that with a 10440
This conclusion is a faulty one.
The A3 draws enough on high that alkalines with show considerable voltage sag and you won't come close to the maximum stated brightness. NiMHs will be brighter.
With fresh batteries, it's not probably not far off. The A3 even with the xp-e wasn't all that bright (in throw) due to the small reflector, and it'll be even "dimmer" with an xp-g. That's why IMO the xp-g isn't an upgrade at all given it does even worse at the one weakness of the light.
My A3 draws 0,85A from Alkalines and the same draw from NiMh (0,85A). Output with both NiMh and alkalines is the same (at least for me)
The current draw on A3 is voltage depend (This is the same on most flashlights), I got this curve when testing it:
The light will definitely be brighter with a 10440 but I do not want to use the flashlight with it.
I agree with Agenthex, R5 is not a upgrade considering the reflector.
I see a couple of people believe that it will be brighter with NiMHs, Do you have this flashlight to confirm it?
I've seen people saying that either with NiMH or Lithium the flashlight wasn't brighter.
Anyway this flashlight will end up with NiMHs and primary lithiums for the best runtime. According to CPF's Selfbuilt : 34 min - Alkaline, 59 min - Eneloop, 1h 27min - Energizer Lithium . All on High.
My A3 S2 is extremely bright on 10440. Cell bounce test: Turnigy AAA LSD - 3; Ultrafire 10440 unprotected - 9.5
Of course it is. 3 vs 9.5 . It makes me think directly to the voltage LSD - 1.2 , 10440 - 3.7 Same ratio as bounce the test.
Ah... I'm using 123 primarys in my A1. BTW I've noticed—or rather, not noticed—very few manufacturers stating in their specs whether their torch outputs are ANSI rathings or not. I can understand this virtual marketing "deceit" happening until they upgrade their web sites and packaging etc, but how long will it be before all manufacturers quote ANSI specs? Or am I dreaming?
And why, if that is the case, cannot resellers at least quote ANSI output? Do they not have the testing facilities to do so? Why is it that they can't buy and use their own integrating spheres, considering they're making an extremely healthy living from selling—in many cases—flashlights solely?
ANSI specification is based on testing done by the American National Standards Institute. Resellers cannot do their own testing. Hell, flashlight manufacturers aren't even allowed to do their own testing if they want to quote ANSI specs - they have to send samples in for testing and it takes 3+ months to have it done.
Thanks for clarifying this...
Does that mean that very few—especially the smaller manufacturers—simply won't bother because of the lead time and cost to them? And how exactly does the ANSI testing differ from what a suitably qualified flashlight manufacturer can do? I would've imagined that—similar to Australia with the ISO 9002 manufacturing standards—that a company simply gains accreditation to do its own ISO 9002 (or, in this case ANSI) testing at the point of production.
And I would've guessed that a major player such as Olight could've supplied a pre-production model of any/all of their flashlights to ANSI well ahead of retail release, and simply written off the costs involved.
Or is the reality that ANSI, presumably being a government instrumentality, can make megabucks with this sort of "precious" attitude?
I honestly have no idea about the whole thing. I don't even know how ANSI specification became the norm. Most of the larger consumer manufacturers do it, though and many of the smaller manufacturers are following suit.
As for lead time, that comes straight from the mouth of David Chow of 4Sevens - he states the lead time issue during a couple of the SHOT Show videos floating around (notably Nuthinfancy's booth review vid).
...or 1,42V vs. 4,20V if talking about fully charged batts :)
I would opine that the XP-G is in fact an upgrade, performing the tasks for which the light was designed more comfortably.
For close-up work, the hotspot of the XP-G provides a bit better coverage. While reading, the larger hotspot requires virtually no panning, as it covers the entire page of an average book.