xpg- has it met up to the hype?

I recently received the a couple of xpg's from cutter and replaced one of my r2's emitters. It looked nice but I didn't notice a huge difference or improvement. I knew the difference would be negligible, but I guess I was hoping for a little more. I have looked at a quite of few xpg mods and their beamshots over the last few weeks and I said to myself, the difference is barely noticeable. Fellow members have been talking about this led for months. Maybe I have become spoiled with amount of progress led's have made in last couple of years. So what do you think, has the wait for this emitter lived up to it's chatter and hype?

hype? huh.. no offense, but, I don't really see how it's been hyped all that much.. cree has released almost all information you can get about these emitters, through datasheets, etc. There actually isn't all that much room for speculation.

Well, none of us have pushed there hard enough yet, so we can't tell.

I thought it was the reduction in the prevelance of 'cree rings' to be the main improvement with the release of the XPG.

James....

I think the big difference shows at higher drive levels. Beam wise, it's a slight step forward from the XR-E's rings, but a slight step backward from the smaller apparent die size of the XP-E, so I think that the XP-G beam and max current wise is a compromise between the XP-E and XR-E.

Now if I remember correctly, the 'G has a higher CRI, so I'd assume if it had the same CRI as an 'E, the efficiency difference would be higher.

I don't think I'll be getting one until they roll out the neutrals.

So far, for me the smoothness and evenness of the hotspot-to-spill transition is the most striking difference.

At least when comparing the XP-E to XP-G Quarks.

this perhaps belong in the LED forum section and not LED flashlight forum.

Efficiency has been improved, but think i can see the manufactures seems to be hitting a wall in terms of increasing the output/emitter sizer ratio. I just made that term up, but i think you guys get what i mean.

Like the new higher powered leds that been coming out lately do have greater output and greater efficiency, but they all are consistently bigger in surface area as well. e.g. MC-E, SST, and XP-G.

This results in lights with less throw in general which to me is disappointing. But then, from numerous anecdotes, more people seems to actually has more (reali life) use with floody lights than throwy lights.

So for people who knows nothing and think newer leds = everything improves (including throw), you're in for a lot of disappointment.
For the informed ones, they know almost exactly what to expect.

berry580 said:

this perhaps belong in the LED forum section.

Click to expand...

Umm, it is.

With the same reflector, the XP-G should have a wider hotspot due to the larger emitting area, which could also make the output seem less.

My main interest with this LED would be in a P60 drop-in.

The homebrew ones I've seen so far have not impressed me so far from a beamshot perspective (more flood less throw).

Hopefully that will change when XP-G specific reflectors show up.

Yes and No ...

I think with a 1A driver they will be outstanding ..
If you drive them harder , then heat will be a issue , and performance will sag to the point overdriving them may very well be pointless .

Im still waiting on a 1A buck boost driver I want to use with one of the R5's .

berry580 said:

Efficiency has been improved, but think i can see the manufactures seems to be hitting a wall in terms of increasing the output/emitter sizer ratio. I just made that term up, but i think you guys get what i mean.

Click to expand...

I think the term you're looking for is 'surface brightness'...but 'output/emitter sizer ratio' has a certain ring to it

There are at least one or two threads on the topic of how LEDs technology might have trouble increasing surface brightness - search the term, some good reading there.

fiorano said:

So far, for me the smoothness and evenness of the hotspot-to-spill transition is the most striking difference.

At least when comparing the XP-E to XP-G Quarks.

Click to expand...

The XP-G is more smooth and even than the XP-E?

I was under the impression, and I maybe dead wrong, that the XP-G should handle being over driven better than a XR-E or XP-E when it comes to efficiency. Meaning a XP-G at 1.5A may not drop as much as a XR-E at 1.5A when it comes to efficiency, due to the larger die area. Maybe someone can comment on this and let me know if this is correct or not.

The main advantage of the XP-G over the XR-E is no more Cree rings and more lumens. While the XP-G will throw less and produce a larger hot spot that is either an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what you want your flashlight to do. Many of us welcome a more diffused beam. If we want throw we can go with XP-E or XR-E, or maybe XP-G with a large reflector, and driven hard.

fiorano said:

Umm, it is.

Click to expand...

at the moment, this thread is in the LED Flashlights forum, not the LED forum.
the LED forum is dedicated to the discussion of the emitters themselves,and the rest is self explanatory.

I've just replaced the Q5 of my aspheric Tiablo A8 with a R5 and was very disappointed with the result. The light was dimmer than before, and it took me a while to figure out why. The XPG has a far greater angle of illuminance, and so more light in total was emitted but a lot of it was wasted by not hitting the lens.

I put the original OP head back on and it's now a great flashlight - a bright, wide hotspot with a smooth transition to spill.

Rob

I guess most lights designed for XR-E can´t be upgraded with a XP-G, at least not if you expect a reasonable result. I tried my luck with a Fenix L2D (XR-E) and was dissappointed. I could only get a decent hotspot when the reflector base was some millimeters above the XP-G which lead to losing some light to the sides. What indeed worked pretty fine was an upgrade of a Fenix P3D with a Rebel LED. Obviously a Luxeon Rebel is similar enough to the Cree XP family. The hotspot got a bit bigger, but´s perfecty usable and the total output has gone up noticeable ... now the P3D XPG ist my EDC again .

I think the XP-G is a great improvement over the XR-E, no rings, can be driven harder, and contrary to what most say with the right reflector (and positioning) is a very good thrower I did a mod driving a XP-G R5 at 1.4A and the result is outstanding.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/246402

hmm, if there really will be no difference, I will be disappointed also
(by now I have not ordered, because of the 7500 K light color)

I thought that:
XR-E @ 1A ~200 lm otf
XP-G @ 1A ~300 lm otf