• expired

Wuben E7 Mini Rechargeable Dual LED Flashlight (1800lm, USB-C) $23.09 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/$59 Spend) @ Newlight Amazon AU

580
Wuben E7 Mini Rechargeable Dual LED Flashlight (1800lm, USB-C) $23.09 + Delivery ($0 with Prime/$59 Spend) @ Newlight Amazon AUAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
hamza23 on 21/10/2024 - 10:17 amazon.com.au (2115 clicks)
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

All time low, previously $32.99 for this black version or $26.87 for Khaki colour.

Thanks to Clear for title and info:

This one has two cool white Osram P9 6500K emitters and it's able to produce up to 1800lm of brightness for the first minute before dropping down. The other modes are high (400lm), medium (150lm), low (5lm), as well having strobe and SOS. It has a magnetic base and a clip for mounting, IPX8 water resistance recharges via USB-C.

There's additional accessories (not included) like a battery extender allowing you to use an 18650 battery instead of 18350, a headband strap and a motion sensor for toggling the light on the strap.

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Electrical & Electronics 1800lm Torch Wuben

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Newlight AU
Newlight AU

Comments

  • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 10:32
    +1

    up to 1800lm of brightness

    We need better laws against marketing BS.
    Telling us a theoretical max, and not what it can ACTUALLY do, is going to catch people out, thinking it can do 1800 Lumen, and not understand the 'up to'.

    This isnt the posters issue; its the damn storefront.

    high (400lm)

    Knowing a little about custom drivers for LED's; If thats the usual 'high' I'd bet the 'Super Bright' would fall more around the 1200lm or so.

    • m9 on 21/10/2024 - 10:40
      +1

      They claim it's 1800lm for the first minute then 800lm for the second before ramping further down to 400lm.

      • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 10:50
        +4

        Yes, that was the issue I was taking. They're not subtle about it.
        A product table with "The data may be different" isn't inspiring.
        Also numbers being 'based on' a standard, not following a standard, is another common "Issue".

        A true 1800lm is 2/3rds as bright as a home cinema projector.

        They're still amazingly bright lights, and are a brilliant product. I actually like them; but I've worked in lighting before; and there's no way this could replace your 'Eco Mode' projector bulb. If it can, they've revolutionised the theatre industry.

        Marco has been testing lights for more than 15 years with a standard metholdology;

        https://1lumen.com/review/wuben-e7/#performance

        shows it's 10% below its claimed values, and almost 20% below at only 30 seconds runtime.

        As I said; great product anyway, but I dislike marketing BS.

        • Bacons on 22/10/2024 - 03:14

          the projector comparison tells me everything about how little you know

    • theguyrules on 21/10/2024 - 10:56
      +1

      I think the listing is pretty clear about its output to be honest.

      • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 11:11

        I think it's pretty clear about it's claims.

        But it's output falls short by almost a full 20% over the course of the 'first minute' claims.
        https://imgur.com/a/AVRtVe2

        • theguyrules on 21/10/2024 - 11:16

          According to that reviewers testing, sure.

          • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 11:23
            +3

            @theguyrules: With 15 years experience; Marco is as close to a standardised independant tester as we can get, in the flashlight nerd world.

            Just a personal thing, but I'm always more inclined to trust independant reviewers, than "Wuben Laboratory" when rating a "Wuben" light, using tests "based on", rather than adhering to, a standard; Resulting in a table that literally states the data may be wrong.
            Thats not the type of data that floats my nerd boat.

            • m9 on 21/10/2024 - 11:43

              @MasterScythe: We've investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

        • Prong on 21/10/2024 - 13:58

          As far as I have seen for Wuben etc, the Lumens rating given is the LED rating at the designed peak voltage and amperage or lumen measurements of the bare LED before optics.

          The measured rating typically given in reviews is the measured lumens after optics losses – which can be around 20% for a TIR lens – and any variations in LED / driver efficiency and battery voltage. The 1lumen review does not state if it measures the lumen output as full torch or bare LED – I presume the former based on the review, and how it's typically done. As such, it is expected to be less than the LED lumen rating.

          In an ideal world, you'd want to do something like a bare LED lumen test at a specific voltage and current using a known LED driver. Then do the same with the torch LED driver. Then do the same two tests with the LEDs in the optics, and see how efficienct the optics are. And do so to multiples of the same torch to see how much variance there is.

          Beam distance is a rating given based on after optics output of the torch. It's a similar underlying concept as ANSI lumens for projectors – the actual light output of the torch in a useful metric (beam distance). Some reviews measure this, some don't, and others do short range measurements and calculate the rating. I suspect that most manufacturers also mostly do the later.

          And none of this is to say the manufacturers are often extremely unclear about the ratings given, and often the rating listed is for one colour temp and not others. It would be great if they had a very standarised system – the same for reviewers.

          • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 16:49

            @Prong:

            the Lumens rating given is the LED rating at the designed peak voltage and amperage or lumen measurements of the bare LED before optics.

            That would make it false then, as I said.
            Their chart specifically says ANSI FL1.
            https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0281/0203/3487/files/E7__1…
            https://www.led-resource.com/ansi-fl1-standard/
            Which is used to measure a finished flashlight, including optics

            Thats like advertising an engines horsepower based on BTU's of raw exploded gasoline.

            • Prong on 22/10/2024 - 07:10

              @MasterScythe: I'm not defending the manufacturers here - just saying what I've observed.

              I can't speak to if they are compliant with ANSI FL 1 or not, as it's not a publically available standard. And none of the information I've seen gives the specific methodology in the standard of how lumens need to be measured. If you have that, please do share.

              Aside from lumen unknowns, it's a standard with flaws that allows scope for manufacturers to be compliant with it but still provide information that may be misleading. EG, run times. It would not surprise me if the lumen measurement methodology has similar scope for potentially misleading numbers. Or that some manufacturers fudge the numbers.

    • Clear on 21/10/2024 - 11:19
      +4

      1lumens is reputable and they tested it. Obviously others may get different results depending on their test setup but gives you a general idea.

      Turn on was 1668lm, 1491lm after 30 seconds and 374lm after 10 mins.

      • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 11:27

        Thank you for backing me up; exactly the review I also posted :) Marco is a good dude.
        Someone further down the comments (Tim Mc) also did another independant review down below, and got similar numbers to Marco.

        Fantastic light; but at best 10% below rating; and realistically, at only 30 seconds, close to 20% below.

        As I said, it was the marketing I had issue with, not the product.
        If they just said "1600lm" they'd be getting reviewer gold stars for exceeding it.

        • Clear on 21/10/2024 - 11:41

          Sorry I missed your comment further down with the review.

          These are kinda like power banks. 10000mAh isn't the true capacity when you convert to the correct voltage and take into account the loss and efficiency.

          • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 11:50
            +1

            @Clear: The difference here, is that in the example of a power bank, the rating is based on a literal internal component.
            I dislike that marketing too; but it's at least, in some way, correct.
            They're rating the product at an 'intermediate' step rather than the final step; I don't like it, but it's still based on reality.

            A Lumens rating is, by definition, the final output of this product.
            They can't measure it 'internally' and claim another number. This is why 2 different independant testers are getting very similar results.

            1600lm is impressive, its why I said it was a good product. But I stand by my statement of calling the marketing "bs", because I feel consumers could easily be tricked into expecting '1800lm for 1 minute' - And its down by nearly 20% of that at 30seconds!

            Plus (repeating myself from above) people not used to data analysis might miss the fact that their chart is 'based on' (not adhering to) a standard test methodology; and it literally then says "data may be different".

            I consider charts where the testing had loose rules, and further warns that the data isnt solid, to be "bs", and at a high risk of misleading consumers.
            Just not my jam.

            • Prong on 21/10/2024 - 14:22

              @MasterScythe: Wrote more on this in another comment but @Clear is correct with the power banks comparison.

              Lumens is the output of the LED. Reviewers measure the lumens after spec / efficiency variations and losses in the optics.
              Just like measuring the actual mAh output by a power bank, vs the cell rated mAh.

              • MasterScythe on 21/10/2024 - 16:41

                @Prong: I don't understand how, I'm sorry.
                To me, you're comparing 2 dissimilar measurements.
                You're comparing the final output on one device, and an internal specification on another.

                The output of a powerbank is advertised in Watt Hours. "mAh" has always been the capacity of the 3.4~3.7v cell.
                I genuinely don't think I've seen a brand-name powerbank missing this information.

                If I plug a 3.3v device into my powerbank (something like an LED light, or an Arduino), using common USB-C PPS, I'd expect to get the advertised 10Ah from the cell, or I'd happily call its advertising BS too.

                If I wanted to boost it to 5V? I'd still expect the 34Wh (6.8Ah, minus a bit for boost losses) Since I'm operating above it's native advertised voltage.

                In comparison:

                This light has advertised it's Internal component as an 'Osram P9'.
                These usually manage a nice round 1000lumen when A grade (Educated guessing on this bit; but I'd say they're doing the 'right thing' and advertising B grade as 900lm per diode and multiplying it by 2; which 'mostly' works when calculating Luminous Flux).

                However, they've then specifically advertised the output stage, as a number 18% higher than reality. (even labeling it as ANSI FL1, which means optics and all).

                As an everday consumer, I can draw 10'000mAh out of said powerbank with any 3.3v off the shelf device, but I can't draw 1800Lm out of this torch.

                To compare them like for like; You'd need to say

                "10'000mAh powerbank" : "1800Lm worth of diodes" - as these are both component specifications.
                Otherwise
                "34Wh of Capacity" : "1600Lm of Output" - As these are both the final output stages of each device.

                • Prong on 22/10/2024 - 08:24

                  @MasterScythe: Wh listed on power banks is just the cell Ah times nominal voltage, not output Wh. Nominal cell voltage is given by the manufacturer of the cell based on the chemistry and construction, and is for a specific charge and discharge methodology. The same cell will have different rated capacities for different charge and discharge profiles.

                  The nominal voltage is typically the voltage of the cell at 50% capacity. For common lithium ion cells, 3.7V is a good enough approximation, but it's often slightly different. Some power bank manufacturers include the nominal voltage used to calculate the Wh.

                  Output Wh is calculated from logging the output current and voltage over time. It's not the same as the Wh rating on the power bank. Some power banks give a rated output capacity. I've only seen that given in mAh.For example the above linked power bank also gives the nominal capacity in mAh at a specific voltage and current output.

                  You won't ever get the full cell capacity from a power bank due to efficiency losses in the voltage conversion. EG at 3.3v output the power bank needs to step down the cell voltage most of the time.

                  Measured output Wh also depends on the discharge rate. The manufacturer ideally uses cells able to give the rated capacity at the maximum output wattage of the power bank. Many cheap power banks don't do this, and use underrated cells.

                  As an everday consumer, I can draw 10'000mAh out of said powerbank with any 3.3v off the shelf device, but I can't draw 1800Lm out of this torch

                  To get 10,000 mAh in this example, you need to open the power bank and connect directly to the cells, and use the specific charge / discharge methodology for the rated capacity. If you measure after the voltage conversion, or using a different methodology, you won’t get the rated 10,000 mAh.

                  This is equivalent to getting 1800 lumens from a torch by measuring using the specific methodology the manufacturer uses. From what I have seen, for many of the affordable torches, the lumens given appear to be bare LED, and reviewers typically measure lumens after the optics.

                  Optics losses are very comparable to measuring power banks capacity before and after voltage conversion losses.

                  That’s not to say all manufacturers do this, or that some aren’t just lying about the numbers. The same is true for the manufacturers of cheap power banks - the cell ratings are often incorrect, or they are misleading, such as using cells that can’t give the rated capacity at the max (or even typical) output of the power bank.

                  ANSI FL1, which means optics and all

                  Do you have a source where the actual ANSI FL1 standard can be read?

                  • MasterScythe on 22/10/2024 - 09:12

                    @Prong: I can easily pop the 18650s out of my powerbank if I want the cells. I rotate them often; but i realise not all banks are like that.

                    But even if I dont, I accept that if I want to use anything other than the raw DC barrel jack, there will be a converter that will include losses.

                    Im still not convinced there is any way to get this flashlight to show 1800 lumen final output without a soldering iron.

                    You can purchase the doumentation here.

                    https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ansi/ansiplatofl2019

                    Otherwise, since we cant talk about piracy here, you'll have to trust someone paraphrasing it.

                    https://specialisedlightingandtorches.com.au/decoding-ansi-f…

                    The biggest take away is that its designed for measuring finished torches, not diodes.

                    • Prong on 22/10/2024 - 14:15

                      @MasterScythe:

                      Im still not convinced there is any way to get this flashlight to show 1800 lumen final output without a soldering iron.

                      Unscrew the cover, take the lens out and measure the bare LED. It's no more difficult than taking the cells out of a power bank. Easier really, in most cases.

                      The torch uses an affordable TIR lens with frosted sections – I'd be very surprised if the optical efficiency was more than 80%. Considering the peak tailcap amps and the Osram P9 lumen per watt efficiency, I suspect the bare LED would easily exceed 1800 lumens at peak and the optical efficiency is significantly lower than 80%.

                      The comparison to power banks is quite straightforward. Voltage conversion efficiency losses and lens optical efficiency losses.

                      The biggest take away is that its designed for measuring finished torches, not diodes.

                      That source, like all the others I have seen, does not give the testing methodology. The intent of the ANSI FL1 standard may well be to test torches with the optics installed, but that might not be how it's actually written and if so, it may be possible for manufactures to be technically compliant measuring bare LED lumens.

                      It's a bit of a moot point anyway, because the standard is of lesser importance than the actual measured outputs from reviewers. That's what matters real world. There's no point worrying about a standard with known flaws that's not willing to make its details publicly available.

      • harshbdmmaster718 on 21/10/2024 - 17:21

        Turn on was 1668lm, 1491lm after 30 seconds and 374lm after 10 mins.

        I don't know enough to respond to some other comments but when I was reading up on torches I remember they said the battery inside matters a lot. like the battery is half the functioning torch, and most LED will perform to spec if the battery is within spec. and a lot of these budget torches will include a cheaper battery or old stock so the performance of it becomes reduced because it hasn't been charged for so long.
        so reduced voltage from cheaper older battery = slight drop in brightness.

        that's what the comments I read said anyway and they said with typically Sofirn, Wuben, Wurkkos you should expect slightly lower lumens than stated because of the battery.

        • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 17:26

          They should be publishing specifications based on the included battery. Some manufacturers are way off while some are pretty accurate.

          You may be able to get more lumens with a battery capable of a higher continuous discharge rate. The capacity of those cells is usually smaller so the runtime ends up being shorter.

          You could look for a battery with a higher capacity. The runtime may be longer. E.g. 18650 3.7V Li-ion 4000mAh.

          • harshbdmmaster718 on 21/10/2024 - 17:31

            @Tim Mc:

            They should be publishing specifications based on the included battery.

            yes but sadly not the case apparently. I am guessing not everyone "measures" their torch brightness. I saw a youtube video of a guy who had proper brightness testing setup, it was like a long winding white pipe tube with sensor at the bottom and the flashlight goes up at the top. I don't think many people will spend the time to setup that. 😂 which is why some brands probably know this and advertise slightly exaggerated spec.

            Some manufacturers are way off while some are pretty accurate.

            yeah so the accurate brands are more expensive right? makes sense they will include a higher quality battery that will be healthy for longer.

            as a normie consumer (who I think budget brands are marketing too) who probably couldn't tell the difference, 1668 lumen is close enough to 1800 lumen and it wouldn't affect it's use. the problem I have with the spec is more that maximum brightness can only last a few seconds or minutes, so I see the torch as a few hundred lumen torch. usable runtime so 400lm for 1.5 hours (I would only use it to look for things in and out the house at night) or some people might think 150lm for 4.5 hours.
            there are cheapo ones on amazon claiming 100000lm that's ridiculous though I don't think anyone falls for that.

            • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 18:58

              @harshbdmmaster718:

              I saw a youtube video of a guy who had proper brightness testing setup, it was like a long winding white pipe tube with sensor at the bottom and the flashlight goes up at the top.

              I tried to make a bit of a tutorial for building a lumen tube so that people can DIY:
              https://timmcmahon.com.au/posts/big-lumen-tube/

              I just test torches for the fun of it.

              the problem I have with the spec is more that maximum brightness can only last a few seconds or minutes,

              I wish that manufacturers would get together and make up a better standard than ANSI/PLATO FL1 2009. Some game the system by getting the driver to last 31 seconds at 1 million!!1 lumens and then drop to 100 lumens.

              1668 lumen is close enough to 1800 lumen

              Yeah, it's going to look visually very similar. The difference isn't that big.

              • harshbdmmaster718 on 21/10/2024 - 20:23

                @Tim Mc:

                I just test torches for the fun of it.

                actually surprised. out of all the users. I commented about testing in reply to you. 🤣

                Some game the system by getting the driver to last 31 seconds at 1 million!!1 lumens and then drop to 100 lumens.

                yeah but it’s similar in many other products. marketing is targeting consumers. they can make money that way.

              • harshbdmmaster718 on 25/10/2024 - 19:44

                @Tim Mc: hi TimMc can I ask you a question?

                I just got my Olight i3E EOS and compared it to my osram torch which I mistakenly said low is 250lm but it's actually 150lm at the low setting (only 2 settings 500lm, 150lm).

                and during the day (afternoon) indoors, I could tell quite a difference in brightness between the two. definitely the i3E was more spot lighty + a bit darker and the osram led torch was flood lighty + a bit brighter. but now in darkness, the i3E appears more flood lighty compared to before, and the osram appears the same as in the afternoon. when I compare them in the dark they appear very similar in brightness. I'm using eneloop pro AAA in the i3E EOS so it should be 85lm about half the brightness of the osram 150lm. but in darkness they appear very similar almost identical in brightness. actually the i3E appears more bright in the centre, but both seem to be similar with wide angle of light. is this normal? it's just contrast playing tricks on me?

                • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 26/10/2024 - 11:05

                  @harshbdmmaster718: Does your osram torch have a smooth reflector? The beam might have a sharper cut off for the spill. The outer part will cut off suddenly while on the i3E the TIR optic may have a smoother beam.

                  • harshbdmmaster718 on 26/10/2024 - 15:47

                    @Tim Mc: can't remember I will check when it gets dark thanks.

                  • harshbdmmaster718 on 26/10/2024 - 19:29

                    @Tim Mc: ok I think it's dark enough indoors and thanks yeah it helped to look at what you suggested.

                    holding both at identical distance from wall. Olight i3E EOS has a slightly larger and brighter center spot, and the surrounding area is a lot darker than the Osram torch but it also drops off very smoothly and evenly, so it's a bit harder to see because it fades out.

                    the Osram torch (does have smooth glossy shiny reflector) has a more brighter surrounding area (maybe making the centre look darker) and looks more flood lighty. and as you said has a sharper visible cut off for the surrounding area, it actually happens multiple times I can see 3 clear outer circles and the cut off line for the final one makes it easily visible and so the torch looks more flood lighty overall. it even reaches the roof with the final ring, while I think the i3E EOS is doing that I can't tell because it's surrounding area is darkening so gradually.

                    i3E EOS is definitely smoother and darker in the surrounding area. I guess that explains it thanks so it's probably the contrast playing tricks on me.

                    for anyone else reading. before I compared it to my Osram LED torch which I always thought was bright and very wide flood lighty beam. I was using the i3E to look for something before comparing and it was very impressive in both brightness and width of surrounding light (great for looking for stuff). as first it was just so similar to the Osram one I thought wow for such a small keychain torch. if I didn't have the other one to compare and fuss about small differences I would be very happy with the Olight i3E. the only downside of it for me is the short battery life even on eneloop pro.

    • harshbdmmaster718 on 21/10/2024 - 18:38

      my main problem is quoting 1800lm when it can only do it for 1 minute which is useless for the average person.

      I would rather they just limit the torch and quote Max as 800lm for 1.2hours, 440lm for 1.3 hours, 150lm for 4.5 hours etc.

  • BargainHunterJohnnyB on 21/10/2024 - 10:45
    +1

    To be fair, these Wuben lights are extremely bright and pretty cheap, also.

  • chimpler on 21/10/2024 - 10:53
    +2

    I have one, it's pretty cool

  • amsaini15 on 21/10/2024 - 10:54
    +1

    This Wuben brand is not reliable. I have had one, in perfect condition hardly used and stopped recharging alltogether.

    • noshopping on 21/10/2024 - 11:00

      you can replace the rechargable battery, no?

      • amsaini15 on 21/10/2024 - 13:19

        Yes but not worth it if cost has to increase.

    • Clear on 21/10/2024 - 11:21
      +1

      I always say it. The included 18650 batteries aren't the best and should be replaced. If you want budget from China buy Liitokala.

      A quality 18650 battery would easily add $5-$10 onto the cost. When they're competing in the budget space there has to be cuts somewhere and lowering the cost on the consumables is one of the best ways.

      • noshopping on 21/10/2024 - 11:27

        I think it takes 18350 or 18650 with extension tube? Whats the best budget brand battery for these?

        • Clear on 21/10/2024 - 11:40
          +2

          Yeah this one specifically uses 18350 out of the box. KeepPower 18350 batteries are good. While not really budget they're still worth the price.

          If you really want to save Liitokala will do them too.

          • noshopping on 21/10/2024 - 11:45

            @Clear: thanks!

          • Schmatt on 21/10/2024 - 15:43

            @Clear: Is there any particular place you recommend shopping for batteries from?

            • Clear on 21/10/2024 - 15:57
              +1

              @Schmatt: AliExpress normally. I can't vouch for any particular store when it comes to KeepPower.

              For Liitokala I buy from Liitokala Direct Store as they offer free shipping on many batteries, while other stores do not. My last order of 10 batteries in September arrived in 21 days.

            • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 17:21
              +1

              @Schmatt: tinkertechau

        • harshbdmmaster718 on 21/10/2024 - 17:27

          I didn't go this far but if you read up about torches you will also notice people commenting and recommending specific batteries.
          they say battery is half the function of a torch. if you want the best and stated performance you need the best batteries.

          what I remember reading is 18650 they recommended panasonic, and 21700 they recommended samsung. but might have changed by now if you read up on it.
          also for particular battery (such as 18650) even though the same name there are longer ones with a chip inside to help protect it long term, and there are ones that have a USB port on them to be convenient. they are different lengths and sometimes they fit in some torches because the spring is softer, sometimes they don't.

          • Schmatt on 21/10/2024 - 18:13

            @harshbdmmaster718: 😬

            • harshbdmmaster718 on 21/10/2024 - 18:32
              +1

              @Schmatt: if you are just a regular normie consumer like me don't worry much about it I just stopped caring about slightly less brightness (it will be even smaller difference at other levels under maximum) stopped reading and just started looking at prices. just buy the torch you like the spec and use it with included battery.
              these very small difference in brightness won't affect average use.

              I remember reading an amazon review by a security guard who worked long night shift, unhappy about advertised battery life and brightness levels. they have to walk the same dark places as routine and check everything. that review definitely made sense to me and is more serious use.

  • Jklaro on 21/10/2024 - 11:10

    Black is only on sale

  • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 11:26
    +2

    I'll buy another E7 to see if the reverse polarity protection issue was fixed.

    I measured at a little over 1600 lumens at turn on:
    https://timmcmahon.com.au/posts/wuben-e7/

    It's an interesting budget headlamp.

    • noshopping on 21/10/2024 - 12:33

      Just saw some comments on YouTube about these… yikes!

      "No reverse polarity protection on these, so don't use unprotected cells or you could have a fire on your hands, if installed reverse. Reddit post of the unit smoking. These should be recalled."

      "Don’t use unprotected cells or put battery in backwards"

      • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 24/10/2024 - 01:11
        +3

        I bought another E7 and it arrived today.

        Reverse polarity protection seems to work for the updated driver E7-B3.

        https://youtu.be/8IQecph1P_o?si=tB82tJ5D2GlIIBqh

        • noshopping on 24/10/2024 - 03:09

          Thanks for testing it.
          Good to see this issue has been fixed in the newer batches!

        • bamzero on 24/10/2024 - 23:32

          I just had a look at the one I got in August and it's E7-B2 (I got the 5000k so not sure if it's different to the 6500k). Not game to reverse the cell and see if it was already fixed in that revision though :)

  • Captain Hindsight on 21/10/2024 - 11:32
    +1

    Only 400 lms but seems like a good option ($19 delivered for me) GG eBay https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/116001740380?_skw=led&epid=27047…

    • hamza23 on 21/10/2024 - 11:43
      +1

      Good price. Part of The Good Guys clearance items that they put on eBay a couple weeks back (item prices end in '4').

  • sickburn on 21/10/2024 - 11:42
    +1

    Only reason I'm buying this is because my Armytek Elf C2 uses micro-USB (not that I use onboard charging a lot).

    I'll see how the CRI is when I next go to the data centre and start pulling out the wrong coloured cables.

  • ozhunter68 on 21/10/2024 - 12:02

    So this has an easy to replace 18350 re-chargable battery?

    • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 12:54
      +1

      Yeah. It has a button top protected 18350 3.7V Li-ion battery. The tail cap has some grip to make it easier to unscrew.

      The battery isn't built-in

  • sabretooth on 21/10/2024 - 12:12

    I have one of these which I keep near my 3D printer. The size and magnetic end cap means I can place it anywhere in the printer's frame, and have useable light without the light getting in the way.

  • Castcore on 21/10/2024 - 12:12

    I'm big fan of these, I like the 5000k version.

  • Mortin on 21/10/2024 - 12:19

    Is it ok to order it directly from the Wuben on Ali Express?

    • theguyrules on 21/10/2024 - 12:26

      Is it cheaper there? You wont get it as fast, of course.

    • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 12:57

      Yeah, but it's 2x the price compared to the current sale price.

      Newlight AU is Wuben as far as I know. I.e. The manufacturer is selling direct to customers on Amazon. Some manufacturers have started selling direct to customers on Amazon.

  • xxtra on 21/10/2024 - 13:20

    Thanks OP got 2

  • damnable on 21/10/2024 - 13:27

    How do these go as a light to help with seeing when jogging while it's dark?

    Tossing up between something like this vs a lightweight head torch.

    • bamzero on 21/10/2024 - 15:49

      You can get the headstrap for these and try it both ways. Only thing is they've changed the headstrap design now and it no longer includes an over the top strap. Not sure how that would affect it while jogging.

    • AssociatedTim Mc @ Newlight AU on 21/10/2024 - 17:21

      It might be a bit heavy and flop around. It's made of aluminum.

      A lightweight polycarbonate headlamp would be better but it might have a built-in LiPo battery to keep the size and weight down.

  • antman on 21/10/2024 - 13:43

    Price just went up!

  • benny2000 on 21/10/2024 - 13:43

    Showing $41.99 for me.

  • Hornpub on 21/10/2024 - 21:02
    +2

    i have one, with all the accessories, the headband, the contactless switch, the extension tube. this has been my main working light and EDC so far, love it. hooked to my leatherman pouch, along with a knipex XS cobra, and a fastback milwaukee knife.

    • RichardL on 22/10/2024 - 22:19

      The essential EDC loadout.

  • theguyrules on 23/10/2024 - 10:34

    Got mine. Neat torch. I was after something in this style that I can clip onto a pocket/pants for walking.
    Heavier than expected. Magnet is strong. Turbo mode is insanely bright (at least at the start)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join