If the D7 uses an optic similar or the same as the DQG 26650, with three 18650’s we are seeing an almost tube-style flashlight.
My output estimate for the D7, if the same direct drive type of driver is used in the D4, is 7000, maybe 8000 lumen.
I really wish there was D7 with 26650. The difference may not look large in your photo, but add battery tube to the triple too and we’re talking about roughly doubling the cross section (and volume).
7 XP-L HI LEDs and a single 21700-30T battery would do like what? 6000-7000 lm? For me that’s pretty good, despite the fact that it’s way too floody for my needs.
And now think about 7*dedomed SST-40….
I would also love a quality single 26650 light but thinking again about it, with a tripple 18650 you get double the capacity of a single 26650 cell without increasing dramatically the diameter.
So in my opinion it would only make sense to design a 26650 as small as possible, tube style. Diameter 29-30mm, not 38 like the DQG. If I carry 38mm with me, then better have 3x 18650.
I also believe that intergrated charging must become standard, I consider it very convenient.
Sorry for the confusion and thanks TK for putting it right, i meant twice the DQG Tiny 26650 output - about 2 x 2500 lumen, around 5k, close to the Q8, in a small package.
For what i can tell so far, an XPL NW D4 outshines a stock Q8 on a single cell - you have to bypass springs to get even. This D4 is very well made and performs accordingly. On a 26650 it could reach 5K i guess.
I finally put up the D1 / D1S review. Still needs teardown info / pics, but I haven’t taken them apart yet. I’m hoping to only do that once, so I’m trying to finish some code first.
I still don’t like integrated charging, except on lights designed for the general public. But hot-rod lights like the D4 aren’t for the general public.
Built-in chargers tend to be pretty low-quality compared to a dedicated charger, they take up extra space, they add complexity, and they make the host design more complicated. I’d rather have a smaller light and take the cell(s) out to charge externally on a charger I’ve measured and trust. But if I’m giving a light to someone who doesn’t know much about them, I’ll generally give them something less bright and more integrated, like an Olight S2R.
I have 2 Fenix CL25R lanterns which is a great lantern, and has an integrated charging circuit. This is my only light which has one and I never use it. I always remove the 18650 cell and put it in my LUC V4 charger. A matter of habit I guess.
I would prefer USB charging not to be included as I usually prioritise size and weight.
The exception to this is travel and tramping, where I want to recharge using a small power bank. My Nitecore NU20 is good for this but I would appreciate a small rechargeable something else to go with it. A tiny lantern maybe or a Nitecore TIP. Obviously those lights have built in batteries so they need it anyway
I agree to this. I´m quite cautious of all internally charging lights.
Got the little blue D4 in yesterday, love the color! Flat, no shine, easy to grip, wife should love it!
Got mine on Fri. Thanks MTN, that was 2 days shipping to FL, :sunglasses:
While I like the new matte color and 90cri screwed in star/emitter, not so much liking the ruff surface finish.
Seems like a much less quality finish, even though I’m sure it isn’t.
The threads are ruff and course when screwing the tailcap on, or the tube in, or bezel on. Threads, are even ruff/noisy with gobs of lube. This is on both my new matte green and matte blue D4 lights.
Might be from the ruff ‘fluffy’ porous surface finish that might be a .001-.002” ‘thicker’ …?
While I’m sure the ruff porous feeling surface might increase grip, not sure I need that. The old finish grey, green and black I have, don’t seem to be slippery at all to me…? When a little lube or grease/dirt get on the new matte finish, it stands out and doesn’t just wipe right off like the smooth old anodizing. IMO, the old finish seems to reek of quality and perfection. The old green/grey is a superb job of anodizing and hard to beat imo…
Don’t get me wrong, I like the new matte finish, its ok, and would buy them again, just don’t think the surface finish feels/matches the quality of the old anodizing.
Now I’m sure many here will disagree with me, thats ok.
Might have to make an Elephant hide pouch for it to ride in in her purse so it dosen’t get marred up. 
That blue one looks really nice. Given the choice of a matte blue or matte green, I’d go with the blue. I do like the older smooth green though… and I still want purple.
My D1S has the matte finish too, and I’ve felt the need to be extra-careful with it because of past experience with bead-blasted titanium. It seems to hold up better than the titanium finish, but it still seems like it’ll be a lot easier to scratch than a smooth anodized surface. Things also tend to stick to it, so there are a lot of materials which leave a mark (sort of like using chalk on a chalkboard). So I often have to brush marks off it.
It certainly feels nice though.
Does anyone have a link to some GITD and regular lens o-rings for the D4 that will work to take up the extra space after swapping to Mtn’s offset MCPCB? Also, any idea if anyone will offer the 4000K Nichia 219C 90+ CRI version that Vinh had again now that he is sold out. Thanks.
The difference in MCPCB thickness is only about 0.4 mm, IIRC. Hank tells me it’s important not to change it because that difference matters, while RMM tells me it’s close enough that it doesn’t matter… So I swapped the MCPCB on one of mine and it seems to work fine. I did some thermal regulation tests on it and it didn’t have any issues related to that. Just make sure that the bezel is really tight so it’ll apply enough pressure. It may also help to put the O-ring above the lens instead of between the optic and lens. This likely improves waterproofing and helps fill the 0.4 mm gap, but you should make sure to check it afterward in case the O-ring tries to pop out while tightening the bezel.
Thanks for the reply TK :+1:
You don’t think it would be worth it to put an o-ring above and below the lens to help take up the space as long as the bezel wasn’t tightened too tight? I am thinking about building a Goldilocks mod D4 with Mtn’s offset MCPCB, Nichia 219B SW40 D200 L2 R9080, GITD lens o-rings, and a Carclo 10621 optic. If I can’t find a factory 219C 4000K 90+CRI that is.
After cleaning the threads on my blue D4 3 times it’s about as smooth as the old green D4. The anodizing rubbing off does turn the lubricant and threads black. I was concerned the o ring was melting but it isn’t.
Here are some nice options to go along with Mtn’s offset 20mm MCPCB if you want it to have the same thickness and copper mass as OEM.
You would just have to cut out a 20mm disc, drill some holes, and make sure to use thermal paste on both sides. It would be pretty easy to make a spacer. A 3/4” holesaw should be close enough as 20mm=0.78” or it might even be possible to cut it with a blade knife as its only 0.4mm thick. Someone with access to a machine shop could make a bunch and sell them as well.
The termal paste has worse heat resistance than copper So I would not do multiple paste levels and spacer sheets even if it is copper. But that is just my opinion.