Armytek Wizard Pro XHP50 V3 field use review.

[Woods Walker]

Updated the OP with info on the new plastic harness.

 

[doelzzz]

just got mine yesterday, btw its little different since mine have a heatsink in the head part, i wonder what version is mine...

 

[Woods Walker]

That's the newest of the new V3 USB chargeable wizard I think. It should have the voltage range someplace on the head or body. 2.7 to 9 volts not pro 2.4 to 9 volts pro unless they changed something with the USB charging.

 

[Lumencrazy]

Having used my XHP50 warm for about one month it would be my first choice if I could only have one light. It does everything!!!!!!! A universal, very compact, durable, no sharp edges and I can lock it out. Truly a first-class design!!! I never use it on high power mode: no need. The benefit of the XHP50 led is that it gives an more uniform beam compared to my XML-2 Wizard pro. The warm tint is perfect showing colors well and this damn light just runs forever on one battery. Nuff said. Truly the flashlight of the year!!!! The plastic clip has a nice curved shape, and, as a result, is a lot more comfortable than the older silicone design.

 

[noboneshotdog]

Does anyone with the new USB version know if it charges a battery pretty efficiently?

 

[FlashlightR]

I also have the new Wizard v3 XHP50 (warm) USB version with the new cooling fins around the head. I have the light for a couple of months now and for me it is also my first choice light! It works great, good mode spacing, colour temp and runtime.
I think Armytek uses a very simple and slow charging argorithm because it starts around 700 mA charging rate down to around 200 mA. It takes a lot of hours to fully charge the included 3200mah 18650. But it works fine and that's the most important for me. I think the reliability has really been improved with the new Armytek XHP50 lights.

 

[doelzzz]

Anyone have the same problem like me?
The light is flickering at firefly mode, not at the other mode since its too bright to seen by naked eyes

 

[Woods Walker]

No flicker on firefly. Better contact AT and show them the video.

 

[FlashlightR]

Mine also has no flicker on firefly. Did you try to clean all the contacts in the tail(cap)?

 

[doelzzz]

Mine also has no flicker on firefly. Did you try to clean all the contacts in the tail(cap)?

I already cleaned both head and tail side inside, nothing change
If its clearly a defect, i'll contact the seller then
Looks like nobody have the same issue like this

 

[FlashlightR]

That's bad luck..... please let us know how Armytek take care of this.

 

[_Rotor]

That's bad luck..... please let us know how Armytek take care of this.

No, it is not a bad luck. The statistic shows that the Armytek products faults are normal behavior. If somebody have one or three of the Armytek products and they works fine this is not prove their reliability (that is too small statistical sample). But if you search in CPF for the problems this will give you more realistic view of their products quality (the problems are too much compared with their competitors). Armytek problems with even simple things as the user manuals make me to realize that it is not worth to take a risk with their products. There are more reliable and responsible brands which to prefer.

Just two links about Armytec quality:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?428704-Is-Armytek-a-gamble
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?426543-Armytek-website-specifications

 

[FlashlightR]

I know about the issues in the past. I had a lot of Armytek lights with driver issues and incomplete retail boxes. I really thought that the 'new' generation XHP light were much better. Time will tell......

 

[Woods Walker]

My overal preference is for their standard (not pro) line as the UI is easier and I think there is less
to go wrong. Too bad they don't offer the XHP-50 in standard. That said I like this light.

 

[Lumencrazy]

My overal preference is for their standard (not pro) line as the UI is easier and I think there is less
to go wrong. Too bad they don't offer the XHP-50 in standard. That said I like this light.

I would suspect that internally they are identical. Just programmed differently. A lot cheaper than operating two different assembly lines. And a lot cheaper than buying smaller quantities of different components. A very common practice.

 

[scs]

I would suspect that internally they are identical. Just programmed differently. A lot cheaper than operating two different assembly lines. And a lot cheaper than buying smaller quantities of different components. A very common practice.

The pro models offer constant output at the lower turbo mode; the regular model doesn't. My guess: the pros have buck/boost drivers, which have more components and are more expensive, whereas the regulars have buck drivers that are less expensive.

 

[Lumencrazy]

The pro models offer constant output at the lower turbo mode; the regular model doesn't. My guess: the pros have buck/boost drivers, which have more components and are more expensive, whereas the regulars have buck drivers that are less expensive.

To run with a 18650 cell the driver must have a DC boost driver to increase the voltage from the nominal 3.6 to approx. 5.7 (required forward voltage for the XHP50).

 

[scs]

To run with a 18650 cell the driver must have a DC boost driver to increase the voltage from the nominal 3.6 to approx. 5.7 (required forward voltage for the XHP50)

WW was referring to the the XML XPL versions, not XHP 50 version. I was as well.
The XHP 50 version doesn't come in the non pro flavor.

 

[Lumencrazy]

OOps.

 

[Woods Walker]

WW was referring to the the XML XPL versions, not XHP 50 version. I was as well.
The XHP 50 version doesn't come in the non pro flavor.

That's correct.