I’d like Summer to send me an AR coated lens too. Anti-reflective coatings increase light transmission through the lenses to 99.5 percent. With advanced technology, some AR coatings are even more scratch resistant than glass.
Sounds only right. I’m sure we could supply our order numbers to Summer.
FlashPilot - glad to hear you are getting the same # amps now as I do, was think'n I was off. So I think my #'s posted earlier for lumens, etc. are in the ballpark because they do make some some sense now at these amps and for this size light, maybe still a bit low, but it's a basic T6 of who knows what tint. It's a 20mm star, so, good candidate for a SinkPAD!!
Yes yours pulls slightly more than mine. I get 2.4A (I think it was around 2.43A) With a Sanyo 2600 straight from the charger and 2.2A from a Trustfire flame, also straight from the charger.
I think a change of driver would be good, but from what Summer told me, I should not have had to touch it. 
Marc.
First one sold 147 No reviews yet
Current one - almost three days left - sold 63 so far
I thought the factory was closed for the holiday?
Anybody else receive theirs yet? Pictures or beamshots welcome 
With my original understanding (posted above) that the C8T6 and X5T6 were internally identical, my readings have also been VERY cell dependent (four different kinds) with stock leads on the harbor freight dmm and assume yours would be too if these boards are identical (I got mine photo’d and posted a question in the DIY subforum). A low of 2.1A with the supplied Supfire cell to a high of 2.56 with - get this - Chinese Uni-Sun’s from a generic laptop-pack pull.
Still wondering what kind of board allows the approx. 3A with CR123a’s I measured (the site info was correct on this feature but not 6x7135 for the C8T6)
Well I haven’t try mine on C123’s yet but my friends has a couple, so I will try. Your Supfire cells seem a little low on power, do you know what they are suppose to be? Are they a branded cell or a xxxxfire type cell?
Marc.
Supfire X5 - Range 30’. 4.18V, high mode
Photo is a touch overexposed. Largish spot beam with sharp well defined perimeter. This isnt the concentrated beam (thrower) we had all hoped for in the photos, but doesnt do a bad job either. As with most XML’s, there is a slight dark hole in the center. VERY cold white tint compared to most other budget XML’s.
Recommended upgrades:
- UCL lens
- 3A driver
- I havent tried yet: mod the emitter centering ring by cutting off the raised lip that surrounds half the emitter dome. Possibly, removing the centering ring and electrically isolating the back side of the reflector with tape might accomplish the same end. Not sure what the beam pattern will look like after.
- Emitter swap to anything other than what came in this thing. THE TINT IS HORRIBLE!
At this point, it would no longer be the budget light that was advertised. To bad, because the host is an excellent example of high quality CNC machining. If the standard finish of Fenix would rate a 10, Id rate the X5 a sold 8.5 with my examples.
How is the heat transfer? What size driver will fit for a swap? Will the 4a 4 group intl outdoor driver fit?
I put one of Kumabear’s Keeppower 3400mAh in mine. Ran mine for 30 minutes on High in a room temp environment just for grins. It transfered heat nicely all the way back. Never got really hot.
It does look great! Love the grey color.
Wish it had square threads. Easy to get cross-threaded.
Wish it did not have the blinky modes.
That’s all I have to share.
Thanks… I might mod mine
I’m sorry for the misimplication Marc
They don’t have that listed on the website for the X5, just the C8 (I guess IF the driver boards were the same but we can’t be sure of that yet: my understanding of the identical nature of the lights’ electronics came from communications with the rep when I purchased several months ago and the C8 was a little cheaper so I went with that.) But it’s also problematic and clear that their website spec’s can’t be wholly trusted as the C8 DOES NOT feature 6x7135 as listed.
EDIT: driver pic added
You’re correct in your observation on the power for the Supfire (branded-wrapped) cells. Excited at having new toys when received, I (wholly ignoring proper cell care) just plunked them in the lights and ran them down from 3.6V till the low-voltage flash was barely a whisper… charged up to 4.17 on the Supfire chargers (the same they do now on the I2) but it may have hurt their power delivery? Also, they’re the base model included with their retail boxes (they offer 2 other “deluxe” cells available for separate purchase) So it goes Supfire=>Sony(old pack pulls)=>Trustfire Flames (FTech holographics)=>Uni-Sun’s(new pack pulls) for me
Thanks for your input and hopefully after the holiday you guys will have a resolution for the X5 and I’ll be able to find out why some of the company website info is false (though I have to say in spite of all this spec and driver stuff, the C8 and A6 are incredibly well machined and performing lights for the price I paid)
AND for your beam shot.
Looks to be roughly the same as that of the C8T6 I have. Not sure about how early on you placed your order but back in the thread I tried to dispel the notion that the deeper reflector in the picture Summer offered lent itself to an interpretation of a “throwier” beam. Not sure if the goal and results are the same for the XinTD’s V3 deeper reflector mod, but I learned from the rep - and translations from taobao - that Supfire elongated the reflector to accommodate the larger emitter size of the XML and to make the beam “floodier” and differentiate it from theirs - and others - “Q” emitter C8’s
I’ll be following along to see your mods to the light in the future - though I’m really happy with my model, I’m really annoyed(!) - as well as embarrassed by my ignorance till felt compelled to take it apart for a photo - to learn the driver for the C8T6 is not 6x7135 as listed on the website: major
It’s my understanding that the head/reflector/pill setup is identical (even if the emitter/driver and housing aesthetics are different) to the X5 so your approach would be beneficial and similarly applicable. If you decide to proceed I hope you’ll keep us updated: it will be great to learn from a pro!
Thanks again!
Thank you for stepping up and conducting such a detailed investigation. Ive got several mods ahead of this one… just planning my next move as I go along. In comparing the deeper X5 reflector to the C8, the X5 does relate to a slightly tighter and more controlled hotspot, but a lot of that might be a function of the raised lip on the emitter retaining ring, creating a sheer beam cut-off between the spill and spot beam (and also possibly wasting several lumens in the process, although white does reflect well).
Removing the driver is a simple proposition… just unscrew the brass retaining ring. I measure 16mm for the driver, so a 17mm 7135 based driver might not fit after trimming (as was conjectured earlier in this thread). BUT - since the retaining ring is brass, solder will stick to it, so a surface mounted 17mm driver might be an alternative. Protected 18700 Xtars fit, so it seems that there is a moderate amount of room inside the host to accommodation surface mounting the driver if necessary.
The stock driver is very simple with very few components, and there appears to be current sense resistors that can be changed for greater output. Im not the expert in such SMD component swaps, but there are many here that are. If the 7135 based driver turns out to be a problem, I’ll post a thread asking others to help identify which resistors to replace and go from there. Aside from soldering the emitter leads, Im hoping to avoid a soldering solution during a driver swap. If this can be done, I think it will help many people to attempt their own mods and discover how easy it is. We all have to start somewhere…
As you can see, this light did not materialize into the bargain that we were all promised.
At the very least,
SUMMER, we expect to receive coated lenses as promised.
+1
A few not-so-surprising results:
I just removed the emitter centering ring to test for changes in the beam pattern and output. The ring actually consists of 2 parts:
1) A small centering ring that fits tightly around the emitter. This is the part with the “shelf” that protrudes part way up the emitter dome. 2) A larger removable ring surrounds the smaller centering ring.
After removing the centering rings and then trying them in different combinations, (while moving the lens in and out to seek a good compromise between beam pattern and output) I discovered that it was a complete waste of time. At least in my experiments, the beam pattern became completely whipped out with rings and other artifacts. At the tightest beam that I could muster (both centering rings removed and lens as close to the emitter as possible), lux* went from 15,400 before the mod to 12,300 after. Even with the reflector pressed in as far as it would go, the emitter still sits below the reflector and wastes lux. Clearly, the white centering rings reflect some light which ads to the lux output. The next step might be to trim the shelf off the inner ring or carve another one. I’ll hold off for now on that one. A copper shim between the pill and star to bring the emitter closer to the reflector might produce some interesting results, but Im under the impression that the beam pattern would probably continue to deteriorate. I wonder if this reflector was optimized for a different emitter and then adapted to be used with the XM-L. Either way, it appears to be optimized to the point where it cant be improves as-is.
I dont have any spare 8 × 7135 driver’s on hand to play with. Looks like its time to order more.
*lux measurement taken at center beam after 30 second turn-on at a range of 6 feet @4.18V.
thanks for the in depth notes! It looks like then this light will be a driver swap only for me… i do not want to monkey around with the focal point unless there is an easier way… i wonder if you de-domed the emitter if that would just make things worse… it sounds like its best left alone…
maybe a nice 3 amp 3 mode driver and call it a day
Oh boy, didn't realize it was a 16mm driver, ouch. I really don't like the retainer ring setup on an all alum pill, but I've done some creative dremel'ing before, maybe, again, I'll retrofit a brass pill with a 17mm mount in there. I prefer higher amps though (more power), got C8's at 3.8A with extra copper, and this one has a bit bigger host to it, so I'm think'n 3.8A will be fine. Also, crap - no time, but just got in my USB programmer and 8 pin clip, so hoping to download some decent drivers, so 3.8A becomes a "turbo" mode, and can use a secondary "high" mode. Just too busy, gotta get to my XinTD XM-L2 SinkPAD mod...
UPDATE: I just measured the driver, and driver mount inner opening - driver is 16.6 to 16.7 mm, and the opening inside the threads will fit a 17 mm driver, so don't worry. Please check again - think my caliper is pretty accurate. This is all standard stuff. I got a bunch of new Nanjg drivers and they are measuring between 16.9mm to 17 mm.
there is room to file the nanj down too. they can be filed down to 16mm if your careful
Well, I finally didn’t bought one because lately I prefer smaller lights and without strobe (and because I don’t have too much extra $$$ to spare )
On the other hand I must say that it’s a good price for that light, even with those “drawbacks” (for some). You get a good host with somewhat less output (thus you can use it on HI for more time) than regular (probably DD) lights.
As for AR coated lenses…
As far as I can see, these lenses are not coated 
That’s a shot from Dino web.
Anyway, most of chinese sellers don’t know how to distinguish them. Same happened with TN ( Review: Small Thrunite Ti 2011 and 2012 versions ) when I asked them why they stop using AR lenses in 2012 versions of Ti. They said they was AR coated (when they are definitely not)
On the other hand, all ITP lights I have or played with, have/had normal lenses, but really good quality. You can’t compare them with lenses my HD2010 have, for example :bigsmile: It’s just a piece of normal glass :bigsmile: As for my Ti’s, that 2012 version with non-AR coated lenses is brighter actually 
(maybe driver related). Anyways, if those lenses X5 use are of good quality, I wouldn’t bother changing them. If you want more light, change the driver instead. Just my .02.
Ah, btw, deeper reflectors not always make better beam (more throw), it makes spill smaller and thus, brighter.