SC600 mk II and general Zebralight ideas for improvement

LED Flashlights – General Info 18650 Flashlights
1

So, Zebralight finally put up a product page for the SC600 mk II.

It looks really nice. In particular, I like that they went with a mode spacing which is relatively consistent and sort of easy to remember:

  • High: H1 900Lm (tbd) or H2 500Lm (tbd) / 270Lm (tbd) / 4Hz Strobe
  • Medium M1 90Lm (tbd) or M2 27Lm (tbd) / 9Lm (tbd)
  • Low L1 3Lm (tbd) or L2 0.6Lm (tbd) / 0.1Lm (tbd) / 0.02Lm (tbd)

The 90/27 thing is good because the modes are each about a factor of 3 apart. This is pretty close to what I consider ideal, sqrt(10) or 3.16X apart. But it could be better.

Recent Zebralights seem to have a UI flaw that I’m hoping can be fixed soon… hopefully before the SC600mkII release. There are too many desirable sub-levels per main level, and it’s very inconvenient to access them… especially on brighter models like the S6330 (which covers 5 orders of magnitude of brightness in just 3 primary modes).

For example, on my SC52, I find I often want to switch between the 0.34lm and 0.06lm modes… But doing so requires about 18 clicks, which kills my night vision and is so many clicks than I generally just don’t bother. The SC52 otherwise works pretty well though.

The SC600mkII seems to have the same problem, but more so.

On high, it’s fine. The 900lm and 270lm modes are all I’m likely to ever use.

On medium, I’m going to want all three levels, not just two. It has 90lm, 27lm, and 9lm, but no easy way to switch between 9 and 27.

On low, I’m going to want both 0.6lm and 0.1lm (and maybe even 0.02lm), but again there is no easy way to switch between those…

So. I want to convince Zebralight to get rid of the 6 double-clicks before being able to access other sub-levels. That way, it would simply rotate through all available modes without an extra dozen clicks worth of unwanted modes first. I also want to hear everyone else’s thoughts about this.

With this change, it would then do 9lm -> doubleclick -> 27lm -> doubleclick -> 90lm -> doubleclick -> 9lm and so on. Same interface on low, too. Just rotate through all levels at that mode, without having to click 12 times to enter programming mode first.

If the SC52 gets a firmware update to use this UI, I would totally buy another one just so I can access more sub-lumen modes. I might consider a S6330 too, if it gets some UI improvements.

However, the SC600mkII might be even better with one more UI change… instead of low/medium/high modes which each have too many sub-levels, I’d love if it had four primary modes with uniform spacing:

  • High: 900lm / 500lm(?) / 280lm / (and maybe a strobe, meh)
  • Medium: 90lm / 28lm
  • Low: 9lm / 2.8lm
  • Firefly: 0.9lm / 0.28lm / 0.09lm / (perhaps 0.028lm if necessary)

And, instead of programmable sub-levels, it would simply rotate through all available sublevels at each primary level. No clicking 12+ times to switch between 0.28lm and 0.09lm, just a double-click from 0.09lm to 0.28lm, and two double-clicks to go back down (passing the 0.9lm setting on the way). Add another double-click in that last case, if it has a 0.028lm mode.

Also, the reason I suggest 280lm instead of 270 is because the spacing is slightly more consistent. This arrangement means each level is about sqrt(10) (or 3.16X) brighter or dimmer than the next level, and the numbers are easy to remember because only the decimal point changes. Also, with four primary levels, each one is exactly 10X as bright as the one next to it. I find this spacing to be the most visually appealing and the easiest to remember and understand.

The main thing I want to change is getting rid of the 12 clicks to access other sub-levels… but I’d also love to see all the modes spaced sqrt(10) apart and have four primary modes instead of three.

Any thoughts? Does this seem like a good idea? Bad idea? How would you do it differently?

2

Why would you have to memorize the lumen output? What difference does it make if it is a factor of 3 or not?

Since I don’t have autism the concept escapes me I guess.

I didn’t read your entire post but it sounds like it has way too many modes and too many options. So it has 3-4 mainmmodes plus 3-4 custom modes per mode? So it has 9-16 modes? Who has the time to mess with all those modes? It’s just too much of a hassle.

3

It’s actually a great UI, but sounds way more complicated than it is. There are three modes each accessible from off, and no need to ‘scroll through’ them for ON/OFF these are easy to access. Each of these is individually programmable to one of the ‘sub’ or ‘sub-sub’ levels. But you don’t need to bother if you don’t want to.

The factor of three isn’t an OCD thing, but is a decent rule for mode spacing. Increasing output by 3 is generally what it takes for a decent bump up in perceived brightness, anything less generally seems too close and more like too much. That’s just the way the visual system works.

4

The multiple of 3 versus 3.11 between levels … I could really care less. We’re talking a tweak of 3.7% in the spacing. That’s almost certainly smaller than the variation of light to light output when you consider variation of the LED itself along with driver circuitry.

ZL has opened a can of worms by offering so many different levels within their base UI pattern. Treated as a program once (or rarely) and just use two levels it still works but basically gives you 6 outputs (4 levels times the 2 easily accessible sublevels). I wouldn’t go past 4 levels. I wouldn’t want to go past 3 sublevels accessible via doubleclick. Every increase of levels/sublevels increases the time lag to get to what you want. I’m okay with extra sublevels accessible only via a complicated but rarely done programming like currently. Using the terminology of 3 by 2 (main levels by easily accessible sublevels) to describe the current light I’d rank order arrangement from lowest to highest:

3 by 2 (the current design) - 6 total levels just pushes you to want to start clickapalooza to access other options
3 by 3 - 9 total levels. I usually hold and ramp up with my H51Fc and only occasionally doubleclick to get a “better” level inside the brightness band.
4 by 3 - 12 total levels but maximum lag if you let yourself get pulled into doubleclicking through all the levels. You start running into lack of differentiation between the main levels too.
4 by 2 - 8 total levels. I like the idea of holding and ramping into the four main levels with a memorized sublevel. Firefly-L-M-H ranges just makes sense to me for a light that can go from sublumen to 900 lumen.

5

The recent Zebralight products, especially the brighter ones, already have too many levels… and that’s kind of the point of the post. The normal amount now is 11 different modes, all controlled by a single button. I’m trying to suggest a way to make that more manageable.

One option would be to offer fewer modes with wider spacing between. However, one of the best things about a Zebralight is that it generally has exactly the right output level for almost any circumstance… so, cutting out modes would make it less versatile… and the problem would get worse every time we get a brighter model.

I don’t necessarily need to memorize the lumen output, but I do like to be aware of how much light it’s putting out and roughly how much runtime I can expect… so I prefer when the numbers are easy to remember.

I don’t care, visually, if it’s 2.8 or 3 or 3.5. However, roughly 3 seems to be about right. 2X (or less) doesn’t look different enough, and 4X (or more) is visually a pretty big jump. 3X seems to be the sweet spot, and it may as well use a spacing which provides consistent and easy-to-remember numbers. I think ZL may have even realized this, considering the SC600mkII specs are pretty close to that at 900/270/90/27/9/3. I basically want to add a fourth group for all the sub-lumen settings, with the higher modes grouped into pairs.

This is my favorite arrangement too, at least for a light with 5 orders of magnitude to cover. For my H51 (4 orders of magnitude), 3x2 may be enough. I’d like ZL to use 4x2 or perhaps a minor variation of 4x2 so that the lowest modes can be a little more detailed — 4x2 plus an extra one or two for the firefly group. They will probably also want another mode in the highest group, calibrated to “most light it can sustain without overheating”. But I don’t want to have to click 16 to 20 times in order to switch between two consecutive firefly modes, like it does now.

If I want low or firefly, I’ll hold the button down. If I want high or medium, I’ll click once or twice from off. This still gives very quick access to all four main levels, plus the ability to tweak one step further.

6

I got a response from Zebralight. They said they won’t be changing the UI right now, but they’ll see what they can do about speeding up access to the extra sub-levels.

In any case, I’d still like to know… how would you change the Zebralight UI?

7

Hey, that’s VERY rude. Your parents didn’t teach you any manners?

I mean come on, nobody is forcing you to read the guy’s thread and agree with all the proposed numbers. What he proposes is actually very constructive, it’s a solid approach of an experienced user (ZL customer) to change something about a good light.

I just don’t want to read such unnecessary posted junk on here, it’s disturbing (unlike the OP’s post I know what the post is about by looking at it so you force me more to read your discriminative little sentence and get upset about your ignorance then I would ever get upset about dealing with too many numbers). Makes sense, right? Stay nice. This is not a bar (and if you write from one, stay nice anyway!).

8

I only own the SC52 right now, so can't comment on the SC600 (yet :p).

The modes already there, are way, way more than needed.

I mean there are three main modes, and a sub mode by default - 6 levels without needing to do anything extra.

99% of the time I'm using either the highest high, or the default, main Low. One medium mode would be enough.

Most people rarely, if ever, use more than 2-3 modes on their lights.

Frankly, if you want more than that, you will prefer a light that has ramping, and you can select anything from low to high.

With regards to the SC52, and more so for the SC600, what I would love to see, is decent strobe, SOS, and beacon modes.

9

I don’t yet own a zebralight (if you saw what it cost to get one in the uk at retail, you’d understand why) but it strikes me, why not have 4 modes (firefly low medium high) that you click through with a half press, that always gives you the lowest of that specific group, then a double tap in that group starts it to s l o w l y cycle through that group and a half press locks it. The current set up seems off puttingly complicated.

That said, at some point I intend to try and get a zebra light as in about nine months I’ll have use of the sub lumen modes, it’ll have to have a damm good tint and ui though to displace my current house edc, xm-l 4c cnqg d4 (convoy m1) driven by a 4 mode blf a8 driver, its a pretty awesome and very simple set up.

10

I’m owner of an SC600 and yes, there is a lot of modes available but from the 3 main modes I use mainly all 3 and every one of them has an alternate mode that you can access with a quick double click. So basically within a second one can choose out of 6 modes. There is more to program and it’s not complicated either but I personally don’t need anything then the standard.
And constant press down the button cycles through the 3 main modes too, starting with the lowest first (pretty secure way to access the firefly without being afraid of flashing anything stronger).
I don’t think the UI is great but after one gets used to it it’s quite good to live with!

11

The UI really isn't that complicated once you get used to it.

  • Click once - high.
  • Click and hold for half a second to a second, you get low.
  • Keep holding and it cycles through the modes slowly, starting with low.
  • If you want to start from high instead, and cycle down to medium and low, do three fast clicks, and you get low, or two fast clicks to go to medium.
  • Double click when the light is on, and you go into the sublevel.
  • A single fast click from any mode, turns the light off.
  • Light will enter the same main, or sub level, that you were in, when turned on and cycled to that level last time.

The only pain in the butt, is when you want to change the sub level modes, and you're stuck clicking 12 times.

The low mode on the Zebralights is incredibly low, far less than on on the crelants, the BLFA8, and the Armyteks.

12

One of the reason I really like the ZLs is this extremely low mode. It’s nice to look at the XM-L being on and shining in your eyes so you can see it’s structure but not being blinded at the same time.
It comes very handy in stealth situations, like when you don’t want to wake up ze wife, lol.

13

I leave mine on, in the second to lowest mode, all the time. Considering it will take a month to run down, and my tendency to pop in a fresh battery everytime I'm home, not exactly an issue.

In the absolute lowest mode, it's more of a glow than anything. Really you would have to be in a 100% dark environment for it to be useful. Perfect light for a cave in. Except I haven't been in a cave in years.

Also the only light where I looked at the LED under a jeweler's loupe.... of course I did manage to flash myself in the eyes a couple of times on high, switching modes. Fortunately that was without the loupe :o

14

FWIW, I contacted Zebralight again with a new idea for how to handle this… and I think they like the new idea a lot better than the older one described above.

Basically, add a new action to the UI: short-click then press-and-hold

This would work like the regular press-and-hold, but instead of cycling through primary levels it would cycle through sublevels (all options within a single group, from dimmest to brightest). So, instead of 18 clicks to go from 0.06lm to 0.34lm on the SC52, it’d be click, click-hold, wait 1.5s, release. L2 is now set to 0.34lm and the torch didn’t emit more than the desired setting while changing it. To go from 0.34lm to 0.06lm, same action except you wait 1.0s instead of 1.5s. Or 0.5s to go into the 0.01lm mode.

Ideally, it’d also include the primary level in this rotation and not just the sub-levels. If the user releases the button on the primary mode, the memorized sublevel would be unchanged.

Sound like a good idea?

15

This is a good point. And it’s the reason why lately I’ve been using a JETBeam RRT01 for really dim lighting needs instead of a Zebralight. It provides smoothly-variable output via a control ring, with just over half its range devoted to outputs between 0.005lm and 2.5lm.

So, instead of fiddling with all these double clicks to select between 0.01lm, 0.06lm, 0.34lm, and 2.7lm, I just twist the ring until I have exactly the right amount of light. It gets at least two dozen visually-different levels between zero (well, 0.005lm) and 2.5lm, spaced in a visually-linear manner, and the resolution is only limited by my ability to turn the ring in tiny increments.

It’s the best light I’ve found for low-low modes. The main drawbacks are that its runtime is terrible compared to a Zebralight (~4 days instead of ~2 months) and it’s physically wider and less grippy so a bit less comfortable to hold. I still consider it one of the best EDC lights ever made though. :slight_smile:

Another honorable mention here is the L3 Illumination L10-219 I just got yesterday… Its “0.09lm” mode is visually (lux, not lumens) about halfway between the 0.06lm SC52 mode and the 0.18lm H51w mode, which gives it a Goldilocks “just right” firefly mode. It only has the one sub-lumen mode, but it’s very well-chosen.

16

Lots of modes and options is nice, but it does sound like the UI on the 600 mkII is a little much.

I love sublumen modes, and use them almost every night, but how useful is .02 lumen really? The 2.1 and 0.1 lumen low modes on my sc80w are totally sufficient. I have never wanted more options.

I have used my sc80w a shit ton and I honestly don’t think you need more than 6 modes total. Ever. (Screw the strobe, get rid of it altogether!) 3 primary modes H / M / L and 3 alternates accessed by double click H2 / M2 / L2.

Going beyond that with the programmable modes is rarely, if ever, going to be used. 12 or 18 clicks [or whatever it is] is too much. I would set/program that ONE TIME and never again… as I did with the High modes on my sc80w - no strobe for me, thanks.

I don’t mean to sound critical of ZL UI in general. I think its an outstanding UI as implemented on the sc80. Just think the mkII 600 sounds a little overkill. I don’t think it would deter me from buying it though.

17

hmmm

ToyKeeper, what cells do you run the rrt01 on and how does it tail stand?

18

The RRT01 uses a CR123, RCR123/16340, or 18350 cell. Its minimum output starts at levels that are so dim I can barely tell it’s on when I hold it up to my eye in a pitch black room with fully-adjusted night vision, and its maximum output is about 220, 500, or ~650 lumens depending on battery type.

It tail-stands very well, at least in recent batches. I heard the original batch had some issues with the lanyard attachment nub sticking out just a bit further than the body of the light, but that seems to be fixed now.

The best, most recent batch is available at FastTech for ~$56 or so.

Other similar lights are the Niteye EYE10 (made by the same company, minor differences, has ~11 detents along the control ring range) and Sunwayman V11R (uses a rear forward-clicky for on/off instead of the ring so it can do signalling but requires flipping around a lot for one-handed use, lacks the super-low modes, allows use of a AA/14500 extender tube). The V11R with AA extender has been selfbuilt’s EDC of choice for a while, and the RRT01 has been goinggear’s EDC of choice for just about as long. So, that’s two respected flashlight veterans putting in their votes for these lights.

I have trouble deciding whether to carry the JB RRT01 or ZL SC52. The SC52 has vastly longer runtimes, feels better in my hand, uses more common batteries, is a bit smaller/lighter, seems to withstand abuse better, and has fixed output levels so I get a good idea how bright the ambient light is. The RRT01 has a simpler UI, better sublumen modes, always gives the ideal amount of light, is silent to operate, has a prettier beam, and is a more attractive to look at. Both are very versatile and easy to carry, and have similar max brightness and throw and price.

If you’re interested, I gave a longer RRT01 review in another thread… um… in “Fasttech interesting new products of the week” I think.

19

As for mode overload on the SC600 mkII, I could go either way. While a ~3X increase between subsequent levels is nice, wider spacing works pretty well too. I just hate it when lights have narrower spacing, like on the Nitecore EA4 (avg spacing 1.92X and no low or moon modes).

I just got a L3 Illumination L10-219 with 4 modes: 0.09lm, 3lm, 30lm, 120lm… and I find that this is usually enough, despite the wide spacing.

Here are some spacings and how the modes would end up:

  • At a spacing of sqrt(10) or 3.16X, the SC600mkII ends up with 10 levels in its range. Easy to remember, but inconvenient to select a mode with just one button: High(900, 284), Med(90, 28), Low(9, 2.8 ), Firefly(0.9, 0.28, 0.09, 0.03)
  • If Zebralight used 4X instead of 3.16X, it would get: High(900, 225), Med(56, 14), Low(3.5, 0.87), Firefly(0.22, 0.05). 8 modes instead of 10, and nearly ideal levels if there were 4 primary modes/groups instead of 3.
  • If they used 5X, it’d go down to 7 levels but the primary low would only be 1.4lm and that’s a tad bit awkward. High(900, 180), Med(36, 7.2), Low(1.4, 0.28, 0.06)
  • At a spacing of 6X, it needs only 6 levels: High(900, 150), Med(25, 4.1), Low(0.69, 0.12)

I didn’t include anything under 0.05lm, since most posts seen say the 0.02lm and 0.01lm levels are useless except possibly as a locator. Also, I assume 900lm would still step down to 500lm like on the existing light.

Honestly, I think I’d be happy with any of those options except the 5X one. Anything with more than two levels per group would need a better UI for selecting sublevels though.

(and a minor gripe… the forum interprets smilies even with no spaces around them, so if I write two-point-eight inside parentheses, it comes out as two-point-smiley like this: (2.8) grr…)

20

thanks ToyKeeper, I was more trying to determine if trusfire flame 16340’s run in it ok, the protection trips around 2a, which is annoying but understandable as 2c is a bit much for an icr cell, I may just grab the new xintd c8 with moonlight mode as I’ve been fancying one for a while, my other option is a 16340 host I’ve seen and then de chip a qlite driver to get down to 1.5a and use an xp-g2 as I will have these bits in hand soon