TLF Dobermann Pro XHP 35 HI Review

[scs]

http://www.taschenlampen-forum.de/threads/review-armytek-dobermann-pro-xhp35-hi-warm.55289/

by Kof3

Excerpt regarding runtime and regulation...

"With optimal cooling, the lamp runs in Boost mode (Turbo 2) 14 minutes at approximately 1200 lm before it switches down. This operation takes about 26 minutes before the lamp remains in Firefly1 (0.1 lm). The battery then had a voltage of 2.85 V.
In the event of a lack of cooling, the temperature control jumps in. This ensures a rapid downshift of 1200 lm. After 9 min. The luminous flux settles at about 640 lm and remains at this level for about 45 min.

The CC mode (Turbo 1) keeps what it promises. When cooling, the lamp runs constantly at 670 lm for 64 min before it starts to turn down.
Without cooling, the lamp also starts at 670 lm, whereby the temperature control intervenes and the luminous flux is throttled within about 20 minutes to still bright 640 lm. From minute 50 to 60, there is a step-down, which should be due to the temperature regulation, before 60 minutes at 640 lm and this power is held for eight minutes. This is somewhat unpleasant, but in view of the other good regulation is not worth mentioning."


Dr.Meter LX1010B generic Luxmeter
Box: PS108
Uni-T UT210E Stromzange
Battery: Samsung INR18650-30Q Roh cell @ 4.17 V (resting time 20 min, termination 50 mA)

measured after 30 sec (ANSI FL1) - ambient: 23 ° C / 39% rh (and especially for our nice user flummi: 1015,3 hPa @ 95 m asl)

Lighting	Luminous flux in lm	Brightness in lx	Current consumption in mA
Firefly1	> 0.1	2	2
Firefly2	1.2	32	13
Main1	28.8	805	81
Main2	129.7	3500	315
Main3	296	8000	775
Turbo1	641	17800	2160
Turbo2	1208	30300	5760

If you need more throw and longer runtimes, it seems the older XPL-HI is still the better choice.

 

[scs]

The AT boost driver is pitiful compared to Eagtac's.

 

[Tachead]

The AT boost driver is pitiful compared to Eagtac's.

This post seems a bit trollish to me. Did you just start this thread to bash Armytek?

Pitiful in what aspect? The regulation looks pretty good to me. Do you have a runtime graph for a similar Eagletac to compare? Are you just basing your comment on one runtime graph from a guy using a $20 light meter with no comparative tests, in the same conditions, with a similar light from the other brand you mention?

 

[scs]

This post seems a bit trollish to me. Did you just start this thread to bash Armytek?

Pitiful in what aspect? The regulation looks pretty good to me. Do you have a runtime graph for the TX30C2 XHP35 HI to compare? Are you just basing your comment on one runtime graph from a guy using a $20 light meter with no comparative tests, in the same conditions, with a similar light from the other brand you mention?

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...S25L-R-XHP35-(HI)-Video-Review-amp-Beam-Shots

The ET light reviewed above holds above 1000 lumens for 45 minutes.
You seem to question my sources every time and seem to take offense when I criticize AT.
Don't you have some instruments of your own? Do some tests and post results showing otherwise.
Are you bashing IL's setup and methods or the TLF member's?
The TLF members testing equipment is noted in the translation in the 1st post.

 

[Woods Walker]

I do know my version of "optimal cooling" tends to differ from what some others think or consider testing for. I do like the XP-L stuff and hope AT doesn't phase that out as don't think the XHPs are better in every way.

edit. typo.

 

[Tachead]

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...S25L-R-XHP35-(HI)-Video-Review-amp-Beam-Shots

The ET light reviewed above holds above 1000 lumens for 45 minutes.
You seem to question my sources every time and seem to take offense when I criticize AT.
Don't you have some instruments of your own? Do some tests and post results showing otherwise.
Are you bashing IL's setup and methods or the TLF member's?
The TLF members testing equipment is noted in the translation in the 1st post.

Comparing tests from different reviewers, using completely different setups isn't very scientific nor conclusive. One reviewer is using a cell with about 21% more capacity at high amperage as well.

Well, starting a thread(about another persons review) in the AT forum just to bash them is pretty tasteless and is pretty much the definition of trolling. If you had just posted the review quote/link and let us form our own opinions that would be fine. I personally always like to check out reviews, tests, and data. But, you immediately rudely slandered them and did so without posting any comparative data. You seem to bash them quite a bit as well so, I don't think it was unreasonable to call you on it.

I do but, I don't own these particular lights. I would be happy to run tests on both these lights in identical setups with identical batteries if someone would send me a sample of each. I will even promise to send them back within a couple of days of receiving them as long as they pay for the return shipping.

Here is a runtime/output graph of my Prime C2 Pro V3 XHP35(Warm) for you if this helps...

About 54 minutes of near perfectly flat regulated output at 420 lumens on a 650mAh(actual tested capacity) 18350. I am not sure how this compares with a similar Eagletac but, I am pleased with this performance.

I was simply pointing out that there were no comparative tests by the reviewer and he was using a low quality $20 light meter. He doesn't say much about his methods.

I saw that.

I should also point out that Eagletac's materials and build quality are inferior to AT's so even if Eagletac's drivers are more refined it is a trade off really. They both have their pros and cons and both are pretty good lights I think.

 

[texas cop]

I just read the whole review. The LED is 3600K not exactly the best for high lumen output, but very good for color rendition. The driver makes no noise at any level. Still personally I'd like to see the XHP-35 HD's used also. I like sheer lumens and plenty of spill.

 

[Pöbel]

Good comments on explaining why different measuring setups should not be compared.

It's also important to note that on heavily or even overdriven Emitters "just 100 extra Lumens" can mean lots of extra current and a heavy hit on Efficiency. The only fair test is a direct comparison with the same equipment combined with a reading of the power draws.

 

[scs]

Comparing tests from different reviewers, using completely different setups isn't very scientific nor conclusive. One reviewer is using a cell with about 21% more capacity at high amperage as well.


Well, starting a thread(about another persons review) in the AT forum just to bash them is pretty tasteless and is pretty much the definition of trolling. If you had just posted the review quote/link and let us form our own opinions that would be fine. I personally always like to check out reviews, tests, and data. But, you immediately rudely slandered them and did so without posting any comparative data. You seem to bash them quite a bit as well so, I don't think it was unreasonable to call you on it.

I do but, I don't own these particular lights. I would be happy to run tests on both these lights in identical setups with identical batteries if someone would send me a sample of each. I will even promise to send them back within a couple of days of receiving them as long as they pay for the return shipping.

Here is a runtime/output graph of my Prime C2 Pro V3 XHP35(Warm) for you if this helps...

About 54 minutes of near perfectly flat regulated output at 420 lumens on a 650mAh(actual tested capacity) 18350. I am not sure how this compares with a similar Eagletac but, I am pleased with this performance.

I was simply pointing out that there were no comparative tests by the reviewer and he was using a low quality $20 light meter. He doesn't say much about his methods.

I saw that.

I should also point out that Eagletac's materials and build quality are inferior to AT's so even if Eagletac's drivers are more refined it is a trade off really. They both have their pros and cons and both are pretty good lights I think.

I should have been more clear that my comment was targeted only at the light's performance at max output. In this regard, I think the difference between the 30Q and the cell IL was using was inconsequential. The AT did 15 mins on max around 1200 lumens then nosedived, compared to ET's 45 mins at above 1000 lumens according to IL's review. Hence my comment. If one were to compare runtimes of some of their lower and truly regulated outputs, then I agree. Cells make a difference.

I posted the review to share it. Then I posted my opinion about it. Nothing wrong with that. Where does it say one cannot comment on topics one shares? The comparative data is there in another review as I've pointed out.

About my "bashing" AT, you often praise them and without supporting data at that. Remember you said in another thread that your Prime C2 Pro with XHP 35 can hold over 1500 lumens (which you later retracted and revised to over 1000 lumens) down to 3.0v? Have you run tests to verify that? You stress the good, I caution against the bad.

Can you back up your comments about ET's build and material quality being inferior to those of AT? For your info, I actually "bashed" the particular ET light in the review I linked to.

 

[Pöbel]

Still "above 1000 for X minutes" and "exactly 1200 for X minutes" does not warrant any valuable comparison to make assumptions on how good or bad a driver is.

Especially when the testing conditions and equipment are different.

One light may be more efficient, even by a lot, but the presented numbers or not good enough to make these assumptions.

Stating such assumptions is not merely voicing an opinion.

 

[Lumencrazy]

Still "above 1000 for X minutes" and "exactly 1200 for X minutes" does not warrant any valuable comparison to make assumptions on how good or bad a driver is.

Especially when the testing conditions and equipment are different.

One light may be more efficient, even by a lot, but the presented numbers or not good enough to make these assumptions.

Stating such assumptions is not merely voicing an opinion.

How are measuring lumens? I only know know of one accurate way, and that is using an Ulbricht Integrating Sphere. Everything else is a WAG. All this talk about lumens is absent of the most basic measurement. But it sure sells flashlights!!

 

[Pöbel]

Lumencracy u are of course right but this is a well known fact among flashlight enthusiasts. I think both are measuring with a sphere or diy versions following the same working principle. But they are not using the same meter and baseline calibration. Thus the results should only be compared with care.

 

[Lumencrazy]

No calibration?

 

[scs]

Still "above 1000 for X minutes" and "exactly 1200 for X minutes" does not warrant any valuable comparison to make assumptions on how good or bad a driver is.

Especially when the testing conditions and equipment are different.

One light may be more efficient, even by a lot, but the presented numbers or not good enough to make these assumptions.

Stating such assumptions is not merely voicing an opinion.

Ok, go ahead and account for possible differences between the tests. How much would one have to stack the deck in favor of the Dobermann tested for its driver performance at max output to appear equal or better than that of the ET? Had the results been closer, I'd have said it's inconclusive. But they're so far apart, so I think the tests are good enough to show the difference.

 

[CelticCross74]

Come on folks were talking about flashlights here. I also have the new XHP35 HI AT's as well as a new Eagtac SX30A4 with an XHP35 Hi also. The ET running off 4 L91's is much brighter at max output than any of my new XHP35 HI AT's for some reason. I assume that reason is ET is using a better driver.

 

[Swedpat]

I received Dobermann Pro XHP35 warm white yesterday.
Thanks for the information with runtimes about it. I really like Armytek with its nonslip matt surface and I find the tint to be very consistent. All of my warm white ATs have a very pleasant warm tint with only the slightest difference between them.

As I can see AT has very good performance and the regulation is perfect so if there are lights with even better drivers it doesn't matter for me. The total impression is more important. It's just one thing I react about and it's about the specificated beam width. Like with Viking Pro XHP50 it's not correct. Viking is stated as 10/80deg but the spill is the same ~40deg as Predator and Dobermann. Dobermann has stated 5/40 but the hotspot definitely is much bigger than Predator with the same stated 5deg.

And finally: Armytek has found its own niche with the narrow spill. This is good for some tasks(I prefer it for long distance) and also means more light per area at a given lumen output compared to other brands.

 

[Swedpat]

Two and an half months later I want to say a few words about Dobermann Pro XHP35. While I like all my Armyteks I think this Dobermann has become a favorite. I think I would chose it if I had to choose only one Armytek. The reasons are following:

The smaller head makes it more compact than Predator and Viking. While Predator has best throw it's not very big difference in practise but hotspot of Dobermann is roughly twice the size(~4times the area). While Viking could be described like a throwy flooder the Dobermann provides a very useful beam with the punchy hotspot and bright spill.

This is the comparison between Dobermann/Predator XHP35 and Viking XHP50.
The Predators XB-H, XP-L HI and XP-G2 all have better relative throw than XHP35 version. There is no real wrong with XHP35 Predator, the beam is smooth and artifact free, but it just lacks the punch of the predecessors and it doesn't feel like a dedicated thrower. Therefore I feel that XHP35 Dobermann does the job almost as good as a thrower, but with significantly larger hotspot area.

 

[Kivatch]

Two and an half months later I want to say a few words about Dobermann Pro XHP35. While I like all my Armyteks I think this Dobermann has become a favorite. I think I would chose it if I had to choose only one Armytek. The reasons are following:

The smaller head makes it more compact than Predator and Viking. While Predator has best throw it's not very big difference in practise but hotspot of Dobermann is roughly twice the size(~4times the area). While Viking could be described like a throwy flooder the Dobermann provides a very useful beam with the punchy hotspot and bright spill.

This is the comparison between Dobermann/Predator XHP35 and Viking XHP50.
The Predators XB-H, XP-L HI and XP-G2 all have better relative throw than XHP35 version. There is no real wrong with XHP35 Predator, the beam is smooth and artifact free, but it just lacks the punch of the predecessors and it doesn't feel like a dedicated thrower. Therefore I feel that XHP35 Dobermann does the job almost as good as a thrower, but with significantly larger hotspot area.

Hi ! Have you verified the current readings of the above review ?

5.7A looks to high for me as my ET TX3G Pro (which I'm returning), takes 5.8A for a 2100 lumens OTF output ! My guess is that the reviewer used a bad 18650 cell that is not capable of delivering enough power.

I'm thinking about buying the Dobermann Pro with the Warm XHP35. I really liked my Sunwayman V20C and the Dobermann has almost the same form factor.

 

[Swedpat]

Hi ! Have you verified the current readings of the above review ?

5.7A looks to high for me as my ET TX3G Pro (which I'm returning), takes 5.8A for a 2100 lumens OTF output ! My guess is that the reviewer used a bad 18650 cell that is not capable of delivering enough power.

I'm thinking about buying the Dobermann Pro with the Warm XHP35. I really liked my Sunwayman V20C and the Dobermann has almost the same form factor.

No, I have no instrument for that. If you like 4000K I think you will like it, very nice tint for the eyes.

 

[Kivatch]

No, I have no instrument for that. If you like 4000K I think you will like it, very nice tint for the eyes.

I'm just worried about the light having bad efficiency on the highest mode. I read some reviews of the prime C2, another Armytek with the XHP35 and it has a very bad efficiency at the max output. I think that the 5.7 A may actually be true, meaning that the driver efficiency on the highest mode is very low.

On the other hand, everything else with this lamp seems wonderful, even the tint seems great.