Acebeam
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 139

Thread: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

  1. #1

    Cool Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1/2x18650) *Collimator* Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Warning: pic heavy, as usual.

    UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012: This review has been revised with the results of the new aspheric Collimator head for the 7G5V2. Scroll down to the individual sections for updated info. I have also summarized all my Collimator head findings in post #58 of this thread, making it easier for you to see what is new about this head all in one place.

    UPDATE November 27, 2012: A revised model line, the 7G5CS, is now available with an improved user interface and build.





    Welcome to the new second edition of the 7G5, a high-output thrower light from Crelant.

    So, how much has changed from the first version of this light? You might be surprised …

    But first, here is new optional Collimator (aspheric) head:




    New 7G5 V2 Manufacturer Specifications: (changes from V1 reported specs identified in brackets)
    • LED: CREE XM-L U2
    • Hi mode brightness: 850 lumens (previously 860 lumens reported on 2x18650 for the V1)
    • Low mode brightness: 240 Lumens
    • Modes: High-Low-Strobe
    • Input voltage: 2.7V - 12V (previously 3.7V to 16V for the V1)
    • Power supply, not included: 1x or 2x 18650 Li-ion battery (previously 3xCR123A, 4xCR123A, 3x16340, 2x18650, 2x18500)
    • Runtime:
    • 1*18650 (650 lumens) - 90 minutes (not previously supported for the V1)
    • 2*18650 (860 lumens) - 110 minutes (previously 90 mins for the V1)
    • Switch: Forward tactical clicky switch
    • Material: T6061-T6 Aircraft Aluminum (previously T7075 for the V1)
    • Finish: Hard Anodized (type III)
    • Stainless steel bezel (previously aluminum for the V1)
    • Tactical grip ring (not present on the V1)
    • Lanyard ring (not present on the V1)
    • Waterproof: IPX-8 rating, beyond 5 Meters
    • Length 251mm, Head 62mm, Body 25.4mm
    • Weight: 287 grams (without batteries) (previously 315g for the V1)
    • Note: The GITD O-rings on the extension tube are replaceable with the included black o-rings.
    • Note: the V1 included anodized square-cut threads, not included on the V2
    • ncludes extension tube, spare o-rings, lanyard (previously no lanyard on the V1)
    • MSRP: ~$92

    Ok, so a lot has changed here. Let's go through it all a step at a time …





    First point – the printed packaging specs have NOT been updated yet, at least on my sample. The printed specs are no longer correct, please refer to the reported specs cited above (especially in terms of supported cells – 4xCR123A will blow the circuit on the V2). Hopefully these will be corrected on the packaging soon.

    Packaging remains fairly basic. Inside the clamshell plastic, you will find the light, spare o-rings and GITD boot cover switch. New on the V2 is a basic wrist lanyard (as the light now comes with a removable lanyard ring).

    UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head



    The optional Colimator head comes in its own cardboard box, wrapped in plastic. Scroll down for more pics.




    From left to right: 4GREER 3100mAh 18650; Crelant 7G5-V2, 7G5-V1; Niwalker 750; Tiablo A60G; Thrunite Catapult V3, Sunwayman T40CS.

    All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

    Crelant 7G5-V2: Weight: 282.6g, Length: 251mm, Width (bezel): 61.4mm
    Crelant 7G5-V1: Weight: 321.3g, Length: 247mm, Width (bezel): 61.4mm
    Niwalker NWK750: Weight: 392.3g, Length: 264mm, Width (bezel): 59.0mm
    Sunwayman T40CS: Weight: 296.7g, Length 227, Width (bezel): 63.5mm
    Thrunite Catapult V3: Weight: 434.8g, Length: 254mm, Width (bezel) 58.0mm, Width (tailcap) 35.1mm.

    Since the V2 now fully supports 1x18650, here are some additional comparisons to that class of light:

    Crelant 7G5-V2: Weight: 247.6g, Length: 247mm, Width (bezel): 61.4mm
    Tiablo A9 Flood (XM-L U2): Weight: 156.7g, Length 158mm, Width (bezel) 45.1mm
    Xeno G42: Weight: 224.3g, Length 161mm, Width (bezel) 46.6mm
    4Sevens X7: Weight 146.9g, Length: 151.5mm, Width (bezel): 38.7mm
    Scorpion V2 with Turbo Head: Weight: 188.3g, Length: 171mm, Width: 41.0 (bezel), 37.0mm (tailcap grip ring)

    Here's a few shots of the Collimator head, compared to some other well-known aspherics.


    From left to right: 18650, Crelant 7G5V2-Collimator, Dereelight DBSV2-Aspheric, Tiablo A9 R2 "Throw King".

    UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012: Dimensions of the Collimator head

    Whole head: Weight: 255.6g, Length: 79.2mm, Width (bezel): 67.1mm
    Aspheric Lens: Weight: 98.8g, Height (center): 24.0mm, Width (base): 66.7mm



    I will talk more about the Collimator head internals at the end of the build section of this review.

    Stock 7G5 V2 body:







    The V2 7G5 appears to be a completely different build. There is really nothing similar to the old model, except for the user interface, emitter and reflector. The light engine "guts" thus seem the same, but in a new shell – note however that the circuit has gone through a voltage range revision (see below discussion below).

    The original 7G5 build seemed very basic, somewhat reminiscent of a number of the budget lights - except with a few nice features like anodized square-cut threads and a 1xCR123A-size battery extender (allowing for 3x or 4x CR123A/RCR, and 2x 18500 or 2x 18650). The new model is completely different, with a 1x18650-sized extender (giving you 1x or 2x 18650). That physical change has necessitated a circuit change, to fully support 1x 3.7V Li-ion. As a result, 4xCR123A is no longer supported (i.e., the voltage range has been reduced to ~12V max). More on this later …

    This new build seems a lot more robust. The wall thickness seems higher now - but overall weight has decreased. This seems mainly due to a weight reduction in the head, with the V2 head being 42g lighter than the V1. This may indicate reduced heatsinking.

    Physically, the aluminum body has apparently changed from T7075 to T6061. These are both "aircraft grade", but I understand that 6061 is somewhat softer than 7075 (and supposedly less prone to break or crack). Given that we aren't likely to be directly subjecting our lights to take-off and landing stress, I don't imagine this really matters much in a flashlight.

    The anodizing is a glossy black now. Lettering is a much brighter white, standing out better against the background. There are a series of GITD o-rings along the battery extender tube (presumably to help with grip). These can be replaced with the included black extras supplied.

    There is no knurling on the V2 light, but there is a removable rubber grip ring now. I generally like rubber grip rings, but I find this one to be a little too small (i.e. I prefer a wider ring, for more stable finger support).

    The V2 can no longer tailstand, but the forward clicky tailcap is much easier to access now. There is a removable metal clip ring, allowing you to use a wrist lanyard now (oddly, there were no attachment points of any kind on the V1).

    Sadly, screw threads are no longer square-cut or anodized for tailcap lock-out. Triangular threads seem of good quality, though.

    There is now a slightly scalloped stainless steel bezel ring around the head. There is a GITD o-ring below the new bezel. The lens is of improved quality - it is much clearer now, with a definite anti-glare coating. The reflector appears completely unchanged from the earlier 7G5, and should continue to provide excellent throw.

    There is still a spring on the positive contact plate in the head, so flat-top batteries should work fine.

    Is it just me, or does the overall build look a lot like the Sunwayman T40CS (which in turn looked a lot like the Surefire UB3T Invictus?).

    FYI, Tiablo is apparently the owner/manufacturer of all Crelant lights (you'll note the same Canadian source address for both companies in the promotional material).

    UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head








    Ok, that's a big aspheric lens up there.

    The Collimator head replaces the stock 7G5V2 head/reflector, and screws right on the the base of the head (i.e., the pill/emitter area). As you can see, it is rather large (and a bit ungainly looking), but it fits on solidly. Light may feel a little top heavy in the 1x18650 size shown earlier, but it pretty well balanced in 2x18650 with batteries loaded.

    The head features cut-out holes around the circumference, similar to the Tiablo A9 (recall the close relationship between Tiablo and Crelant). But this head feels more solid and sturdy than the A9 aspheric head.

    This head uses a similar focusing mechanism to the A9 aspheric - you can unscrew the top half of the head relative to it's base, defocusing the optic. In my case, I found ideal focus was pretty much full tight.

    There is a glass lens just below the bezel - I'm not sure why (perhaps to protect the aspheric optic?). It is certainly not going to provide additional waterproofing, given the cut-outs around the circumference.

    There's a plastic plug that screws into the unused head when not in use, which is a nice touch.

    UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012: Head disassembly



    First thing to notice if you unscrew the focusing feature all the way (and open the head up completely), is the back of the aspheric lens is held in place by a metal retaining ring. You will need a very wide set of tweezers to fit into the holes on either side of the ring to unscrew.



    Once you do, you aspheric lens pops out the back. As you can see above, there is indeed an o-ring above the lip of the aspheric lens that makes contact with a lip inside the head, to maintain waterproofness of the light. Note that it can be a bit tricky to re-seat this o-ring within the head when tightening the lens back into place, so I don't recommend you don't open it up as a matter of course. If you do, mount the o-ring back into the head first, and then carefully re-tighten the retaining ring with the aspheric lens in place



    You can unscrew the bezel ring separately, and the front glass lens and o-ring pop out. Again, I am not sure why this lens is here – it provides no extra water-proofing, since there are cut-outs on the head below this point (and the aspheric has its own o-ring).

    User Interface

    The 7G5 V2 has the same interface as the V1 - which is very basic. Turn the light On/Off by the tailcap forward clicky switch. Press for momentary on, click and release for constant on.

    Mode switching is controlled by soft-pressing or rapid Off/On clicking of the tailcap switch. Mode sequence is Hi > Lo > Strobe, in repeating sequence. Light has mode memory, so if you leave it off for more than 2 secs, it remembers the last mode used and returns to it upon activation.

    Personally I would rather see Strobe "hidden" in some way, and not on the main sequence.

    For a more detailed examination and comparison of the build between V1 and V2, please see my video overview:



    I have provided a quick video overview of the Collimator head below:



    Videos were recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once a video is running, you can click on the configuration settings icon and select the higher 480p to 720p options. You can also run full-screen.

    PWM/Strobe

    There is no sign of PWM that I can see, at either output level – I presume the light is current-controlled.



    Strobe was unchanged, measured at a very fast ~16 Hz.

    Also as before, there was some high frequency noise detectable on my oscilloscope setup at each level. This not visually noticeable.




    Basically, the circuit seems completely unchanged from before (aside from the altered voltage range, that is).

    Beamshots:

    I will start with the stock reflector head, and discuss the optional Colimator head at the end.


    Crelan 7G5-V1 on the left, 7G5-V2 on the right.

    7G5-V1


    7G5-V2


    As before, 7G5 has a large head, with a deep and smooth reflector. This means excellent throw – I would expect the V2 to be unchanged from the V1.

    And now the white-wall beamshots. All lights are on 2x AW protected 18650. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences.

    Note: My positioning seems a little off with the V2, which was recessed a little further back from the wall (giving a wider spillbeam width). In real life, the two versions have exactly the same beam characteristics.













    The V1 and V2 have virtually identical beams. The only real difference comes from minor focusing variations. Note that as before, you can unscrew the bezel, which may help with fine-tuning the adjustment.

    And now for the outdoor shots. These beamshots were done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground).



    Again, the 7G5 V2 is unchanged from the V1. I'm also added the Tiablo A60G above, so you can see how the latest thrower made under the Tiablo label performs in comparison. Tiablo seems to be the maker for Crelant, but the 7G5 uses a larger reflector than the A60G.

    From my original 7G5 V1 review:



    As you can see, the 7G5 has a more focused hotspot than the Thrunite Catapult or Olight SR51. Scroll down for full ANSI FL-1 testing results.

    UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head Results

    There's not much point in doing white wall beamshots of aspherics at under 1m. So instead, I will focus on 100-yard outdoor shots.

    To start to compare beam profiles, here is how the 7G5V2 output differs between 1x18650 and 2x18650 batteries, on both the standard smooth reflector and the new Collimator head:





    Here is how the smooth reflector directly compares to the Collimator head (on 2x18650):



    To help you see that better, here is a zoomed perspective on the hotspots:



    As with all aspherics, the Collimator head for the 7G5 V2 gives you a projection of the emitter die image at a distance, with little side spill. That said, there is always some degree of chromatic aberration with aspherics (i.e. that colorful blue-red fringing around the edges) – this is more noticeable at closer distances, though.

    Peak throw has increased with the Collimator head, but not as much as you might have expected. This is due to the relatively large die size of the XM-L emitter. For aspherics to produce very tight throw, you need to start with a very small die. To show you what I mean, below is a comparison to a couple of classic aspheric lights – the Dereelight DBS XR-E R2 EZ900, and the Tiablo A9 XR-E R2 "Throw King":



    And again zoomed:



    Overall, the 7G5V2 Collimator puts out about the same peak throw as the premium EZ900 XR-E DBS aspheric does. But the 7G5V2 Collimator does so over a wider area.

    Although hard to give exact measures, I would estimate that the DBS aspheric illuminates an area ~10ft x 10ft (i.e. ~100 square feet) at this 100-yard distance, and the 7G5V2 Collimator illuminates an area ~14ft x 14ft (i.e. ~200 square feet). So effectively, the 7G5V2 is putting out the same intensity of light, but spread out over twice the surface area.

    Testing Method:

    All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

    I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info.
    Throw/Output Summary Chart:

    My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables.

    Again, I will start with the standard reflector head, and discuss the Collimator head at the end.



    Although my V2 sample has slightly lower output and throw, I don't consider this to be significant. There is bound to be some variability between samples, due to circuit/emitter differences. Exact positioning of the emitter and reflector will also affect throw.

    As a reminder, the best way to compare overall throw among lights is by looking at beam distance, not raw lux at any given distance. As you will see, my V2 has ~2.5% less output, and ~6% less throw. This is within normal variation.

    Since the V2 can now run on 1x as well as 2x battery sources in the 1x18650 size, let's put it through its paces relative to that class:



    The output of the 7G5 V2 on 1x18650 is quite good – I get almost 600 estimated lumens, with over 30K lux@1m throw. That makes it the best throwing reflectored 1x18650 light in my collection at the moment.

    Because the 7G5 V2 takes 2x18650, it can also run on 2xRCR or 2CR123A (in theory). But here is where the problem comes in – the nearly 800 initial lumens on Hi is a heavy drain for these low capacity cells.

    Note that the new specs for the 7G5 V2 specifically to NOT support 2xRCR or 2xCR123A. But since I know some of you are bound to try it, here is what happens if you do:




    I STRONGLY urge you NOT to try 2xCR123A on Hi on the 7G5 V2. My experience of other heavily driven >700 lumen XM-L lights is that this kind of drain is bound to trigger the PTC safety circuits within minutes. This is NOT something you want to do intentionally. In addition to cell (and user) safety, those kinds of cell temperatures can also easily damage circuits.

    If you are going to try running 2xRCR on Hi (again, not recommended), you should only consider using good quality IMR cells rated for this current drain. Unfortunately, IMR cells are not protected, so please use caution not to over-discharge them. And again, there are no guarantees the light will be able to handle the heat in the smaller configuration.

    Note that the ~300 lumen Lo mode should be quite safe for 2xRCR or 2xCR123A.

    As a last word, do not even think about trying 4xCR123A. I tried this on the first V2 I was sent (before I was advised of the revised specs), and blew the circuit within the first few mins of runtime. The V2 no longer supports anything higher than ~12V max.

    UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head Results

    Ok, this is going to require some explaining.

    Measuring peak intensity/beam distance according to ANSI FL-1 is problematic. The standard requires you to hunt around the hotspot with the light sensor for the point of highest intensity. This was clearly intended for standard reflectors or TIR optics. But aspherics produce a direct projection of the emitter die, which has tiny regions of unusually high intensity that are NOT representational of overall output. So if you just reported those, you would get a misleading impression of actual throw.

    What I have done instead is provided two numbers in the tables below – the first refers to the "average" or typical center-beam intensity, the second refers to the absolute max I was able to measure (i.e. presented as Average Center Lux – Max Lux). Overall, the hotspot of the aspheric will more closely match the lower average number.



    As expected, the Collimator head throws further than the standard reflector.

    But how does it compare to other common aspherics? Below are some tables comparing the reflector and aspheric versions of the 7G5V2, Tiablo A9 variants, and Dereelight DBS XR-E R2 EZ900.




    Ok, that's a lot of data – the main take home message is that the 7G5V2 Collimator head throws about the same peak intensity as the DBS XR-E R2 EZ900. But as we saw in the outdoor shots earlier, the 7G5V2 actually lights up about twice the surface area at that level.

    I realize that people are very sensitive to minor differences in raw lux @1m numbers for these thrower lights. But as with lightboxes, you can only really compare throw values to other lights tested with the same meter, under common conditions (i.e., calibrations vary, sometimes widely). Up until now, the light meter used for beam intensity/distance measures in all my summary tables has been the budget Cer CT1330B (which is generally believed around here to commonly have lower numbers than some others lux meters). I recently picked up the slightly more expensive budget-model V&A VA8050, which gives me higher lux readings.

    Here is a comparison of the 7G5V2 on both lux meters:



    As I have no idea which of these lux meters is closer to the "true" value, I have recently ordered a proper NIST-calibrated and certified Extech meter. This should resolve the matter, and I will update this review with new (accurately calibrated) throw measures once it arrives.

    UPDATE JUNE 14, 2012: Front Lens Removal

    The extra glass lens in the front of the Collimator head is bound to cut down on light transmission, and is not necessary since the aspheric lens has its own o-ring for waterproofness. I have re-tested the throw measures of the Collimator head without it in place:



    Don't read in too much into the increased transmission above. It is VERY difficult to get accurate intensity measures from aspheric beams due to the die projection (i.e., intensity is highly variable, with regions of relatively high readings). This is why all my measures in the table are approximate (~) for both average intensity and the peak readings.

    To get a better idea of the true effect of the glass, I defocused the aspheric to produce a blurred image, and held the light fairly close to the lux meter's sensor diffuser cover in such a way that the projected hotspot just barely exceeded the diffuser dimensions. This way, I could "even out" the regional imperfections and get a fairly stable reading on the lux meter.

    When I did this, I got a fairly consistent ~8% increase in lux readings with the lens removed, on both the Cer and V&A meters. Take it for what it is worth.

    Personally, I will be running the light without the extra front lens in place …

    Output/Runtime Comparison:




    No real difference in the 2x18650 performance of the V2 compared to the V1. The 7G5 performance remains quite good for this class.




    As with most multi-power lights, the 7G5 V2 appears to be direct-drive-like on Hi on 1x18650, with good efficiency. On Lo, the light is fully regulated, and quite efficient for this class.

    Again, I don't recommend you try running the 7G5 V2 on 2xRCR, but here is what you could expect on Hi on IMR cells:



    I will NOT be attempting 2xCR123A on Hi, since those drive levels would be bound to trigger the PTC safety circuits. But here is how the light performs on Lo on 2xCR123A:



    Potential Issues

    The V2 no longer supports 4xCR123A, but does fully support 1x18650 now.

    Strobe is still on the main sequence, along with Hi and Lo.

    As before, the light lacks a true "Low" mode (more like Hi and Med, compared to most lights).

    Light can no longer tailstand, but it is easier to access the forward clicky switch.

    Light no longer uses square-cut threads, and is no longer anodized for tailcap lockout.

    Weight of the head has decreased on the V2, making me wonder about the level of heatsinking on this new version.

    There was a very noticeable hum on all levels on my first V2 sample. Hum is a common feature to many lights, but its presence and relative intensity are highly variable and hard to predict (it is believed to be due to inductor whine on the circuit). My second V2 sample was relatively quiet, but hum was still present to some degree.

    As before, the reported ANSI FL-1 output specs seem overstated. Output and runtime efficiency are in keeping with other good quality, heavily-driven lights in this class.

    The optional Colimator head throws further than the standard reflector head, but has typical chromatic aberrations common to all aspherics (i.e., blue/red fringing).

    Preliminary Observations

    The original 7G5 V1 was basically a no-frills, high-output thrower. Throw was particularly good – it was the best throwing reflectored XM-L light that I had tested in the 2x18650-class. The new V2 is driven to the same level, and uses the same emitter and reflector, providing comparable output and throw.

    That said, a lot has changed in this new version. To start, the light no longer supports 3xCR123A/RCR or 2x18500 in the base configuration, and 2x18650, 4xCR123A in the extended. This new V2 is rated for 1x18650 in the base configuration, and 2x18650 only in the extended. In my view, the light is too heavily driven on Hi to support 2x CR123A or standard ICR-based RCRs, and 4x sources are definitely NOT supported (i.e. 4xCR123A will blow the circuit, as I can verify).

    That said, the full support for 1x18650 on the V2 is a definite bonus now. Although output is lower than 2x18650, it is still high enough to make this the best throwing reflectored 1x18650 that I have tested to date.

    In terms of the physical build, it feels like the V2 was manufactured by an entirely new factory (except for the circuit and reflector). On the whole, I like the higher quality feel of the new V2 parts. The stainless steel bezel is welcomed, and the lens seems of much higher quality (with excellent anti-glare coating). The tailcap is much easier to access (although can no longer tailstand), and the lanyard ring and wrist lanyard are appreciated additions.

    That said, I regret the loss of screw thread anodizing for lock-out (and the reversion to standard triangular-cut threads) on this new build. Moreover, the head has much lower mass now, making me wonder about potentially reduced heatsinking.

    What hasn't changed is the circuit performance. As before, you still get very high max drive levels, and overall output/runtime efficiency (on both Lo and Hi) that is on par with well-established, brand-name current-controlled lights. But you still have the fairly basic interface, with a relatively bright Lo mode and strobe on the main sequence (but at least you still mode memory).

    Although the price has increased somewhat, the 7G5 V2 remains a good bargain for a max-throw style high-output XM-L light. While you can no longer run 4xCR123A, the ability to run 1x18650 at a reasonable output level is likely a feature that will appeal to many.

    UPDATE JUNE 13, 2012: Collimator Head

    The optional Collimator (aspheric) head for the 7G5V2 is well made and does the intended job well. Build-wise, I would consider it a step-up from the common Tiablo A9 aspheric head.

    In terms of the beam pattern, it is about what you would expect for an aspheric coupled with an XM-L emitter. By that I mean it projects a larger die image than most aspherics coupled to smaller XR-E emitters do. In actual fact, the larger head and optic here are required to produce comparable peak throw to the smaller (and lower output) XR-E aspherics out there.

    This might be surprising to some, given that the 7G5V2 has more than 3 times the output of those XR-E lights. But it doesn't throw further because it is working off a much larger emitter die. Instead, it projects that die image/hotspot over a wider area (i.e., I estimate about twice the area of the DBS XR-E R2 EZ900, with comparable intensity).

    Check out the 100-yard beamshots earlier in the review – they explain it better than any words will. You can also check out my Tiablo A9 XR-E R2 "Throw King", XP-G R5 "Special Edition" and XM-L U2 "Flood" comparison review for a further examination of the effect of aspherics on different types of emitters.

    ----

    Crelant 7G5 V2 was supplied by Intl-outdoor.com for review. Collimator head supplied directly by Crelant.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 11-27-2012 at 07:04 AM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    IMO If you are considering the 7G2 then the Olight M3X is the better choice in term if performance.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    It's a pity it has the same output numbers as the V1... The circuit going is also not exactly great, I suppose they'll fix that. My main problem though is that these things are so thin on the tube-end... Props (and my money) to the first to make these things run on 2x26650!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by vinhnguyen54 View Post
    IMO If you are considering the 7G2 then the Olight M3X is the better choice in term if performance.
    Quite possibly, but I unfortunately have never been sent one for review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freeze_XJ View Post
    It's a pity it has the same output numbers as the V1... The circuit going is also not exactly great, I suppose they'll fix that. My main problem though is that these things are so thin on the tube-end... Props (and my money) to the first to make these things run on 2x26650!
    Note sure what you mean there about the tube. The body tube wall thickness diameter has increased noticeably from the V1, and is definitely above average (it's no Catapult, though). Body tube internal diameter is quite reasonable, and all my protected 18650 cells fit fine (even my widest ones).

    As for the circuit, that is not likely to be "fixed" - I suspect it is a function of the wider support at the low end (i.e. fully supporting 1x 3.7V Li-ion now). The high end has been correspondingly reduced (i.e. 4xCR123A is not supported). I just hope they get the proper specs listed on the packaging as soon as possible.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 03-26-2012 at 01:25 PM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    I meant the total size, not the inner size of the tube. If I look at my throwing flashlights, I'd rather have them be a larger size, instead of being long and thin. Probably because my hands are large as well, so gripping an AA or 18650-sized tube (or any small tube actually) isn't as comfortable as a C-cell or likewise-sized light. I don't doubt these lights are more than solid enough to handle abuse, though

  6. #6

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Hmm, correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't the 1st table should be titled 2x18650 Protected AW's?

  7. #7

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Also, didnt you have one on the Olight M3X? How come the data is not here? Would have made a good comparison.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill1109 View Post
    Hmm, correct me if im wrong, but shouldn't the 1st table should be titled 2x18650 Protected AW's?
    So it should, that's a typo in the table. I'm away at the moment, so will fix the image in a couple of days.

    Quote Originally Posted by roadkill1109 View Post
    Also, didnt you have one on the Olight M3X? How come the data is not here? Would have made a good comparison.
    It sure would ... but I've never tested a M3X. I reviewed the M31, which was its predecessor using a SST-50 emitter. Throw is lower on the larger-die SST-50 lights, so I don't typically include them in the tables.

    My understanding is the M3X throw is generally comparable to the 7G5, but I don't have first-hand experience.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Yeah the top three that were recently tested here were the M3X, the Catapult V3 and the 7G5 V1 wherein the 7G5 seemed to be the winner. Too bad thought the V2, though make look a bit better, lacks the same punch at the old V1.

    But still, overall a good thrower. Beam's nice and tight, good to 300 meters thereabouts.

  10. #10
    Flashaholic Matt7337's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    I just want to say well done on yet another fantastic review, SelfBuilt. I don't think I've ever commented on a review thread of yours before, but I have read most of them and made quite a few purchases in the past based on your reviews. You write the best flashlight reviews I've ever seen :
    Malkoff P7 3D Mag | Fenix L0D & TK11 | Bitz Alu & Ti | RA Twisty 85-Tr & Clicky Ti [<Avatar<] | Dereelight DBS V1 & DBS V3 | Nitecore: NEX GDP, SR3, EX10 GDP, D20 R2, D10 R2 | Olight M20 Warrior | SF C2 HA & T1A | Liteflux 2XT

  11. #11
    Flashaholic* candle lamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South Korea
    Posts
    1,092

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Excellent review as always. Selfbuilt! Thanks for the posting.
    It's just a shame that screw threads are no longer square-cut or anodized for tailcap lock-out. Hope they will release upgaded version has anodized screw threads for tailcap lock out.

    I can see a little bit yellowish large ring outside of the hot spot on the white-wall beamshots. Is it very noticeable? (But looks not noticeable as much as T40CS.)
    Latest Review : Rayus PT10S Review

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt7337
    I just want to say well done on yet another fantastic review, SelfBuilt. I don't think I've ever commented on a review thread of yours before, but I have read most of them and made quite a few purchases in the past based on your reviews. You write the best flashlight reviews I've ever seen :
    I could have said the exact same thing. Great review as always SelfBuilt!
    Quote Originally Posted by candle lamp
    Excellent review as always. Selfbuilt! Thanks for the posting.
    It's just a shame that screw threads are no longer square-cut or anodized for tailcap lock-out. Hope they will release upgaded version has anodized screw threads for tailcap lock out.

    I can see a little bit yellowish large ring outside of the hot spot on the white-wall beamshots. Is it very noticeable? (But looks not noticeable as much as T40CS.)
    The threads on my sample are rather beefy. I also wish they were anodized for tailcap lockout as I can see it turning on in a bag if care isn't taken. Maybe a tailcap shroud of some sort will fit? The outer diameter of the tailcap is 1". My sample also has the typical XML tint shift but I can not remember the exact colors off of the top of my head. The hotspot is a bice creamy white. Maybe a little toward the neutral side. I haven't even had the chance to take mine outside yet so this review just got me way too excited lol.
    Last edited by Diablo_331; 03-27-2012 at 04:28 PM.
    This is my signature. They're many like it but this one is mine..

  13. #13

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Thanks everyone, glad you are enjoying the reviews.

    Quote Originally Posted by candle lamp View Post
    I can see a little bit yellowish large ring outside of the hot spot on the white-wall beamshots. Is it very noticeable? (But looks not noticeable as much as T40CS.)
    Can't say I really noticed much of a tint shift in real life. On some lights with very defined coronas it can be noticeable, but it is typically pretty negligible on these throwers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diablo_331 View Post
    The threads on my sample are rather beefy. I also wish they were anodized for tailcap lockout as I can see it turning on in a bag if care isn't taken.
    Yeah, the triangular-cut threads definitely seem of good quality - beefy is a good descriptor. A shame about the lack of anodizing, though.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    thank you selfbuilt for the time you take on these lights.......i cant seem to get away from your reviews.......
    i have 2 of your lights that you have tested, 4sevens g5 v2 ,and the crelant 7g5 v2...the 7g5 v2 is a beast,but i hate that it hums alittle. my wife and friends call me a light whore lol. i may have a problem

    thanks again

  15. #15

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Here is what I think about the M3X XML vs The Crelant 7G5 V2 in terms of performance:

    Both has similar reflector diameters but the 7G5 V2 is quite deeper. To me, this mean same hot spot intensity on both lights due to the similar diameter but smaller hot spot on the 7G5 due to a deeper reflector. It also mean that that the M3X will have a wider more useful hot spot. In reality, everything I believe was what I saw when I compared them. I definitely a fan of large and shallow reflector as oppose to a relatively deep one. Too bad I don't have a M3X at the moment to send to Selfbuilt for review.

    The Crelant does come stock with a very nice PURE WHITE tint XML. While all the M3X I tested came with a GREEN tint XML.

  16. #16
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    235

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Thank you for another excellent review, Selfbuilt!
    I also got my Crelant 7G5v2 about 2 weeks ago and have been wondering how it is against the old version. It's good to see the output is on par between the 2 versions.

    I however got ~89 minutes of runtime on max using 2x TF2400mAh (flame wrap, 6 month-old) when the light was cooled in water. And I got 6 hours on Mid (batteries measured 3.43V when I pulled them out, protection didn't kick in).
    At the same time, my 2.5 yr-old TF2400mAh flame wrap batteries couldn't keep the light on Max for a full 55 mins, the light keeps switching to low probably because the batteries are old and can't sustain such high current draw.

    I think the light gets hot very quickly, after turning it on for ~6-7mins, I can no longer hold its head comfortably . We need more mass in the head just as you pointed out earlier :/

  17. #17

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by SinrSavdByGrace View Post
    the 7g5 v2 is a beast,but i hate that it hums alittle.
    I forgot to mention it, but my first V2 sample had a very noticeable hum on all levels. Hum is a common feature to many lights, but its presence and relative intensity are highly variable and hard to predict (it is believed to be due to inductor whine on the circuit).

    My second V2 sample was relatively quiet, but hum was still present to some degree if you listen carefully (same can be said for my V1 sample). I've added a comment to the potential issues section of the review, just in case this is a relatively more common feature of this light. Hard to know without more samples being examined.

    Quote Originally Posted by dudu84 View Post
    I however got ~89 minutes of runtime on max using 2x TF2400mAh (flame wrap, 6 month-old) when the light was cooled in water. And I got 6 hours on Mid (batteries measured 3.43V when I pulled them out, protection didn't kick in). At the same time, my 2.5 yr-old TF2400mAh flame wrap batteries couldn't keep the light on Max for a full 55 mins, the light keeps switching to low probably because the batteries are old and can't sustain such high current draw.
    Sounds very good for 2400mAh-rated cells. As cells age (and they get a lot of cycles on them), I would expect performance to degrade. But for everyday use, the older cells should be fine - as long as they have been carefully treated up to now. Over-charging or over-discharging is quite hard on cells.

    As an aside, this is why I go through so many cells in my testing - all those runtimes to the protection circuits kick in is not healthy. I toss cells before significant degradation occurs.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  18. #18
    Flashaholic* BLUE LED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,272

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    The whine is present in both my Crelant 7G5 original and 7G5 V2. I reduced the loud whine by cleaning the threads of the pill section. It stills whines a little on both my units. I am still very happy with both, but prefer the aesthetics of the Surefire, I mean 7G5 V2.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by BLUE LED View Post
    The whine is present in both my Crelant 7G5 original and 7G5 V2. I reduced the loud whine by cleaning the threads of the pill section. It stills whines a little on both my units. I am still very happy with both, but prefer the aesthetics of the Surefire, I mean 7G5 V2.
    Interesting. There are likely different factors that control the intensity of the hum. In many cases, it is probably intrinsic to the circuit and can't be helped (e.g. in cases where it is only present on certain voltage inputs and drive levels). But in cases where the hum is present on all modes (including strobe), I suppose it is possible that some sort of amplification is occuring between the various metal interfaces. A good cleaning is always worth a shot.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  20. #20
    Flashaholic* madecov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Guys,
    just a teaser, but the 7G5 V2 is coming to the USA soon. I know the guy who is going to be bringing them in.
    In god we trust.........all others are suspects
    There are no problems in life that can not be solved with high explosives or small arms
    Too many new lights to list

  21. #21
    Flashaholic* BLUE LED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,272

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by madecov View Post
    Guys,
    just a teaser, but the 7G5 V2 is coming to the USA soon. I know the guy who is going to be bringing them in.
    So you look in the mirror everyday.

    I have a Crelant 7G5 V2 and extremely happy with 53,300 lux, especially in the short configuration

  22. #22
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    103

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    I've got my 7G5-V2 since one week.
    The Throw is very very good, even the LumaPower MRV SKIV with Turbo Force Head is not so good!

    By the way, I heard that Crelant is developing a third flashlight with even more Throw … let's see!

  23. #23
    Flashaholic* madecov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by herculaneum79 View Post
    I've got my 7G5-V2 since one week.
    The Throw is very very good, even the LumaPower MRV SKIV with Turbo Force Head is not so good!

    By the way, I heard that Crelant is developing a third flashlight with even more Throw … let's see!
    There is another light coming very soon. I can't give any specifics but it is in the testing phase.
    In god we trust.........all others are suspects
    There are no problems in life that can not be solved with high explosives or small arms
    Too many new lights to list

  24. #24
    Flashaholic* madecov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    There is also a Collomiter head coming soon. It is also in the test phase
    In god we trust.........all others are suspects
    There are no problems in life that can not be solved with high explosives or small arms
    Too many new lights to list

  25. #25
    Flashaholic BWX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    339

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    V1 or V2....

    I don't know which one to get!!

    I want a 2x 18650 thrower for my collection.. the Crelant 7G5 (both) price is good... but why did they reduce output on V2? It makes it so much more difficult to decide. I wonder on average, how much less output there is on V2? I wish it was the same or higher on V2, not same or lower on average. Oh well.. The flat black on V1 is cooler too.

    *EDIT* Just ordered the V2 from CPFMarketplace seller.. All the extras make V2 hard to pass up.

    Found something labelled wrong maybe:
    ''From left to right: 4GREER 3100mAh 18650; Crelant 7G5-V2, 7G5-V1; Tiablo A60G; Niwalker 750; Thrunite Catapult V3, Sunwayman T40CS''

    I think Tiablo and Niwalker are backwards..
    Last edited by BWX; 04-26-2012 at 01:58 PM.
    Led flashlights...|II|Fenix LD20+ Premium R4, TK45|Quark AA/2AA R5&S2 x2, Preon 1/2 S2/ h.CRI x2 |Olight i6 Paladin|Spark SL6-800CW, ST6 500CW headlamp|Xtar S1|Crelant 7G5 V2|Eagletac D25LC2|ZL SC600 MKI b U2|Thrunite TN12 '14|II|

  26. #26

    Buttrock Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by BWX View Post
    V1 or V2....

    I don't know which one to get!!

    I want a 2x 18650 thrower for my collection.. the Crelant 7G5 (both) price is good... but why did they reduce output on V2? It makes it so much more difficult to decide. I wonder on average, how much less output there is on V2? I wish it was the same or higher on V2, not same or lower on average. Oh well.. The flat black on V1 is cooler too.

    *EDIT* Just ordered the V2 from CPFMarketplace seller.. All the extras make V2 hard to pass up.

    Found something labelled wrong maybe:
    ''From left to right: 4GREER 3100mAh 18650; Crelant 7G5-V2, 7G5-V1; Tiablo A60G; Niwalker 750; Thrunite Catapult V3, Sunwayman T40CS''

    I think Tiablo and Niwalker are backwards..
    If I understand correctly, Selfbuilt is saying that the output differences between the V1 and V2 are probably more due to unit to unit variations than a real model difference:


    Although my V2 sample has slightly lower output and throw, I don't consider this to be significant. There is bound to be some variability between samples, due to circuit/emitter differences. Exact positioning of the emitter and reflector will also affect throw.

    As a reminder, the best way to compare overall throw among lights is by looking at beam distance, not raw lux at any given distance. As you will see, my V2 has ~2.5% less output, and ~6% less throw. This is within normal variation.


    and

    That said, the full support for 1x18650 on the V2 is a definite bonus now. Although output is lower than 2x18650, it is still high enough to make this the best throwing reflectored 1x18650 that I have tested to date.




    Sooo, it sounds like the V2 is a no brainer.

    Last edited by TEEJ; 04-26-2012 at 04:50 PM.

  27. #27
    Flashaholic BWX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    339

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    @TEEJ After reading a lot of other posts about peoples' experiences with their V2 compared to V1, I think overall the V2 doesn't have quite as much output -on average.. that's info gained after this review.. But like you said, it probably depends on the variation of the one I happen to get anyway.. that still has a lot to do with it. It could be better or worse just depending on pure luck.

    V2 has so many other things going for it, I just ordered that one.
    Led flashlights...|II|Fenix LD20+ Premium R4, TK45|Quark AA/2AA R5&S2 x2, Preon 1/2 S2/ h.CRI x2 |Olight i6 Paladin|Spark SL6-800CW, ST6 500CW headlamp|Xtar S1|Crelant 7G5 V2|Eagletac D25LC2|ZL SC600 MKI b U2|Thrunite TN12 '14|II|

  28. #28

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    The way I see it, if its within normal variation, some people WILL report it as having less oomph...and some won't.

    In the chart, we're talking about 440 meters vs 469 meters...BUT, we are ALSO seeing people who tested the Lux on the V@ as being in the mid-50k range, as opposed to the 48k range in this review.

    So, normal variation means some are stronger, and some are weaker....and, so far, there is evidence that both stronger and weaker versions are out there.

    It was probably that way for V1 as well, but there was nothing to compare it to.

    I have not measured mine...but it throws pretty good, and I like it.

    Last edited by TEEJ; 04-27-2012 at 02:16 PM.

  29. #29
    Flashaholic BWX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    339

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Cool.
    Led flashlights...|II|Fenix LD20+ Premium R4, TK45|Quark AA/2AA R5&S2 x2, Preon 1/2 S2/ h.CRI x2 |Olight i6 Paladin|Spark SL6-800CW, ST6 500CW headlamp|Xtar S1|Crelant 7G5 V2|Eagletac D25LC2|ZL SC600 MKI b U2|Thrunite TN12 '14|II|

  30. #30

    Default Re: Crelant 7G5 V2 (XM-L U2, 1x/2x18650) Thrower Review: RUNTIMES, VIDEO, BEAMSHOTS+

    Quote Originally Posted by BWX View Post
    I think Tiablo and Niwalker are backwards..
    Thanks, fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by TEEJ View Post
    So, normal variation means some are stronger, and some are weaker....and, so far, there is evidence that both stronger and weaker versions are out there. It was probably that way for V1 as well, but there was nothing to compare it to.
    Yes, exactly - it is hard to know what the variation in the V1 was like, as I only tested one sample. The reflector appears to be same, and the runtime on Hi on 2x18650 is the same (within normal variation limits), so I have no reason to expect the average throw/output to be all that different between V1 and V2. But you would need to have a good number of samples of each - tested under exactly the same conditions - to know for sure.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Outdoor 100-yard Beamshots 2011. Latest: Olight ST25.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •