Magicshine MJ-808 Updated, MJ-808E Cree XM-L, EastWard YJ-E02 - joint review.-
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dominik.M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007

    Magicshine MJ-808 Updated, MJ-808E Cree XM-L, EastWard YJ-E02 - joint review.

    It is hard to say that, Chinese are not creative, at every moment they are introducing changes to their products - often without informing the customer about that. You are ordering once, ordering twice and at the third time you can get something totally different . Today I’m going to compare 3 powerful bike lamps, well known Magicshine MJ-808 Updated Version, it's younger sister Magicshine MJ-808E based on Cree XM-L led and Magicshine clone EastWard YJ-E02 it shall be on Cree MC-E led but this version most probably exists only on the paper.

    Magicshine MJ-808 Updated Version => 900 lumen – sku.44459 – 79,62$

    The same set with another charger was reviewed earlier : Magicshine MJ-808 - magic of light and price.

    Magicshine MJ-808E Cree XM-L => 1000 lumen - sku.57100– 78,80$

    Eastward YJ-E02 Cree MC-E => 800 lumen - sku.50946 - 56.60$

    Box impressions.

    Magicshine - stand execution, everything well secured in the nice colorful box. A new version MJ-808E is simply MJ-808 with a new led and a new battery pack. Ewastward – it disappoints, small torch size, white box, some bubble wrap and xerox copy of a technical specification. In addition to that instead of the promised Cree MC-E led I get SSC P7 version (and not only me ), but it costs 20$ less than Magicshine.

    Magicshine’s are mounted to the handle bar by the o-ring, which allows quick and easy mount on the standard and oversize handlebars. Eastward have steel clamp in the standard size (25,4 mm) - it is certainly more reliable fastening than rubber one, but the assembly and disassembly takes more time.

    Power supply.

    Eastward is powered by 4, 18650 Li-ion cells, that should be put into battery pack. Magicshines have integrated battery packs containing four of such cells.

    In terms of attachment of battery pack to the frame on the first place ranks plastic and aluminum version from the updated version - wide strap and layer of soft foam provide a very good fit and protect your frame from scratches. Second place for the package with the MJ-808E - two Velcro fasteners and cordura cover allow the fixing of the package to the frame or under the stem. Third for Estward YJ-E02 - the only good idea for fixing this battery-pack for putting it into water bottles filled with insulation foam otherwise it will be moving itself into all directions.

    In terms of cells protection, the notes are a bit different - first place for the Eastward, there is no way something will happen to the cells in the sealed aluminum container - but there is a price of this solution, battery container with cells weighs 459g. Second place for the MJ-808 Updated - aluminum plastic-sealed package with the Voltage indicator - what more possibly you could want, but it weights 352g. Third place for Magicshine MJ-808E - here we have good progress, the old battery pack was wrapped in a rubber tee, which is far better to protect it from moisture, which was a big problem. Mechanically it is still a poor protection, but it is the lightest package - it weighs just 251g which is almost half of the eastward pack weight .


    Eastward doesn't have battery charger in the set, so it does not count here. Current magicshines have two chargers bigger, stronger in the MJ-808E and smaller and weaker in MJ-808 Updated version.

    Nominally, they have exactly the same output parameters 8.4V and 1.8A - for me, the most interesting novelty is the serial number on the charger, it is an element in the "chineise" never seen before, could it be any plans for quality records and warranty? :sssh:. The results for these chargers are also positive surprise:

    Magicshine MJ-808E (big one )
    voltage without load : 8,45V
    current during charging : 1,93A at 7,7V that gives 14W !!

    Magicshine MJ-808 Updated (the small one )
    voltage without load: 8,51V – a bit too high, because it will be the final voltage.
    current during charging: 1,08A at 7,59V that gives 8W !!

    Feeding the beast .

    To get these declared 800, 900 or 1,000 lumens of light you must feed them well with a large number of watts . Summary of input current / voltage as follows:

    Magicshine MJ-808 Updated Version SSC P7
    high   1,58A  7,15V  11,29W
    low    0,47A  7,37V   3,46W
    Magicshine MJ-808E Cree XM-L
    high   1,49A  7,17V  10,68W
    low    0,45A  7,39V   3,32W
    Eastward YJ-E02 SSC P7
    high   2,37A  3,78V  8,95W
    low    1,12A  3,97V  4,44W
    How it light ?

    Each of these lamps gives enough light to ride a bike at night - but it isn't sufficient information, when you want to select "the best one" .

    Magicshine MJ-808 Updated Version SSC P7- High / Low

    Magicshine MJ-808E Cree XM-L - High / Low

    Eastward YJ-E02 SSC P7- High / Low

    The choice seems to be quite simple - the use of Cree XM-L led (even without selection) reduces Magicshines insufficient range problem and increases the amount of light. In theory, the difference for the current 2.4A for the lowest bins is only about 60 lumens (XM Cree-L bin T - 733 lumens @ 2.4 A; SSC P7 C bin - 667 lumens @ 2.4 A), but most of the buyers know how Chinese select leds for these kind of products - they are buying the cheapest LEDs that are available:]. A weak side of the selection the new Magicshine MJ-808E is the battery, which is still not the best for the bike. The solution? To purchase Updated Version and replace SSC with the Cree XM-L U-bin in cool white or T5 in Neutral / Warm, whatever you want.

    Eastward - apparently does not stand out in terms of light quantity from Magicshine Updated Version, which is quite a good result. However, the economic calculation of this light is not good enough my opinion => light 57$, charger 7$ (to charge all the cells in 3-4 hours would need to have 2), 4x 18650 cells from dealextreme $ 12 =>Total 76$ that's only 3$ less than the Magicshine... In total, it's only a cheaper alternative for the people who already have the charger and a lots of spare 18650 cells - something just right for the flashlights maniacs .
    Last edited by Dominik.M; 05-12-2011 at 08:33 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Cat-man-do's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Dominik.M, Since no one else did I will thank you for taking the time to do the comparisons. Here are some general comments:

    The MS with P-7 looks pretty good. The MS with XM-L has a tighter spot although it is hard to tell from the photos because all the beams looked to be aimed at the same spot. This being the case, if one has better throw you can't tell from the photo.

    I'm a bit concerned about the output current you measured with the MagicShines...both on high you listed close to 1.5A. If correct that is truly disappointing. Earlier versions were about 2.4A on high so I'm a bit perplexed as to why MS would use drivers on their newer lights with less output than the originals. Can anyone else verify these outputs?

    The Eastwood does look cheap and yeah, it does look like it has a P-7. Still I like the fact that it is set-up to use separate 18650's. That makes it somewhat unique. On the other hand, the battery bag is completely mental. Like you said though, if you already have 18650 cells and chargers this is not a bad buy. I figure you might try replacing the P-7 with an XM-L and see what happens.

    Oh, almost forgot, in your comparison you listed voltage on the XM-L at 7.17 and 7.39 . Actual voltage drop across an XM-L @ 1500ma should be 3.1V and 3.35 @ 3000ma. as listed by the data sheet. Actual power on high @ 3000ma would be about 10 watts. As far as I know I don't think these are using the XM-L Easy Whites.
    Last edited by Cat-man-do; 05-12-2011 at 02:01 AM.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mattthemuppet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    thanks for the review Dominik, v, useful beamshots.

    Cat - I'm pretty sure Dominik must be measuring the current and voltage across the battery terminals while the light is in use. Some clues are the fact that the voltage on the 2S2P MS packs is >2x the Vf of the LED (as the MS lights use buck drivers) whereas the voltage on the 4P Eastwood pack is about that of a single 18650 under load (linear driver). Current draw on the Eastwood pack is about what you would expect from a cheap Chinese P7 light, ie. ~2.4A. Plus, measuring current draw and Vf accurately means dissembling the light and desoldering one of the LED connections, which Dominik probably would have mentioned if he'd gone to all that effort!

    There's a good thread over on the DIY forum about the MS XM-L (most pertinent thread here) which discusses it in some depth. General consensus is that it's an incremental improvement over the original P7 MS, but will most likely still be plagued by the problems (blown drivers, duff switches, battery?) that affected the original. Yer pays yer money yer takes yer choice

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dominik.M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat-man-do
    Can anyone else verify these outputs?
    Those are voltage input / current input - since I reviewed Updated Version earlier and as the driver is exactly the same (they only varies on components, sense resistors etc). I did not measure everything again.

    If you want the data for Updated Version here you have :
           V-In    I-in   P-In     V-led   I-led  P-led  Eff.
    High  7,81V  1,271A  9,93W    3,231V  2,653A  8,57W  86%
    Low   8,09V  0,563A  4,55W    3,014V  1,346A  4,06W  89%

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.