Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

bdl
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:51 pm

Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby bdl » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:02 pm

(originally posted in General Discussion)

Verdict: better image quality, a much wider field of view; buttons are even more fiddly, app is buggy.


I've owned a Fly6[v] for about 8 months, and for the most part was happy with it. The main bugbear I had with the [v] was the image quality - it's "ok", but nowhere near on par with what modern image sensors can do. Conditions have to be "just right" to be able to make out a car number plate. And at night? Not a chance.

So when the Fly6 CE with an updated image sensor came along I figured I'd give it a shot. Along with the improved image quality comes some new features and of course these days, an app.

Image
Image

The unboxing: Cycliq have dramatically cut down the excess packaging for the CE, which arrives in the usual card box that most gadgets come packaged in these days. Much better than the [v]'s very wasteful hard plastic moulded box. Included are the mount bracket, a couple of spacers and straps, a tether and a charge cable. No charger is included, nor a MicroSD card. The Cycliq design engineer must've been listening to the Stones when coming up with the theme...
Image

The charging port is USB-C which is great in that it's reversible - no more flipping micro-USB connectors back and forth trying to figure out which way's which. However the port is not actually USB-C power compliant and won't charge from a USB-C charger or computer. It also won't transfer data through a computer's USB-C port (at least on a Macbook Pro). The included USB-C to USB-A cable of course charges the unit from your old-school USB ports, and serves to transfer data at USB 2 speeds.

There's a rubber flap that covers the charging/data transfer port and SD card slot. It is quite fiddly to press back into place. Being on the top of the unit it's less exposed to spray from the wheel, but more exposed to rain. Let's hope the "ground-breaking new nano technology" does its thing to keep it going through many years of rain, hail and shine.

The mounting system is a two-part job with a bracket velcroed to the seat post, the CE then clicks into that in the same fashion as a bike computer mount. Insert at around 45 degrees off vertical, twist and click. An elastic tether is provided that you can fit to the camera and then hitch around the seatpost when attaching it each time. This serves as a backup in case it gets dislodged which is nice - less fear of your expensive camera falling by the wayside. Even with the tether the mount is a modest improvement over the [v]'s velcro strap in my opinion. My unit has a small build quality niggle in that the sticky film on the bracket velcro strap is not properly adhering to the strap. The strap isn't intended to be removed regularly, so hopefully it'll last.
Image


Turn me on: on the [v], I'd finally become accustomed to holding the unit "right" when powering it on such that I don't end up changing the light level by accidentally pressing the dimmer button at the same time. Why Cycliq thought it was a good idea to put the only two buttons on the unit directly opposite each other is beyond me; and why they'd repeat that design on the new Fly6 CE is even more puzzling. The CE's buttons are a step backwards from the [v]'s - the new device's buttons are indistinct and stiff, so you have to pay close attention to make sure you're pressing in the right place and not just on the case. One positive is that you can effectively disable the "Q" button that controls the brightness levels by using the app to disable all levels except one.

When powering up the CE, like the [v], emits a number of beeps that reflect the power level, as a handy way of telling how much juice you have left. When connecting to the computer the [v] gave a loud beep which can be rather annoying, the CE doesn't.

So, now to the important bit - image quality. Unsurprisingly the newer 1080p CE is markedly sharper with better contrast and colour than the old 720p [v]. The improved resolution is partially offset by a wider field of view. Nonetheless, the CE is actually good enough to be able to make out number plates in good conditions - unlike the [v] where you'd be lucky to make partial plates in ideal conditions. Night performance is a huge improvement over the [v], however that's really not saying much - like all action cameras, the CE drops the ball after the sun goes down.

The [v]'s 100° field of view generally meant missing out on including any part of an average bike in the image; such video is useless when trying to talk to Mr Plod about a close call. On my bike I have a rack which the [v] just includes the top of, providing a perfect frame of reference. The CE's larger 135° field of view means that for my bike a fair bit of the image frame is wasted on a view of the rack - but for many road bikes you can now get the rear wheel nicely in frame, so for many people this is one of the biggest advantages of the CE over the [v].

Audio: the [v]'s microphone picked up mostly wind noise. In contrast, the CE's has practically no wind noise but perhaps a little less sensitivity to distant sounds. Without the racket from the wind you can more clearly hear the bike noise (mechanically coupled?), but speech from the rider seems more muted.

The app, and other "features": I won't say much on this as I don't consider it very useful, plus I had a few niggles with the app on an Android phone. It's pretty obviously a v1 release. Cycliq have advised they're working on software updates. Functionally, the app isn't intended to view footage. It's just to check battery level, firmware versions and modify various settings. I did try the alarm feature which I quickly regretted doing at 10 PM when it failed to turn off. Here's a tip: pressing and holding both buttons for 20s reboots the CE, killing the alarm. About the only useful thing the app does is set the time on the CE - no more mucking about with editing a text file on the SD card as you have to do for the [v]. The CE supports the ANT+ lighting protocol which apparently can turn the camera on and off as you start/stop the computer. So if you have a suitable cycle computer that may be of interest to you; one less button to press when getting on and off the bike.

Image stabilisation: the CE has an image stabilisation feature but I didn't test this. It's unclear whether this is purely in software or driven by gyroscope sensors.

Side-by-side video:



pros:
  • improved image quality
  • for bikes without a rack: the wider field of view means you should be able to include the wheel in frame, essential when talking to the Police
  • more convenient mounting mechanism
  • no annoying beeps when connecting to the computer, and disconnecting from charger
  • USB-C plug = no mucking about with "which way 'round does this go?"
  • far less wasteful packaging

cons:
  • price bump
  • buttons: harder to press, still opposing sides
  • for bikes with a rack: the wider field of view is partly wasted
  • fiddly charge / SDCard cover flap
  • bugs in the app and ancillary features
  • much larger file sizes; needs a large, high-speed SD Card (a fine sacrifice to make for the higher-quality images)
  • not actually USB-C power compliant, doesn't charge from USB-C charger or laptop; no data transfer via a USB-C port either
Last edited by bdl on Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

caneye
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby caneye » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:50 am

just a note on the packaging. I find it "interesting" that the way the packaging is moulded, you are expected to put 1 finger on the lens and 1 finger behind the CE to remove it from the packaging. that means .. be prepared to have a smeared lens. It also did not have a clear protective sheet over the lens (unlike most digital devices in the market today) which means after smearing the lens, you now need to very gently wipe it clean without scratching it.
Obviously the alternative is to turn the packaging upside down and let the CE drop out of the box.

I'm clearly nit-picking here but it seems to be an oversight on the part of an industrial designer ..

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13036
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby AUbicycles » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:57 am

Or... you get a lens cloth to extract or try and extract without touching the lens.

Of course it is not optimal and was also on my mind, though anyone like you or me who wants to avoid touching the lens can get it out.

bdl
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:51 pm

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby bdl » Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:19 pm

My Cycliq Fly6CE failed due to water ingress, after riding in moderately heavy rain (Sydney in May/June). I don't know how, presumably through the charging/SD card flap, but water entered the camera body and though the device "works" (the light's on), the video is useless due to moisture on the inside of the lens. I expect it wouldn't have kept going for much longer. My situation is the same as here: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bf6uL2cjjrA/?tagged=fly6.

Cycliq were excellent in terms of RMAing the camera; I've sent them back the failed one so they can hopefully QA it. (though the thread on that insta post suggests they had a faulty batch, the new one looks exactly the same as the old one to me...)

The CE's rated to IP56: Powerful water jets, from any direction; Water volume: 100 litres per minute, Pressure: 100 kPa at distance of 3 m according to wikipedia - that's some pretty heavy rain. I suspect if I hosed the CE from underneath I could get the flap to lift up, and it'd be game over. I'm now of the view the Fly6CE is probably best to not use when the heavens are well and truly open, or at least make sure you've some sort of faring or mudguard under it.

I've had zero trouble with the old Fly6[v] in similar rain conditions, but much shorter rides and importantly with a pannier in place which cuts out nearly all spray from the wheel. So either prolonged exposure, or (my bet) the force of water spray from the wheel, is too much for the CE's water ingress protection.

Jmuzz
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 pm

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby Jmuzz » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:01 pm

They are good with the replacement and admit the first batch were lacking some glue in the lens.

They are refusing to hear the flap issues though.

No way it passes a legit IP rating test, as you spotted the flap will lift when hit by the right water jet so it can't pass a serious"malicious" test operator doing their job properly.

I've also found the flap open twice. Don't know how.
Possibly enough vacuum and turbulence behind the aero seatpost? I can't explain what happened.

Water sucks past the seal too, I found it wet inside.
I know from water sport experience with other cameras and radios that the transition from hot sun to cold water causes the air inside to contract and duck water past 50m rated seals.
The effect is extreme, crushes cans etc.

I avoid rain, but if caught the light is getting the condom treatment since I don't consider it waterproof.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13036
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby AUbicycles » Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:09 am

In my review, I also expressed uncertainty whether the updated/fixed units will provide the promised waterproofing.... strangely, I have not had a single wet weather ride with the new unit.

https://www.bicycles.net.au/2018/06/are ... ra-lights/

A difference I notice is that the other flap felt a little harder and more rigid while the new one is tackier and fits more snuggly.

Jmuzz, are you getting moisture/water in the new one?

I am wondering if water has the effect of interrupting the natural resistence of the silicon flap... like a lube that that results in the flap eventually opening.

For the flap I very consciously ensure it is closed but like the fly12CE with its mechanical door and latch.

caneye
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:32 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby caneye » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:18 am

it feels like bdl has described my own experience with the CE and fly6v2 to the dot.
eerily similar.

i received my replacement CE unit earlier this week. after charging it full, i taped up the flap with gaffa tape. just my luck, yesterday was my 2nd day of commute with the replacement unit and it's a soaking wet ride home in the heavy evening showers.

heaved a sigh of relief when the camera still appeared clear and dry with no water ingress this morning.

which begs the question Christopher had posted above .. do the replacement units come with any improvement in flap? Or .. Any change to lens seal?

Is there anything else I can do to prevent water ingress on my part (apart from not riding in the wet)??


i didn't have this much drama with the Fly6[v2]. my ideal cycliq product would be a Fly6[v2] form and water-proof design with dumb electronics (ie no bluetooth, no connectivity function) but using the new CE optics.

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13036
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney & Frankfurt
Contact:

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby AUbicycles » Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:51 am

I asked and they said to keep the original faulty fly6CE so I can see the the flaps feel a bit different... there is certainly a change and it may even be the silicon composition.

User avatar
trailgumby
Posts: 13129
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Fly v Fly: Cycliq Fly6 CE review and comparison to the [v]

Postby trailgumby » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:41 pm

I've had zero issues with my FLy6[v] to date and I ride in all conditions.

I think the issue with the seal in the Fly6CE is the location allows water to pool, and with changing temperatures the change in air pressure inside the unit will inevitably suck some of that moisture past the seal and inside. As soon as I saw the location described in AUBicycle's review on the main BNA site it raised a red flag in my mind regarding vulnerability to water ingress through this mechanism.

It looks like I might be right. :?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users