally use to obtain a tighter focused image with higher ending kcd. You may notice that as you focus, yellow/red wants to focus last. Once yellow/red are focused, blue is a little past its focal length, since it refracts more than yellow/red light. This results in lost kcd, because that blue outline is being thrown away off to the sides. When an achromat is used at plane 1, the beams align better going into the asphere, so they also come out of the asphere closer together since its job to focus becomes less in the total amount of light bends. This is how I have my big-aspheric setup to achieve very high output numbers. Monochromatic light doesn’t care about the amount of steps or degree of bends (to an extent) since all light bends at the same refractive index—being the same wavelength. White light is a far different animal. Red focuses further away, while blue focuses closer. You attempt to find a point that best represents all colors and appears brightest, but really, you’re only achieving good focus with colors around the same wavelength range. People may think I over-analyze this sort of stuff, but my testing equipment tells me that these are important things to take into account when hunting high output numbers. There’s a reason why a DEFT-X is using the same size lens and getting over 100% more output with even lower LED bins. It’s very simple when broken down, just like anything—make additions to all places and suddenly you’re confused about how your output became so high. It isn’t rocket science, but it needs to be done right as if it were.

So, with 1504 data becoming all over the place, how should we proceed with these specific custom mods I propose? Should I start a thread on the 150X lights, and make the thread about possible custom optic arrangements, so that lens data is contained away from general driver modding and etc?

I will work on, and build a new bezel. I would like input along the way for what you guys think about looks and etc.

75-80mm is max size you’ll want in a 1504—that’s what I’m surely thinking based on lenses I have. A 100mm lens size is something better for a bigger starting light, because 100, 125, and 150mm lenses get very heavy in such a short light; it would become awkward.

Here is an example of the print quality I can perform (this part is for a heatsink mount behind a large lens system):

I like bright lights, and I cannot lie.

MEM
MEM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2015 - 00:51
Posts: 294
Location: Amongst Cornfields, Illinois, USA

A light that looks like a good candidate for an aspheric also appears to be the TrustFire TR-DF003, even the DF005 looks OK but I’m not sure I like the design as much for heatsinking where the LED would be. A switch would need to be installed on the DF003 handle (no problem) but the bezel is quality and practically saying, “put a lens in me”. Smile I mean it has a thick camera style bezel, which is really the exact design you want in an aspheric for adjustment. I read up on them, appears the DF003/5 has a bump-switch, or a turn head switch, which had problems for divers. It could be grounded well, with a tail switch installed, due to all the extra handle-cap flat area. Then you wouldn’t use the turn-head switch, or you could as a second channel to a driver.

OT, I know…sorry. Big Smile Just thinking of aspheric hosts and that really seemed like something that has been looked past.

Carry on.

I like bright lights, and I cannot lie.

luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2291
Location: X

MEM wrote:
(In my house it’s her and me. I can assure that only one knows what has been spent on lenses, and I’d prefer to keep it that way, or I may receive an involuntary, and likely painful organ removal during my sleep.

So your wife is surgeon? You have every right to be afraid then Smile

But if you look that from other side you are not alcoholic, drug addict, etc... You just spend your money in the name of science.

 

MEM
MEM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 2 months ago
Joined: 03/18/2015 - 00:51
Posts: 294
Location: Amongst Cornfields, Illinois, USA
luminarium iaculator wrote:

MEM wrote:
(In my house it’s her and me. I can assure that only one knows what has been spent on lenses, and I’d prefer to keep it that way, or I may receive an involuntary, and likely painful organ removal during my sleep.

So your wife is surgeon? You have every right to be afraid then Smile

But if you look that from other side you are not alcoholic, drug addict, etc… You just spend your money in the name of science.

 

HA! “Science”. Good one. Science to her, is determining how much a diamond set into a silver band weighs, and if it will fit her finger well. Silly

I like bright lights, and I cannot lie.

luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2291
Location: X

Well we all like something... And if we can afford it why not? Life is short.

About topic here is mine opinion:

It is fun to have super thrower flashlight like DEFT for WOW effect but as a hunter I am really dreaming about small rifle mountable(1" 1x18650 tube), 30-50 aspheric that could do about 500kcd.

What I want to say is that I would like to see downsize trend in aspheric world. Super performance in as small package as possible.

IMO 1504 is good light but it is heavy like hell(even after trimming on lathe) and because of that it sucks as a hunting light so I really don't want to rifle mount it & each attempt to make this flashlight larger will make it even less usable from mine perspective...

 

 

 

 

 

 

n10sivern
n10sivern's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 days ago
Joined: 11/09/2014 - 21:37
Posts: 1550
Location: biloxi, ms

Luminarium, while I agree with you about the weight of the 1504, I don’t know if 500kcd is possible out a 50mm lens with a collar or some other device.

Three tomatoes are walking down the street- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and smooches him… and says, Catch up.

luminarium iaculator
luminarium iaculator's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 21 hours ago
Joined: 07/07/2013 - 09:09
Posts: 2291
Location: X

Yes I also agree with you that currently that is not possible (at least to mare mortals like us).

That why I want to "throw bug" in the ear to some inventor that could do it. I know that MEM could do it but probably not in a small package like nightmaster V2 or 1503 flashlight. Even 350-400 kcd would be great (without loosing zoom function if possible).

If RA can bring 70 -100% boost and quality 50mm aspheric does around 270kcd it could be possible.

laythaws
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: 01/15/2015 - 00:57
Posts: 107
Location: Location::Location::

If i replace the stock lens of 1504 with the crelant lens http://store.crelant.com/products/flashlight-accessory/collimator-head/7... will i see an improvement? They have almost the same dimension but the crelant lens i guess has better quality or maybe not?

1504 lens = thickness of 24.5mm, diameter of 67 mm with a weight of 100.8 grams
crelant lens = Height (center): 24.0mm, Width (base): 66.7mm Weight: 98.8g

n10sivern
n10sivern's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 days ago
Joined: 11/09/2014 - 21:37
Posts: 1550
Location: biloxi, ms

I’ve heard the crelant lens weren’t that great. They may be the same. Who knows.

Three tomatoes are walking down the street- a poppa tomato, a momma tomato, and a little baby tomato. Baby tomato starts lagging behind. Poppa tomato gets angry, goes over to the baby tomato, and smooches him… and says, Catch up.

Pages