Astrolux MF03 - new pictures + video

How can you say that the reflectors of the DX80 are smaller than the reflectors on the MF03. If I compare my DX80 with the pictures of the MF03, the DX80 has bigger reflectors. The only advantage of the MF03, besides the XHP35 and probably higher output, is that the reflectors are not overlapping and did not have OP. And perhaps the MF03 has deeper reflectors because of the lower depth at the overlapping-areas. But with the diameter, the DX80 will win.

I want to know the battery configuration and the output-numbers of the MF03. Perhaps the XHP70.2’s are driven harder

That’s why I said from what it looks like, not is. I viewed pictures of people holding the DX80 and the Video of the MF03 and just made a guess. It looks larger to me. Just an observation and nothing else.

I will take one as soon as they are available.

I hope they release before feb 16. Chinese New Year start feb 16.

FYI. The MF03 has a 120mm head and the DX80 92mm head. A hole 28mm larger, the size of your mom is that you? Sorry I cant play anymore I gotta go. :stuck_out_tongue:

Such a tease…we all know that video goes longer than 10 seconds!!!

MF03 interest list online

I’ve been sitting on the code for the MF02 for a while but haven’t acted because of the few documented issues THEN this baby comes along….does the MF03 offer the best of both worlds in a flashlight that many of us are looking for ?
I wonder how the throw compares to the MF02
I hope the price is good and not too expensive

Perhaps the MF03 offer the best of both worlds. It will be a good flooder. But it wont be a good thrower because the inner reflector is much smaller than the MF02 of cause.
It will add a bit throw to the floodie beam. Or you can use the throw-led only and safe battery capacity.

If you want an expensive price, than you should wait for the X70 :wink:
It is a similar design, but with more XHP70.2 and overlapping reflectors: X70 Brightest Flashlight|AceBeam® Official Store | Flashlights, Tactical Lights

If you compare both flashlights, the MF03 would be more rational, reasonable and oldschool.

x70 discontinued…

I would not toss pennies!

No fornication here *sigh*

Ignore that. It has not been released yet.

I like lumens, but the real problem with these lights is that the sustained output is not linear with the max output.

A 1,000lm light can easily handle 600lm/60% after initial drop, but beyond several thousand lumens this number becomes 30% or less. So we are paying for those 3 or 5 minutes of 30K lumen glory, and afterwards it comes a ~6,000 lumen light.

I’d much rather have 3x large reflectors fitted with XHP35HI and then 3 smaller reflectors with XHP70.2.

Anyways, would be nice to have the XHP35 HI working on max load in modes higher than 4,000lm, instead of having it to get brighter along with the 70.2. This way it can ge consistent throw even if the XHP70 are being driven low. Would be a nice way to keep it cool and efficient.

Some people see this as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.

I also see it as a good thing. Even if the head of the light were a meter in diameter and could handle 10 thousand watts sustained, I still want a 30 thousand watt turbo mode.

In this case, it’s a very good thing that they used more emitters since they’re much more efficient at lower currents. For a flooder, pack in as many emitters as the budget allows.

It’s crazy that now we have people saying this won’t throw well. Just a couple years ago this would have been a solid thrower. I’d expect that XHP35 to be pushing 2000 lumens, and that’s actually a decent sized reflector. It’s never going to match the BLF GT, or even the Thrunite TN42, but that’s hardly the point of this light. As long as those XHP70.2’s are off, the throw will be very usable.

Martin, are we thinking that each button is going to operate their own emitter type?

Like the top button controls the xhp35 through its modes.

Then the bottom button controls the xhp70.2 through its modes.

Basically like two seperate drivers in a single light?

Two features in design that I do not see. Hopefully they are planned.

These 4-cell carrier (more-so yet with dual carrier designs) lights need more "tooth" in the knurling for better "grip".

Another feature I notice that's missing is "anti-roll". Both mentioned need to be added.

The BLF GT turned out fantastic. It would have been better with the above mentioned.

I already see this, don’t you?

Hi Martin, any news about 9*XHP35 HI?

Thrunite has put perfect “tooth”,as you say,in its big lights,ie TN40-TN42.