I recently received my Malkoff M60. In doing some comparisons to a Dereelight CL1H V3 DI and my L4, I was left initially unimpressed. I conducted casual direct and ceiling bounce comparisons and aside from the noticeably greener tint, there really wasn't anything that I could make out to distinguish the vaunted M60. Furthermore, looking into the optic, I saw a multitude of tiny scratches and light gouges. Since this is TIR-type optic, the quality of the surface is paramount as that is the interface that redirects light out the business end. The brass shell was nicely machined and the spring end was cleanly potted though.
And so I decided to take a close look using my camera, fixed exposure settings, and my standard targets. Alas, I did not set the white balance so it looks a bit funky here.
In this image, you see the M60 (in CL1H host), CL1H V3 DI (OP reflector), L4, and Smooth Operator with a 1A Wiz Lux III. You can see that the Malkoff and Dereelight both have pretty tight center hotspots compared to the L4. The LuxIII is also quite tight with significantly lower total output. The M60 optic creates a somewhat untidy beam pattern but that is closer in nature to the L4 than the CL1H. It's my understanding that optics (such as the one in my L1 Cree) do not produce as cosmetically pretty beams as reflectored LEDs.
Here are the same four lights in a ceiling bounce. I have offwhite/cream tiles in a low dropped ceiling. In this shot, the M60 looks quite close to the CL1H with the L4 a bit lower and cooler. The Lux III is lower still, but output is respectable for an LED of that generation.
Still, I was unsatisfied with the images I was seeing. I wanted something a bit more critical and so I tried image subtraction. I used GraphicConverter v6 to accomplish this. The following images should be viewed in sets of two: A-B and B-A.
In this first of the M60-CL1H-direct pair, we have CL1H-M60. Here we see that the CL1H output "cone of light" is brighter overall than the M60. As expected, the very center of the hotspot is also brighter. However, outside of this cone, the CL1H essentially goes dark.
In this second of the M60-CL1H-direct pair, we have M60-CL1H. From this difference image, we see that the hotspot of the M60 is larger and brighter except for the very center, a confirmation of the first picture in this pair. You can also see that the M60 optic-steered beam also has more output in the periphery of the beam. See the boxes in the lower left of the image.
Now let's look at the ceiling bounce differential images to compare output. Based on the image pair that follows, output is essentially identical
Image 1, M60-CL1H.
Image 2, CL1H-M60.
So, in summary, the CL1H V3 DI and Malkoff M60 are essentially identical in total output. In practical use situations under 50' in range, the two pills are essentially identical with functionally similar beam profiles. In my case, the only criterion for selection would be desired battery configuration. I prefer to use 18650 instead of R123 and so the M60 would not be optimal as it is in DD below 3.8V on the single cell.
Ok, now let's take a look at the M60 against my long-serving EDC, the SureFire L4.
In this difference image, we have the M60-L4. You can see that the M60 central hotspot is much brighter that the diffuse hotspot of the L4. The advantage overall is also quite pronounced. In other words, in the central region, the M60 output is noticeably superior to that of the L4, a result that should not be surprising.
In this complementary difference, we see L4-M60. Of note is the brighter, outer hotspot where the L4 delivers a broad, punchy hammer of light. Again, as with the reflectored CL1H, there is more output at the very edges of the beam. Much of the lit up area outside of the outer hotspot is due to the difference in color cast of the two beams resulting in a chrominance difference.
In the M60-L4 ceiling bounce difference image, you can see that the M60 has an advantage. Certainly not as much of an advantage as it has over the LuxIII in the Smooth Operator (next image) but output is higher such that it is visible to the naked eye. I have not included the L4-M60 image as it is all black due to the difference being zero.
So what do I think at the end of all this?
1. The M60 and CL1H V3 DI overall outputs are indistinguishable.
2. The M60 and CL1H V3 DI beam patterns are different to the camera but less so to the eye.
3. The M60 and CL1H V3 DI outputs are superior to the L4 but the L4's beam is more coherent, smoother.
4. The L4 beam is optimal for 2-15' working range.
5. The M60 and CL1H are suitable for 10' out to 50'.
6. Working range applies for my 42-year old eyes.
Wilkey
And so I decided to take a close look using my camera, fixed exposure settings, and my standard targets. Alas, I did not set the white balance so it looks a bit funky here.
In this image, you see the M60 (in CL1H host), CL1H V3 DI (OP reflector), L4, and Smooth Operator with a 1A Wiz Lux III. You can see that the Malkoff and Dereelight both have pretty tight center hotspots compared to the L4. The LuxIII is also quite tight with significantly lower total output. The M60 optic creates a somewhat untidy beam pattern but that is closer in nature to the L4 than the CL1H. It's my understanding that optics (such as the one in my L1 Cree) do not produce as cosmetically pretty beams as reflectored LEDs.
Here are the same four lights in a ceiling bounce. I have offwhite/cream tiles in a low dropped ceiling. In this shot, the M60 looks quite close to the CL1H with the L4 a bit lower and cooler. The Lux III is lower still, but output is respectable for an LED of that generation.
Still, I was unsatisfied with the images I was seeing. I wanted something a bit more critical and so I tried image subtraction. I used GraphicConverter v6 to accomplish this. The following images should be viewed in sets of two: A-B and B-A.
In this first of the M60-CL1H-direct pair, we have CL1H-M60. Here we see that the CL1H output "cone of light" is brighter overall than the M60. As expected, the very center of the hotspot is also brighter. However, outside of this cone, the CL1H essentially goes dark.
In this second of the M60-CL1H-direct pair, we have M60-CL1H. From this difference image, we see that the hotspot of the M60 is larger and brighter except for the very center, a confirmation of the first picture in this pair. You can also see that the M60 optic-steered beam also has more output in the periphery of the beam. See the boxes in the lower left of the image.
Now let's look at the ceiling bounce differential images to compare output. Based on the image pair that follows, output is essentially identical
Image 1, M60-CL1H.
Image 2, CL1H-M60.
So, in summary, the CL1H V3 DI and Malkoff M60 are essentially identical in total output. In practical use situations under 50' in range, the two pills are essentially identical with functionally similar beam profiles. In my case, the only criterion for selection would be desired battery configuration. I prefer to use 18650 instead of R123 and so the M60 would not be optimal as it is in DD below 3.8V on the single cell.
Ok, now let's take a look at the M60 against my long-serving EDC, the SureFire L4.
In this difference image, we have the M60-L4. You can see that the M60 central hotspot is much brighter that the diffuse hotspot of the L4. The advantage overall is also quite pronounced. In other words, in the central region, the M60 output is noticeably superior to that of the L4, a result that should not be surprising.
In this complementary difference, we see L4-M60. Of note is the brighter, outer hotspot where the L4 delivers a broad, punchy hammer of light. Again, as with the reflectored CL1H, there is more output at the very edges of the beam. Much of the lit up area outside of the outer hotspot is due to the difference in color cast of the two beams resulting in a chrominance difference.
In the M60-L4 ceiling bounce difference image, you can see that the M60 has an advantage. Certainly not as much of an advantage as it has over the LuxIII in the Smooth Operator (next image) but output is higher such that it is visible to the naked eye. I have not included the L4-M60 image as it is all black due to the difference being zero.
So what do I think at the end of all this?
1. The M60 and CL1H V3 DI overall outputs are indistinguishable.
2. The M60 and CL1H V3 DI beam patterns are different to the camera but less so to the eye.
3. The M60 and CL1H V3 DI outputs are superior to the L4 but the L4's beam is more coherent, smoother.
4. The L4 beam is optimal for 2-15' working range.
5. The M60 and CL1H are suitable for 10' out to 50'.
6. Working range applies for my 42-year old eyes.
Wilkey
Last edited:
I can easily light things up with my CL1H and a smooth reflector at 500 feet, and light things up out to 600 feet or more. With a OP in the CL1H, or the M60, you can make things out at 400 feet or more.
