Fenix Rebel vs Cree: L1D/L1T/P2D OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS!

This thread is a comparison of the current Fenix emitters. For comparison to other current Cree and Rebel 1AA lights, please see my multi-level AA roundup comparison review

To see results of all the heads in 2AA format, please see my new Fenix L2D Q5 vs R100, R80, Q2, P4 Comparison Review: RUNTIMES+ thread.

EDIT: Update Nov 15/07: Added Fenix Cree Q5 results. The head exterior styling looks similar to the R100 Premium now, but emitter end looks like the Q2 shown below.

EDIT: Update Oct 22/07: Fenix Rebel R080 head added to results. Sorry, no pics - but it doesn't look appreciably different from the R100 head.

The contenders:

From left to right: Rebel R100 "Premium", Cree Q2 "Special Edition", standard Cree P4. These three lights were all bought from fenix-store.com, whereas the R80 and Cree Q5 (both not shown) were bought from fenixtactical.com.



Beamshots:

On Turbo, with AW RCR in P2D body (Q2) or Duracell 2650 NimH in L2D body (R100 & P4)




Note that I didn't have enough of the same body type for all 3 shots simultaneously. The R100 and standard Cree P4 are on Turbo on L2D bodies with 2650mAh NiMH, and the Q2 is on a P2D body with AW RCR (and is thus slightly brighter than the other two). The R080 looks similar in pattern to the R100, although mine has a slightly cool tint in comparison.

Method: All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's FR.com method. My relative overall output numbers are typically similar to his, although generally a little lower. You can directly compare all my review graphs - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1m using a light meter.

Summary Chart for Turbo mode with 2650mAh NiMH in L1D, or AW Protected 3.7V RCR in P2D



Despite what the beamshots seem to show, my lightbox and light meter report that the new R100 produces more overall output and throw than the Cree Q2. The spillbeam is also wider on the Rebel head (although the Q2 has a narrower, brighter spillbeam). Note that these output numbers may be an underestimate of the magnitude of the difference.

For comparison purposes, here are the results of a "ceiling-bounce" test in a small windowless room, with my light meter on the floor near the base of the light (which is shining upward in candle-mode), in a L2D body on NiMH:

Rebel R80: 5.6 lux
Rebel R100: 5.8 lux
Cree P4: 4.9 lux
Cree Q2: 5.5 lux
Cree Q5: 7.1 lux

As you can see the Q5 has a noticeable jump in output compared to the others (in L2D format). This effect is less pronounced in P2D or L1D format. For more detailed info on L2D results (including runtimes), see my Fenix L2D Q5 vs R100, R80, Q2, P4 Comparison Review: RUNTIMES+ thread.

Runtimes:

All runtimes done in my lightbox under a cooling fan, with the identified batteries listed below.

"Turbo" mode on NiMH (Duracell 2650mAh)


Hi/Med/Lo modes on Alkaline Duracells




Note that runtimes in 1AA mode seem be slightly reduced with the new Cree Q5 head. Interestingly, the low mode on alkaline is ~50% brighter on the new R100 and Q5 heads. Most people are not likely to consider this an improvement, however, as one of the main complaints with Fenix circuit-controlled low modes is that they don't go low enough. The R080 head is even brighter on Low mode, leading of course to lower runtime.

Turbo mode on AW Protected 3.7V RCR


Temperature:

There are reported concerns that the Rebels run hotter than equivalent luminous flux bin Crees. To see how Fenix has managed, I've done some crude temperature readings of the exterior surface of the head near the emitter using a flexible temp probe. For this test, I've used the P2D body, to minimize the amount of aluminium body heatsinking available. Note that no external cooling is applied for this test. Readings taken at 30sec intervals:



As you can see, the R100 actually ran *cooler* surface temps than the slightly dimmer Cree Q2. Unless Fenix has mysteriously screwed the heatsinking in some way, it doesn't look like temperature will be a problem on these new Rebel lights.


Conclusion:

• The Cree Q5 is definitely your best choice for maximum overall output among these models, but the Rebel versions have a wider spillbeam and longer runtimes.
• The Cree Q5 tends to have lower runtimes in the brighter 1AA modes than the other lights (likely reflecting the higher Vf of Q5 emitters). Low mode seem comparable between the Q5 and R100.
• The Rebel R080 is still an excellent performer for the price. Although not as bright as some others, runtime was signficantly improved for equivalent output on Hi mode. Lo mode results were less impressive.
• The Rebel beam pattern is very pleasing on my samples. Rebel emitters are believed to produce better color rendition outdoors, and this seems to be the case to my eye as well.
• The Fenix L1T/L2T v2.0 comes with a protruding forward clicky (so no tailstanding possible). Quality seems very high, so it looks like the many fans of this type of clicky will be pleased.
• No apparent problems with heat build-up on the R100 head.

There you have it. Cheers!

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Thanks for doing the review! Very informative. :twothumbs

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

NICE!!!...Review. Thanks for all of your hardwork. I am really impressed with my P3DR100. So much so, that I just ordered a LP M1R(ebel). It is amazing that so much light can come out of such a small speck of a led. Also, that the light can be of such a nice tint.

The above being said, they are not night and day better than their origional cree counterparts. If I read the charts right, All three leds were pretty close to each other. The rebel was better, but if I had a older light, I might not feel that I need to sell it because it is now outclassed.

Thanks again for the great review.

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Wow, thanks for doing this review, very nice:twothumbs, the Rebel runtime looks great!

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

woodrow said:

The above being said, they are not night and day better than their origional cree counterparts. If I read the charts right, All three leds were pretty close to each other. The rebel was better, but if I had a older light, I might not feel that I need to sell it because it is now outclassed.

Click to expand...

You are quite right. My output scale is linearized, so as you can see there's typically only ~10% improvement with each step up from P4<Q2<R100, except on certain modes (although runtime is also increased in some cases). But not enough to trigger an upgrade for most.

But for those considering their first purchase, I don't see any reason to go for the crees at this point in time (unless you are getting a custom upgrade, like the Q5).

Thanks for the support everyone! :thumbsup:

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Wow, what a fantastic job you did.

Thanks

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Yes again, well done, nice work and much appreciated!

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Nice reviews! Thanks.

That datalogger really comes in handy.

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

WOW....very nicely done!! Thanks! :twothumbs

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

woohoo! Very nice review and very useful! I've been waiting for a comparison like this and was glad to see the Rebel do so well. Since owning my P3D Rebel I've suspected that any Rebel would do well in a heads-up test. Thanks for all of your work. :thumbsup:

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

+1 Great Job.

Proof reading questions:

L1D CE P4 output and throw readings of 39 and 37 seem awful close together. Is that a typo ? Or is there just no spill on that one ?

Looks like the temperature chart time scale should be seconds instead of minutes ?

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

impressive reviews, thanks for effort and time.

warren,

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

I assume the circuit Fenix is using is the same for all emitters, which makes me wonder what is happening with the Rebel 100 in low mode? Any ideas?

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Thanks, interesting and very useful.

:twothumbs

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

some hardwork to be reckon with.
Thanks a lot for the great work :twothumbs

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

NA8 said:

L1D CE P4 output and throw readings of 39 and 37 seem awful close together. Is that a typo ? Or is there just no spill on that one ?

Looks like the temperature chart time scale should be seconds instead of minutes ?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the catch on the temp chart - just fixed it.

As for the output/throw readings, those numbers are correct. Note that they are completely independent and don't use the same scale.

The throw value is objective - it's simply the squareroot of lux @1m, and can be reproduced by anyone. This conversion allows you to directly compare throw numbers, since it "linearizes" the scale (which is necessary, since light decays at an inverse square law with distance).

Output is completely relative to my particular lightbox setup. This is not in lux, lumens, or any other objective measure - since it will be different for every individual setup. All I can say is that my relative output scale (ROV) is linear and seems to correspond well to the expected relative output of most lights. So while the absolute value is meaningless, the relationship of one light intensity to another is pretty accurate (i.e. twice the amount of light produced gives you twice the relative number). One wrinkle here is that I've noticed very strong throwers with little spill tend to get abnormally low scores in my lightbox. That's why my MRV-series comparisons give throw-adjusted values, since that is more appropriate in those cases. But all my other reviews use the same standard ROV scale, so you can compare relative output across my range of lights.

So, in this case, the P4 Cree and Q2 Cree are putting roughly the same throw (i.e. ~1400 lux@1m), even though the Q2 Cree is putting out ~20% more light overall (47 vs 39 ROV) according to my lightbox. The likely reason for this is the medium-texture OP reflector on the Q2 is adversely affecting throw (as you would expect).

In practical terms, this means the Q2 Special Edition has a brighter spill than a standard P4 Fenix, but with roughly the same throw (and same overall beam width). This is the price you pay for getting rid of the infamous Cree rings.

filibuster said:

I assume the circuit Fenix is using is the same for all emitters, which makes me wonder what is happening with the Rebel 100 in low mode? Any ideas?

Click to expand...

No idea ... since the circuit was presumably designed around the output characteristics of the Cree, perhaps there's some considerable difference bewtween the two classes of emitters at the lower drive currents? Any theories are greatly appreciated! :thinking:

And thanks for all the support everyone!

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Said it before and I'll say it again: Best reviews since Doug retired. :thumbsup:

Thanks a LOT!

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Thank you. I love info that justifies my purchase. P2D RB100 is a killer light in its class.

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Great job!! Thanks! oo: :thumbsup:

Re: Fenix Rebel vs Cree: OUTPUT, RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS

Great review, thanks for all the work you put int this.

I think the Rebel might have a higher low because of its lower Vf, for the same voltage, the Rebel usually draws more current then the Cree. How that applies to the other modes, well since the Rebel has a lower Vf, it might lessen the draw on the batteries on the other modes so there should be a longer runtime.