XM-L for the sake of XM-L?

Blitzwing

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
415
Location
Straya
Just looking around it seems the XM-L is being put into a lot of smaller lights that don't have the heatsinking ability to handle the emitter when driven hard. 1.5 and 1.75A drivers and so on. Small pocket lights with small reflectors.

Why not just run and XP-G and run it at a similar current? I know folks like to see "500 lumens" in ads for small pocket lights and no doubt that sucks a lot of folks in. As does the "XM-L" in the title. But most of us know that the XM-L isn't anywhere near its best in a small reflector or when run soft. There are also the heat issues in the very small lights.

From my own experience in P60 lights, the XM-L only really comes into its own when run near 3A, giving decent throw and tons of spill. And then you have some pretty rapid heat buildup if used constantly. The XP-G is also no slouch in the same format, either mind you and you get none of that heat.

So - is the XM-L being used for the sake of it in smaller lights, or what? Will the XP-G G2 get similar market exposure or will the XM-L continue to overshadow the smaller emitters?

Just a thought.
 

PCC

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,326
Location
Sitting' on the dock o' The Bay...
The XM-L has the highest lumens per Watt of any currently available emitter, though the XP-G2 is going to give the XM-L a run for the money. Taking an XR-E or Luxeon out of a light and replacing it with an XM-L will give you a higher volume of light with a large hot spot compared to the older emitters, though the intensity of the hot spot will be less. You don't necessarily need to run the emitter at three or more Watts to benefit from the higher efficiency. Leaving the driver and just changing the emitter will almost double the output of most older lights.
 

tam17

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
737
I know folks like to see "500 lumens" in ads for small pocket lights and no doubt that sucks a lot of folks in. As does the "XM-L" in the title.

Yep, XM-L has become almost a synonim for brute power and it surely does make flashlights sell, especially in a budget light market. But, as you say, other things must be counted in when someone's building a flashlight around XM-L (size of the reflector and heatsinking properties of flashlight itself, available current etc.) or everything doesn't make much sense. If someone's happy with a 500lm non-thrower pocket rocket that heats up in the matter of minutes, that's OK. BTW, my night-time EDC is Solarforce L2 with a (properly heatsinked) single-mode LC-XML drop-in:)

Cheers
 

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
I like floody beam provided by the large emitter in small head - don't want pure flood though, just a big hotspot and smooth transition to spill. I run my lights mostly in the single digit lumen range so heat is rarely a problem. Using single cell Eneloops and 14500s, I don't spend much time at max.
 

hellokitty[hk]

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
645
Why not just run and XP-G and run it at a similar current?
That doesn't help at all with the heat issues that you're talking about.

I like the flood. I would much rather have an XM-L especially in a small form factor light because for a small light, I'd probably use it for closer things.
 

madecov

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
2,151
Location
Houston, Texas
I like the XML in my lights maore than the XPG. I find even though it is a floodier beam it throws just as well and is more suited to every day tasks.
 

fyrstormer

Banned
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
6,617
Location
Maryland, Near DC, USA
There really is no reason to use the XM-L in a small light except for the reasons the threadstarter stated. Big numbers, high efficiency, and most people put more of a premium on the WOW factor than on a specific beam pattern.

I just bought some RRT-0's on clearance. I opted for the XP-G version because it just plain works better in that small of a light. I have a TC-R1 with an XM-L, and while it does produce an impressive amount of light, even pointing it at a wall a few feet away I can see the RRT-0 XP-G has a sharper beam. Maybe the XP-G2 will sway things back in the direction of a beam with a proper hotspot instead of a wall of light.

That being said, if a wall of light is what you want, a hard-driven XM-L (or better yet, an SST-50) works very well. I don't know if it works as well as a Tri-XPG with a 3-up TIR optic, but it does a fine job.
 

Lou Minescence

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
1,189
Location
New England US
I like the XML for high and low lumens.
The larger hot spot f the XML on low is more useful to me than the XPG. I also like the larger hot spot of the XML in my neutral and warm lights over my XPG neutral and warm lights.
 

kramer5150

Flashaholic
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
6,328
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Peter beat me to it... Lumens per watt efficiency I think is the main reason. I think a lot of folks would prefer a smoother flood-beam in a small EDC, the bigger XML will flood more (generally speaking). I also think (generally) the XML color tint is more stable at lower drive currents. My 1A tint XMLs fade towards the yellow spectrum at lower currents, while my XPGs almost always appear more green.
 

Swedpat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
3,448
Location
Boden, Sweden
Blitzwings thoughts are justified. I think it to a certain level can be that the title XM-L sells. Very small lights have not adequate heatsinking for high outputs, and according to what recently has been said at this forum XP-G is more efficient at low outputs. But for the sake of a floody beam XM-L is great.
 
Last edited:

skyfire

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
1,823
Location
Los Angeles
i agree with blitzwing. i dont see a point in having a XM-L in a small light. none of the lights in my stable use a XM-L, but thats also because i dont have any lights larger than a 1x18650 form, and i have a huge preference for high CRI. i still prefer the tint and CRI of the high CRI XP-G over a XM-L 3000k.

hellokitty is correct in that a small to medium size light pushing an XP-G at 1.5 amps can still generates plenty of heat.
I for one, dont like any lights that can get too hot for its own good.

an XP-G can be just as floody as a XM-L. beam pattern is all in the optics design. but a XM-L cannot have the throw of a XP-G when trying to be as compact as possible. a XP-G can be even more compact if designed for flood.
 

Blitzwing

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
415
Location
Straya
Interesting and enlightening comments.

I too thought about the optics options with the XP-G to give more flood.

I quite like my three mode Solarforce XP-G dropins, even though they are conservatively driven. To my eye, they throw as well as my Ultrafire three mode XM-L dropin which is one of the harder driven P60's out there according to reviews.

I have a Roche F12 coming soon, with the XM-L so I'll be interested to see what that's like. (the Intl-outdoors version)
 

moozooh

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
496
The problem with small lights isn't XM-L, it's that they're pushed too hard. XP-G isn't more efficient than XM-L at lower currents—XP-G2 is, and it's not yet used in mass-produced lights. XP-G at 1.5 A will generate more heat than XM-L at 1.5 A exactly because it's less efficient; i.e. more power will be converted into heat.
 

Gunner12

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
10,063
Location
Bay Area, CA
I'll be cool to have a small temperature sensitive resistor attached to the heatsink near the emitter. as the emitter heats up, the resistor increases resistance so the current to the LED is controlled. This would add a few extra parts to the LED though and increase cost.

As for XM-Ls in small lights, I like the efficiency they provide and that they allow very high output. IMO, as long as the user understand that he/she can use the light on max for too long, then the light should be fine.

I think the XM-L is being placed into smaller lights both for the higher max output, the ability to market an XM-L light, and for the higher efficiency at lower currents.
 

bushmattster

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
145
Location
Texas
I like both for the reasons already stated. I like the XM-L and the "wall of light" effect for closeup work at low lumens, EDC and around the campsite. When I feel the need for a little more throw, tighter defined beam then I grab an XPG. They are both great IMO and I'm glad that I have each.

The pocket rocket thing does seem a little excessive sometimes, but hey what ever makes you happy. :thumbsup:

These discussions are good for us non flashaholics.
 
Last edited:

OneBigDay

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
406
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Very interesting question and responses. Here is my $.02

I think an XM-L is perfect in a small (~20mm) reflector. For example the new Eagletac D25 series. I bought a few of these in both XM-L and XP-G , and I prefer the XM-L not because of the output or marketing hype or whatever. I prefer it because the large emitter surface with a small reflector produces a great smooth floodlight with a huge hotspot. For EDC I think an XM-L in a 1xAA form factor is awesome.

Bring on the flood!

I never saw this with the SST-50 which in my opinion always had better more consistent tints than the XM-L. The SST-50 wasn't as efficient and was more expensive than the XM-L. For these reasons I think the commodity factor of the XM-L is higher and therefore it appears manufacturers are experimenting more with this LED in different formats and form factors. Maybe others have a different take on this but otherwise I can't explain why the SST-50 never took off in smaller form factors but the XM-L is definitely creeping into that space.
 

LowLumen

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
109
Maybe manufacturers will catch on that many want wider floody beams. Any of these LED's are capable of that with the right optics. XM-L just makes it impossible to get the tighter beam without a larger reflector. For most tasks I prefer a wider beam and spill as well.
 

easilyled

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
7,252
Location
Middlesex, UK
So to summarise:-

XM-L not for the sake of XM-L but for more efficiency and a floodier beam distribution than an XP-G

XP-G for less efficiency and less output at the same drive level (than XM-L) but a beam distribution geared more for throw (smaller more intense hotspot)

XP-G2 for similar efficiency to an XM-L but much more throw, significantly more than even an XP-G
 

lightfooted

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
1,017
I just wanted to add my own comments to the discussion. After reading the thread I surmised that most people who prefer a thrower will agree that the trend of manufacturers adopting the XM-L is due to the desire to produce a floody light in a pocket size format. I think it is simply to keep up with trends in hardware where a newer more efficient emitter is available for a reasonable cost that gives an ample increase in output, with a significant gain in runtime. Sure you can drive an XP-G near it's limits at 1.5 amps and get a nice beam that is certainly bright enough for most of us but pushing the LED as hard as you can....or you could drive an XM-L at 1.5 amps, get more light output and not have as much heat plus still have another 1.5 amps of current to go before exceeding it's recommended operating range, thus extending the life of the LED itself.
 
Top