If the PWM is there, it’s going to be high frequency and only detectable with a cell phone or oscilloscope.
Only a cell phone is on the level of an oscilloscope? Wow, didn’t know that! (being sarcastic, laughing at the ubiquitous use of cell phone as a camera knowing full well they pale by comparison to even a moderate consumer level point and shoot.)
Much more convenient (at least for me) than hunting down one of my point-and-shoots or the DSLR. A poor choice of words on my part perhaps, but my point was that everyone has a reliable PWM detector in their pocket 
Not everyone uses a fancy smart phone with a nice camera feature. At any rate, possibly an easier way to see PWM is by shining the light up into the air. Dust present in the air, or falling snow, light rain, will show the PWM. (if no dust is present in the air, I’m almost positive a small handful of dirt tossed to the heaven’s will produce the desired effect, no electronic devices needed)
Tnx for the review!
I don’t need it!!! :~
The technique you describe works for the old, low frequency style found on cheaper lights, but it won’t work for high frequency PWM— the so-called “good PWM” they use to improve tint. The low frequency kind actually gives me some nausea but the high frequency kind doesn’t bother me. It does sap efficiency at lower modes, which is why I’m such a big fan of how TN implemented it in my T10S, and of course I’m naturally curious to see how they did it with the TN12.
Correct I have not checked for PWM. I'll have to do that. Part time reviewers, looks like this one needs a good flogging.
You did a really good job. Your photos are well lit, cropped right and in sharp focus. Good layout. You nailed all the hard stuff.
EDIT: I’m still a novice macro photographer myself, but I do have some tips on not getting dust for your closeups. Before I photograph a knife or light, I wipe it off with a rag, sometimes use a couple little barber’s brushes I have that came with the hair clippers, and sometimes even hit it with a can of air. The problem is that shiny objects pick up dirt fast, so I do a full photo shoot of anything before I take it out to play with it, which keeps the dust and dirt down for the closeup shots. I still have an EagleTac flashlight, Nitecore Headlamp and like 3 watches sitting in a pile because I haven’t taken their pictures yet, and I don’t want to get them dirty. But doing it that way really cuts down on the amount of cleaning
This shot of the T10S took several cleanings and probably 20 different tries:
Thanks Racer. You either have to much patience or time. 
Nice shot.
Thank you. It’s definitely a struggle to find the time. The blog is self-sufficient but I can only do about one review per week and I’m worried about not doing something like the T10S justice because it’s such a great light. I have one queued up for BLF too from GearBest. Too much to do. But it’s nice seeing bright crisp photos like yours of shiny objects like the TN12. Thank you again for the review. And if you look you will see dust in most super closeup shots from anyone if you look hard enough. If you don’t, it’s only because the photographer has crippling OCD.
So, please tell me how the camera catches the fast PWM, I’d like to see it.
We have a lot of construction going on in our area and there’s so much dust in the air I just point a light up. The slower ones show the dust in stop action while the Qlites don’t show up like that at all, the dust is “live” and streaming.
You might try focus stacking to improve depth of field Racer. Steve is using the G15 and it has a deeper macro depth of field due to it’s small sensor. Makes it a bit easier to get a good clearly focused image and shows an advantage that the small sensor camera has. A full frame sensor makes this very difficult, with an extremely shallow depth of field at 1:1 macro.
And yeah, gotta get rid of fingerprints and lint and such. Not altogether an easy proposition. Alcohol wipes do pretty well, like baby wipes or eyeglasses cleaners.
Here’s a cheesy video I did about detecting PWM on one of my EagleTacs. Notice the interference patterns that get created when the pulses from the PWM interfere with the camera’s refresh rate. The fact that it’s a lower quality cell camera probably helps for detecting PWM, but I have not tested many cameras, but my thought is that the cell phone camera probably has a lower frame rate which would show the interference better. But I’m a software engineer not an electronics engineer.
I’ll look into your advice thanks. I’m a newb. My camera is an SL1 with the stock lens and a 10x macro filter for the shot above. I should probably have a macro lens?
But in my Canon DSLR full frame sensor the video is accomplished via a rolling shutter. You can see the shutter in instances like that one, which wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with PWM.
I shot a straight on image of the MT-G2 on Low with an 1/8000th of a second shutter…I was using Live View and you can see the same pattern across the field. Was it PWM or was it shutter? I had thought it was shutter, but it just might have been PWM as you’re suggesting.
I don’t know enough about how DLSRs are built to answer that, but certainly the cheap cell camera doesn’t have a shutter so it’s just pulling the bits off the sensor every N milliseconds. I thought that’s how live view on a DSLR works, too, but I don’t know that for sure. I didn’t even think about recording the video with the DSLR so that might change the results, but you should be able to see the PWM just sitting there looking at your camera’s monitor without doing anything with the shutter button.
On my T10S I can also see the PWM on high using my Canon SX150 point-and-shoot just sitting there in live mode. So I’m not sure a DSLR is your best PWM detector. I definitely prefer the cell since I was told that if I wished to interact with anyone under 30 then I would have to buy one. Sorry for hijacking this great review thread.
EDIT: I think the answer is that it has nothing to do with the shutter. The shutter wouldn’t part of the detection process and probably interferes with it. Your looking at the change in vertical refresh between the sensor and the monitor. Like the old style CRT monitors used to have to sync their live view with any TV cameras viewing them or you’d see similar distortions. It’s the monitor refresh itself that’s showing the PWM, not the sensor. The sensor just tells you what it saw the picosecond you pulled the bits off it. At least that’s my novice level reasoning.
And here I thought we were educating Steve on how to video his review subjects to show PWM! Sorry! 
Well if that’s the case then I won’t feel bad. Same with the general photography discussion. In some sense I’m intimate with the camera having taken 20k blog photos with just the DSLR alone, but I still feel like a newb every time I pick up the good camera. So let the knowledge fly!
I have my own way of checking PWM. Before I go to bed and about 2.30 in the morning if that helps.
You gonna video that PWM test and add it to your review? lol
I don’t know why but I really like light of this format such as Fenix PD32/35, UF C20 and this one
Thanks for the review 
shame about the modes. If only they did 3,1.5,.6 amps (respectively).
I am glad they went with L>H. My two questions are: is there mode memory, and what battery were you using? (high drain?)