the geniune TR-1200 when the battery voltage under load drops to low the light goes into low mode only letting you know its time for a battery recharge i consider this as a low voltage protection, the geniune TR-3T6 does the same thing.
As it seems so close between the 1200 and the Keygos are there any diferences in build quality that would help with deciding which one?
If I had to choose between the 2, I would opt for the Trustfire 1200. Both are so close to the same that you really only need one. I would guess that the Keygos is brighter at closer distances with the extra led. But I think the beam is a little tighter on the TR-1200 and I think it throws a tad better at farther distances. But it is very close really. Both are great lights.
Thanks that's very helpful.
TR-1200 all the way
another current draw test, tested with 2 x 18650,s
solarforce 2400 mAh 1.66 amps
Trustfire Flames 2400 mAh 1.72 amps
Redilast 2600 mAh 1.74 amps
Hi-max 2600 mAh 1.81 amps
I have the KE-7 and I have a Palight WF-1200L and the Palight throws better than the Keygos. I didn't know if you have ever seen the Palight, the bodies look the same but the keygos has 6 Q5 and the Palight has 5 Q3. I have 2 other Palights and I think they make a nice light.
The Palight's look good i have not tryed one yet.
DX sell a HA 3 TR-1200 it has a harder coating but it is about $10 usd more, that's the one I will try next.
benckie, let us know how you like the HA III one...
im going to wait till my TR-1200 burns out but the way its going it will be a long time, the HA 3 tr-1200 is on my to buy list but there is others higher up the list since i have a good working tr-1200 and i brought a 4 x 4 last week so im spend money on that right now.
I picked-up the 34 buck tr-1200 (5XQ5) from DX. Came dinged and scratched from lousy packing. Magic Marker took care of that. Has the glass lens. The threads and o-rings came sparkling clean, and lubed.
Tailcap reading on high was 1.99A on tenergy protected 18650s, and 1.89 on unprotected panasonic 18650s. Might as well call it 2 amps.
Above with two batteries.
3 batteries netted 1.35A on high. Didn't measure med/low.
This thing beats my FryRay 818 on throw, handily, but the FryRay 818 trounces it on flood. Pretty much what I expected.
Was a bit underwhelmed with the throw, really. I was expecting more.
I bought this to replace the 818, which is destined to become a gift, or dumpster effluent. The purple tint on it is just unacceptable. The TR-1200 does have a warmer tint. Much more pleasing to the eye. This also could be the reason I don't think the throw lives-up to the hype. It doesn't have that irritating "punch" that cool white (blue,purple) LEDs have.
Anyway, it's no beauty queen from shipping damage, but it does work, except with some of my longer protected cells. They push the tailcap plunger too far aft, which puts too much pressure on it for proper engagement. Tried an exact tailcap from another light (FryRay 818), same issue. Will modify the switch. Maybe cut a turn off the plunger spring. Loosening either tail cap a turn or so engages the switch (sigh).
The above just in 3-cell mode. 2-cell mode is just dandy!
Ran it indoors for 30 minutes (62 deg. ambient) and it got very warm to touch. Not painfully so, like the FryRay 3800 at 10 minutes.
Think it's a keeper. Fair throw, and reduced flood. Just what the doctor ordered, to keep nosy neighbors in their houses...
Enough blather. This light has been reviewed to death! Give it a 7 out of 10 (ignoring shipping damage) on the ho-hum meter.
The XR-E Q5's on the TR-1200 each produces a narrow beam of light, more of the light a Q5 generates goes forward then the XM-L.
The Q5 has a viewing angle of 90 degrees, where the XM-L has a viewing angle of 125 degrees, letting more light out the side of the emitter then the Q5. This makes the XR-E Q5 emitter throw better even though it produces less lumen's.
A Q5 will not out lux a XM-L, but the XR-E Q5 and R2's are designed to throw due to smaller surface area and smaller viewing angle of the emitters and the emitters even have there own reflector built into the emitter.
Since the TR-1200 has 5 XR-E Q5,s its a good thrower as you have 5 emitters pushing more forward light and since there is 5 XR-E Q5 it still puts out decent spill as you have spill from 5 emitters.
Ive noticed some thing about these XR-E Q5 emitters, a Q5 in a C8 style light will out throw a xml in a C8 style light even though the xml C8 puts out more lumen's when both are moderately driven.
The XR-E Q5's on the TR-1200 each produces a narrow beam of light, more of the light a Q5 generates goes forward then the XM-L.
The Q5 has a viewing angle of 90 degrees, where the XM-L has a viewing angle of 125 degrees, letting more light out the side of the emitter then the Q5. This makes the XR-E Q5 emitter throw better even though it produces less lumen's.
A Q5 will not out lux a XM-L, but the XR-E Q5 and R2's are designed to throw due to smaller surface area and smaller viewing angle of the emitters and the emitters even have there own reflector built into the emitter.
Since the TR-1200 has 5 XR-E Q5,s is a good thrower as you have 5 emitters pushing more forward light and since there is 5 XR-E Q5 it still puts out decent spill as you have spill from 5 emitters.
You don't need brute force and a wide or deep reflector to catch all the light from the emitter to make it throw like a XM-L but it will make the Q5 throw even better. The lux meter will show XR-E Q5,s produce less lux but out in the real world they can really throw, i mean 330 meters from a budget $35 light with long run times is not bad hey.
The TR-3T6 and the jet beam bc40 produce higher lux readings on the meter but the TR-1200 will out throw the TR-3T6 no probelm and will out throw and out spill a jet beam bc40 not a problem. Some times real world testing pays off as tint can affect readings or ones perception. Since the TR-1200 has a slightly warmer tint i think people think it has less punch then a T6 xml with slight blue tint plus totally different hot spots as the TR-1200 is undefended and board beam.
The TR-1200 is not a pretty light but its a practical light to me, it is only $35 shipped, it can handle long runs 60 Min's no worries, has decent throw, mine gives me approx 2.3 hours on high with 3 x 2400 mAh 18650,s and approx 3 hours with 3 x 3100 mAh 18650,s not bad run time hey, plus spare bare host's and parts are cheap and easy to find if you damage it.
Ill admit it is a different choice.
To Benckie:
Would the TF-1200 out throw the TF-J12?
Even if it not but with almost half the price it so tempting
Thats a hard one as the TR-J12 puts out 3 x the OTF lumens but i would have to say yes, hard lights to pick a side apart from price
How is heatsinking on the TR-1200? Have you done any output sag measurements? It looks like only a very small area of connection between the drop-in and the body..
Also, what is the memory like. Does it engage after a set-time of the light being off or being on? How long is that time?
Thanks
Hey Red
Heat sinking to me is fine on the TR-1200 if does a lot better then the UF 3900 with the same style of screw in, heat transfers well into the bezel and head, there is enough room for some foil or thermal paste if your worried.
I have never added any thing to the light and have used it many times for long bush walking, camping and fishing and i have not cooked the driver or led yet in 12 months. the picture's of the screw in was only added in the last couple of days.
Mode memory is dam quick turn it on and off quickly it always remembers where i left it, set it in high take the tail cap off it stays in high, look Ive been up all last night with my sick daughter, my wife is sick and I'm way over tired, ill get back to you.
Thanks for the reply Benckie, I hope your family feel better soon and you get some sleep.
There's no rush to answer any of my questions. This just happens to be a light I've been interested in for a while with a couple of caveats (being the heatsinking and the 5 modes), so if these are ok it would really boost up it's credentials for me.
Thanks Benckie!