My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots and runtimes

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
Got my Jetbeam MKIIX today, post beamshots here and compared with another popular 1AA light-L1D CE!

Ok, you may want to know lux number first,

Alkline battery
100% output: 1020 [email protected]
maximum output: 655 [email protected]

NiMH battery
100% output: 971 [email protected]
maximum output: 575 [email protected]

14500
100% output: 2720 [email protected]
maximum output: 1885 [email protected]

at 5m distance, left to right: alkaline-100%, 14500-maximum, 14500-100%, L1D CE-alkaline-high
kIIxalk1005m.jpg
kIIxlimax5m.jpg
kIIxli1005m.jpg
L1DCEhi5m.jpg


at 10m distance, left to right: alkaline-100%, 14500-maximum, 14500-100%, L1D CE-alkaline-high, L1D CE-alkaline-turbo, L1D CE-14500
kIIxalk10010m.jpg
kIIxlimax10m.jpg
kIIxli10010m.jpg
L1DCEhi10m.jpg
L1DCEtu10m.jpg
L1DCE3.7V10m.jpg


Runtimes:
mk2xRT-1.jpg

mk2xRT-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

sb0007

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
73
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

Very nice pictures. It seems from the picture MKIIX is bright when its in 100% mode. But with its UI, it a pain to get to it. Then again in real life who need such a bright light right.....(now the whole forum is gonna kick my butt - hehe)
 

Haz

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
919
Location
Sydney, Australia
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

Thanks for the pics Chao, i really like these real life comparison shots. Did you notice MKIIx-alkaline-100% have more sidespill than the L1D-CE (high)?.

Basically i would like to know whether the MKIIx looks dimmer due to increase side spill, or is just overall dimmer than the LID-CE.

Thanks in advance
 

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

I think my MKIIX-alkaline-100% still has less sidespill if compared with L1D-CE-high, or in other words, MKII-alkaline-100% just overall dimmer (not much)than the LID-CE-high, I don't have the overall output test, just according to the pics and my eyes observation.

My brief conclusions are MKIIX would be a nice bright light for 14500 battery, and indeed the UI in MKIIX is not convenient.
 
Last edited:

letezac

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
23
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

The doors are more iluminated with de beam on mkIIX at 100% on 14500, I like that kind of spot.
 
Last edited:

cheapo

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,326
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

can you please do some 14500 runtimes?
 

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

yes, runtime graphs added, alkaline in 100% output run over 90 min, not bad, however on 14500-100%, regulation looks fine, just the runtime too short (14500-maximum is on the way!).
 
Last edited:

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

14500-maximum runtime added.
 

sb0007

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
73
Re: My Jetbeam MKIIX beamshots

impression performance from this unit. thanks Chao.
 

nuggett

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
417
Location
NC
Thanks for doing those runtimes Chao. This is an amazing light. Really performs well.
The 100% is actually easy to aquire. If left in advanced mode, all that is needed is a hard click for on then hard click for off. The other modes are just a soft press away and always reverts to high except on the strobe/SOS modes.
 

Haz

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
919
Location
Sydney, Australia
Thanks for the runtime graphs, so it looks like the MKIIx has considerable more runtime than the L1D-CE, this may be the reason why it has less overall output in comparision to the MKIIx
 

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
Add NiMH runtime at 100% output, around 150 min regulation.
 

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
Just post another comparison, beamshot pictures all used alkaline batteries, runtimes used NiMH batteries.

jetmk2h10m.jpg
kIIxalk10010m.jpg
L1DCEhi10m.jpg

mk2xRT-3.jpg
 

liquidsix

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
251
Hmm, I wonder what the overall light output is for both. Is this done with a lightbox (similar to Flashlightreviews)? Or just shining it directly on the meter? Either way it's dissapointing to see that the mkIIx is only about 30-40% more efficient (mkII is 70% the efficiency of mkIIx) than MkII. I thought the cree was supposed to be twice as efficient. Maybe I'm wrong.
 

Chao

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
567
Location
TW
liquidsix said:
Hmm, I wonder what the overall light output is for both. Is this done with a lightbox (similar to Flashlightreviews)? Or just shining it directly on the meter? .

I don't have light box for overall output test, I just got the number directly from meter at 1m diastance.
 

Haz

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
919
Location
Sydney, Australia
liquidsix said:
Hmm, I wonder what the overall light output is for both. Is this done with a lightbox (similar to Flashlightreviews)? Or just shining it directly on the meter? Either way it's dissapointing to see that the mkIIx is only about 30-40% more efficient (mkII is 70% the efficiency of mkIIx) than MkII. I thought the cree was supposed to be twice as efficient. Maybe I'm wrong.

It would be good to see the overall light output to see what the result is. It's possible the increase side spill is where the light is going to. There is an increase run time that is part of the reason too. It would be good to see the MKIIx use a smooth reflector so we can see a closer comparison.
 
Top