4XAA XML Light?

[Napalm]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say both the Jetbeam and Sunwayman look too big/performance compared to the Q50 to me....

Say Scubie, how exactly did you measure the performance of the Q50?

Nap.

 

[Scubie67]

Say Scubie, how exactly did you measure the performance of the Q50?

Nap.

I trust the ZL spreadsheet like it was my own mother telling me something :nana:

 

[B0wz3r]

Can the Jetbeam Pa40 head screw onto the Fenix LD40 & function off the dual tail switch design?

I much prefer Fenix UI to the UI used on the PA40.

Selfbuilt says the heads can go onto each other's bodies, and since they're both 4xAA lights, the voltages should be identical, so I'd guess they should, but I check into it further if it were me.

 

[roadkill1109]

I find the PA40 to be the larger light. It is much longer and really not much thinner. The M40A clearly has a larger bezel but overall it is a smaller light. I'll try to snap a pic of them side by side. When you see them side by side, the M40A is clearly much smaller.

The M40A is like the M14 of Led Lenser, short and stocky. PA40 feels more like a regular flashlight.

 

[roadkill1109]

PA40 and M40A:

From selfbuilt's review:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...iber-body)-Review-RUNTIMES-BEAMSHOTS-amp-more!

Four of the best 4xAA's so far!

 

[DisrupTer911]

Selfbuilt says the heads can go onto each other's bodies, and since they're both 4xAA lights, the voltages should be identical, so I'd guess they should, but I check into it further if it were me.

Do you think the tail buttons will function correctly?

 

[LiteShow]

Thanks for all your input. I guess we are still quite limited in choices. All 3 of the 4XAA XML lights are quite different in size, build and price.

The Olight S53/S65 Zenbaas suggested does look interesting. The S65 6XAA is closer to the output I am looking for, but the battery count is starting to get close to a 8 cell TK41!

Really curious to see the beamshots of the ZL Q50 (when it comes out) & how it performs in the real world.

 

[B0wz3r]

Do you think the tail buttons will function correctly?

I'm just guessing, but I don't see why not... they're both supposed to change modes with a half click IIRC... But again, I'm not sure... I don't have an LD40 to try it out with.

 

[Wiggle]

I doubt it will work. The circuits are designed differently.

 

[selfbuilt]

I doubt it will work. The circuits are designed differently.

Surpringly, it does work: I just swapped the PA40 head on the LD40's body and battery carrier, and the light worked with the LD40 user interface (i.e. four output modes, from Lo to Max, selected by the secondary switch).

Of course, I can't guarantee it will be stable if you try to the run the light this way, and I have no idea of relative efficiency, etc. But the PA40 head does light up and respond to the Fenix LD40 carrier. :shrug:

Note that I haven't tried the LD40 head on the PA40 body (since no one seems to be asking for that, and don't know it I want to try my luck any further ). The LD40 pre-dates the PA40, and I could imagine more difficulty getting that combo to work safely.

EDIT: Here is a comparison of relative estimated lumen output levels of the PA40 head on its native carrier and LD40 body, respectively. Note these are initial activation only, not ANSI FL-1 estimates, so values are a bit higher.

PA40 head on PA40 body/carrier
Turbo: 500 lumens
Hi: 230 lumens
Med: 46 lumens
Lo: 2 lumens

PA40 head on LD40 body/carrier
Turbo: 410 lumens
Hi: 154 lumens
Med: 53 lumens
Lo 5 lumens

LD40 head on LD40 body/carrier - note LD40 is a XP-G Neutral emitter
Turbo: 305 lumens
Hi: 130 lumens
Med: 49 lumens
Lo 4 lumens

Interestingly, the PA40 is taking on the relative characteristics and output level spacing of the carrier it is connected to (i.e., the Lo mode of the LD40 is not as low as the native PA40, and LD40 has a relatively lower Hi mode than the native PA40).

The PA40 carrier also seems to be driven harder on Turbo, which is consistent with the use of the XM-L emitter on the PA40. This is another reason why I wouldn't want to try the LD40 head on the PA40 carrier.

As an aside, this would seem to suggest that the drivers for these lights are not located in the head (or at least, not solely). I'm wondering if there isn't a circuit located in the tail region of the carrier, maybe under the switch? After all, there has to be something located there to allow for the electronic mode switching of the LD40/battery indicator of the PA40. :thinking:

 

[tre]

Interesting results. Thanks selfbuilt. I can't explain that. I don't recall seeing any space for the driver in the body. When you put the LD40 body on the PA40 head, did you also use the LD40 battery carrier? I'm wondering if the driver is part of the battery carrier.

 

[selfbuilt]

Interesting results. Thanks selfbuilt. I can't explain that. I don't recall seeing any space for the driver in the body. When you put the LD40 body on the PA40 head, did you also use the LD40 battery carrier? I'm wondering if the driver is part of the battery carrier.

Yes, I put the PA40 head on the LD40 body and battery carrier. So I'm thinking the same thing - I wonder if the driver isn't located in the tail region of the carrier, under the switch? After all, there has to be something located there to allow for the electronic mode switching of the LD40, and battery indicator of the PA40, in that region.

Here's how the PA40 numbers compare to the native LD40 on its own carrier:

PA40 head on PA40 body/carrier
Turbo: 500 lumens
Hi: 230 lumens
Med: 46 lumens
Lo: 2 lumens

PA40 head on LD40 body/carrier
Turbo: 410 lumens
Hi: 154 lumens
Med: 53 lumens
Lo 5 lumens

LD40 head on LD40 body/carrier - note LD40 is a XP-G Neutral emitter
Turbo: 305 lumens
Hi: 130 lumens
Med: 49 lumens
Lo 4 lumens

The PA40 is definitely taking on the relative characteristics and output level spacing of the carrier it is connected to.

 

[seanwilliams78]

I received my PA40 in the mail yesterday, and used it at work last night. I'm am very, very pleased. Great feel, great performance, and a good run time even on alkalines (all I had available last night). Used it off and on for a 9 hour shift showing it off to friends, and never got a low batt warning yet (Rayovac Industrial Pro, 2020 date). My Sanyo XX's and Maha charger arrive tomorrow. But 1 more vote for the PA40 - it's a very solid, well rounded light.

 

[B0wz3r]

I got my PA40 today in neutral. Just went for a short walk to try it out. I loaded it with a set of Duraloops that I just ran through an analyze and charge on my C9000.

The PA40 is indeed quite a nice light... I'm impressed with both the output and the solidity of the light. With 4 nimh's in it, it feels very solid in the hand. The whole light feels well built. It's actually smaller than I though it would be. The tint is definitely cooler than I had expected. It's supposed to be 5,000K in terms of color temp, but there isn't a hint of any tint in the beam that I can see. It seems just pure white. It certainly doesn't render colors as well as any of my other lights, but for my planned uses for this light, I can life with that. The beam is very well balanced; it has a generous hotspot and good spill, and on max it throws well. Probably better than any of my other lights so far. I'm sure that's to be expected though, as this is my first larger light, all my others are one or two cell models.

Now I want a BC40 too.

 

[minnstars]

Also remember when talking about the PA40 and the M40A XM-L that these lights aren't really even in the same price range. A PA40 can be had for 67 dollars brand new, while the M40A XM-l is around 135$ out the door.

I would certainly expect a light that is about twice the price to be better. But is it twice as good? Probably not.

The PA40 is certainly more pocketable and easier to carry IMO.

Well said! :thumbsup: This seems to be a point often missed in these forums ... that price is an important factor .... relative to performance it is the most important factor too me.

I will pay for performance if there is no other choice, but if I can get 80 - 90% of the performance at 50% of the price, I'll go that way everytime.

 

[tre]

Well said! :thumbsup: This seems to be a point often missed in these forums ... that price is an important factor .... relative to performance it is the most important factor too me.

I will pay for performance if there is no other choice, but if I can get 80 - 90% of the performance at 50% of the price, I'll go that way everytime.

That info was not accurate though and cost is not missed as a factor in these forums. I have both of the lights in question. The PA40 is a bit over $71 while the M40A XML is $125. For the extra $54, you get a light that is much better built, has much more output, and much more throw. It is well worth the extra money for the build quality alone but you get more output and throw too.

That said, there is more then just price and build quality to keep in mind in this case. As I said in my original post The PA40 is a flood light while the M40A XML is a thrower. They are apples and oranges in that respect.

 

[Wiggle]

PA40 is a little weaker (470lumens vs 600) but gets a good bit more runtime because of it (2.5 hours versus 1.5) not to mention its got a great low level.

 

[Sgt. LED]

Had the m40a and the pa40.
I sent the m40a on to my dad since he needed a good all around house light and I knew I'd never carry it.