Nitecore Explorer (EC1, EC2, EA1, EA2) Round-up Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+

[selfbuilt]

Selfbuilt do you have a dark spot in your EC2's hotspot? Mine has a dark spot in the hot spot, I noticed the EA2 has that hybrid type reflector but the EC2 is a regular smooth reflector and I don't have a dark spot in my EA2, not sure why they didn't use the hybrid reflector in the EC2.

It is pretty common to see some sort of dark spot in the center hotspot of XP-G lights with smooth reflectors. In some cases, this can look like a dot right in the center, or a slight dark ring near the center (fancifully referred to as a "nipple" by some here). I didn't comment on it in the review, but my EC2 has a slight dark ring (and my EA2 has slight center dot).

But in both cases, you have to really look for it on a white wall (note for example that I can't see it in the white wall beamshots). Since my samples are no worse than other lights, I didn't bother mentioning it before.

As for the reflector, only my two EC1 samples and original EA1 has noticeable evidence of rings at the base (i.e. "hybrid") - my EA2 and EC2 both seem quite smooth (as does my replacement EA1). Since all lights have the same size head, I suspect this just some variation in reflector manufacture. But I agree, the more "hybrid" pattern is probably better.

Also your EC2 and EA2 have about the same micro mode output ~1.8 lumens but my EC2 is closer the to the low mode of the EA2 I'd say about 10-15 lumens. Now my EA2 seems to be about equal with yours at the ~1.8 lumen count.

Thanks for sharing. That would suggest the abnormally high "Micro" mode is not just limited to my EC1 sample (i.e., it probably a sign of variability more generally across line, affect various samples). My EC2 and EA2 definitely have comparable micro output (as did my EC1 engineering sample - it is just my EC1 shipping sample that was higher).

I hope they are able to lock that down better, as I personally prefer as low as possible for the lowest level (i.e. I would rather take my EC2 with me back into a rainforest, than my shipping EC1 for this reason).

Comparing to different light's I have that I know for sure are around ~300-320 lumens then I'd say my EC2 on max is around the 320 mark.

Yes, it could well be my lumen estimates are off in that range - I had few samples in the ~300-450 lumen range to compare to in my original analysis. But in comparing the few lights >~300 lumens lights that I jad in common with BigChelis, MrGman and TiForce, this lumen esitmate conversion came in pretty consistent to their readings. For example, my 4Sevens G5s (both pre-release and shipping), clocked in at ~290 lumens on Turbo in my lightbox using this method (which is very consistent to what others reported at that time for the initial release). And my EC2 is quite a bit brighter overall.

Now that I have a NIST-certified lightmeter, I may start experimenting with building a better integrating sphere and redoing the comparisons that the conversion is based on. No promises, but I'll see if I can spend some time later this summer playing around with it.

[TORCH_BOY]

Excellent review, well done.

Tempting little lights

[NiteShift]

Really great review Selfbuilt.

My biggest disappointment with these is the low runtime of the Red SMD LED - only 5 hours for the EA1! Interesting to note the heat/runtime correlation - and also the size/heat/runtime correlation. The smallest light gets the shortest runtime and the the largest light gets the longest (the EA1 being in the middle) Someone living in a cold environment would do better with these lights I guess.

Thanks again SB

[selfbuilt]

My biggest disappointment with these is the low runtime of the Red SMD LED - only 5 hours for the EA1! Interesting to note the heat/runtime correlation - and also the size/heat/runtime correlation.

Agreed, it is disappointing (both the absolute runtime on some lights, and the wide degree of apparently acceptable variation). Certainly quite happy with my EC2 sample ...

One thing - I have just re-done the red mode runtime on the EC1, and again got ~2hr 45min. This time I measured the voltage of the cell afterwards (after a couple of minutes - it took me a bit of time to notice the light had gone out, so the cell would have had some time to recover). I measured 3.0V exactly. So it looks like my EC1 is running down the cell to close to its protection circuit tripping point.

[JudasD]

Agreed, it is disappointing (both the absolute runtime on some lights, and the wide degree of apparently acceptable variation). Certainly quite happy with my EC2 sample ...

One thing - I have just re-done the red mode runtime on the EC1, and again got ~2hr 45min. This time I measured the voltage of the cell afterwards (after a couple of minutes - it took me a bit of time to notice the light had gone out, so the cell would have had some time to recover). I measured 3.0V exactly. So it looks like my EC1 is running down the cell to close to its protection circuit tripping point.

This is very interesting that the single red led can discharge the 16340 in almost 3 hours. Mine took 6 hours and the light shut itself off and the battery was still at 3.45v. Something is very weird about the EC1 quality control.

JD

[selfbuilt]

A question came up about water-proofness in another thread (where a user reported watering entering the head of his EC1).

FYI, I've just popped my EC1 into a glass of water for an hour (with a battery installed and indicator blinking).

Took it out, and absolutely no signs of water penetration anywhere on the light. The head is still perfectly sealed and dry, and no water has entered the battery tube.

Hopefully the reported failure was an exceptional situation (I note Nitecore has already responded in that case with an offer to replace the light).

[NiteShift]

Having just brought one myself (EA1) I did the same glass of water test and found no signs of leakage. Although as I said in the other thread, I'm not sure how constant exposure to water/dampness may effect the adhesive on the switch sticker and subsequently the switch its self? I feel this could be a weak point for water entry.

I just wanted to mention that my EA1 (unlike Selfbuilt's replacement model) can indeed take protected 14500 cells. Specifically AW's Red Label Cells. There's a bit of side play too, which means there would be room for an even thicker cell.

I plan to try and test the red LED on my sample and see if there is any difference in runtime when compared to selfbuilt's findings. I'll report back asap

[selfbuilt]

Having just brought one myself (EA1) I did the same glass of water test and found no signs of leakage. Although as I said in the other thread, I'm not sure how constant exposure to water/dampness may effect the adhesive on the switch sticker and subsequently the switch its self? I feel this could be a weak point for water entry.

I agree, this is the most likely source of entry for those who experienced it in the other thread. Any damage/lifting of that sticker could allow water into the light.

Note by the way that the IP ratings are not very specific as to terms. IPX8 simply means that the light can handle some depth (>1m) for some period (specified by the manufacturer). It also doesn't necessarily mean that no water can enter (i.e. the minimum spec is that no amount of water enters that can produce a harmful effect on functioning).

But the ANSI FL-1 standard is more specific - the "submersible" rating (which Nitecore supplies for the Explorer series) means meeting the IPX8 standard at a specified depth (2m given in this case) for 4 hours. Note that standard ANSI testing requires 5 samples for immersion tests, and is done with a battery loaded but the light off, and the light functiong tested immediately after the test (and again 30 mins later). It also specifies that there must be no ingress of water in any area that contains unprotected electrical components or light sources. So ANSI FL-1 is a more rigourous interpretation of IPX8 (which is really a minimum rating).

Personally, I would expect the explorer lights to be at least as water-resistant as any other make or series. But I can understand the concern that not all samples may meet the actual ANSI FL-1 submersible standard of the IPX8 rating (i.e., there's at least two reports of water ingress under presumably less stringent conditions).

[Phil Ament]

I agree, this is the most likely source of entry for those who experienced it in the other thread. Any damage/lifting of that sticker could allow water into the light.

Note by the way that the IP ratings are not very specific as to terms. IPX8 simply means that the light can handle some depth (>1m) for some period (specified by the manufacturer). It also doesn't necessarily mean that no water can enter (i.e. the minimum spec is that no amount of water enters that can produce a harmful effect on functioning).

But the ANSI FL-1 standard is more specific - the "submersible" rating (which Nitecore supplies for the Explorer series) means meeting the IPX8 standard at a specified depth (2m given in this case) for 4 hours. Note that standard ANSI testing requires 5 samples for immersion tests, and is done with a battery loaded but the light off, and the light functiong tested immediately after the test (and again 30 mins later). It also specifies that there must be no ingress of water in any area that contains unprotected electrical components or light sources. So ANSI FL-1 is a more rigourous interpretation of IPX8 (which is really a minimum rating).

Personally, I would expect the explorer lights to be at least as water-resistant as any other make or series. But I can understand the concern that not all samples may meet the actual ANSI FL-1 submersible standard of the IPX8 rating (i.e., there's at least two reports of water ingress under presumably less stringent conditions).

By the way I just thought that I would add that in my EC1 User Manual it very clearly states the following, and I quote:


Waterproof in accordance with IPX-8 (2 meters submersible)


I would also like to add that I currently have five different brand new EC1's to directly compare to each other, and there appears to be a rather large variance in nearly every aspect of them, including the output levels, beam profiles, reflectors, run times, voltage readout accuracy and various other details too. There also appears to be some sort of artefacts (if that is the right word for it) or small shadows in the hot spots, however the shape and pattern of it differs greatly with each light. When I had a close look at the reflectors in each of them I noticed that there were reflections of some sort of foreign material in them. I then had an even closer look at them, first with a magnifying glass and then a jeweller's loupe, and each one of them has a considerable amount of dust/grit on the reflectors and I also noticed that they also seem to have dirt/grit and several very distinct black spots on the domes of all of the LED's, and which sort of looks a little bit like pepper although I am not really sure what it actually is. I then did the same thing with several of my other similar quality lights (JETBeam, Fenix, SureFire, Dereelight, Sunwayman) and all except for one were perfect (Sunwayman M10R with a large smudge in the middle of the dome) and they did not have any such similar traits.

I also must say that while I believe the Explorer series have the potential to be really wonderful flashlights, I am extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of any acceptable standards in their construction and quality control! Oh, and I haven't even been game to try the water dunking test yet!

[roadkill1109]

Selfbuilt, I noticed the lux disparity between the RCR123 and the 14500 and the 18650, since they have identical heads and essentially the same voltage for the lithium ion cells, wouldnt the output be identical? What could be causing this disparity?

I had my heart on the EA1 and run it with a 14500 to reap the benefits of having a smaller light but with good throw, but with the lux ratings you posted, it just turned me right off. My Quark AA w/14500 and Turbo X head can do better.

Anyways, after reading this review, gave me a better idea to just purchase the SWM C20C.

Thanks again Selfbuilt! As always, we count on your reviews (and Marshall's too) before buying our next lights!

[selfbuilt]

Selfbuilt, I noticed the lux disparity between the RCR123 and the 14500 and the 18650, since they have identical heads and essentially the same voltage for the lithium ion cells, wouldnt the output be identical? What could be causing this disparity?

Looks like my response to this thread was lost with the recent outage. But to summarize, the results with the Explorer series are quite normal.

Although the heads look the same on the outside, they have customized circuits that respond to voltages differently. The EA1 has to be able to respond appropriately to 1.2V battery sources, so it behaves differently on 3.7V Li-ion than the EC1 or EC2 do. The EC1 and EC2 also have different circuits, although in those cases they are pretty well matched for output on 3.7V Li-ion.

In the "old days", manufacturers often went for a common circuit among similar members of a given family (i.e., 1xAA, 2xAA, and CR123A). This has a simplicity and economy of scale in manufacturing. But it usually meant that 3.7V Li-ion wasn't fully supported on any member of the family (or if it were supported on all, there were usually limitations in the level or number of low modes on standard batteries). There is also an overhead issue (affecting efficiency) for having extra unnecessary circuit features in any a given model. Using a customized circuit for each member of a family allows you to tailor performance, giving the end use the best possible experience. I am starting to see more and more examples of makers going this route (e.g., recent JetBeam and Eagletac lights as well).

[RAM2]

Does the explorer series have reverse polarity protection?
Does the EC2 have low voltage shutoff?

Thanks for the good review.

[UlrikJ]

Hi selfbuilt,

Great review as always!

I have a hard time deciding between the Sunwayman C20C and the NiteCore EC2. I can see that the C20C has a Cree XM-L with more output than EC2 and it's Cree XP-G R5 with a lower runtime at turbo mode as a result. The EC2 have better runtime in turbo mode than C20C. Both the C20C and the EC2 it about the same size (it will be my winter time EDC). Which of the two lights would you choose? And is it possible to see the output difference between the C20C and EC2? Thanks.

[phantom23]

Don't forget that EC2 can run on turbo for half an hour while C20C has 5 min. limiter. Nitecore has more throw, Sunwayman has big emitter and tiny reflector=wide, floody beam. C20C has just low voltage indicator while EC2 cal also measure the actual voltage, plus yo can turn the red light on as firefly mode to maintain night vision. What I like about C20C is the way it looks, it's one of the best looking flashlights on the market.

PS. I think selfbuilt's beamshots are comparable so you can sompare pictures from different reviews. In that case C20C is noticeably brighter (both on turbo):

[UlrikJ]

Don't forget that EC2 can run on turbo for half an hour while C20C has 5 min. limiter. Nitecore has more throw, Sunwayman has big emitter and tiny reflector=wide, floody beam. C20C has just low voltage indicator while EC2 cal also measure the actual voltage, plus yo can turn the red light on as firefly mode to maintain night vision. What I like about C20C is the way it looks, it's one of the best looking flashlights on the market.

PS. I think selfbuilt's beamshots are comparable so you can sompare pictures from different reviews. In that case C20C is noticeably brighter:

Thanks for your comment.

From the C20C review I can see that the output is 440 lumens with 18650 at high mode which is more than the 390 lumens the EC2 outputs in turbo mode.
The throw of the EC2 is smaller than the C20C (178m vs 140m estimated). And the EC2 is a bit more compact than the C20C which is nice as I will have the light in the inside pocket of my jacket.

In the long run, I am a bit afraid of the durability of the EC2's buttons. I know that it comes with a spare "button" but still ... However, the button of the C20C is equally difficult to replace.

[phantom23]

You won't see the difference between 390 and 440 lumens, especially when EC2 has more concentrated beam (tighter beam appears brighter than it really is). EC2 has better throw than C20C. Nitocore's buttons have hard coating plus they're recessed reducing the risk of damage.

[UlrikJ]

Yeah, you are properly right. And the EC2 did great in selfbuilt's water test. I am beginning to like the EC2 more than the C20C. But there is still the fact that the EC2 is proberly impossible to operate with gloves in the winter. But that is not a big thing for me, just mentioning it.

[selfbuilt]

Does the explorer series have reverse polarity protection?

It is not mentioned in the specs, so you would have to ask Nitecore to find out for sure.

Does the EC2 have low voltage shutoff?

There is no evidence of it in my testing (i.e., look at the 18650 runtimes, and you'll see the runs just continued at a low level until I manually stopped them).

I have a hard time deciding between the Sunwayman C20C and the NiteCore EC2.

I agree with the above posters, I wouldn't worry too much about a few lumens. What it really comes down to is beam profile (i.e., EC2 is "throwier", and C20C has a wider "spill"), build, and user interface/features. The C20C feels a little more sturdy, but has a simpler interface.

You have to live with the light, so I recommend going with whatever you think you will find most appropriate for your needs.

[tobrien]

so i assume nitecore hasn't revised the tubes of the EA1s for protected 14500s and better nimh fit?

i guess i'll go with an EC1 and do a li-ion 16340 on that then. hmmmmmm

[selfbuilt]

so i assume nitecore hasn't revised the tubes of the EA1s for protected 14500s and better nimh fit?

It's variable. My first EA1 took protected 14500 fine, but not my second one (which was even tight on certain specific NiMH batteries).

[phantom23]

I am beginning to like the EC2 more than the C20C. But there is still the fact that the EC2 is proberly impossible to operate with gloves in the winter. But that is not a big thing for me, just mentioning it.

Well, C20C button is easier to operate with gloves but also easier to damage. I like EC2 better as well but I haven't bought one yet - there's a new emitter, it's called XP-G2 and it's a replacement for XP-G so I hope that Nitecore will use it in next batches (Explorer series is quite difficult to mod). It's worth it because new emitter gives 20% more light and increases throw (to about 9500lux/1m which is 195m by ANSI standard).

[tobrien]

It's variable. My first EA1 took protected 14500 fine, but not my second one (which was even tight on certain specific NiMH batteries).

got it, thanks selfbuilt! it's probably multiple factories they've got producing these, hence the difference?

i don't know though, but i'll play it 'safe' and get an EC1

[UlrikJ]

Well, C20C button is easier to operate with gloves but also easier to damage. I like EC2 better as well but I haven't bought one yet - there's a new emitter, it's called XP-G2 and it's a replacement for XP-G so I hope that Nitecore will use it in next batches (Explorer series is quite difficult to mod). It's worth it because new emitter gives 20% more light and increases throw (to about 9500lux/1m which is 195m by ANSI standard).

Why it the C20C button easier to damage? In which way?

Okay. Thats real interesting. Anyone knows if NiteCore has the intention of using the new XP-G2 emitter or is it just wishful thinking?

[phantom23]

Because it's protruding and it has classic, soft rubber.

Wishful thinking unfortunately but XP-G2 is a replacement for XP-G, plus some dealers have special discounts for first Explorers. I still hope that we'll see stock EC2 with XP-G2 soon.

[greatscoot]

Fantastic review. I had to get an EC1 after reading this.

[Chicken Drumstick]

Thanks Selfbuilt for another great review!!!

I've just been checking out the Nitecore website for the EC1, it doesn't seem to mention support of RCR's or any voltage specs. The only thing it has is a small picture of a battery under "Optional Accessory" and when you click it, it takes you to a page for a Nitecore RCR. But it's not very specific.

Are you able to confirm that Nitecore does indeed support RCR's on the EC1? Thanks.

[selfbuilt]

I've just been checking out the Nitecore website for the EC1, it doesn't seem to mention support of RCR's or any voltage specs. The only thing it has is a small picture of a battery under "Optional Accessory" and when you click it, it takes you to a page for a Nitecore RCR. But it's not very specific.

I just checked, and their website shows the accepted batteries under the main Explorer page (i.e., for the EC1, it says "Battery: one lithium CR123 or RCR123 li-ion battery"). But the detailed EC1 page makes no mention of batteries or voltage ranges. In fact, they seem to be missing the battery subsection of the manual on all the detailed pages.

In any case, I can confirm that the included manual (on my sample) explicitly supports RCR123A (3.7V Li-ion).

[Chicken Drumstick]

I just checked, and their website shows the accepted batteries under the main Explorer page (i.e., for the EC1, it says "Battery: one lithium CR123 or RCR123 li-ion battery"). But the detailed EC1 page makes no mention of batteries or voltage ranges. In fact, they seem to be missing the battery subsection of the manual on all the detailed pages.

In any case, I can confirm that the included manual (on my sample) explicitly supports RCR123A (3.7V Li-ion).

Thank you for the conformation and for taking the time to respond. Very much appreciated.

[roadkill1109]

Looks like my response to this thread was lost with the recent outage. But to summarize, the results with the Explorer series are quite normal.

Although the heads look the same on the outside, they have customized circuits that respond to voltages differently. The EA1 has to be able to respond appropriately to 1.2V battery sources, so it behaves differently on 3.7V Li-ion than the EC1 or EC2 do. The EC1 and EC2 also have different circuits, although in those cases they are pretty well matched for output on 3.7V Li-ion.

In the "old days", manufacturers often went for a common circuit among similar members of a given family (i.e., 1xAA, 2xAA, and CR123A). This has a simplicity and economy of scale in manufacturing. But it usually meant that 3.7V Li-ion wasn't fully supported on any member of the family (or if it were supported on all, there were usually limitations in the level or number of low modes on standard batteries). There is also an overhead issue (affecting efficiency) for having extra unnecessary circuit features in any a given model. Using a customized circuit for each member of a family allows you to tailor performance, giving the end use the best possible experience. I am starting to see more and more examples of makers going this route (e.g., recent JetBeam and Eagletac lights as well).

Thanks for the information. Was expecting the EA1 to be a pocket rocket. But since the waterproofing issue, i lost interest in this line of lights.

[mortrca]

I have purchased the EC2, but being new to this type of flashlight I don't know what I need for a battery. I understand that many people on CPF trust the quality of AW batteries, but I have become lost in a sea of protected/unprotected, flat/not, and a range of different maH ratings. What would be considered the "best choice" when buying a battery for the EC2?

mortrca