Disappointed with the XP-G...

Just from what I've seen in the Malkoff M61 and NiteCore Infilux, I'm not liking the XP-G R5 compared the the XR-E Q5/R2. I realize that in the case of the Malkoff it could primarily be the difference between the optic and the reflector. Is it just me, or is just more R&D time needed to perfect this emitter?

If you wanted more throw then yes its dissapointing, but expected.


The XP-G R5 I like because of how efficient and 300ish OTF lumens are easy to obtain at just 1A at the LED like the Eagletacs and M61's.

The only thing I dislike is that some have green tints and some have white tints. Oh, and they seem to not like 2A of current like my XR-E R2's.

Its a draw:touche:

Its pretty well documented up and down these halls that the XPG is better for flood and a smooth beam, while the XRE is best for throw. There are countless beamshot pics too.

I don't know how any CPF member could really be disappointed or caught off guard by this, at this point in time.

**EDIT** The great thing about the XPG is its lower Vf. Its extremely well suited for 7135 driver boards and 18650 cells, both are at their best at voltages above the XPG Vf. The XPG is superior to the XRE in terms of Lumens/Watt efficiency too... so you are getting more light from less wattage consumed.

Well I don't spend that much time on cpf to keep up, so that explains it. Will all XP-G's display these characteristics or could future bins perform differently?

XPGs have less surface brightness AND a larger emission angle. Its inherent in all XPGs so they will be the same the only thing future flux bins will change is the output. The upcoming XM chips will throw just as bad or even worse than the XPG. Bad time for throwers overall.

If your looking for something modern and as a thrower the only thing that comes close to the XRE is the SST50. The XRE has a 10deg edge on it, but the surface brightness is close from what I understand.

It has a lot to do with the larger die. 2mm^2 for the XP-G, as compared to 1mm^2 for the XR-E/XP-E die. Also throw in the larger viewing angle of the XP series, and you have a bright, smooth, floody output pattern.

Throw suffers when compared to the XR-E, because of a lower overall surface brightness...

Bins refer to the efficiency of the LED, not the die size or beam pattern characteristics.

The newer XRE dies; EZ900s are 0.9mm^2 so throw is improved.

The catch is that you have to find one...

Thanks for the info guys! I think for my dedicated weapons light and my all purpose light, I will stick with the XR-E's.

Jackyl said:

Thanks for the info guys! I think for my dedicated weapons light and my all purpose light, I will stick with the XR-E's.

Click to expand...

Try a Nailbender XR-E R2 at 1.3A potted in a smooth reflector. You will get nearly 300 OTF lumens = I tested one and its true.

Jackyl said:

Well I don't spend that much time on cpf to keep up, so that explains it. Will all XP-G's display these characteristics or could future bins perform differently?

Click to expand...

Future XPG BINs could perform differently. If its surface brightness ever matches that of the XRE-R2, without generating more heat.. Last point stressed for importance, traditionally surface brightness is accompanied by higher temperatures. Traditionally as temperature increases lumen output drops.... often times to the point of diminishing return.

So... to get more throw out of an XPG it will need a surface brightness increase without generating too much more heat.

Jackyl said:

Just from what I've seen in the Malkoff M61 and NiteCore Infilux, I'm not liking the XP-G R5 compared the the XR-E Q5/R2. I realize that in the case of the Malkoff it could primarily be the difference between the optic and the reflector. Is it just me, or is just more R&D time needed to perfect this emitter?

Click to expand...

I bet the Maelstrom XP-G throws further than a 6P with XR-E R2.

bigchelis said:

Try a Nailbender XR-E R2 at 1.3A potted in a smooth reflector. You will get nearly 300 OTF lumens = I tested one and its true.

Click to expand...

I've been looking for an excuse to buy an L2p. You just gave me one!

recDNA said:

I bet the Maelstrom XP-G throws further than a 6P with XR-E R2.

Click to expand...

FWIW... I played around with a malestrom XPG-R4 on a CPF night hike and I didn't think it out threw my Xtar TZ-20. The TZ20 has a slightly bigger/deeper reflector than a P60, and uses an XRE-R2. my particular TZ-20 did ~230L in the BC sphere.

The two were very close in terms of throw, A/B comparing them at ~100 yards.

recDNA said:

I bet the Maelstrom XP-G throws further than a 6P with XR-E R2.

Click to expand...

Not really a fair comparison the 6P is not designed for throw as the G5 was. The Tiablo A9 is nearly the same size and has about 60%+ more lux at 5m than the Maelstrom... Just saying apples to apples.

None of these lights look like they're meant to be throwers. If you want to state that "As advertised, the XP-G has a rather larger apparent die size and slightly higher surface brightness, along with wider emission angle" then feel free to. But accusing XP-G flashlight manufacturers of being treacherous and misleading in its throw is like buying my Geo Metro from me and being mad that it won't tow your boat.

If you want to check the throw of a light, look at lux and beamshots. If you're determined to buy lights before anyone else, know the general characteristics of the things in question. As posted above, expecting monster throw from a non-aspheric optic in a P60-sized lamp is unwise - especially when you know that it's built around the XP-G. Like the geo, it's meant for efficiency rather than laserlike output. One could argue that since lights are made for the LEDs (just ask Cree, they know the money's in fixed lighting), that work needs to be done on the flashlights, not the LED.




*The Geo Metro I have is a 1.0L 3 cylinder 5-speed.

AnAppleSnail said:

But accusing XP-G flashlight manufacturers of being treacherous and misleading in its throw is like buying my Geo Metro from me and being mad that it won't tow your boat.

If you want to check the throw of a light, look at lux and beamshots. If you're determined to buy lights before anyone else, know the general characteristics of the things in question. .

Click to expand...

How true and the Nitecore Infilux in it's instruction manuals states the "Effective illumination distance" = 220 meters, misleading does not even begin to describe this spec it's just wrong and should be corrected. They are about 140 meters off at best, I continue to have even more respect for the manufactures and dealers who give accurate specs for there light's.

For the OP I have tried several different XPG light's and of the those I think the best light output wise for me is the Eagletac T and P20C2 MKII with the textured reflectors, no they are not throwers but they are a couple XPG light's that do have a bit of a wow factor for me anyway.