New Firefox FF5GT

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
FF5 left and FF5GT right
 

Attachments

  • 20220815_211155.jpg
    20220815_211155.jpg
    51.2 KB · Views: 20

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
Some beamshots. As you can see by the tree beamshots. Not much difference can be seen with just our eyes.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220816-015438_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20220816-015438_Gallery.jpg
    161.4 KB · Views: 29
  • Screenshot_20220816-015503_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20220816-015503_Gallery.jpg
    148.9 KB · Views: 23
  • Screenshot_20220816-015816_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20220816-015816_Gallery.jpg
    181.9 KB · Views: 27
  • Screenshot_20220816-015831_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20220816-015831_Gallery.jpg
    227.1 KB · Views: 28

ampdude

Flashlight Enthusiast
CPF Supporter
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
3,973
Location
USA
Hmm.. I was pretty excited, but I think I might hold off on this one. I have two FF5's, two FF4's and an FF3. Even the FF3 is still impressive these days, especially for the size. There was an incident a month ago where the cops were lighting up the mall parking lot with their spotlights looking for a couple of drug dealers and after they left I went outside with one of my FF5's and it completely lit up the entire parking lot hundreds of yards away and made the police car spotlights look like a total joke. And most of them had HID spotlights.
 

ampdude

Flashlight Enthusiast
CPF Supporter
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
3,973
Location
USA
Is the focus on the last FF5GT picture just better than the one with the FF5? Because other than that, I can't really tell any difference in light output. And it seems like you have the FF5GT pointing downwards more in the last one than the FF5 pic. The two sky pointed photos make it look like the FF5GT is less warm than the FF5 you have.
 

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
I would hold off as well. To my eyes outside they look identical. The ff5gt has a bright Corona which ends abruptly to the spill. The ff5 has a narrower Corona and a secondary faiding Corona that transitions into the spill. The hot spot looks the same intensity on both. Need a meter to show the output difference. So it basically looks the same and gets hotter much much quicker. If you have an FF5 this light is definitely not worth it.

The one thing I do like about the gt is the ability to sling mount it. Might keep it for this alone.
 

Attachments

  • 20220816_013358.jpg
    20220816_013358.jpg
    199.2 KB · Views: 15

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
This better illustrates the reflector finish improvement on the GT.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220816-091439_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20220816-091439_Gallery.jpg
    121.4 KB · Views: 21
  • Screenshot_20220816-091420_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20220816-091420_Gallery.jpg
    120.6 KB · Views: 20

badtziscool

Flashlight Enthusiast
CPF Supporter
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
1,687
I would hold off as well. To my eyes outside they look identical. The ff5gt has a bright Corona which ends abruptly to the spill. The ff5 has a narrower Corona and a secondary faiding Corona that transitions into the spill. The hot spot looks the same intensity on both. Need a meter to show the output difference. So it basically looks the same and gets hotter much much quicker. If you have an FF5 this light is definitely not worth it.

The one thing I do like about the gt is the ability to sling mount it. Might keep it for this alone.
I didn't realize this difference until just now. That is nice they provided a 1/4 20 mount and milling in the tail for a sling mount.

I'm still really curious about the output situation though. It just seems odd that they would miss the advertised output by 4000 lumens, when the normal version pretty much hit the mark. Also the fact you mentioned that your FF5GT heats up faster than your FF5 says that the ballast isn't translating that extra power to the bulb but rather just generating more heat. So maybe 150w is correct but it's just way less efficient at that level than at 100w. Which is really unfortunate. That's the only thing that's keeping me from jumping on this.
 

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
I didn't realize this difference until just now. That is nice they provided a 1/4 20 mount and milling in the tail for a sling mount.

I'm still really curious about the output situation though. It just seems odd that they would miss the advertised output by 4000 lumens, when the normal version pretty much hit the mark. Also the fact you mentioned that your FF5GT heats up faster than your FF5 says that the ballast isn't translating that extra power to the bulb but rather just generating more heat. So maybe 150w is correct but it's just way less efficient at that level than at 100w. Which is really unfortunate. That's the only thing that's keeping me from jumping on this.
I think they would need a bigger host and bulb to get 15k lumens. This ones just not cutting it. The other thing I failed to mention the FF5 when it warms up it reaches max brightness and does not dim.

The FF5gt is different. It warms up and reaches peak brightness for a few moments then within 10 seconds output drops to the output of the FF5. That's probably why beambsots don't really show a difference. While at the same time it's just heating up significantly faster. I would hold off till the FF7 lol.
 

badtziscool

Flashlight Enthusiast
CPF Supporter
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
1,687
You know. I was reminded of a post BVH made about the FF5 a while back. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/any-word-yet-on-firefoxes-ff5.381605/page-5#post-5406219

The 100w rating of the FF5 was at the bulb and higher at the ballast. More like 125w at the pins of the head that he measured and thus the battery carrier had to supply 125w of power and not just 100w. I wonder if the GT is the same in that regard. If so, then that would mean 187w of power the batteries would have to provide. I'm not sure if 18650 cells in 4s1p can keep up with that, and maybe that's why it's not closer to its 15k lumen rating than it is.
 

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
There might be a glimmer of hope. The seller said there should be a significant difference as seen in this beamshot. That is a out what I was expecting and hoping for. But I can assure you my GT does not look that impressive vs my FF5. I am seeing is a replacement is possible.

Alex
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220817-122121_Messenger.jpg
    Screenshot_20220817-122121_Messenger.jpg
    155.5 KB · Views: 35

ampdude

Flashlight Enthusiast
CPF Supporter
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
3,973
Location
USA
Which is which? And again one is pointed higher than the other skewing perception. I don't see any real difference other than one looks warmer than the other. The beam looks cleaner on the one on the right and he has it shooting through grass for some reason. They both look good though.
 

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
Which is which? And again one is pointed higher than the other skewing perception. I don't see any real difference other than one looks warmer than the other. The beam looks cleaner on the one on the right and he has it shooting through grass for some reason. They both look good though.
Left is GT. not a huge difference
 

Alex1234

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
4,001
Location
Bear Delaware
Top