Review: Manker MK35 Prototype (Pics, Beamshots, Runtime) 486250 Cd

I do not agree here, spot brightness is what that tells you how far a flashlight can shine and is therefore the number one parameter for the performance of throwers, and lux measurements are the most precise way to indicate brightness of a hotspot. Anything else is less precise, it may give you all sorts of valuable additional information but the evaluation of a thrower starts with the throw number.

Are you tried to lockout the light? Because the body does not part of the circuit. So to lockout I think you neet to untwist the tailcap until the batteries can rattle in and does not touch the spring and positive button at the same time.

Tailcap only, you are correct.

So far it is correct.
But, how you know how much different luxmeter differ in readings? If you can get 5 luxmeter you’ll get 5 very different readings.
I can make a “calibration”, measuring the Cd of a “standard light”. *
Also, I tell you a light measure X lux at one meter.
What if it measures Y lux at two meters. I make the calculation of the Cd, and I get a different Cd value.
So at 3 meters.
So at 10 meters.

Have you ever watched closely a thrower beam? From some lights the light doesn’t come out as a cilinder or a cone with the apex toward the light, but with a cone that gets tighter and after a few meters (some, not 100) it becomes wider again.
What I measure the lux at one meters and are different from the lux at that concentration point? What is the real Cd value? They are both real because they are measured, but what is more representative?

*= It took me a lot of time to build a calibration system that allows me to mesasure reliably and accurately the output, and I want to do the same for the Cd. A system that also allows to compare values measured in different days and different kind of lights.
For example, Cd value measured on a multiled Light are closer to the actual throw value as measure further away from the light because the spot intensidy sums up with the intensity of the spill of other leds.
This is not the case of a multi led, but my system I want it as good as I can make it.

Finally, if a light has more Cd than another, but ends up throwing more to your eye, what light would you want?
The one with the longest eye throw, or the one with the longest luxmeter throw?
I can give you the example of the same light with Cw and NW light, with lesser output and lesser throw but increased spatial definition compared to the CW version. So the CW has more throw on paper but the NW allows to distinguis better things at the distance to the eye.

A beamshot could be also a good way for validating the Cd measure.

100 meter my AA meco zoomies reach :wink:
Heck only my AAA nichia BLF specials do not reach that.
I totally get measuring is difficult or impossible yet finding something much further away then 100 to show the throw should be doable right?

I have 3 lux meters, they all ready the same.

1) I’m not against beamshots, they are very insightful for the performance of a flashlight compared to other lights, i.e. as you pointed out to compare throw, beam profile, tint and contrast.

2) every measurement comes with measuring errors, no reason to dismiss a method for that, but the measurement only becomes pointless if it does not provide more information than not measuring it. In measuring throw, even with an average luxmeter, this is far from the case: it is a way more precise way to compare throw than any beamshot can do. All over BLF people are measuring throw with mostly cheapo luxmeters and the numbers people come up with make surprisingly sense.

3) You suggest that a Cd measurement number is a different thing than the perceived throw with your own eyes. This is nonsense, Cd measurements are the exact same thing as how far your eyes can see with the light, it is just more precise and consistent than your eyes can manage, and therefore to be preferred when a fair comparison between lights is intended.

(there is a discussion that the lux is based on the perceived brightness of the photopic curve, while in low brightness the eye sensitivity follows the scotopic curve, but the peak difference between 555nm and 507nm is not so large that that makes a world of a difference)

Finally, getting your Cd measurement system right within a valuable 10 percent (which is way beyond what you can see by eye) is way easier than measuring lumen within that same 10 percent. It requires a fixed measuring distance (10 meter according to the ANSI standard, but if the reflector diameter is not huge, measuring at 6 or 7 meter does not give significantly different results), and a calibrated luxmeter that goes for under 200 dollar. And I bet that the typical 12 dollar chinese luxmeter will already suffice to obtain a throw number that makes for a valuable comparison with other flashlights around. Mind also that even the cheapest luxmeter has a very decent repeatability, so when you build up a series of throw numbers over a number of flashlights using the same method and luxmeter, they provide a pretty precise comparison between those lights even if the absolute throw number is a bit off.

To the eye different tint beams do seem to throw further though. A very cool white to my eyes doesnt throw as well as a warm white tint. All depends on what you’re actually throwing at. Pointing it at a big white building is one thing. Pointing it at trees or in areas with lots of moisture is another.

Ah and Budda and Manker, a good product sells itself. Teasing and trying to hype something up indicates not a whole lot of good IMHO
JohnnyMac made a review of the TN42 with a pic of a building far away, bam that one pic said it all.
Dale had a piece of paper with text and used a light far far away to light it up do the text could be read, bam with the google maps distance pic that was highly impressive.

Btw Budda, I’m not saying that you should now start measuring throw for your reviews, they are nice as they are, I’m just firmly against you dismissing that measurement as not so relevant.

Apple doesnt hype stuff up?

Nope… must be wrong eh :smiley:

Yeah and from figures from insurance companies over the years Alle stuff breaks as much as budget cr@p (not even taking into account people with Apple care having their stuff fixed because they payed a hefty fee for it)
Yes Apple is heavily hyped and there too is is (IMHO!) not a sign of something good :wink:

Ah but for the overlooked, take your lux reading both on this light and other known lights. Then your own lux readings show comparison results to other lights in a format we can all relate to.

So if I get 712Kcd from the TN42, then I also get 386Kcd from the Manker MK35, we have a basis to make guesstimations on and this will help us decide to buy or not to buy. (Please note that I said IF! My TN42 does indeed make 712Kcd, and from that beamshot at 100M I’m guesstimating 380-420Kcd on this new Manker, solely on that beamshot alone.)

i agree with this
i also don`t trust my luxmeter, but i try to make some relevant measurements to give an idea of how reviewed product is dimmer or brighter than other similar.

anyway, great review. grazie mille for effort.
manker keeps on surprising with interesting stuff.

and, honestly, i don`t think there is any use spending time for printing you ISO and any other photographical data at pics. Take a pair of any random camera lens, put the same ISO\diafragm etc, and you `ll get different pic. So until we know your lense - there is no use in this. and even if we know, it do not add a lot to understanding (may be only to experienced photographers who met this lens before).

Turbo 19’450 lux at 5 meters = 486’250 Cd
High 13070 lux at 5 meters = 326’750 Cd
Mid2 4760 lux at 5 meters = 119’000 Cd
Mid1 643 lux at 5 meters = 16’075 Cd

Beamshot later.

I wonder if they can change the 1 minute step down on turbo for the final version.

nearly 500kcd is not bad at all for what it is, well assuming the price will be reasonable anyways.

Thank you!

I think that 486Kcd is quite good for a reflector size like this, and being able to maintain 326Kcd till the batteries are depleted is (I think) very nice as well.

I would have liked to see it being able to keep Turbo on for a little longer, seeing the mass and size of the light………45 seconds is way to short.

Cheers
Nico

I have to say that when I measured the output I have used and took many beamshots with it. Also, it was –5° celsius.
Tonight I will recharge batteries and measure again.

The most impressive thing is how wide and bright the spill is.

Thanks Budda for the review :slight_smile:

Let’s hope that price will be good … (but i don’t think so , even U21 price is 65:money_mouth_face: