Appears similar to the original MT07. If so I wish they would have used 20700 batteries. The circumference would have minimal change but the length would give it a better balance, better grip as the tube is too short on the MT07 and longer run time.
Looking forward to an in depth review. Until then what would the experts guess the throw to be for each of the LED listed and the CRI range for the NW?
Finally, a lanyard loop. I’ve been using a screw in loop in the tripod hole, but having both is even better because I can do things like attach a Gopro to it, or like a true flashoholic, another flashlight.
The original was downgraded to 9k lumens afaik. Not sure on the new one. I think I was their first buyer, but I’m not doing that again until they have someone here verify its rating. Hopefully the MT09R can meet or exceed its rating.
I believe the MT03 II was upgraded to XHP70.2. Its max rating of 4300 lm is not much more than the 70’s 4000 lm. However, I have read that the .2 produces considerably less heat than the original. If so, it could be that HaikeLite felt comfortable driving the 70.2 closer to it’s max output.
I’m going to guess that this costs less than 20% more than the MT03 II. Same emitters, but 40mm longer. The driver cost may cost more up front, but can eliminate the need to develop drivers, and more importantly, should minimize the cost of dealing with defective drivers.
I don’t think the MF02 is the right light to compare it to. The Acebeam X65 has 5 XHP35-HI in small, deep reflectors. It does 12k lumen and 423kcd. If we divide that up to only 3 emitters and 7,500 lumen this light might be more in the 250kcd to 300 kcd range.