Klarus        
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES+

  1. #1

    Popcorn ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES+

    Warning: a LOT more pic heavy than usual.

    This is a round-up overview of the new Partner family of lights from ArmyTek. All told, I have six different lights in this review – the C1 (1xCR123A/RCR), the A1 (1xAA/14500), and the A2 (2xAA) – in both XP-G and XM-L emitter formats.










    Given the complexity of reviewing so many lights at one time, I have broken up this review into common elements up top (i.e., general build, user interface, etc.), and have left the specific comparisons (size overviews, beamshots, runtimes, etc.) in separate sections at the end, for each of the three battery-type models.

    For most of this review, I have focused the light pics on the XP-G models, but have highlighted the XM-L versions where appropriate. There's a ton of data here, so sit back and make yourself comfortable …

    Manufacturer Reported Specifications:
    (note: I don't have space to get into each model in detail, so see ArmyTek's website for more info. Below is just a quick overview of the major features, taken from their website).

    • LED: Cree XP-G LED or XM-L LED
    • XP-G models TIR 20°:70°, XM-L models TIR 50°:90°
    • Small size and weight for easy carry
    • 2 Modes and easy operation
    • Type of mode switching: Tailcap switch, Reverse clicky
    • Advanced heat transmission for LED with copper MPCB
    • Special spring material for higher efficiency
    • Battery over-discharge protection circuit for unprotected batteries
    • Advanced electronic reverse polarity protection
    • Light output without flickering
    • Ability to use batteries with a flat contact
    • Body material: Aircraft-grade aluminium
    • Body anti-abrasive finish: Premium type III hard anodizing 400HV
    • Premium antislipping matt surface treatment
    • Reliable spring construction for battery protection
    • Trapezoidal threads for longer lifetime
    • Body color: Matt Black
    • Waterproof and dustproof standard: IP68 (highest)
    • Waterproof & Submersible: 10m
    • Double O-rings for best waterproof
    • Impact Resistance: 10m
    • Belt holster (Molle)
    • Strong and easily removable lanyard
    • MSRP: ~$40-45





    Packaging is common for all versions - a typical carboard box, reminiscent of the Zebralight lights. Inside, the light comes with a basic but good quality holster with closing flap, wrist lanyard, spare o-rings and boot cover, and manual.


    From left to right: Rayovac CR123A; ArmyTel Partner C1 XP-G, A1 XP-G, A2 XP-G, Duracell NiMH AA.

    Detail comparisons for each model – relative to their respective class – will be provided later in this review.

    Common Build Elements






    As always, ArmyTek build quality is very high, and the lights have a very robust feel. Physically, the two classes of models are distinguished primarily by their emitters and optics, which I will describe in more detail below.

    The ArmyTek finish is fairly unique in my testing - the bodies of their lights have a very thick matte finish anodizing that feels almost molded (i.e., it is very "grippy"). According to ArmyTek, this anodization coating is much thicker than most lights. Although the lights lack knurling, grip is actually quite decent thanks to this unique finish. And there are some ridge detail elements to help further with grip.

    Note the grippier finish may show dirt, hand oil, etc, more easily than traditional glossy knurling. There are also no real anti-roll features (except for some flattened areas of the tailcap), so the lights can all roll easily. Lettering is very bright and clear, and very legible.

    Screw threads are standard triangular cut, but seem of good quality. Screw threads are anodized at the tail region of the battery tube and in the tailcap (for lock-out). Edges of the battery tube have all been chamfered (i.e., rounded off), which shows a nice attention to detail.

    The tailcap switch is a reverse clicky in all lights, with good feel. The spring is thicker and longer than typical on these sorts of lights, with a flattened end (so as not to scratch your batteries).

    There is a lanyard attachment point at the base of the tailcap. The lights cannot tailstand.

    There is a small raised contact point in the head, so high capacity flat-top batteries can be used.

    As mentioned earlier, the lights are distinguished by their emitter and optic choice. Note that the lights do not use a reflector, but have a customized TIR optic that goes with each emitter type.

    XP-G emitter:








    XM-L emitter:







    In all cases, the head of the light has a flat aluminum bezel. Use of TIR optics means the spill will be reduced (compared to reflectored lights). Although hard to capture on camera, please see my detailed beamshots later in this review, for each model.

    User Interface

    The Partner interface is very basic. The lights use a reverse clicky tailcap – press and release (click) to turn on.

    The lights have two modes, Lo and Hi, accessed in sequence (i.e., click off-on to switch modes). When the light hasn't been used in awhile, it always comes on in Lo.

    But there is an unusual twist here – when changing between modes, most lights only retain the last setting for a couple of seconds (i.e., you have to click off-on quickly to advance modes). But In the Partner case, mode-switching memory is retained for 7 mins. This means it will advance to the next mode if you turn the light off and back on within 7 mins.

    There are no "blinky" modes on the Partners.

    UPDATE AUGUST 14, 2013:ArmyTek informs me that they plan to switch to a new circuit without this long mode-switching delay. They will also add a third mode (i.e., Max - Med - Lo), and will include a clip on the next batch of lights.

    Video:

    For information on the light, including the build and user interface, please see my video overview:



    Video was recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once the 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.

    As with all my videos, I recommend you have annotations turned on. I commonly update the commentary with additional information or clarifications before publicly releasing the video.

    PWM

    There is no sign of PWM at either output level, on any light – the Partners are all current-controlled.

    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 Lightbox 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. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).

    Ok, now that the common elements are out of the way, let's move on to the detailed testing of each battery-type model.

    ------------

    Partner C1




    From left to right: Rayovac CR123A; ArmyTek Partner C1 XP-G; Foursevens QTLC; Nitecore MT1C; Sunwayman C10Rl JetBeam PC10; Olight S10; Sunwayman V11R.

    All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed:

    1xCR123A/RCR:
    ArmyTek C1 XP-G: Weight: 42.6g, Length: 79.8mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
    ArmyTek C1 XM-L: Weight: 43.0g, Length: 80.2mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
    Lumintop ED11: Weight: 44.1g, Length: 83.7, Width (bezel): 21.8mm
    Foursevens QTLC: Weight 36.4g, Length 84.1mm, Width (bezel) 22.1mm
    Olight S10: Weight 41.1g, Length: 70.6mm, Width (bezel): 23.0mm
    Sunwayman C10R: Weight: 57.3g, Length: 76.2mm (no lanyard plug), 82.3mm (with plug), Width (bezel): 25.6mm, Width (head at widest part): 28.6mm
    Eagletac D25C Clicky: Weight: 30g, Length: 76.0mm, Width (bezel): 20.0mm
    Jetbeam PC10: Weight: 50.5g, Length: 93.6mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm

    Beamshots:

    For white-wall beamshots below, all lights are on Max output on an AW protected 18650 battery. 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: the XP-G Partner versions are not labeled with the emitter in the beamshots below. But to help you differentiate, all the XM-L versions are specifically identified.

    1xCR123A













    1xRCR













    Summary Tables




    Runtimes







    ------------

    Partner A1




    From left to right: Duracell NiMH AA; ArmyTek Partner A1 XP-G; Nitecore MT1A, EA1; Zebralight SC52; Thrunite Neutron 1A; Sunwayman V11R+AA extender.

    All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed:

    1xAA:
    ArmyTek A1 XP-G: Weight: 57.3g, Length: 96.8mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
    ArmyTek A1 XM-L: Weight: 56.5g, Length: 97.2mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
    Olight S15 1xAA: Weight: 46.4g, Length: 87.0mm, Width (bezel): 23.1mm
    Nitecore MT1A: Weight: 54.6g, Length: 104.6mm, Width (bezel): 22.7mm
    Nitecore SENS AA: Weight: 26.1g, Length: 82.7mm, Width (bezel): 19.8mm
    Lumintop ED15: Weight: 59.7g, Length: 100.2, Width (bezel): 21.9mm
    Zebralight SC52: Weight 39.5g, Length 79.0mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm, Width (max) 25.4mm
    Rofis ER12: Wright: 35.5g, Length: 96.2mm, Width (bezel): 18.6mm
    Xeno E03:: Weight: 48.1g, Length 96.7mm, Width (bezel): 21.5mm

    Beamshots:

    For white-wall beamshots below, all lights are on Max output on an AW protected 18650 battery. 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: the XP-G Partner versions are not labeled with the emitter in the beamshots below. But to help you differentiate, all the XM-L versions are specifically identified.

    1xAA Sanyo Eneloop NiMH













    1x14500 (AW Protected 14500) Li-ion













    Summary Tables




    Runtimes










    ------------

    Partner A2




    From left to right: Duracell NiMH AA; ArmyTek Partner A2 XP-G; Nitecore EA2; JetBeam PC20; Eagletac D24A2; Fenix LD20-R4.

    All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed:

    2xAA:
    ArmyTek A2 XP-G: Weight: 83.4g, Length: 96.8mm , With (bezel): 23.2mm
    ArmyTek A2 XM-L: Weight: 84.2g, Length: 97.2mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
    Olight S15 2xAA: Weight: 59.2g, Length: 137.9mm, Width (bezel): 23.1mm
    Nitecore MT1: Weight: 66.9g, Length: 154.3mm, Width (bezel):22.7mm
    Nitecore EA2: Weight: 68.9g, Length: 134.4, Width (bezel): 26.1mm
    Eagletac D25A2: Weight: 54.8g, Length 148.5mm, Width (bezel): 21.0mm
    4Sevens QAA-2 X (Tactical tailcap): Weight: 60.1g, Length: 149.1mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
    Jetbeam BA20: Weight: 70.2g, Length: 156.4mm, Width (bezel) 23.2mm

    Beamshots:

    For white-wall beamshots below, all lights are on Max output on an AW protected 18650 battery. 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: the XP-G Partner versions are not labeled with the emitter in the beamshots below. But to help you differentiate, all the XM-L versions are specifically identified.

    2xAA Sanyo Eneloop NiMH













    Summary Tables



    Runtimes






    ----------------

    Potential Issues

    The extended retention of the output level state is unusual (i.e., it remembers what the last level used was for up to 7 mins, and will always advance to the next level during this time). This prolonged time is unusual, and I would prefer it if they behaved like most lights (where it is only a few seconds). (see Update at the end of this review)

    There are very limited anti-roll features on the light, and no pocket clip is included. (see Update at the end of this review)

    Lights lack a true Lo mode (i.e., on standard batteries they are more of a Med/Hi, and on Li-ion batteries more of a Hi/Turbo). (see Update at the end of this review)

    Lights use TIR optics, customized to each emitter (i.e., center-beam throw for the XP-G, more diffuse for the XM-L). All optics tend to induce beam artifacts – most notably hotspot artifacts and spillbeam rings on throwers (like the XP-Gs), and "square" beams on floodier lights (like the XM-Ls).

    Preliminary Observations

    The Partner series is an interesting foray by ArmyTek into the world of simple-to-use, two-stage, basic consumer flashlights.

    Let's start with the build – these are among the most solid lights I've seen in the 1xCR123A/AA or 2xAA classes. Build quality is excellent, with good attention to detail (e.g., double o-rings with Nyogel lube, chamfered edges body, flattened tail springs etc.). Physically, they remind me of some of the higher-end made-in-the-USA brands. Simply put, these are tough little lights that I expect would survive a lot of abuse.

    Circuit performance is also top-of-the-line, for their respective emitters and battery classes. No surprises here – both output modes of all models showed excellent regulation and output/runtime efficiency, across all batteries and over both emitters. It took a while for me to complete all the testing for this review (there is a lot of data up there!), and I am impressed to see such consistently good performance.

    User interface is perhaps the one sore spot for me – I am really not clear why the mode-switching state memory is 7 mins long. Typically, you either want a light to remember its mode indefinitely (and come back to it), or only allow a couple of seconds for mode switching purposes. Given that these are only two-stage lights, it's not a big deal – but it is frustrating to not always be certain which mode will show up upon activation. And personally, I would prefer a head tight/loose mode selection mechanism (with forward clicky for activation), but I know some people prefer to work with only the tailcap switch.

    The other point that could use a little refinement for me is the level spacing. Right now, the lights all typically offer what I would consider "Med/Hi" levels on standard cells (i.e., no real Lo mode). And on Li-ion, they are basically "Hi/Turbo" (i.e., even brighter, with little visual differentiation between the levels). Again, you are never going to please everyone with just two stages, but I would like to see the "Lo" mode drop further in output (especially on the XP-G versions).

    Beam patterns are also distinctive for the lines, with the TIR optics instead of reflectors. The XP-G optic is about what I would have expected (i.e., focused for throw, with minimal spill) - throw fans will be happy with this design. The XM-L optic is quite different, with a wider and squarer output beam. Both are well suited to their intended purposes, but differ from you might be used to (if you have dealt predominantly with reflectored lights). Please also keep in mind that the use of optics here may slightly affect the testing results, in terms of the relative output measures (i.e., the lightbox and ceiling bounce numbers may not be exactly comparable to reflectored lights). This is due to differing beam profiles of reflector and optics, which may not be interpreted entirely consistently in my simple setup.

    I know this has been a massive review, but hopefully all the detailed testing results above will help you decide if these are lights for you. Whatever your personal preference in this space, I for one am glad to see ArmyTek venture out in the general purpose realm. And I think there is a lot to commend these lights for that purpose, but the two-stage user interface could use some tweaking.

    UPDATE AUGUST 14, 2013: I've heard back from ArmyTek about my recommendations above. They tell me that they opted for a very simple circuit design in their first batch ("without a CPU") which is what led to the large mode-switching delay. They plan to switch to a new circuit without this delay, and will add a third mode (i.e., Max - Med - Lo). They will also include a clip on the next batch of lights.

    ----

    Partner lights were supplied by ArmyTek for review.
    Last edited by selfbuilt; 08-14-2013 at 05:57 AM.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  2. #2
    Flashaholic mhanlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Sorry for asking a dumb question, but are you saying that for up to 7 minutes after you shut the light off it behaves like next mode memory- or after 7 minutes?

  3. #3

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Thanks for taking the time (more time than usual, I assume) to do this review. Unfortunately I think the low level would be quite a bit too bright for nightly walks, especially on snowy winter nights, but I really like the thick anodizing. It almost looks like a rubber coating, and reminds me of the Varta / Rayovac indestructible series, which I find very comfortable to handle. I hope other manufacturers follow suit and let utility take priority over aesthetics.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* tobrien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Georgia Highway 441
    Posts
    4,861

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    thank you selfbuilt!
    aka Edgar Allan Bro, Brosama Bin Liftin, Walter Crunkite, Bro Namath, Teddy Brosevelt, and the Tomahawk Crunkmissile.
    my lights - review of PrecisionWorks - that's Gucci Mane in my avatar

  5. #5

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Thanks, Selfbuilt. I like the simplicity of two modes, but I think I would prefer a head tight/loose mode switching. The 7-minute next mode memory just seems bizarre.

  6. #6

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by mhanlen View Post
    Sorry for asking a dumb question, but are you saying that for up to 7 minutes after you shut the light off it behaves like next mode memory- or after 7 minutes?
    The first - it acts like you planning to change modes for up to 7 mins after turning off (i.e., if you turn it back on within 7 mins, it advances to the next mode). If you wait longer than 7 mins, it defaults back to Lo mode. Definitely peculiar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swede74 View Post
    Unfortunately I think the low level would be quite a bit too bright for nightly walks, especially on snowy winter nights, but I really like the thick anodizing. It almost looks like a rubber coating, and reminds me of the Varta / Rayovac indestructible series, which I find very comfortable to handle. I hope other manufacturers follow suit and let utility take priority over aesthetics.
    Agreed on both fronts. Note that the lights are still solid metal - it just the thick anodizing that makes it feel "rubberized".

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesmyname View Post
    Thanks, Selfbuilt. I like the simplicity of two modes, but I think I would prefer a head tight/loose mode switching..
    Yes, that would be my preference as well.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  7. #7
    Flashaholic mhanlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    The first - it acts like you planning to change modes for up to 7 mins after turning off (i.e., if you turn it back on within 7 mins, it advances to the next mode). If you wait longer than 7 mins, it defaults back to Lo mode. Definitely peculiar.
    Bizarre. Thanks for answering the question. I guess it's sorta forgivable since there's only two modes.

  8. #8

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    thanks for the review.

    have you added the dimensions (length, weight, ..) of the AT lights?

  9. #9
    Flashaholic* Wiggle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Halifax, NS
    Posts
    1,275

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Thank you for all your hard work selfbuilt. Physically, I like the look of these lights alot. And their performances (in their limited modes anyway) seem to stack up very well against the established lights in that class.

    It is too bad that I don't feel like that UI and ouput levels have any real place in an EDC otherwise I'd love to try one. For me, I could never trade in the UI of my SC52 or Quark AA-Tactical for this interface. Anxious to see what they offer in the future though. The big thing for me with a UI is predictability and that 7 minute interval is a completely bizarre amount of time to choose as the threshold between a mode switch or not, makes no sense and I can't imagine any possible rationale for designing it like that. I'd have rather seen 2-mode with twist select (like the Fenix E11 or Jetbeam BA10, both lights I've bought for relatives before) and a forward clicky.

    Love my Predator 2.5 and it definitely shows they are capable of great things in the build quality and driver design categories.
    Last edited by Wiggle; 08-13-2013 at 06:56 AM.

  10. #10

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by shelm View Post
    have you added the dimensions (length, weight, ..) of the AT lights?
    Ooops, sorry about that. Just updated the main thread with all the measurements.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  11. #11

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    thank you sir!

  12. #12

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Thanks for doing this review!
    Any plan on doing a review on the Lumintop SD10?

  13. #13

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by AngryDaddyBird View Post
    Any plan on doing a review on the Lumintop SD10?
    Yes. But I've got a couple of other reviews to post first.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  14. #14

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Awesome! I have it and can't wait to see it! Awesome reviews as always!

  15. #15

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    I've heard back from ArmyTek about the unusually long delay in the mode-selection programming (i.e., 7 mins).

    They tell me that they opted for a very simple circuit design in their first batch ("without a CPU") which is what led to the large delay. They plan to switch to a new circuit ("CPU") without this delay, and will add a third mode (i.e., Max - Med - Lo). They will also include a clip on final version.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  16. #16

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    in their first batch ... They will also include a clip on final version.
    Love to see the manufacturers rethinking their original designs and improving them from batch to batch. Revised versions are always the superior versions imho!

  17. #17

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Glad they're adding a clip. I'm really aggravated by all these nice small lights without clips - the ones that need them the MOST. Yet so many of the massive toilet-plunger looking lights have clips, when I couldn't even fathom a use for them. A holster is more appropriate past a certain size.
    GOOD TINT!

  18. #18

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by shelm View Post
    Love to see the manufacturers rethinking their original designs and improving them from batch to batch. Revised versions are always the superior versions imho!
    Yes, I couldn't agree more.

    Quote Originally Posted by markr6 View Post
    Glad they're adding a clip. I'm really aggravated by all these nice small lights without clips - the ones that need them the MOST. Yet so many of the massive toilet-plunger looking lights have clips, when I couldn't even fathom a use for them. A holster is more appropriate past a certain size.
    I know exactly what you mean.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  19. #19
    Enlightened Sukram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    One word - perfect! Thank you, selfbuilt.

  20. #20

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Thanks for another great review!! What are your thoughts on the performance of XP-G emitter, 1xAA using Eneloops? I'm surprised to see higher output (and consequently, lower runtimes) when compared to XM-L.

  21. #21

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by sspc View Post
    Thanks for another great review!! What are your thoughts on the performance of XP-G emitter, 1xAA using Eneloops? I'm surprised to see higher output (and consequently, lower runtimes) when compared to XM-L.
    Yes, the XP-G version seems to be driven harder on max than the XM-L (hence the much lower runtime). Don't know why. Note that it is hard to get accurate output comparison numbers, given the very different beam profiles (i.e., the lightbox and ceiling bounce measures may not be entirely consistent).
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  22. #22
    Enlightened
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    56

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    It seems like they accidentally put the wrong driver in their XM-L lights. From pictures it looks like with a different driver (or with a RCR123A) the beam pattern on the XM-L is supposed to be the same type and Lux as the XP-G with a larger hot spot.
    Odd since Armytek has a history of getting good drivers in their lights and running them quite high.

  23. #23

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Great Review!
    Like many, the lack of low makes this light impractical for me. Any word from them on what the "new" low level will be when they go to 3 modes.
    I hope they get this right and go LOW.

  24. #24

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by tubed View Post
    Like many, the lack of low makes this light impractical for me. Any word from them on what the "new" low level will be when they go to 3 modes. I hope they get this right and go LOW.
    Agreed. But I don't have any further specifics at this time.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  25. #25
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    399

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Still waiting for word on when the A1 will get the 4th moonlight (hopefully) mode and sturdy (hopefully) pocket clip.
    --Semper Fi--
    Bill

  26. #26
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    339

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    1AA eneloop is 300 lumens
    1Cr123 is 295 lumens
    2AA eneloop is 320 Lumens

    This does not make sense to me as 1 eneloop is brigher than a CR123 version of the light? Is this right?

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,631

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by iocheretyanny View Post
    1AA eneloop is 300 lumens
    1Cr123 is 295 lumens

    This does not make sense to me as 1 eneloop is brigher than a CR123 version of the light? Is this right?
    Not only is the AA brighter than the CR123 version, if that is correct it will be the new king of AA lights. I have never before seen a light that can beat the Zebralight SC52 at 280 lumens on a single AA. If that number is correct, the SC52 no longer holds the title for brightest AA light!

    Just did some more reading of Selfbuilt's charts. Looks like the Armytek loses most modes - low mode is almost 200 lumens with a 14500! Not cool. The SC52 maintains all modes regardless of NiMH or 14500, and only high mode changes, until the stepdown, after which modes are identical. Still, 300 lumens from a single AA is impressive.

  28. #28

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by thedoc007 View Post
    Not only is the AA brighter than the CR123 version, if that is correct it will be the new king of AA lights. I have never before seen a light that can beat the Zebralight SC52 at 280 lumens on a single AA. If that number is correct, the SC52 no longer holds the title for brightest AA light!.
    It doesn't beat the SC52 - in my testing, my two samples are equivalent in output. It might be helpful if people check out the runtime graph:



    As you can see, the A1 XP-G suffers from considerably lower runtime than the SC52 XM-L, for the same initial output (as you would expect, for the emitter difference). The A1 XP-G is in essence over-driven, compared to all the other XP-G lights in my collection.

    In terms of comparing it to 1xCR123A C1 XP-G, initial output is again comparable. And again, the end result is much lower runtime on the A1. If you look at the C1 output/runtime graphs, you'll see that it takes about ~80 mins to reach the ANSI FL-1 standard of time to 10% output on CR123A (compared to ~35mins on the A1 XP-G on eneloop).

    These results are all completely consistent - the A1 XP-G is unusually heavily driven on max, resulting in unusually low runtimes.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,631

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by selfbuilt View Post
    It doesn't beat the SC52 - in my testing, my two samples are equivalent in output. It might be helpful if people check out the runtime graph:
    While I appreciate all the extra info, I was basing my statement off your chart. ANSI FL1 Max Output, on Eneloop. 300 for the A1, 290 for the SC52. Last time I checked, 300 was more than 290. Yes, I understand runtime is shorter. And yes, I understand that no one can tell the difference between 290 lumens and 300 lumens anyway, especially since they have different beam profiles. With all that said, though, The A1 does appear to have a higher maximum brightness on an Eneloop, under ideal conditions, than the SC52. This is all I wanted to note. I wanted to make that point only because I have seen the SC52 mentioned several times (here on CPF and elsewhere) as the brightest single stock AA light in existence. If nothing else, now there will have to be an asterisk by that claim. (Unless I am just missing something, in which case feel free to correct me.)

    Selfbuilt, I hope you take this is it was intended, only to explain my rationale. I am always amazed at the quality of your reviews, and the time you spend giving us a standardized and reliable source for comparisons.

    I just realized that my "king of AA lights" phrase was asking for touble. I should have clearly defined what I meant, may have avoided this debate entirely. I was assuming everyone would know what I was referring to, but after re-reading my post, that was not a reasonable assumption. With the additional clarification, hopefully we are now on the same page.
    Last edited by thedoc007; 09-17-2013 at 06:29 PM.

  30. #30

    Default Re: ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES

    Quote Originally Posted by thedoc007 View Post
    Selfbuilt, I hope you take this is it was intended, only to explain my rationale. I am always amazed at the quality of your reviews, and the time you spend giving us a standardized and reliable source for comparisons.
    No worries. I can understand why 290 would seem different from 300 (when in fact they aren't really, for the reasons you outlined - plus natural sampling and testing variation). I always struggle with what's a reasonable level of specificity in the measures, which is why I always encourage folks to take them with a grain a salt.
    Full list of all my reviews: flashlightreviews.ca. Latest hobby: whiskyanalysis.com. Latest flashlight review: Thrunite TN42.
    Gratefully accepting donations to my battery fund.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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