Which is the real Ultrafire C1?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Not long ago Kai started selling the Ultrafire C1 stainless cree etc. Here is the link: http://www.kaidomain.com/WEBUI/ProductDetail.aspx?TranID=1553

Now DX is selling what they claim is also the Ultrafire C1 staincless cree etc. Here is the link: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.3249#

But if you look closely at the pictures, these are not the same light. The most significant difference seems to be that on the Kai light there is not much of a gap between the head and the body whereas on the DX light there is a more pronounced gap. Also, the lettering seems to be different. So I guess my question is: are these actually the same light (is the head just unscrewed further on the DX sample?) and if not, which one would be better? The Kai light seems better to me, just from the pictures. :candle:

 

[HarveyRich]

Interesting catch. You should work for the FBI (in a back office bent over documents) with such an eye for fine details. I can see the differences. However, don't manufacturers sometimes make slight changes, e.g. from v.1 to v 1a or something like that? Otherwise, they sure look the same.

 

[nerdgineer]

I don't see it. It looks like the same light. The Kai picture has the twisty head screwed all the way in (like it's a crush your battery type and there's no battery in it), and the DX picture has the head screwed out a bit.

I don't see a difference in the logo, just a different angle. YMMV and maybe your eyes are better than mine, but that's what I see...

 

[Patriot]

Like nerdgineer said, the first one doesn't have a battery in it and it's screwed down until it stopped against the body.

The writing is slightly more bold on the first link (fatter letters) and the cube is a more simple design. Probably from a different run but it's definitly the same light IMO.

 

[rolling]

"- V2 version from Ultrafire, with improved head design, to prevent the lens and reflector from falling out when replacing batteries"
didn´t you read the description?

 

[SteveAdams]

In the Kaidomain description it says:

"Lab test: 4000 lux at 1 meter, overall: 8010 lux, 111 Lumens"

Further down it says:

Crazy 142 lumens output from such a tighty CR123A flashlight with great throw and sidespill.

Anybody know if it is 111 or 142 lumens?

 

[StefanFS]

To me it looks more like chromed metal than polished steel. Also, on Kai's pictures you see the o-ring popping out between the lens and bezel.

 

[Vikas Sontakke]

Unless you really want the stainless steel finish, $12 one seems to have brighter output with nicer spill. I have it and it is a hell of light for twelve bucks.

- Vikas

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

Like nerdgineer said, the first one doesn't have a battery in it and it's screwed down until it stopped against the body.

The writing is slightly more bold on the first link (fatter letters) and the cube is a more simple design. Probably from a different run but it's definitly the same light IMO.

I think that Patriot36 has it right. But then one wonders which is the later run. Kai claims that theirs is version 2.0, so perhaps there is a difference after all. I'm expecting the cheaper, black finished light any day. For the record, this seems to be a different light as well. For instance, the base of the black light has 5 points, rather than 4.

 

[T4R06]

tempted to buy this C1
on DX site says: In stock: tracking number/ships within 48 hours (please buy this item separate for super fast shipment)

 

[HarveyRich]

Crazy 142 lumens output from such a tighty CR123A flashlight with great throw and sidespill. Construction is solid in one piece. I except about one hour of runtime from this flashlight. There is one o-ring located between the battery tube and the flashlight head to protect from the environment. This flashlight sits on its rear cap to act as a candle light. Light focus is not adjustable. More information to be updated.

Crazy 142 lumens output from such a tighty CR123A flashlight with great throw and sidespill. Construction is solid in one piece. I except about one hour of runtime from this flashlight. There is one o-ring located between the battery tube and the flashlight head to protect from the environment. This flashlight sits on its rear cap to act as a candle light. Light focus is not adjustable. More information to be updated.

Notice the similarity between the two quotes? Yes, good sleuthing. They're the same. However, what is interesting is that one is from the Ultrafire C1 description and the other is from the "semilar" or "pocket 142lm cree P4 flashlight (cr123A).
I think Kai accidentally put the same phrase into the Ultrafire description--especially since the 142 lumens probably applies to the 142lm flashlight.
BTW, I would take these lux reports with a grain of salt. I just received my "Semilar" from Kaidomain and ran a few tests on it today. The approximate lux output at one meter was 2550 which is fairly good, but not the 4100 that Kai states. Also, he indicates that he expects the runtime to be about an hour. The actual runtime of this little light is about 40 mins to about half light output.

 

[2xTrinity]

Notice the similarity between the two quotes? Yes, good sleuthing. They're the same. However, what is interesting is that one is from the Ultrafire C1 description and the other is from the "semilar" or "pocket 142lm cree P4 flashlight (cr123A).
I think Kai accidentally put the same phrase into the Ultrafire description--especially since the 142 lumens probably applies to the 142lm flashlight.
BTW, I would take these lux reports with a grain of salt. I just received my "Semilar" from Kaidomain and ran a few tests on it today. The approximate lux output at one meter was 2550 which is fairly good, but not the 4100 that Kai states. Also, he indicates that he expects the runtime to be about an hour. The actual runtime of this little light is about 40 mins to about half light output.

Interesting. In the past I've found his runtime estimates to be dead on, and his lumen estimates (not sure about throw estimates) to be fairly conservative.

 

[HarveyRich]

Originally Posted by 2xTrinity: In the past I've found his runtime estimates to be dead on, and his lumen estimates (not sure about throw estimates) to be fairly conservative.

That's what I've read in the posts. However, on the 142lm Cree, he just says:

I except about one hour of runtime from this flashlight.

I guess he just hadn't time to do real time testing and just made an off the top of his head guess of runtime--where it still lies today. Maybe there were some calculations in his head, but not listed on the site. On DX, at least, Kyle seems to put in some standard calculations for runtime estimates, but I don't think he incorporates efficiency of the unit. At any rate, I was hopeful on my light purchase too (which is one of the main reasons I bought it). I'll just be more of an agnostic on the data down the line. BTW, since I don't have equipment to measure lumens, I can't say how accurate the 142 lumen estimate is. I'm guessing it's on the high side, though, since his lux estimate at a meter was--that is unless there's some serious variation among lights.

 

[2xTrinity]

That's what I've read in the posts. However, on the 142lm Cree, he just says:

I guess he just hadn't time to do real time testing and just made an off the top of his head guess of runtime--where it still lies today. Maybe there were some calculations in his head, but not listed on the site. On DX, at least, Kyle seems to put in some standard calculations for runtime estimates, but I don't think he incorporates efficiency of the unit.
Yeah, I think he takes a current At any rate, I was hopeful on my light purchase too (which is one of the main reasons I bought it). I'll just be more of an agnostic on the data down the line. BTW, since I don't have equipment to measure lumens, I can't say how accurate the 142 lumen estimate is. I'm guessing it's on the high side, though, since his lux estimate at a meter was--that is unless there's some serious variation among lights.

The 142 may well be exaggerted, but considering that the light is a boost circuit that appears to direct-drive when the input voltage is over 3.6, an LED with a lower forward voltage, or that fell at the higher-end of the P4 bin could end up producing more lumens than an identical light with a slightly different LED.

I remember a lot of his earlier Cree lights were rated at only around ~80 lumens, and they appear similar in ceiling bounce to lights known to be more like 100 lumens. Again, could be variations in the binning and those LEDs were dimmer than others.

Also, I'd bet the light is probalby only at max brightness hot off the charger, and then probably settles to 75% for most of the useful runtime. Either way though, even if it's only more like 100-110 lumens, it's still a good deal IMO.

 

[nerdgineer]

I'm witholding judgement until I see some runtimes. One of the real advantages of Fenix lights is their relative battery efficiency. Some of mine got almost twice the light out of a battery than a simiilar Ultrafire version, and for me, that loss of efficiency wasn't worth the lower price. I'm hoping that Ultrafire comes up with comparable circuit efficiencies in which case I'd be all over the Ultrafires.