Keep in mind that the D18 was 70CRI LED’s and the MF01S above is 90+CRI. So the lumens will be lower naturally.
The D18 is available with 4 different emitters 2 of which are 95 CRI
Led & Tint
Cool White - SST20 6500K
Neutral White - SST20 5000K
Neutral White - SST20 4000K 95CRI
Warm White - SST20 3000K 95CRI
I think TA meant the D18 sustained output was tested with 70CRI emitters whereas TK tested the MF01 with 95CRI emitters so you can’t directly compare these sustained outputs.
with the firmware you can calibrate the temperature and set the ceiling higher
This was not a test for highest sustainable lumens. This was a software test of how the driver handles heat. Two different things. So I would not make assumptions.
To test max sustainable lumens you start at a certain lower lumen level and see how the light behaves. Temperature will build up much slower which may or may not activate the thermal management and you should get different results.
It will probably be in the same 2,000 to 3,000 range, but probably higher than what the tests above show.
My point is you should not jump to conclusions. Recognize what is actually being tested. (I might be grumpy today)
They’re a similar concept, but there’s a significant difference in size, beam shape, driver type, and extras. The MF01S is larger/heavier and holds 4 batteries in a carrier instead of 3 in the tube. The MF01S has a big wide “wall of light” hotspot with virtually no spill, similar to a Noctigon Meteor or a triple in a Carclo 10507 optic. It uses a 2S2P 2-channel driver at 6V instead of a 4P 3-channel driver at 3V. It also has colorful aux LEDs and a lighted button and a tripod mount hole.
I’m the wrong person to ask about which is better though, since I mostly stick to smaller lights.
Hopefully I wasnt getting my hopes up over this. Im pretty much sold on a D18, but the driver and the aux board on this were definitely interesting. Im surprised it doesnt really show much difference over the D18’s specs considering its size and assumed increased driver efficiencies.
The drivers themselves are basically a wash on paper. The D18 should be a bit more efficient at lower modes and the MF01S a bit more efficient at higher modes.
I expect the optic efficiency to be larger then the drivers.
Interested, pending price.
Thanks for clarifying the distinction between the 2 flashlights!
Have a few more questions:
MF01S: big wide “wall of light” hotspot with virtually no spill
D18: has a smooth hotspot, corona and spill
Just curious, is the above difference due to having different optics used by the MF01S vs the D18, or also due to the size of the heads (I’m guessing the MF01S has a bigger head since it has a bigger 4x18650 body tube)
MF01S: 2S2P 2-channel driver at 6v
D18: 4P 3-channel driver at 3v
I’m not that well-versed in electronics, so maybe need more explanation for me to understand… 3-channel driver is more efficient at lower modes, whereas 2-channel driver at higher voltage is more efficient at higher modes. Is that the correct line of thought?
D18, 3 channel is FET+7+1? while MF01S is FET+1?
In my testing the 3 channel vs 2 channel efficiency difference was not nearly as much as many people used to think.
That said the 3 channel will have a fairly small window in the low/midrange where it has a bit of an advantage simply because it has a channel specifically designed for that output level.
At other output levels the only real difference is the input voltage.
Honestly there it is not even worth talking about driver efficiency. We are talking about a ~10% change in efficiency one way or the other depending on the exact output level. Considering the LED’s have a tolerance of 12% themselves there are simply better things to worry about.
I think, that if the second channel could be more powerful, the difference in the efficiency (both output and heat wise) could be worthful. For that many emitters (18), I think, 7×7135 is not enough - something like FET + 15 (or even 24) + 1 (or 2) could be better, as it would let the emitters run still fairly efficient on the mid-high output levels.
I took a look at maukka’s output test for SST-20 4000K, and with ~0.5A per LED, that is about 120 lm/W.
If I count 40W for a 18650 battery, and I multiply it by 4 (160W for the whole battery holder), then I divide with 18, that is still almost 9W per emitter, which is maybe around 2.6A per emitter, when I only calculate with the FET channel, and that is less than 80 lm/W then.
Maybe the XP-G3 variant could be driven harder with more efficiency, but I think, it would worth to design a 3 channel driver if SST-20 is also considered.
I know, that placing so many 7135 on the driver board would be difficult, but I think, a triple channel FET + 24 + 2 driver would be a very good fit for the MF01S.
The other end of this is that by the tint significantly improves when the FET kicks in, so switching to that earlier helps tint consistency and quality. At low current levels the SST-20 has a noticeable green hue. I would actually consider a 1 channel FET driver for the SST-20 if the low modes could be improved.
You edited the post I see.
As my testing of PWM efficiency showed, the old thinking that you could simply take the efficiency at 100% duty and apply it to lower duty’s is not how it works in the real world. The LED does not get as hot and thus the efficiency is improved at lower duty cycles.
For example at 50% duty it was only 10% less efficient then a constant current at the same power IIRC.
Although keep in mind that 10% was purely 10% more lumen output, it is not factor in the efficiency loss from the driver ect. With driver losses factored in the difference would be even less.
Good to know - then favoring better tint is not that costly to efficiency, as I thought before.
Potentially interested in 3.
Can confirm. The tint isn’t very good until the FET kicks in. So below ~600 lm it’s not what I’d call white. But above ~600 lm, the tint is very nice. People who like a lot of light will probably love this thing.