Fenix LD10/LD20-R4 (XP-G R4) Reviews: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, COMPARISONS and more!

[cistallus]

For terms like that, see the Wiki Terminology page, in this case look at the Cree entry: http://www.cpfwiki.com/Wiki/index.php/Terminology

If you haven't already, also take a look at The Welcome Mat: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/277224

 

[selfbuilt]

All good links - they should help with the background.

The specific emitter types (e.g. XR-E, XP-E, XP-G) and output bins (e.g. Q5, R4, etc.) are a little more complicated. csshih has a stickied guide to them here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/270419

That will help you understand what they look like and their basic characteristics. But there are subtleties to their performance (when paired with different kinds of reflectors) that would take more time to explain.

Output and tint bins are nicely captured in a thread by DiFlorentino:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/156772

In general terms for these Cree emitters, the later in the alphabet and the higher the number of the output bin, the higher the output you would expect for the same current (i.e. R4 would be brighter than Q5, run at the same level).

:wave:

 

[Notsure Fire]

Very nicely done report, bravo!

 

[technous]

As usual nice review lovecpf

 

[Sarlix]

I've read through this review several times but I'm still uncertain on on point. If I wanted to buy an LD10 that would give the most throw - would I be better off with the LD10 Q5 with a smooth reflector or the LD10 R4. I know the charts suggest the R4 has more throw but I just wanted to get a second opinion.

 

[selfbuilt]

I've read through this review several times but I'm still uncertain on on point. If I wanted to buy an LD10 that would give the most throw - would I be better off with the LD10 Q5 with a smooth reflector or the LD10 R4. I know the charts suggest the R4 has more throw but I just wanted to get a second opinion.

In LD10 form, you would be better off with the R4.

Although at 1m the Q5 and R4 seem equivalent in measured center beam lux (with the R4 having much greater overall output), in real life the R4 version throws a brighter spot further out.

Part of the reason for this is that 1m is not really sufficient to allow the beams to fully converge. Also, the LD10-R4 uses a XP-G with a smooth reflector - that tends to produce a relatively darker center to the hotspot (all my lux measures are done from the beam center). But in real life, you will find the hotspot brighter on the R4 version.

For the LD20 version it is different - because output is not that much greater on the R4, the Q5 version still throws further.

 

[Sarlix]

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation Selfbuilt. I've been pondering over this for a week or so. I keep on reading that the new emitters have less throw than the earlier versions...

..And you say in your review that when matched for output the Q5 will out throw the R4. So I was having a hard time trying to figure out which one to choose. Now I know :thumbsup:

 

[Batang Regla]

Hi

I checked the fenix store website.

What does Current-regulated output means vs Digitally regulated for constant brightness. Or just the same meaning?

 

[selfbuilt]

What does Current-regulated output means vs Digitally regulated for constant brightness. Or just the same meaning?

"Digitally-regulated" could mean just about anything - all it really means is that there is a circuit that regulates the output. The pattern of that regulation, or the means by which it is achieved (e.g. current-controlled, PWM, etc.), is not specified.

"Current-controlled" is a specific form of regulation where a lower current is supplied to the emitter. Since emitters are more efficient at lower drive currents, this invariably results in one of the most efficient means to produce dim output. All Fenix lights (except for 1xAAA ones) are current-controlled

The other main method for dimming output - PWM (pulse width modulation) - results from rapid cycling from off to full power (potentially producing a visible flicker, but not necessarily so). It is also less efficient, since the emitter is driven at a higher current when on (there's also some minor power loss due to the cycling). However, it does allow you to go to much lower output levels than current-controlled, which does have an ultimate runtime advantage.

 

[Batang Regla]

^
Thank you selfbuilt

If I undertand it correctly the term constant brighness that all fenix light (except 1aaa) even my batteries are near low-batt will still produce the same light as newly charge batts?

 

[HKJ]

The other main method for dimming output - PWM (pulse width modulation) - results from rapid cycling from off to full power (potentially producing a visible flicker, but not necessarily so). It is also less efficient, since the emitter is driven at a higher current when on (there's also some minor power loss due to the cycling). However, it does allow you to go to much lower output levels than current-controlled, which does have an ultimate runtime advantage.

I believe that on of the lights with the widest output selection (i.e. with bot high and a very low level), is the current controlled Quark.

Both technologies (pwm and CC) has some challenges:
On pwm you need a very high control frequency, i.e. a light with 1% output need the control frequency to be 100 times the pwm frequency. This can give problems with the regulator not having time to stabilize the light output. This can be seen when the pwm measures to 1%, but the brightness is 2%, i.e. the current is higher at low brightness.

With CC you need to measure the current to regulate, and it can be a problem measuring both very high and low currents with good precision (at least with a cheap microprocessor), with only one measure range. Another problem is keeping a good efficiency at both low and high current.

 

[selfbuilt]

If I undertand it correctly the term constant brighness that all fenix light (except 1aaa) even my batteries are near low-batt will still produce the same light as newly charge batts?

Any flat-output regulated light (current-controlled or PWM) will strive to maintain a constant output, regardless of the charge state of the cell. But of course, it can only do so within certain limits. Battery chemistry is also a key point - a nearly dead alkaline is not likely to give you much output for long.

I believe that on of the lights with the widest output selection (i.e. with bot high and a very low level), is the current controlled Quark.

True, you caught me on that one. But as a general rule, current-controlled lights don't typically seem to have as low a "moonlight" mode as PWM-based lights can (likely in part for the reasons you mentioned). The Quark being the exception, of course.

 

[gunga]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Quark use a combination of current control and PWM for the lowest mode? Again, please let me know if I am incorrect.

 

[HKJ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Quark use a combination of current control and PWM for the lowest mode? Again, please let me know if I am incorrect.

You are wrong, it does not use both, but only CC. The CC is not very smooth at the low levels, because the micro has some difficulties controlling the power at this low level.

The brightness looks likes this on the 2xAA Quark (This is from my Danish review of the Quark AA-2, the same can be seen on my other Quark reviews).

Note: This is measured on the first generation Quark, the current version might be different.

 

[gunga]

Oh cool, thanks for the correction. Wasn't sure. Do you have info the Nitecore D10? I think that one uses CC and PWM, or is it just PWM?

 

[HKJ]

Oh cool, thanks for the correction. Wasn't sure. Do you have info the Nitecore D10? I think that one uses CC and PWM, or is it just PWM?

With infinite variable output I would guess that it uses pwm, but I have not checked it.

ZebraLight uses both CC and PWM, they uses CC for the 3 main modes and pwm for the extra brightness settings.

 

[Woods Walker]

Based on this review I got a LD01 R4. I was looking for a bright 1XAA to light up the woods during night hikes to camp as sometimes finding white blaze markers can be hard and more so during fall and winter as the trail can get iffy. Wow this thing is bright and it seems almost brighter than my XR-E R2 EX10 (LD10 on turbo) when first fired. How the heck did they pull that off using 1XAA LSD NiMH? My Fenix HL20 using an XP-E R2 is also bright but the LD10 on turbo beats it. Come to think of it all the modes look bright.

Pros.

1. Very very bright. Not sure if the turbo can be run this bright for more than a short time but this is all I need. The low is much like my L2D-Q5 which is ok as can actually hike using the low on known trails.
2. Great beam. The Fenix HL20 is a winner in that regard as well but think the R4-XP-G has more flood. Somehow there is still enough throw as well for my needs. There are no rings and I can't pick out any doughnut holes etc. Just a darn nice clean beam.
3. Ok tint. I prefer warmer tints but will tolerate cooler ones. I just dislike a strong blue or squid **** green and there isn't any of that.
4. I like the anti roll bezel and new threads.
5. The clicky takes enough force to activate that maybe it won't turn on in my pack. I tend to lock lights out but sometimes will forget.
6. I can see the turbo mode is brighter than the high. I couldn't tell the difference between my Olight T15's highest two modes. Well maybe for a few seconds with a Duraloop fresh off the charger but even then a blink of the eye and it was indistinguishable.

Cons.

1. There were a two very small chips (if they could even be called that) on both sides of the light equally spaced near the clip. Maybe the clip did this when put on at the factory? No big deal as they are very small and no question that I will be dropping this light ASAP on the road/trail as always seem to.
2. A can hear a very very faint buzz on the high setting. The light must be very near my ear (almost inside) for me to hear it and there is no sounds whatsoever on the rest of the modes.
3. Higher low mode. I guess this is a pro or con depending on use. I like that the higher low plus flooder beam makes it more usable during a hike than some of the other low modes on some lights I own. Also this may work well for a hanging lantern setup. Just the same some people prefer a lower low.
4. I like the larger lanyard holes in the tall cap but find the cutout sections actually makes activation a bit harder than the L2D-Q5. Also it can't be as stable when tail standing though it will stand. Not sure why everyone seems to be making tail caps this way.
5. Between the new bezel front plus anti roll feature, tail cap, and clip I find the light less comfortable in my hands than the older/smoother Fenix lights. I may remove the clip.

Overall this light is very nice. If someone told me a 1XAA light could be this bright 10 years ago I would have thought them crazy.

 

[selfbuilt]

Written by selfbuilt on 11-02-2010 07:30 AM GMT

Oh cool, thanks for the correction. Wasn't sure. Do you have info the Nitecore D10? I think that one uses CC and PWM, or is it just PWM?

HKJ is correct - the infinitely-variable D10 uses PWM across the range. Unfortunately, even the defined 3-level outputs of the D10SP use PWM as well. I don't recall the original D10 off-hand, but the D10SP uses 7.8 kHz. HKJ is correct - the infinitely-variable D10 uses PWM across the range. Unfortunately, even the defined 3-level outputs of the D10SP use PWM as well. I don't recall the original D10 off-hand, but the D10SP uses 7.8 kHz.

I like the larger lanyard holes in the tall cap but find the cutout sections actually makes activation a bit harder than the L2D-Q5. Also it can't be as stable when tail standing though it will stand. Not sure why everyone seems to be making tail caps this way.

...

Overall this light is very nice. If someone told me a 1XAA light could be this bright 10 years ago I would have thought them crazy.

Thanks for sharing your perceptions, I agree with them. And yes, I also found tailstanding was typically better on my earlier LxD series lights (although I remember one being a bit wobbly with a protruding tailcap). Thanks for sharing your perceptions, I agree with them. And yes, I also found tailstanding was typically better on my earlier LxD series lights (although I remember one being a bit wobbly with a protruding tailcap).

FYI, check out the more recent Zebralight SC51 for yet another jump in 1xAA NiMH performance.

Written by noisebeam on 11-09-2010 09:15 AM GMT

The LD20 R5 version is now available. I would have expected a very slight increase in ouput, however the specs indicate something different (maybe)

The R4 Turbo spec was 205 lumens, 2hrs run time

The R5 Turbo spec is 180 lumens, 2:16 run time.

Did the output get decreased for longer runtime? Is the output spec now OTF instead of emitter? Rated by ANSI method? What is going on here? Anyone know? I figure this can only be a very tiny boost in output with no notable change to run time unless there were changes made to the electronics, which seems unlikely.

Written by Mr Floppy on 11-09-2010 11:17 PM GMT

I'll guess it's the new ANSI rating. Anyway, the best thing to do is wait for the review in this thread.

Cool, assuming the threads are the same, my LD20 R4 will be able to mix and match with a LD10 R5!

Written by Woods Walker on 11-09-2010 11:57 PM GMT

LD20 R5

General Mode: 5 lumens (100hrs) -> 30 lumens (15hrs) -> 81 lumens (5hrs 57min) -> SOS (81 lumens)

Turbo Mode: 180 lumens (2hrs 16min) -> Strobe (180 lumens)

LD20 R4.

General Mode: 9 lumens (71hrs) - > 50 lumens (13hrs) -> 105 lumens (5hrs) - > SOS

Turbo Mode: 205 lumens (2hrs) ->Strobe

Even with the new rating I gotta wonder if some of the levels aren't the same. The LD20 R5's low is listed at 29 hours longer. Darn if I know?

Written by noisebeam on 11-10-2010 08:05 AM GMT

This has to be just the new lumens spec method. R5 results in only a tiny bit more output with same input if I understand correctly, so little as to not be noticeable by eye. (I think even the R4/R5 bins may even overlap at extremes) Someone will chime in to correct.

I really doubt that Fenix changed the electronics to reduce output for longer run times. That is not what the vast majority of the market seems to want.

Mr. Floppy - I haven't seen any LD10 R5 yet, only LD20's. The will inevitably come though.

Written by selfbuilt on 11-10-2010 08:22 AM GMT

I'll guess it's the new ANSI rating.

Yes, that would be my guess as well. Yes, that would be my guess as well.

Both 4Sevens and Fenix are migrating to the ANSI FL-1 standard, so it means that new lights coming out with have slightly lower max lumen values. The FL-1 standard requires you do the lumen measures after 3 mins of runtime. Throw measures are done between 30 secs and 2 mins after turning on the light (previously, most makers went for max output immediately after activation).

It may also mean some runtimes differences, since the FL-1 standard is for runtime to 10% (of the initial output reading taken at 30 secs). Previously, it was anybody's guess what measure they were using!

FYI, I'm adapting my output and throw measures to match FL-1 standards for future reviews myself (i.e. all readings taken between 30secs to 1 min after activation). I'm not bothering with the runtime number, since I find the actual curves provide a lot more info than one specific timepoint.

Written by tandem on 11-10-2010 09:04 AM GMT

I'm not bothering with the runtime number, since I find the actual curves provide a lot more info than one specific timepoint.

:thumbsup: Your runtime curves (and output tables) are the first things I check out in any of your reviews.

I wish the FL1 standard mandated adopting makers publish a useful set of output-runtime traces.

Written by Mr Floppy on 11-10-2010 05:15 PM GMT

I haven't seen any LD10 R5 yet, only LD20's. The will inevitably come though.

I wonder if thats because LD20 R4 was a bit of disappointment and they have lots of those tubes left over? That probably means it's only a LED upgrade rather than to the circuitry. I wonder if thats because LD20 R4 was a bit of disappointment and they have lots of those tubes left over? That probably means it's only a LED upgrade rather than to the circuitry.

Written by noisebeam on 11-10-2010 05:45 PM GMT

Speaking of tubes...

I already have two L2D heads&bodies and one L1D body.

I really want to get an LD20 R5, but really wish I could also get a compatible LD10 body to go with it. I have no need for two more of this type of flashlight.

Does anyone know if there is any hope Fenix will sell just the bodies like they did for the LxD and 1st gen LDx before the thread changed.

 

[selfbuilt]

Written by Mr Floppy on 11-10-2010 10:04 PM GMT

Yes, they already do have those tubes. Check out torchworld.com.au. Under 'accessories', they have both the LD10 and LD20 V2 tubes. I know I have asked them about this and they have confirmed that they are the for the new LDx V2 series. You may want to send them an enquiry just in case.

Funny, I could never find spare LD x V1 tubes but given that the LxD ones fit, they may not have made. I hope this the new LD20 R5 is still a LDx V2 tube. It would annoy me to no end if it wasn't.

Written by noisebeam on 11-11-2010 09:11 AM GMT

Yes, they already do have those tubes. Check out torchworld.com.au. Under 'accessories', they have both the LD10 and LD20 V2 tubes.

Thank you. They indeed do have both LD10 and LD20 V2 bodies, but unfortunately as I live in the US with shipping an LD10 body would run me ~$40. Might as well just get an LD10 with the R4 head for ~$11 more! I do appreciate the info though. Thank you. They indeed do have both LD10 and LD20 V2 bodies, but unfortunately as I live in the US with shipping an LD10 body would run me ~$40. Might as well just get an LD10 with the R4 head for ~$11 more! I do appreciate the info though.

Written by standmixersguide on 11-11-2010 11:26 AM GMT

but I guess for someone like me it would be nice to know how this flashlight compares (in simple terms) to a mag light of equal size

Written by Mr Floppy on 11-11-2010 07:20 PM GMT

I do appreciate the info though.

Oh sorry, I thought they had free shipping. My mistake. Oh sorry, I thought they had free shipping. My mistake.

In any case, I have long pondered over the purchase of an extra tube but ended up getting the light anyway. A empty tube will just irk me more. Just like a torch without batteries.

Written by Woods Walker on 11-11-2010 08:12 PM GMT

I can't find just the LD20 v2 body without the tail cap. Darn shame as when the L2D/L1D was out this seemed a bunch easier. In any case here are a few outside beam shots of the LD10-R4.

Written by noisebeam on 11-11-2010 10:06 PM GMT

I don't mind getting a tailcap too, just as long at the price point justifies not getting the whole light.

Written by gunga on 11-12-2010 01:48 AM GMT

Yes, I'm also looking for an LD10+ body.

Note, that the New Fenix Heads fit on the Quark bodies (but the tails are different).

I may have to get a quark setup to Lego my Fenix head...

Written by Batang Regla on 12-11-2010 02:12 AM GMT

Hi again Sefbuilt,

I just bought an E21 but want to add either ld10 or ld20.

With the new ld20 r5 compared to LD10r4 what's you advice?

Written by Russ Prechtl on 12-11-2010 11:44 AM GMT

Thanks for another great review!

LD10- another one I have to add to my collection. Dang! :devil:

Written by selfbuilt on 12-12-2010 08:51 AM GMT

Hi again Sefbuilt,

I just bought an E21 but want to add either ld10 or ld20.

With the new ld20 r5 compared to LD10r4 what's you advice?

The R5 would be a neglible upgrade from the R4. Certainly go for it if buying new, but no reason to "upgrade". The R5 would be a neglible upgrade from the R4. Certainly go for it if buying new, but no reason to "upgrade".

For all that, not much reason to upgrade from the E1 (XR-E R2). The LD20-R4/R5 is only marginally brighter on Turbo (not really detetable by eye), and the E21 Lo mode is equivalent to the LD20's Med. So unless you really want the LD20's Hi and Lo modes, you are not getting anything but a slight increase in runtime.

E21 runtimes will be added to my upcoming Sunway M20A review, so you will be able to directlt compare it to the LD20-R4 at that time.

Written by Batang Regla on 12-13-2010 01:26 AM GMT

If i understand it correctly, buying either ld20 or ld10 is redundant for my e21?

Im starting to like the light output of tk40 but i want to make sure that its worth it because it will cost me 158 dollars lovecpf

Written by selfbuilt on 12-13-2010 08:02 AM GMT

If i understand it correctly, buying either ld20 or ld10 is redundant for my e21?

Well, the LD20 might be a bit redundant, unless you want the extra modes. The LD10 at least adds a new form factor (i.e. smaller, easier to carry, etc.). The builds are also different between the E-series and LD-series, so it does come down to personal preference. Well, the LD20 might be a bit redundant, unless you want the extra modes. The LD10 at least adds a new form factor (i.e. smaller, easier to carry, etc.). The builds are also different between the E-series and LD-series, so it does come down to personal preference.

Written by fishwatcher on 12-13-2010 10:25 AM GMT

Thanks Selfbuilt, this is a terrific review.

I just received my LD10 "120 lumen" light from Aamazon. The body of the flashlight, looks exactly like the picture you are showing of the R4 (mid-body knurling + clip) , except that the head of the light and the pamphlet says Q5 on it.

When I mode from high to turbo, there is definately a noticeable increase in brightness from my novice eyes (I thought I read, in versions prior to R4, there was not a noticeable difference).

Apologies if this has been covered off somewhere else on the forum. So.. it seems mine is a hybrid of Q5 and R4.. anybody have an explanation?

Thanks!

 

[selfbuilt]

Written by noisebeam on 12-13-2010 10:32 AM GMT

I have two L2D/L1D Q5's and both have notability higher Turbo vs. High configured either way.

Written by Mr Floppy on 12-14-2010 09:30 PM GMT

I just received my LD10 "120 lumen" light from Aamazon. The body of the flashlight, looks exactly like the picture you are showing of the R4 (mid-body knurling + clip) , except that the head of the light and the pamphlet says Q5 on it.

I would guess that you bought the previous version. In terms of noticeable difference, I could notice the difference on the Q5. It's quite noticeable but when you do the same on the R4, that's when you really notice the difference. I would guess that you bought the previous version. In terms of noticeable difference, I could notice the difference on the Q5. It's quite noticeable but when you do the same on the R4, that's when you really notice the difference.

The fact you bought the 120 lumen torch suggest to me that you bought the previous version. The R4 version should be advertised with 132 lumens. The designs are very similar except that the Q5 version has an orange peel reflector where as the R5 is smooth.

Written by selfbuilt on 12-15-2010 08:21 AM GMT

I just received my LD10 "120 lumen" light from Aamazon. The body of the flashlight, looks exactly like the picture you are showing of the R4 (mid-body knurling + clip) , except that the head of the light and the pamphlet says Q5 on it. ... So.. it seems mine is a hybrid of Q5 and R4.. anybody have an explanation?!

You must then have the older XR-E Q5 version of the LD10. I suppose its possible they changed the external body design of the LD10/20 before the introduction of XP-G R4 (i.e. the two events may not have been synonymous). In any case, it's still a great light, but max output on 1xAA is not as high as the LD10-R4. You must then have the older XR-E Q5 version of the LD10. I suppose its possible they changed the external body design of the LD10/20 before the introduction of XP-G R4 (i.e. the two events may not have been synonymous). In any case, it's still a great light, but max output on 1xAA is not as high as the LD10-R4.

I have two L2D/L1D Q5's and both have notability higher Turbo vs. High configured either way.

That's right. The older L1D/L2D Q5 (as well as the early LD10/LD20 Q5s) had a more noticeable distinction between Hi and Turbo. It is just the newer XP-G R4 (or R5 now in the case of the LD20) that have a revised set of output levels. That's right. The older L1D/L2D Q5 (as well as the early LD10/LD20 Q5s) had a more noticeable distinction between Hi and Turbo. It is just the newer XP-G R4 (or R5 now in the case of the LD20) that have a revised set of output levels.

You can compare the performance of the new XP-G R4 lights to older LDx0/LxD XR-E Q5 lights in my runtime graphs.

Written by Lionhill on 12-16-2010 06:24 PM GMT

Weird. I too just bought a LD10 after reading this thread. The vendor assured me I had the newest, brightest light that Fenix sold for AA. It has R5 on the head but looks exactly like the image of R4 with the knurling on the body. The reflector is smooth. It's very bright compared to a Olight T10 with new CR123a's.

LH

Edit: I noticed that the head is R5, not Q5 and changed my post.

Written by willgraeme on 12-22-2010 02:50 PM GMT

please review r5 versions of ld10 and ld20 selfbuilt, much appreciate your reviews they are the best

Written by selfbuilt on 12-23-2010 09:07 AM GMT

please review r5 versions of ld10 and ld20 selfbuilt, much appreciate your reviews they are the best

I generally leave it up to manufacturers to suggest lights for review (I'm too swamped to do otherwise!). But in this case, I don't imagine they are very different from the R4s ... a single output bin difference is typically close to negligible in output or runtime. I generally leave it up to manufacturers to suggest lights for review (I'm too swamped to do otherwise!). But in this case, I don't imagine they are very different from the R4s ... a single output bin difference is typically close to negligible in output or runtime.

Written by willgraeme on 12-26-2010 05:43 AM GMT

I generally leave it up to manufacturers to suggest lights for review (I'm too swamped to do otherwise!). But in this case, I don't imagine they are very different from the R4s ... a single output bin difference is typically close to negligible in output or runtime.

i only bought it up because i read that some guy's r4 version was brighter than his new r5 i only bought it up because i read that some guy's r4 version was brighter than his new r5

if the old version is better than the new version that would be pretty relevant to me but thanks anyway

Written by Lionhill on 12-27-2010 04:45 PM GMT

i only bought it up because i read that some guy's r4 version was brighter than his new r5

if the old version is better than the new version that would be pretty relevant to me but thanks anyway

It sure looks bright. I don't have the R4 to compare to, but this is substantially brighter than any AA I have.

LH

Written by dragonphoenix on 12-27-2010 05:22 PM GMT

FENIX ld10 is really a nice torch, I have an old edition of CREE Q5 WC

Written by Tierdaen on 12-27-2010 10:42 PM GMT

The R5 version is indeed pretty bright, but my R4 version is a little brighter in the hotspot. I posted this picture in another thread, but I'll toss it up here too just for reference.

The brightness difference is at all levels, not just turbo. At first, I thought perhaps the R5 was putting more into spill and the R4 more into spot, but in practice that didn't seem to play out either, as the spill of the R4 version generally overlapped that of the R5. I haven't tested runtimes, but my impression is that the R5's been throttled down a little bit. Still a nice light, but my R4 version seems to consistently outperform it.

Written by mistertech on 12-29-2010 10:51 AM GMT

I have both an R4 and R5. I am very disappointed with the R5 as I'm seeing that all levels are brighter on the R4. In fact, level 3 on the R4 is the same brightness (by my eyes) as the turbo on the R5.

This is the very first time I've been disappointed with a Fenix light. I hope they fix this in their next version.

Written by fannin on 12-29-2010 09:11 PM GMT

I have both an R4 and R5. I am very disappointed with the R5 as I'm seeing that all levels are brighter on the R4. In fact, level 3 on the R4 is the same brightness (by my eyes) as the turbo on the R5.

This is the very first time I've been disappointed with a Fenix light. I hope they fix this in their next version.

so that's 2 people who have the r4 and r5 and report that he r5 is is not as bright so that's 2 people who have the r4 and r5 and report that he r5 is is not as bright

if they are all like this how can this be?

Written by macnoodle on 01-01-2011 10:11 AM GMT

The LD20 R5 seems as bright as the R4 version, from everything I've seen online (no personal experience), so I'm a little surprised that the LD10 would be different. Unfortunately, going by the beam shots above, it looks like that is the case.

We really need a LD10/LD20 R5 review.

Written by Mr Floppy on 01-04-2011 03:24 AM GMT

Here's my quick ceiling bounce test.

LD10 R4: 67.4 lux

LD10 R5: 70.3 lux

LD20 R4: 72.3 lux

LD20 R5: 85.1 lux

Some comparisons:

L2D Q5 first generation: 62.3 lux

L1D tube on L2D Q5 first generation: 35.5 lux

L1D Q5 last model before LD20 Q5: 43.9 lux

L2D tube on L1D Q5 last model before LD10 Q5: 59.2 lux

The R5 seems a step up especially on 2 batteries. A bigger step up from the R4. Unfortunately I lost my tripod so my set up was to balance the torch and light meter on a flat surface with an 'X' drawn on the surface. Will do again once I get a new tripod