NiteCore EX10 Golden Dragon Plus Review

[UnknownVT]

Kind courtesy of 4sevens (http://4sevens.com) this NiteCore SmartPD EX10, Golden Dragon Plus

Size -

Head -

Comparisons on Max using primary CR123

vs. NiteCore EX10 (Cree Q5 version)

Golden Dragon+ has larger hotspot - the Cree Q5 has more side-spill.

vs. NiteCore Extreme (NEX) (Q5)

NEX is brighter. The EX10 GD+ has a different ringiness to the NEX - which is kind of disappointing since the previous GD+ tested in the NDI and D10 both showed smoother beams.


vs. Fenix P2D-Q5

vs. NiteCore D10 Golden Dragon Plus Max NiMH

still not exactly a warm tint - but this sample of the GD+ is less blue than the sample in the D10 GD+, but the EX10 GD+ shows ringiness compared to the smooth beam of the D10 -

I thought the EX10 used the same reflector as the D10 - so could the stainless steel bezel affect the beam that much to cause the ringiness?

vs. NiteCore Defender Infinity - Golden Dragon Plus Max NiMH

also less blue than the NDI GD+

Index to follow up parts -

Comparison with Fenix P2D Rebel RB100 - post #10

Stairway beamshot - Post #15

Stairway ceiling bounce shots - Post #16

 

[iNDiGLo]

Nice Review. Thanks for the work.
:wave:

iNDiGLo

 

[juplin]

Nice Review. But I am curious why we pay similar or even premium price for NiteCore EX10 GDP or Cree Q5 whatever but can not get one half of the beam quality of the still available Liteflux LF3.

Ckeck out the smooth beam of LF3 among the similar form factors of the CR123 flashlights.
http://www.cpfreviews.com/LiteFlux-LF3-SSCP4.php

 

[LED-holic]

Nice Review. But I am curious why we pay similar or even premium price for NiteCore EX10 GDP or Cree Q5 whatever but can not get one half of the beam quality of the still available Liteflux LF3.

Ckeck out the smooth beam of LF3 among the similar form factors of the CR123 flashlights.
http://www.cpfreviews.com/LiteFlux-LF3-SSCP4.php

Huh? The LF3 runs a 2006 SSC P4. You can't compare the GDP+ or Q5 against a 2006 light.

If all you care about is a smooth beam, perhaps you should avoid the Q5 and GDP+ lights...

 

[spgrk]

Huh? The LF3 runs a 2006 SSC P4. You can't compare the GDP+ or Q5 against a 2006 light.

If all you care about is a smooth beam, perhaps you should avoid the Q5 and GDP+ lights...

The SSC P4 U bin has an efficiency around that of a Cree Q4. So with an SSC P4 you can get smooth *and* bright:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=197876

 

[juplin]

Huh? The LF3 runs a 2006 SSC P4. You can't compare the GDP+ or Q5 against a 2006 light.

If all you care about is a smooth beam, perhaps you should avoid the Q5 and GDP+ lights...

Flashlight users are mostly concerning about beam quality, tint, brightness and price. Which LED is adopted is not the business of users but the flashlight manufacturers.

Liteflux LF5XT using Cree R2 also has very smooth beam.

Also the ugly beam of my original NiteCore EX10 Q5 has been improved to a smoother beam by simply adjusting the relative position between LED and reflector. Please refer to the comparative beam patterns of my EX10 Q5 before and after adjustment, that are shown in the post #23 of the following thread:
http://my3c.com/D5/viewthread.php?tid=7963&extra=page=1&page=3

From the experience of the beam pattern adjustment to EX10 Q5 by myself, I can calculate that the beam pattern of EX10/D10 Q5 can be improved through appropriate adjustment and by adoption of right reflector that all should be done by manufacture instead of user.

 

[Lite_me]

[Also the ugly beam of my original NiteCore EX10 Q5 has been improved to a smoother beam by simply adjusting the relative position between LED and reflector.]

Please refer to the comparative beam patterns of my EX10 Q5 before and after adjustment, that are shown in the post #23 of the following thread:
http://my3c.com/D5/viewthread.php?tid=7963&extra=page=1&page=3

From the experience of the beam pattern adjustment to EX10 Q5 by myself, I can calculate that the beam pattern of EX10/D10 Q5 can be improved through appropriate adjustment and by adoption of right reflector that all should be done by manufacture instead of user.

Care to give the particulars on how you achieved this?

 

[juplin]

Care to give the particulars on how you achieved this?

I use hand-made LED washers with different thicknesses by try and error to replace the original white plastic LED washer. These hand-made LED washers (or the original plastic LED washer as well) will sit on the LED platform by fitting around the metal ring of Cree LED to insulate the aluminum reflector from the LED platform on one hand and adjust the relative position between LED and reflector on the other hand.

Although the adjusted beam is smoother than the original one, there are still some artifacts between the new-generated corona and side spill that are not clearly shown in my beam pattern after adjustment.
My next step will try to use similar 17.8 mm x 11.8 mm OP reflectors with different textures to replace the original reflector while I get some alternative OP reflectors.

 

[Lite_me]

Thanks! I'm assuming you used thicker spacers. Were there any problems with the SS bezel threading? I know that there's not much in the way of threads there. Or, was the difference in the spacers not enough to inhibit threading. Actually, just wondering how much of a difference was needed to alter the beam pattern enough for a worthwhile change.

 

[UnknownVT]

vs. Fenix P2D-RB100 (L2D-RB100 head on P2D body) Turbo/Max using 1x primary CR123

side-spill of the P2Drb100 is brighter - hotspots are in a similar ballpark. The Fenix RB100 has a much smoother and nicer tinted beam.

 

[juplin]

Thanks! I'm assuming you used thicker spacers. Were there any problems with the SS bezel threading? I know that there's not much in the way of threads there. Or, was the difference in the spacers not enough to inhibit threading. Actually, just wondering how much of a difference was needed to alter the beam pattern enough for a worthwhile change.

When the thicker spacers (i.e. LED washers) are installed, a thinner O ring with same diameter will be used to leave more room for the thicker spacers.
With the original OP reflector, no matter how thick spacers are used, there are still more or less artifacts in the beam pattern.
I suppose that only the alternative OP reflector with different texture and/or different surface roughness in addition to the thicker spacer will completely eliminate the beam artifacts in EX10 Q5.

Therefore, I tried another adjustment yesterday by attaching an invisible tape on the lens. The resultant beam is unbelievably smooth much like the beam pattern of SSC P4 and even smoother than that of LF5XT, though at the cost of slightly reduced light output.
This is my final settlement of EX10 Q5 with invisible tape attached on the lens and with thicker LED washer.

The invisible tape used is Wonder (supposed to be a Chinese brand) SS301L 18mm x 20m of the type that the non-glued surface can be written or Xeroxed.
You can find equivalent invisible tapes in 3M or other brands.
The invisible tape can also be attached on the SS bezel with same effect. The invisible tape can also used in conjunction with original plastic LED washer. All dark ring and artifacts in the beam pattern of EX10/D10 Q5 will be eliminated and transition from hot spot to side spill is very smooth, although the hot spot is smaller compared to that with thicker LED washer.

 

[TONY M]

Juplin, I have tried that as well and it works great!:twothumbs

 

[Patriot]

The PD2 with Rebel was really kicking some butt up there in that comparison shot. It kinda makes me think that the GD is overrated. I'm really not impressed with the beamshots of it.

Thanks for the review

 

[Lite_me]

juplin: Thank you for your detailed explanation and findings. Very informative. :wave:

 

[UnknownVT]

Standardized Stairway beamshot - Max, using primary CR123

EX10 Golden Dragon + Vs. EX10 (Cree Q5)

 

[UnknownVT]

Stairway ceiling bounce comparison
(using same standardized exposure settings as the regular stairway beamshots) -
flaslights tail standing on piece of cardboard in the middle of the visible part of the (top) landing -