You can become a Supporting Member.
I just tested another S200C2vn with XML2 PDT and the beam is also nice! Much less throw than XPG2 PDT of course but you do get more lumen and a wider hot spot.
Will try XPG2 Dome on and see what's up
:thinking::thinking::thinking: hmmmmm,,decisions, decisions!!!!:thinking::thinking::thinking: I think I will stick w/ XPG2!! Nice to have a choice though!
I agree! I love an intense hot spot and the one w/ the most throw!XPG2 PDT is of course the Highlight
I agree! I love an intense hot spot and the one w/ the most throw!
I just tested another S200C2vn with XML2 PDT and the beam is also nice! Much less throw than XPG2 PDT of course but you do get more lumen and a wider hot spot.
Will try XPG2 Dome on and see what's up
thanks for doing this. capaloni posted earlier that the s200c2vn is around 130/140kcd. is this true?
i thought this s200c2vn was doing closer to 400kcd. or at least more than 140kcd.
So only aesthetics, UI, and batteries are different?
I'm still in for the s200cvn
Love the look and battery choice.
1x 18650.
Conclusion: I think this is a good example for a case where real life performance is more convincing than the beam shots and numbers might suggest. Clearly from the beam shots we can see the XPG2 PDT out-threw the XML2 PDT. Lux wise I would take a wild guess that the XPG2 PDT has double the lux of the XML2 PDT. But somehow I just prefer the beam of the XML2 PDT more, simply put the beam is more practical to me.
Vinh, would you compare the spot size of the S200C2 with both modifications to that of the K40vn? That would give me some perspective.