At least one person got one that’s good. Maybe you did get a duff one then. Thanks for the review, updates and tests.
Yeah, I was going to do additional runtime tests, but since it seems like my light may not be behaving right, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of use adding that data to the mix. It’d be safe to say that if you get 9 hours on an eneloop, then my reading of 6 hours and 45 minutes on med 2 on a 14500 might not be accurate for a correctly functioning light. My med1, high, and turbo on 14500s were all better than the manufacturer specs though. And my eneloops on high and turbo were also pretty close to manufacturer specs too.
So, it has great runtimes provided your unit is properly functioning.
EDIT: 9-12-13
Another CPF’er weighs in. Looks like it’s working properly on a cheap NIMH for them too. Here’s the quote.
I’m considering picking one of these up to go with my 3 ZL HL’s (H50, H51c & H52w), how thick is the tail cap material? Could it be filed down to be flat so it can tail stand securely?
I can’t say with 100% certainty, because the interior of the tailcap is covered with a PCB soldered to the spring. The PCB appears to be glued into the light making it difficult to remove. If the interior of the tailcap (under the PCB) is flat like I suspect, then it seems you could file down the tailcap to make it entirely flat. I can’t guarantee it though.
From looking at the pic’s of the two FL hanging from the tree branch, i’d say you can file the base of the tail cap flat as it’s been milled into that shape leaving it standing proud of the caps lowest part giving you plenty to remove and still leave plenty to have a solid cap.
A little late, but great review. I really want the SG3 badly now after seeing all those amazing pics you took! Will be my first headlamp light. Lets hope it's included in the GB for the SF5 going on right now!
Sorry to be a stick in the mud here, but seriously, this page took very, very long to load because of the enormous size of the pictures…
This is not due to my cheap internet, it’s due to traffic on the international digital highway.
For pages like this there is nothing to gain with pictures wider than, say, 800 pixels.
Wider pics stick out the side or take more time to load than necessary.
You could link to a HD album for the freaks.
O, yeah, nice lights!
Too expensive to me though…
Did you look at the size of the pictures? None are wider than 800- in fact I followed the rules to a T. So not only does it fit within the recommended size for BLF, it also fits your qualifications. This page only takes two or 3 seconds to load on my computer, even when I clear my cache.
Lol Jerommel, this page loaded super quick to me, I think about 1.5 seconds the first time I clicked! Also, to be honest, I think the pics he has here are a little small, could be a "little" bigger. Maybe it is your internet? Time to clear your cache!
It didn’t take long this time…
I don’t know what that was then, sorry for the trouble.
But when I wrote that, it took more than a minute, which is long nowadays… 
Little graph on the screen here indicated loading and loading, and some more loading.
sorry…
It’s cool. Just took about 10 seconds on my phone in the middle of a national park.
Nice review…too expensive for my blood
Too bad you bricked it 