Video Comparison EagleTac P10A2 to Fenix T1, Malkoff M60/M60F others, Has Lumens #s

I recently received the EagleTac P10A2 2 X AA flashlight for testing from CPF member wacbzz. This is the beginning of a series of tests. I made a couple of videos with my new Canon Power Shot SX10IS camera comparing the EagleTac to the Malkoff M60 (new one from Idaho Factory), M60F, Solarforce L2 with R2-S and Fenix T1.

This first video is in the 25 to 30 foot range of the targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpRgksajrlo

Here is the second video in the 50 to 55 foot range

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnoWmeNYM6s


The EagleTacP10A2 2AA

Draws 1.31 to 1.35A on high from Eneloop or Rayovac NiMH Batteries.

Draws 277mA on low from the same batteries.

If the voltage sagged down to 2.4V (fresh charge) thats 3.14 to 3.24 watts from the batteries. Chances are the voltage is slightly higher than that but I can't get a good read while I am probing, don't want to scratch up or damage some one elses flashlight's contacts, not going to take the chance. My guess is this thing is closer to 3.5 watts, that the voltage one either set of batteries is higher than 2.4V but that is pretty stiff current draw.

The integration sphere readings were taken Monday Morning 10-27-08
and are as follows:
EagleTac P10A2 = High 182 lumens, rock solid reading. Low 53.5 lumens. It is what it is.

182 lumens OTF divided by 3.2 watts is very close to 57 lumens per watt of real out the front light from a 2 AA flashlight. That is not bad at all.

As a double check my Fenix T1 was retested with Fairly new SF CR123 batteries, 228 lumens (have had peak of 230 and typical of 225 in the past).

Congratulations to wacbzz for buying this light and sending it to me for testing.

Beam shot video link is below. So far I have 6 solid hours into making this project.

Re: Video Comparison EagleTac P10A2 to Fenix T1, Malkoff M60/M60F others

Thanks MrGman for all your effort! Very useful information and much appreciated. :twothumbs

Thanks for your efforts in putting together the videos and data.

Although the EagleTac can't quite match output of the M60, it's still a remarkable 2AA light.

Is the blue tint very apparent on the low setting?

Re: Video Comparison EagleTac P10A2 to Fenix T1, Malkoff M60/M60F others

Very nice. Thanks for the helpful work.
A few questions if you don't mind:
Which batteries do the Solarforce use?
Is the Malkoff(s) runing on CR123 cells?

The slight blue tint is only noticeable when comparing it directly to another flashlight that is more on the warm side. In general it is a beautiful beam and easy to use "torch".

The Malkoff M60 in the SF 6P was running on 2 SF CR123 primaries. I don't bother with any RCR123 batteries any more.

The solarforce's are running on 2X17500 Lith Ion rechargeables as I have the extension tube on them. I have done testing in the past of measuring lumens on 2 primaries vs 3 primaries versus 2X17500 for the Malkoff M60/F and the Solarforce R2 pill and it didn't make a hill of beans of difference. But the little RCR 123's that I had were garbage and wouldn't run more than 5 minutes off a fresh charge.

Could you do a integration sphere reading on the Malkoff M60 lamp with 2 primaries?

kyhunter1 said:

Could you do a integration sphere reading on the Malkoff M60 lamp with 2 primaries?

Click to expand...

It would just get you upset and break your heart to know the answer

Okay you twisted my arm. Are you ready.

The turn on peak reading was 235, but it dropped as it typically does and stabilized at 220 lumens. I have reported in the past that in the SF host I typically get 220 lumens out of it, and this was reading this morning as well.

But wait for the big spreadsheet o truth report will ya.

NICE work!! Thanks for doing this. Its nice to have sphere measurements to back up beam shots. You can really see how spot-throwey the solarforce is compared to the others. Every time I see how the old T1 stacks up against newer lights it makes me really want to get one. At ~$45 (current price) it goes toe to toe with lights and modules running 2-3 times the $$$.

Others may critique your videos, and how vid-cams tend to auto-nominalize for light intensity differences as you switch from light to light. I don't think most consumer-grade cameras have the ability to do this (to that extreme) at far distances though (10+ feet). At least I know mine does not. So (comparatively) dim lights are still going to appear dim on film.

Nice review!! thanks:twothumbs

roymail said:

Thanks for your efforts in putting together the videos and data.

Although the EagleTac can't quite match output of the M60, it's still a remarkable 2AA light.

Is the blue tint very apparent on the low setting?

Click to expand...

On the other hand, the EagleTac 2XCR123 beats the Malkoff M60 senseless.

Excellent test. Great video and a complete showing of no bias.:twothumbs

MrGman said:

I recently received the EagleTac P10A2 2 X AA flashlight for testing from CPF member wacbzz. This is the beginning of a series of tests. I made a couple of videos with my new Canon Power Shot SX10IS camera comparing the EagleTac to the Malkoff M60 (new one from Idaho Factory), M60F, Solarforce L2 with R2-S and Fenix T1.

This first video is in the 25 to 30 foot range of the targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpRgksajrlo

Click to expand...

Looking at this video, especially at the 1:27-1:40 mark, I am still as impressed at how the 2xAA EagleTac stands with the 2x123A M60 as I was when I wrote my review of the light.

MrGman said:

Here is the second video in the 50 to 55 foot range

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnoWmeNYM6s

Click to expand...

Even from farther away, the EagleTac seems to have more spill than the T1 24 compared to :33) and the R224 compared to 1:33). Compared to the M60 at this distance, the M60 definitely has more spill 24 compared to 1:09), and it goes without saying that the M60F is just pure flood.

Some perhaps may complain about the slightly blue tint, but I don't think it is bad though some slight color distortion may be a result. But more importantly, these two video's show no hint of a green tint that some have said was a detraction about the light to them.

MrGman said:

The integration sphere readings were taken Monday Morning 10-27-08
and are as follows:
EagleTac P10A2 = High 182 lumens, rock solid reading. Low 53.5 lumens. It is what it is.

Click to expand...

So at the moment of truth, I was kind of surprised that the number is actually that high, considering this is a 2xAA battery flashlight. Will the Sphere of Truth make any believers out of the EagleTac detractors from this thread??? Probably not. Most will claim **if they were even to respond to this thread** that they were speaking out about the "220" lumen's claim being false, but never mind that the emitter number has to be about that in order to get the 182 lumen's OTF. How about the disbeliever from this post? I would think "believer" should be the term.

In the final analysis, it is this kind of testing by MrGman that should become - I think - an absolute for flashlight manufacturers so as not to mislead the buying public in any way. In EagleTac's case, I think they would still sell just as many lights *and perhaps more* if they put the real lumen numbers on the packaging. Hell, who wouldn't buy a 182 lumen AA flashlight right now if they had the money?

Finally, I am wondering about the Low 53.5 lumen reading though...why is this number so much closer to the 60 lumen's claimed by Eagletac? The light has to go through the same reflector/lens combination as when on high...?

Thanks again to MrGman for doing these tests. Everybody becomes a better buyer when they have all the info. I look forward to the lumen spreadsheet...

Outdoors Fanatic said:

On the other hand, the EagleTac 2XCR123 beats the Malkoff M60 senseless.

Click to expand...

Is there a test out there I don't know about proving this??? Please tell me where to find it.

My psychic powers telling me I will be confirming or disproving that claim myself in the near future. The list of top secret projects just seems to get longer. :devil:

MrGman said:

Is there a test out there I don't know about proving this??? Please tell me where to find it.

My psychic powers telling me I will be confirming or disproving that claim myself in the near future. The list of top secret projects just seems to get longer. :devil:

Click to expand...

Yes, there is. It's called Integrating Wilderness. According to this ultra-reliable device, my P10C2 is brighter and throws further than the M60.

For the real answer, send your light in...it is, after all, the one that most here on CPF are wanting to find out about anyway.

Edited to add:

I also just noticed this here:

Operations
Two modes of output, selected by turning the bezel:
→ Turbo Mode: Constant 220 Lumens* regulates 1.5 hour to 50%
→ General Mode: Constant 60 Lumens* regulates 8 hours to 50%
Tactical tailcap switch with momentary-on function
Able to stand up securely on a flat surface to serve as a candle

*Lumens figures are measured at the LED


I don't recall this being on the site when I ordered the light, nor when I did my review on it. Perhaps they really are watching...

For some reason I am having a problem posting the pics directly as I normally do. This will have to do for now.

These are also not in the order I wanted, but it will have to be.

This is the Solarforce L2 Host with R2 single mode pill
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/556/solarforcer2fv0.jpg


This is the EagleTac 2AA

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8825/eagletacuo6.jpg


This is the Fenix L2D

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6210/fenixl2dkc1.jpg


The Fenix T1

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/296/fenixt1sd1.jpg


SureFire 6P with Malkoff M60

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3265/sf6pm60to6.jpg


Solarforce with Solarforce Q5 direct drive with 3.7V LI battery

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2554/solarforceq5dd37vhb8.jpg


Solarforce with Solarforce Q5 direct drive with 6V SF CR123 battery

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2230/solarforceq5dd6vsj3.jpg


Solarforce with Malkoff M60 Flood.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/2977/solarforcem60fyy1.jpg

The Fenix T1 has a wider beam than the Eagletac at the same distance. Working on a dual beam shot. The Eagletac crowds its energy into a smaller diameter which helps it to look closer to the brightness of the Fenix T1, at least for the spill portion.

I like this flashlight, my only dislike is that the button has to be depressed rather deeply and its hard to do with the crenelated guard around it in the normal overhand grip.

So I am going to ask some one to do me a favor and put these images all into one slide show that I have seen done for me.

To wacbzz. Thanks for the kind words, definitely an unbiased it is what it is test for all these lights.

Is now a good time to mention I sold it to the neighbor who was totally amazed for a mere $50???

One more good photo and its on its way back my friend. G

So looking at the numbers 220 rated lumens at the source, 182 lumens out is 82%. If you take the 295 rated lumens of the T10A2 2XCR123 and assume 82% efficiency for that you get 242 lumens out the front. That would be higher than anything I have measured thus far in a 1 CREE led form factor.

Extremely useful videos! Thank you. Seeing the Malkoff M60 in action was especially good to see.

Gman!!! Thankyou!!!! Sorry, I guess that's MR Gman to me!!! lol...

I wanted to comment on the video:

I can tell that the video was shot with a fixed exposure setting, (obviously required for any sort of flashlight comparison). I wanted to point out, that while there is a difference in total lumens coming from the front of these lights when measured, in actual use, as shown by the video, all of these lights really light up the targets very well. the difference between 150 and 250 lumen is not that big of a deal, beam profile, in the end, is more important, at this range, the M60F was more useful than any of them and that had more to do with the beam shape than the total output.

To reiterate what I have said many times before:

Pick a light based on beam profile within a range of appropriate output, don't worry too much about slight differences in lumens.

Eric

mdocod said:

Gman!!! Thankyou!!!! Sorry, I guess that's MR Gman to me!!! lol...

I wanted to comment on the video:

I can tell that the video was shot with a fixed exposure setting, (obviously required for any sort of flashlight comparison). I wanted to point out, that while there is a difference in total lumens coming from the front of these lights when measured, in actual use, as shown by the video, all of these lights really light up the targets very well. the difference between 150 and 250 lumen is not that big of a deal, beam profile, in the end, is more important, at this range, the M60F was more useful than any of them and that had more to do with the beam shape than the total output.

To reiterate what I have said many times before:

Pick a light based on beam profile within a range of appropriate output, don't worry too much about slight differences in lumens.

Eric

Click to expand...

the Videos as good as they were, still do not do justice to what we see with our eyes. the M60 flood is one heck of a light and it did make it easier to see all the targets more evenly, but all those bright lights had useful spill that really didn't show up as well due to the overwhelming nature of the high contrast ratio of hot spot to spill. I love my M60F, there is no question to that. What I wanted to add here, is that I am working on a series of filters that Gene Malkoff sent me. Some I have already published info about in my thread about the Malkoff Triple Drop and numerous beamshots of that with and without filters. I have some of those same filters to go over the M60 or any standard reflectorized pill that turns a spot light into a medium flood of your choice provided of course the bezel simply unscrews and you can drop it in front of the pill. More to come on that in another thread. So soon you will be able to have it both ways, with no messy sticky tapes or adhesives or "films" that may get gooey sticky. G

Wow. Great review! Very well put together,and i appreciate the ''no b#llsh#t here's what the light is putting out" facture.
Thanks for sharing,i hope you do some more.

Take care

mdocod said:

...To reiterate what I have said many times before:
Pick a light based on beam profile within a range of appropriate output, don't worry too much about slight differences in lumens.

Click to expand...

Excellent advice. I was starting to come to that realization, and you put it into words so well.