Old vs New tech (a newbie review)

Review of...
MagCharger vs 3D Maglite vs EagleTac T20C2 vs 2XAA Mini Maglite vs NiteCore D10 vs iTP EOS A3

I've compared my collection, so casual flashlight users can get a quick and simple demonstration of how "old faithful" technology is getting crushed by the new kids on the block in terms of efficiency.

The lights for this review (click any thumbnails for full size images in a new window)...


Some info on the "exotic" lights.

MagCharger ($90) - ~8 years old and well used. Original NiCd battery pack.

EagleTac T20C2 ($50 on sale) Warm tint LED, Smooth Reflector. A newer, brighter version is available (MKII @ ~$90). Runs on either 2 x CR123 batteries, or 18650 Li-ion rechargeable. 15% brighter with CR123s, but runtime is half that of 18650. 3 output modes (High, med, low) + strobe.

NiteCore D10 Tribute Edition ($65) - Runs on single AA or 14500 Li-ion rechargeable. Brightness is exactly the same, but Li-ion has ~50% longer runtime. 2.5 ounces with battery. 2 quick access output modes (High and ultra low) and infinitely variable brightness ramp between.

iTP EOS A3 ($20) - Runs on single AAA. 3 modes (head twisty). 0.8 ounces with battery.

All beam-shots are taken with my Nikon D5000, 18 mm lens, f 9.0, ISO 800 (shutter speeds are next to thumbnails). Each flashlight had absolutely freshly charged batteries, EXCEPT those for the 3D-cell maglight, which are regular alkalines at approximately 75% charge. NiteCore D10 and EagleTac T20C2 are running Li-ion rechargeables. EOS A3 and Mini-Mag are running NiMH rechargeables.

The first image is a reasonable approximation of what the hallway looked like in real life, and the Maglite beams are all defocused to show their short range illumination capabilities. The other thumbnails with faster shutter speeds have the Maglite beams focused to give a better idea of long range performance and throw. Autobots and Decepticons included for scale.

Exp = 1/2 sec Exp = 1/8 sec Exp = 1/30 sec

The thing that is immediately obvious is the insane potency of the small Cree LED lights. The T20C2 is considerably more powerful than the MagCharger (especially at longer distances) and the little EOS A3 keychain light dominates the 3D-Maglite. The NiteCore D10 is only a hair less powerful than the MagCharger, yet it is 1/10th the size. The Mini-Mag basically didn't even make it to the game...

Secondly, the beam quality of the LED lights trounces the Maglites (and most other common incandescents). Smooth spill beams with a perfectly circular hotspot. Even the T20C2, with its smooth reflector for long throw has a pretty smooth spill with only minor rings.

Finally, what really sets the LEDs apart from the MagLites? Run times and output profiles... All run times below are "approximations" from gleaning manufacturer stats, CPF reviews, and Flashlightreviews.com.

All three Maglites have runtimes of ~1 hour to 50% output. More importantly, they have a sharp decline in brightness for the first 10 minutes (down to ~70% brightness), then steadily decline from there on. The LED lights have an initial slight drop, but then have a relatively steady output (~95% brightness) until they dramatically fall off to <10% brightness. This means that the time to 50% numbers listed below are weighted in favor of the Maglites over the LEDs, because the MagLites put off less light integrated over that time and their brightness at any given point in the run cycle is not nearly that of fresh batteries.

Run Times on Max.
Maglites ~1hr to 50%
EagleTac T20C2 (18650 Li-Ion) ~3 hrs to 50%
NiteCore D10 (14500 Li-Ion) ~1.3 hrs to 50%
iTP EOS A3 (NiMh AAA) ~1 hr to 50%

Comparing apples to apples...For the small lights, here are some beamshots at similar output levels. Note the run times.



At the same weight and length as the Mini-Mag, the T20C2 will only last a measly 7.5 days on low power (slightly brighter than MiniMag for 180x as long). The EOS A3 will run on medium mode (considerably brighter than Mini-Mag) for 3.5 hours, and it's 1/3 the size. I've left out the NiteCore D10 from this comparison because it has an infinitely variable "medium", so it would be impossible to directly compare run times unless I was to measure them myself at similar light levels. Suffice to say, it's about double the potency of the EOS A3, so I'm guessing it would put out Mini-Mag light levels for at least 10-15 hours.

It should also be noted that all three LED lights reviewed here are hard anodized aluminum, with O-ring seals and glass lenses. These lights will withstand at least as much abuse as any Maglite, and probably considerably more due to incandescent bulb failure.

Hope this enlightened (yuk! yuk!) those of you who are curious how old tech stacks up against new tech in the "real" world.

By using a well used eight year old battery pack in the Mag Charger and by not using fresh cells in the 3D Maglite, you effectively rendered your results with respect to those two lights meaningless. Changing up the lens focus of the Mags for the different beam shots also hurts the validity of your results.

Your review is a nice idea, but by design it is heavily biased to provide better results to the newer LED lights. For example, you only tested areas of strength for the LED lights. Add a test for full spectrum color rendition. Also, any real world test should take place outdoors, at least in part, since that is the environment bright flashlights are most often used in. The test also needs some non-MagLite incandescent models if you want to draw general conclusions about LED lights versus incan lights, i.e., if you want to "really put the nail in the incandescent coffin."

I can see this turning into an incan vs. led debate. That being said...

entoptics said:

...the beam quality of the LED lights trounces the Maglites (and any other incandescent I've read about). Smooth spill beams with a perfectly circular hotspot.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which incans you've read about and/or seen, but their are numerous incans with very desirable beam patterns.

EDIT: Here's just one example.

entoptics said:

Finally, what really puts the nail in the incandescent coffin? Run times and output profiles.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, things such as color rendition are desired over the benefits of LED's. I like LED's and incans. Different tools for different tasks.

I do agree with the responses made so far, BUT there is a few things to consider about this:
1: Maglites are pretty much the industry standard incandescent light, so yes, while there are very good ones that do a much better job, they are not nearly as prevalent. Secondly, I think the minimag vs the led lights was a very good comparison in the fact that everything, even the little keychain light blew it out of the water (and I've been debating on picking up that exact light for a while now, glad I didn't). Also, important to note is just how impressive the MagCharger lights up the hallway. It blew me away to see the first picture. Also, these pictures really made me appreciate the nitecore D10. That has a gorgeous beam.

I do think that there should have been more pictures with the mags in perhaps full flood, medium, and full throw settings.

So no, not a perfect test by any means, but it did show some nice things

JCD said:

By using a well used eight year old battery pack in the Mag Charger and by not using fresh cells in the 3D Maglite, you effectively rendered your results with respect to those two lights meaningless. Changing up the lens focus of the Mags for the different beam shots also hurts the validity of your results.

Your review is a nice idea, but by design it is heavily biased to provide better results to the newer LED lights.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have read the title of the thread more carefully.

Newbie Review.

i.e. it's from a newbie for newbies.

The review is heavily biased by the performance of the LED lights, not by anything I did. The information/conclusions in this review would not have changed meaningfully had I used new batteries in the big MagLites. Sorry if my review wasn't up to your standards. Please feel free to spend several hours of your own free time to make a review which proves that my overall conclusions aren't valid.

This was intended for folks who can't afford Surefires and drop in high performance bulbs, and who don't want to replace bulbs and batteries constantly. It's for people who just want reliable light when it's dark.

From my experience with the couple dozen uninformed but interested people I've shown my LED lights too, not a single one asked me about "accurate color rendition" other than to say "it's not as yellow as a normal flashlight".

Indeed, the results are skewed against the 3D-maglight, but I thought I effectively explained why the brightness/runtimes for maglites are so difficult to compare to LEDs anyway. What is more relevant, the light output for the first 5 minutes on new Alkaline batteries, or the light output for the other 90% of the useable runtime?

entoptics said:

Perhaps you should have read the title of the thread more carefully.

Newbie Review.

i.e. it's from a newbie for newbies.

The review is heavily biased by the performance of the LED lights, not by anything I did. The information/conclusions in this review would not have changed meaningfully had I used new batteries in the big MagLites. Sorry if my review wasn't up to your standards. Please feel free to spend several hours of your own free time to make a review which proves that my overall conclusions aren't valid.

Click to expand...

I applaud your effort; I just dispute the validity of your conclusions. Don't take it personally. The scientist in me has been trained to look for flaws in any experiment that might adversely affect the results or prevent the conclusions from being meaningful.

alright, let's try to put some constants in the bag, at the very least:


Maglite 3D Incan w/ Magnum Star Xenon Lamp 3x 'D' fresh alkaline cells

Eagletac T20C2 1x18650



Surefire P90 Dropin (Lumensfactory SP9 Host) 3xCR123A


Surefire P91 Dropin (Lumensfactory SP9 Host) 3xCR123A



this is plainly to have some beamshots to show.
dang.. I don't have a mag85 anymore..

Looking back on my original post, I realize that posters 1 and 2 may have specifically been offended by the bold-italic "Nail-coffin" cliche. Again, I must be clear that the target audience for this review is "average users". For those people, my observations indicate that incandescent lights seem to be obsolete. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

JCD said:

I applaud your effort; I just dispute the validity of your conclusions. Don't take it personally. The scientist in me has been trained to look for flaws in any experiment that might adversely affect the results or prevent the conclusions from being meaningful.

Click to expand...

I too am a scientist, and don't take it personally at all. I appreciate any useful feedback. I do however, maintain that the conclusions/observations in my review are still meaningful, even in the light of your criticisms, for the following reasons.

1) Old MagCharger Battery Pack - According to all sources I've found, a shiny new MagCharger is capable of 200-250 lumens. My T20C2 is said to be producing ~250 lumens (1st gen, Warm LED). My beam shots are consistent with this, so I don't see how a new battery pack would change my conclusion that the T20C2 puts out the same or more light for more than 3x as long. As I said in the review, the runtimes I quoted for ALL the test subjects are from reviews of new flashlights and manufacturer data. There is also no question that the T20C2 has a more uniform beam and better throw than the MagCharger.

2) Mildly used 3D-Cell Maglite Batteries. I think the test I did is actually favoring the other two Maglites with fresh batteries over the LEDs, and the 3D Cell light is actually the only one that is fair.

A fair comparison would be beam shots from all the lights after they've been on for 5, 10, 20, and 30 minutes. Obviously, this would require a significant amount of work and $3 worth of energizer D-cell batteries I didn't want to waste (I don't have D rechargeables, and for fairness I'd need to spend $20 on a new MagCharger pack).

Based on the runtime graphs I've seen around here (Selfbuilt?) and over at Flashlightreviews.com, I predict that the LED beamshots wouldn't change much in 30 minutes, but all three MagLites would actually be WAY dimmer than my beamshots show them to be for all but the first few minutes.

Unless you are willing to change your batteries after 15 minutes of use, I think my beamshots are actually biased towards the Maglites for real world use.

3) Focused vs Non-focused and outdoor beamshots. I specifically stated that the first series of slow exposure beamshots would reflect the "short range" capabilities of the lights, and that the shorter exposure beamshots were an analog to assess long range throw. In the interest of time and effort, I chose to use my hallway as a testing ground, because I don't have ready access to a 50 yd meadow with no light pollution. I'd say my beamshots are just as informative as the 1 meter wall hunting so common around here.

I'm genuinely interested in the "advantages" of incandescent lights, and perhaps other readers like myself (newbs and casual users) would be too. Please explain what capabilities incandescent lights have that makes an LED light's size, weight, durability, and efficiency advantages worth ignoring.

Anyway, sorry for all the novels, but I consider lighting an important "daily life" need, and it could potentially save lives in a disaster (like a cell phone or first aid kit). I just want to be sure this information is relevant, clear, and correct, since I may be passing it along to friends and family.

Shining various lights down a white painted hallway into a pale white tile bathroom is not going to illustrate the one major strength of incan lighting... CRI.

On a recent CPF night hike I had a Malkoff M60 and a Zebralight H501 headlamp and I flat out could not see a mud-soaked trail, and found myself (along with a couple other CFPers) standing in a shallow mud-patch from the recent spring rains. The low CRI of the cree XRE emitters failed to illustrate the textural differences between packed dirt and damp mud. All 3 of us kind of stood there... shell shocked that between the 3 of us we had nearly 1000 Lumens of LED lighting and none of us could see the textural or reflective difference between wet and dry packed dirt.

At that point I put the malkoff away and pulled out the SF-A2, and finished the hike with the Zebralight for near field and Surefire incan for farther down range.

Between my ROP and the AF-A2, I spent most of the night using incan lighting. It continues to be a superior lighting tool when used in the field. Incan lighting may be ancient and out-dated.... but its still miles head of LED lighting when it comes to CRI and surface texture resolution.

Thanks for the beamshots. Not sure what all the maglite mods are, but the EOS and T20C2 shots are extremely helpful to the review.
:twothumbs

I assume the CRI you mention is the color rendition index as described here?

That's an interesting anecdote regardless. I've camped, hiked, and tromped extensively with cold blue Princeton Tec Auroras for several years now, and used my T20C2 outdoors quite a bit since I got it (very warm tint compared to any other LED I've used though). I've never noticed the light quality to be lacking for navigation and identification. I wouldn't use it for photography necessarily, but finding a mud hole has never been a problem.

entoptics said:

For those people, my observations indicate that incandescent lights seem to be obsolete. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

Click to expand...

That would be an incorrect conclusion. Incandescent lights have their place, and in some cases are superior to LEDs (see the beam shots of the P90 & P91 above, as examples).

I don't see how a new battery pack would change my conclusion that the T20C2 puts out the same or more light for more than 3x as long.

Click to expand...

A new battery pack would allow you to compare apples to apples, so to speak. Using the older battery provides another plausible explanation for decreased brightness and efficiency.

There is also no question that the T20C2 has a more uniform beam and better throw than the MagCharger.

Click to expand...

We can't draw that conclusion with the Mag's beam unfocused in the pictures you claimed looked most real to life.

I think the test I did is actually favoring the other two Maglites with fresh batteries over the LEDs …

Click to expand...

How? According to you, the LED lights had fresh cells, one MagLite had a well used eight year old rechargeable battery, and another one had cells already partially used up. That certainly doesn't favor the MagLites. That's not even a level playing field.

Based on the runtime graphs I've seen around here (Selfbuilt?) and over at Flashlightreviews.com, I predict that the LED beamshots wouldn't change much in 30 minutes, but all three MagLites would actually be WAY dimmer than my beamshots show them to be for all but the first few minutes.

Click to expand...

Two things: First, no is disputing that LED lights tend to have longer runtimes.

Second, incandescent does not imply MagLite. Maglite is a popular department store brand, but they are in no way the pinnacle of incandescent flashlights. If the test uses MagLite exclusively to represent incandescents, it should use MagLite exclusively to represent LEDs. That's an apples to apples comparison. MagLite is still a popular department store brand. EagleTac is not. NiteCore is not.

If you want to use a variety of LED brands, then a variety of incandescent brands are required if the comparison is going to have any semblance of fairness.

Unless you are willing to change your batteries after 15 minutes of use, I think my beamshots are actually biased towards the Maglites for real world use.

Click to expand...

Indoor beam shots are not "real world."

3) Focused vs Non-focused and outdoor beamshots. I specifically stated that the first series of slow exposure beamshots would reflect the "short range" capabilities of the lights, and that the shorter exposure beamshots were an analog to assess long range throw.

Click to expand...

Describing the beam shots does not make them meaningful.

I'd say my beamshots are just as informative as the 1 meter wall hunting so common around here.

Click to expand...

Which is to say that they offer little information that is important in the real world.

I'm genuinely interested in the "advantages" of incandescent lights, and perhaps other readers like myself (newbs and casual users) would be too. Please explain what capabilities incandescent lights have that makes an LED light's size, weight, durability, and efficiency advantages worth ignoring.

Click to expand...

Incans tend to offer more detail, because they provide full spectrum light. Since objects only reflect colors that are in the beam to begin with in the real world, more objects will reflect back a greater percentage of the light we shine on them with a full spectrum beam than with typical LED beams, which contain fewer different wavelengths of light.

If colored filters are needed for a particular task, incandescents are a much better choice, because filters work by removing light. A red filter, for example, doesn't convert the light to red; it filters out all of the light that isn't red. So if the beam doesn't have much red light, then there won't be much light that makes it through the filter.

In nature, colors on the warmer end of the spectrum seem to be more prevalent than cooler colors. Consequently, more warmer colors should be reflected back. But those warm colors can't be reflected back if they aren't in the beam to begin with. LED beams tend to contain fewer of these warm colors than incandescent lamps.

For example, I have a SureFire C2 with a P91 incandescent lamp assembly and IMR cells, and I have a SureFire 6P (same form factor as the C2) hosting a Cree MC-E (cool white) drop-in running on LiCo cells. Both lights produce in the neighborhood of ~350 OTF lumens. On white walls, the two lights appear to be about the same brightness. Outside in the real world, there's no comparison. The P91 seriously outclasses the MC-E with respect to illumination. More light is reflected back, and thus I see objects with better detail and more true to life colors.

Of course, the run time of the P91 is one-fourth or less of the runtime of the MC-E. In that respect, the P91 is seriously outclassed. My solution? When I need to balance brightness and runtime, but beam quality isn't a priority, I grab the MC-E. When I want brightness and beam quality, but runtime isn't a priority, I grab the P91.

They are different tools for different tasks. One thing is certain, the MC-E certainly doesn't "put a nail in the incandescent coffin."

Anyway, sorry for all the novels, but I consider lighting an important "daily life" need, and it could potentially save lives in a disaster (like a cell phone or first aid kit). I just want to be sure this information is relevant, clear, and correct, since I may be passing it along to friends and family.

Click to expand...

Imagine you're hiking through the wilderness at night. You'd really like to be able to see things like venomous snakes. However, such things can be hard enough to spot in broad daylight, with their natural camouflage patterns. Which would you rather have, 150 lumen incandescent light or a 180 lumen LED?

Personally, In that situation, I'd want the incan. The full spectrum beam is going to offer up more detail. Of course, in such a situation, I'd have extra cells, and (at a minimum) a back up LED light, just in case runtime suddenly becomes a priority. But, if everything goes according to plan, I've got more than enough cells to keep using the incan.

On the other hand, I use my lights while cycling. For that, I've been using LED lights exclusively. I need bright, and I need long runtime. I tend to turn my lights on bright and run them until the cells are drained. Then I swap in some fresh cells and run them some more. I might go through 12-15 cells in a single night ride. I only have one incandescent setup that would even be remotely practical in such an application. (Note: I'm considering trying out a rechargeable incan setup, 2 stock SF 9Ps with P90 lamp assemblies and 2x P17500 cells), to see if it can be practical on my longer rides.)

There's no best kind of light for all applications. For some things, incans are superior. For other things, LEDs are clearly the best choice. And for still other tasks, it doesn't make a difference either way. For those tasks, some people default to hot wires, while others default to LEDs. I'm in the former group.

JCD said:

Indoor beam shots are not "real world."

Click to expand...

What? What's the ratio of the time you use your light indoors to outdoors? I'm willing to bet it's greater than 1. Even if it's not for you (do you live in a tent?), it is for many people here, and even more so for newbies, which is what this review was intended for in the first place.

Don't forget the whole point of this review. It's for newbies. This would actually have been a great help for me when I had no idea what an XP-G or Cree was.

:twothumbs

Well, I can see why this review was done. To be honest, the best comparison of "Old" and "New" tech would be a Maglite (incan) 2D vs. MagLED 2D or similar, with the same fresh batteries. I'm sure that the MagLEDs would still put the incan Maglites to shame.

I say this because the "average" guy who buys a maglite would also potentially buy a MagLED.

And while this is the case, I think what people would take offense in is the "incandescent" generalization from Mags. Keep in mind that the incan mags here are A LOT cheaper than the LED lights you compared them to.

As for me, I really enjoy my Incans (I run a modded Mag85 2D which blasts almost everything out there), but I do think that for the average user, most LED lights would really show how much things have improved since the "old tech" days.

(I think, to me, there's "Old incan" tech -i.e. Maglites, and then there's "New incan" tech - i.e. Surefires/halogen lamps/Li-Ion/regulated drivers. Similarly, there's "Old LED" tech - i.e. dim/horrible 5mm blue LEDs/showerheads, and "New LED" tech - i.e. regulation, hi power LEDs, Li-Ion. In this review, you compared Old incan tech w/ old battery tech to New LED tech w/ new battery tech. That's fine by me, but knowing that would draw slightly different conclusions)

lunchboxtheman said:

What? What's the ratio of the time you use your light indoors to outdoors?

Click to expand...

Maybe 1:10. Possibly 1:100 or less. It's nowhere near one. Indoors, I typically use the lowest output light I have ('cause it's in my pocket), which is currently a Coast LED Lenser MiniTac, for just a few seconds at a time. Outdoors, I might burn through a dozen or more cells a night, 2-3 nights each week, plus a few more throughout the rest of the week.

Thought I'd post up some images to help illustrate the difference between LED and incan CRI. Tree is at 35 feet, and scattered my kids crap out against the side fence. I used the auto ISO setting on my camera, in an attempt to equalize the brightness levels, and eliminate brightness as much as possible from the equation. The brightest lights are in the 1200-1500L range and the dimmest are around 160L.

Take note of the brown colors in all the pics. The fence is ~25 years old and is a heavy brown/red rust color, which the incans render far superior. In the LED pics the brown/red wood tones appear more dull gray... almost black and white, which (more importantly than the camera) is how I personally see them.

In this example form left to right:
1-DX-MCE P60 module, M-flux bin, WC tint
2-6P-Malkoff M60
3-DX-XRE P60 module, Q2-flux bin, 5A tint
4-Xtar D30, 3xMCE, WC tint
5-SF-M2 (beamshot came out blurry, and is not shown below)
6-MAG ROP 3853-H
7-MAG 1185
8-55W, 12V Halogen incan spotlight

All lights were used with fresh/healthy cells, topped off out of the charger.

JCD said:

Maybe 1:10. Possibly 1:100 or less. It's nowhere near one. Indoors, I typically use the lowest output light I have ('cause it's in my pocket), which is currently a Coast LED Lenser MiniTac, for just a few seconds at a time. Outdoors, I might burn through a dozen or more cells a night, 2-3 nights each week, plus a few more throughout the rest of the week.

Click to expand...

You certainly get some good outdoor use of your lights (I do too for that matter, but not that much . The thing I took issue with is your statement that indoor beamshots are not 'real world'. They are most certainly very important for many people.

Anyway, I don't like where this thread is going so I'm going to refrain from posting anymore. This 'review' isn't without it's faults, but I take it for what it is, a newbie review that introduces some of the benefits of LED technology (of which I think it does a good job). I'm not going to criticize anyone because their review isn't up to scientific publication standards.

Entoptics, thanks for the review. I had no idea the ITP A3 was so much brighter than the 3D mag incan. I might just have to get one now (there goes my money again).

Kramer5150, that xtar D30 =

oops double

lunchboxtheman said:

You certainly get some good outdoor use of your lights

Click to expand...

I just wish I got to spend more time using my incans.

entoptics said:

From my experience with the couple dozen uninformed but interested people I've shown my LED lights too, not a single one asked me about "accurate color rendition" other than to say "it's not as yellow as a normal flashlight".

Click to expand...

I'm with you. As a non-flashaholic I don't have any "new tech" incandescent torches, just my thirty year old maglites and I don't think any of my maglites renders colours accurately, they just paint everything with a yellow/orange hue just like the incandescent light bulbs in my lounge room and the headlights on my 1966 Valiant do. Yuk.

As a comparison of what people like me had to put up with in the "old-tech" days to what I have now (led's) you've "nailed" it.

oh...and as for doing the maglite comparo with half flat batteries, well, with no rechargeables and no cheap alkalines, half flat batteries are exactly what I remember having to deal with most of the time back "then" so it's a damned apt comparison if you ask me.................