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

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:

Thx Budda :+1:

Should be priced reasonnably to compete , the value king in this segment is the BK-FA09S with the right code, wich in my opinion has a better interface, a non stepping down turbo (granted the light doesn’t reach thermal protection) and a neutral white LED.

Well……I don’t think this light is supposed to be a “TN42 Killer” but another entry in the XHP35HI big thrower league.

I like the design a lot more then that of the TN42 (to bland) and it’s in line with the design of the other Manker lights. I like that. A lot.
If the price is right, it could be a viable contender.

—> Looking for a “TN42 killer”? Put your name on the list for the BLF GT Super Thrower.
That light is going to be so big, it’s more of a searchlight in size (and performance!) than a flashlight.

Cheers
Nico

Thanks for the review! The back of the light looks very chunky/bulky like a blown up fat Manker U11… don´t like that. But the light will probably sell well if the price point is around 100 USD as a budget alternative to the K70…
K.

The overall look of the light appeals to me, like a U21 on steroids. I like the larger head and the finning gives it a look of capability. But I know that’s more of a look than it is effective. Is it just me? Did the designers reduce the pair of thick fins in the switch area where the main heat will be displaced as it’s below the emitter shelf for a reason? The fins around the reflector are more for looks than anything else, sure we like that, but how much heat does it disperse?

I keep thinking of the thermal resonation photo I saw once that showed a cone of heat radiating out from under the emitter in much the same way as the cone of light out the front. The heat goes down and out, making fins above the emitter essentially useless unless the lights mass get’s saturated, which it wouldn’t do if fins were correctly placed to begin with.

The eclectic style of the battery tube is also somewhat disconcerning. Wonder why they didn’t just make the tube knurled all the way instead of changing the surface up? These things make me pause. I get the feeling that if the battery tube had a better flow to it’s design this light would be a must have for me. I DO like the many and deep fins around the reflector, it’s appealing, even if not all that functional.

Price will be more of a determining factor on this one, as the style alone doesn’t grab me and make me lose control of my budget goals… no doubt they’ve done a nice job, but …

Budda , are the batteries connected in Series ? (4S)

Here are the other Beamshots (hopefully I have written the right distances)

Tree with a reflective element on it. 140 meters.



Building. 350-380 meters.

In this pic I moved the light on the left to show better how bright and wide the spill is.

Building. 450 meters.



My thoughts
Fit and and finishes are not relevant in a prototype, however except the minor scratches in the battery compartment, my sample is perfect.
During the use I found myself at ease with the great throw and the wide and bright spill combined. In the many beamshot you’ll see that the spill arrives at the center of the tripod, so you can actually point at things that are very far away and still see the details of the path that your feet are traveling.
The tripod screw is right where you can mount it on a tripod and orient it in the direction you want without making the tripod fall or reach the max inclination degree. This also helps the Beamshots a lot.
Compared to the MK34, the switch feels now much more soft and easier to press. Given the lack of physical lockout, the electronic lockout is the only lockout possible (which now is much easier to achieve given the softer switch).
The UI is fine, now I have access to the low mode, the last used mode and the turbo mode.
I like the LED under the switch working as a battery indicator, but I’d rather have the rubber switch cover of the elder Manker models, so I can better see the light from that LED, and I find it also nicer to the eye.
On the MK34 the max customizable output of the first mode is much brighter (and usable) than the one of the MK35.
This light could benefit from being sold with a shoulder strap (one attachment point at the tailcap, another in the tripod screw).

Thanks to: AntoLed for the camera help and the luxmeter, Zampa for the tripod and PP for the beamshot location.

Yes.