TK's Emisar D4 review

[DB_Custom (Dale)]

Perhaps it was meant that it would have twice the capacity….

[Tachead]

Thanks for all the info on reflectors and AR coatings Toykeeper, I appreciate it:THUMBS-UP:

[noboneshotdog]

Or twice as bright.

[DB_Custom (Dale)]

Can’t be twice as bright, come on people think it through! The emitters are pushed up to the ceiling by high quality 18650’s, how can they possibly double on a fatter cell that may actually even be less capable?

[noboneshotdog]

@DB Custom

Can’t be twice as bright, come on people think it through! The emitters are pushed up to the ceiling by high quality 18650’s, how can they possibly double on a fatter cell that may actually even be less capable?

But we can WISH it was twice as bright? No. :person_facepalming:

[ToyKeeper]

I think the idea was that an Emisar version of the DQG 26650 would probably be twice as bright as DQG’s version.

As far as I’m aware, there is no plan to make one of those. However, the Emisar D7 might be similar — 7 emitters and 3x18650 cells. I think there are also some driver hardware upgrades planned for it. However, I have no idea what the actual specs are or what the D7 will look like. I’m guessing it’ll be a bit smaller than a Q8, maybe a bit bigger than a Meteor (but with a narrower tube?).

[noboneshotdog]

@ToyKeeper

I think the idea was that an Emisar version of the DQG 26650 would probably be twice as bright as DQG’s version.

As far as I’m aware, there is no plan to make one of those. However, the Emisar D7 might be similar — 7 emitters and 3x18650 cells. I think there are also some driver hardware upgrades planned for it. However, I have no idea what the actual specs are or what the D7 will look like. I’m guessing it’ll be a bit smaller than a Q8, maybe a bit bigger than a Meteor (but with a narrower tube?).

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said he meant twice as bright. Thank you.

And thanks for the updates on the D7. I would love to see more regulation on the driver up to 1000 lumens than FET above 1000 lumens. Any chance we may see sone kind of update like that in the D7.

Or are you personally working on something like this TK?

[texas_shooter]

@ToyKeeper

I think the idea was that an Emisar version of the DQG 26650 would probably be twice as bright as DQG’s version.

As far as I’m aware, there is no plan to make one of those. However, the Emisar D7 might be similar — 7 emitters and 3x18650 cells. I think there are also some driver hardware upgrades planned for it. However, I have no idea what the actual specs are or what the D7 will look like. I’m guessing it’ll be a bit smaller than a Q8, maybe a bit bigger than a Meteor (but with a narrower tube?).

Unseen I can already think of single 20700/21700/26650 body tubes being pushed to the limit in a mutant DQG 26650 form. As a triple 18650 it sounds a bit more practical. 7 LED’s vs 4 LED’s, 3 batteries vs 1 larger cell. Really would like to see a teaser photo.

[DB_Custom (Dale)]

I totally forgot about the planned D7. My bad!

[djozz]

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.

[djozz]

My output estimate for the D7, if the same direct drive type of driver is used in the D4, is 7000, maybe 8000 lumen.

[Agro]

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….

[Kourtinoksylo]

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.

[patmurris]

@patmurris

Are there any plan for a 26650 based D4?

It would look a lot like a DQG Tiny 26650… with likely twice the output - like a mini Q8.
With a 26350 tube it would look quite fat though…

@Hikelite

26650 twice the output, how you that be possible? 26650 are not double of 18650 in power.
You think with a 26650 you will have 150W (double of 75W) of output in an ultra tiny body?

@DB Custom

Perhaps it was meant that it would have twice the capacity….

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.

[ToyKeeper]

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.

Emisar D1 / D1S review

Emisar D1 / D1S Hank of Intl-Outdoor sent me a D1 and D1S to play with, and people have been asking for a review… [image] Both lights are single-emitter compact throwers. The D1 is smaller with less throw, while the D1S is larger with more throw. Both lights out-throw almost everything else in their size class. Disclaimer: I’m not an impartial reviewer. I made part of the firmware for these lights and may be doing more development for Emisar in the future. Note 2: The lights aren’t wobbly…

[ToyKeeper]

@Kourtinoksylo

I also believe that intergrated charging must become standard, I consider it very convenient.

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.

[Biker1]

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.

[anycolourfloyd]

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

[CheapThrills]

@ToyKeeper

@Kourtinoksylo

I also believe that intergrated charging must become standard, I consider it very convenient.

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 agree to this. I´m quite cautious of all internally charging lights.

[DB_Custom (Dale)]

Got the little blue D4 in yesterday, love the color! Flat, no shine, easy to grip, wife should love it!