Haikelite MT09R Test/Review Beam video footage.

[Terry_White]

Find the group buy page here https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/49135

Finally… it is my pleasure to let everyone see the latest to the Haikelite line the MT09R.

This is the 70.2 emitter version, the 35 high should be arriving soon and I will add it as well as some video of the lights side by side.

Specifications:

Emitter: 3x CREE XHP35 - Hi / 3x CREE XHP70.2

Material: 6061 Aluminum Alloy; HAIII finish

Batteries: 4x 18650

Max Brightness: 7500 lumens on 35hi version / 15000 lumens on cree xhp70.2 version

Brightness mode: Moonlight> Low low>Low > Medium>High>Turbo >Strobe>SOS>Beacon+ Step less Ramping Control

TA Driver , Current regulation on Low Low > Low> Medium>High ;

Size: 169mm length x 74mm x51 mm

Net weight: 550 gram

It felt like it took this one forever to arrive, but it only took 4 days.

When I took it out of the box the first thing I noticed was that it is a bit shorter than the MT07S… 14mm shorter to be more exact.

Other dimensions the top (outside of the bezel) is 73mm, inside the bezel across the optics is 64mm and about 170mm tall

These new models from Haikelite do not have the same driver issues from the past.

Thanks to Texas Ace they all now use a TA style driver and while I have not yet opened it up to have a look I can tell you that not only will it make the 15k lumen promised but above. My last reading was 16297 lumen. Excellent job.

Now on to the distance calculations, I did there twice to be sure and both times I got the same (6 meters difference).

90000 Candela with an est. throwing distance of 600 meters.

Now it is gong to be very hard for me to prove 600 meters but I am betting it will out throw it’s older brother the MT07S. We will see how it comes out in the video.

The weight is good, and the finish is excellent, all the machining is what we have come to expect from Haikelite.

Most of this review will be more for letting everyone see what the light can do so the majority of it will be video.

I am not going to tear down either light until after all the testing and video footage has been taken. I do not have the parts here now to repair anything that could possibly get damaged.

Just FYI at least for this testing I used 30q’s. I honestly forgot to request a set of the Sony’s

I have asked for some to be shipped if possible so that when I get the 35 high we can see if there is a performance difference.

Okay the rest of the fun will be in the video below…. Enjoy

www.youtube.com/embed/6i4V52apyeM

www.youtube.com/embed/78e-eBi488Q

[JasonWW]

You definitely need to tell Dale the ramping speed is way too fast. From end to end should be about 2.5 to 3 seconds.

Right now it looks like 1 second. How can anyone stop it where they need it? I see a lot of future complaints about this if not fixed.

[Terry_White]

@JasonWW

You definitely need to tell Dale the ramping speed is way too fast. From end to end should be about 2.5 to 3 seconds. Right now it looks like 1 second. How can anyone stop it where they need it? I see a lot of future complaints about this if not fixed.

That was not the ramping, that was me switching in and out of turbo... I am still trying to get a feel for how quickly you click to get into turbo and then back... The camera makes it look like it is ramping.. Closer to the end you will see the ramping better....

I am going back out tomorrow night. I need to call the local police department and let them know what I am doing so that I do not get stopped from shooting video before I can get set up...

I wanted to light up some buildings and show the ramping better,,,,

I will get that done tomorrow night and see if it can be added to the end of this video. If not I will just add a separate one.

[DENGOH]

So it is 16000lm and 90kcd?

[JasonWW]

@Terry White

@JasonWW

You definitely need to tell Dale the ramping speed is way too fast. From end to end should be about 2.5 to 3 seconds. Right now it looks like 1 second. How can anyone stop it where they need it? I see a lot of future complaints about this if not fixed.

That was not the ramping, that was me switching in and out of turbo…

I’m talking about the 9:15 to 9:25 mark in the video. It seems to ramp up and down way too quickly. Could you actually stop it at the level you wanted or would you have to keep bumping it up and down to get it just right?

Part of what makes Narsil so great is that the button timings have been fined tuned down to the millisecond. If Haikelite has make their own UI from scratch, their button timings might be a bit off.

[pustelnik]

Sooo… for how long can it stay on turbo?

[Terry_White]

@pustelnik

Sooo… for how long can it stay on turbo?

At 55 degrees C it steps down,, But you can double click it and go right back, a minute later it will step down again and you can do the same thing again and again...

I was planing to take it back out tomorrow night but, I just got an email letting me know my new camera will be here Thursday so I may wait until Thursday night as it is a much better camera.

I want to get some shots 100 to 200 yards from a building...

[Terry_White]

Okay guys I have been awake about 30 hours... I am going to crash for a little while...

I will get more footage as soon as the camera arrives. It will be here Thursday so Thursday night I can get some much better video...

[Terry_White]

@JasonWW

@Terry White

@JasonWW

You definitely need to tell Dale the ramping speed is way too fast. From end to end should be about 2.5 to 3 seconds. Right now it looks like 1 second. How can anyone stop it where they need it? I see a lot of future complaints about this if not fixed.

That was not the ramping, that was me switching in and out of turbo…

I’m talking about the 9:15 to 9:25 mark in the video. It seems to ramp up and down way too quickly. Could you actually stop it at the level you wanted or would you have to keep bumping it up and down to get it just right? Part of what makes Narsil so great is that the button timings have been fined tuned down to the millisecond. If Haikelite has make their own UI from scratch, their button timings might be a bit off.

When I shoot with the new Camera Thursday night you will see the difference... It is actually a but slower than Narsil but not by enough to be a problem. I actually like it as it seems to have more steps through the ramp...

We have timed it several times and it takes just a touch over 5 seconds from low to turbo and the same back...What you saw was I was too click happy, I even though it was ramping until I noticed if I clicked the double a little faster it didn't do that. If nothing else I will shoot the ramping on a wall out here in the show and video it with my cell phone and let you see what I mean,..

[JasonWW]

@Terry White

@JasonWW

@Terry White

@JasonWW

You definitely need to tell Dale the ramping speed is way too fast. From end to end should be about 2.5 to 3 seconds. Right now it looks like 1 second. How can anyone stop it where they need it? I see a lot of future complaints about this if not fixed.

That was not the ramping, that was me switching in and out of turbo…

I’m talking about the 9:15 to 9:25 mark in the video. It seems to ramp up and down way too quickly. Could you actually stop it at the level you wanted or would you have to keep bumping it up and down to get it just right? Part of what makes Narsil so great is that the button timings have been fined tuned down to the millisecond. If Haikelite has make their own UI from scratch, their button timings might be a bit off.

When I shoot with the new Camera Thursday night you will see the difference… It is actually a but slower  than Narsil but not by enough to be a problem. I actually like it as it seems to have more steps through the ramp…

We have timed it several times and it takes just a touch over 5 seconds from low to turbo and the same back…What you saw was I was too click happy, I even though it was ramping until I noticed if I clicked the double a little faster it didn’t do that. If nothing else I will shoot the ramping on a wall out here in the show and video it with my cell phone and let you see what I mean,…

5 seconds? Oh no! That’s too long! :person_facepalming:

Ha ha, I’m always complaining. Lol

I guess a bit longer than Narsil is better than too fast. That way you can stop it more precisely. :+1:

[mortuus]

wow looks so awesome, icant wait too see a video of the xhp35 in action. So pumped to get this light!

[TSO]

Thanks for the review!
I’m a little disappointed in the candela reading of 90,000. Thats 30% less than the Imalent dt70. I would have thought with deeper, smooth reflectors, the new light would have a better throw and intensity thAn the Imalent, which has shorter, orange peel reflectors and, according to testing, less actual lumens (around 13,000)
A parallel question (sorry for my ignorance) - does the new 70.2 emitter draw more or less power than the 70 version at its theoretical full brightness? I know it can emit more lumens driven at full, but is it more efficient?
In comparing, I would think that a three-emitter 70.2, which can emit about the same lumens as a four- emitter 70, would have less heat and less drain, this extending run times, especially on turbo.

anybody with the actual numbers or experience? Thanks!

[DENGOH]

@TSO

Thanks for the review!
I’m a little disappointed in the candela reading of 90,000. Thats 30% less than the Imalent dt70. I would have thought with deeper, smooth reflectors, the new light would have a better throw and intensity thAn the Imalent, which has shorter, orange peel reflectors and, according to testing, less actual lumens (around 13,000)
A parallel question (sorry for my ignorance) - does the new 70.2 emitter draw more or less power than the 70 version at its theoretical full brightness? I know it can emit more lumens driven at full, but is it more efficient?
In comparing, I would think that a three-emitter 70.2, which can emit about the same lumens as a four- emitter 70, would have less heat and less drain, this extending run times, especially on turbo.

anybody with the actual numbers or experience? Thanks!

DT70 is using dedomed XHP70. That’s why it has higher throw and less output. It’s more expensive too.

[JasonWW]

@TSO

Thanks for the review!
I’m a little disappointed in the candela reading of 90,000. Thats 30% less than the Imalent dt70. I would have thought with deeper, smooth reflectors, the new light would have a better throw and intensity than the Imalent, which has shorter, orange peel reflectors and, according to testing, less actual lumens (around 13,000)
A parallel question (sorry for my ignorance) - does the new 70.2 emitter draw more or less power than the 70 version at its theoretical full brightness? I know it can emit more lumens driven at full, but is it more efficient?
In comparing, I would think that a three-emitter 70.2, which can emit about the same lumens as a four- emitter 70, would have less heat and less drain, this extending run times, especially on turbo.

anybody with the actual numbers or experience? Thanks!

The DT70 uses shaved/sliced dome emitters. That might account for the difference in candela. This also lowers it lumen output.

The 70.2 is a tiny bit more efficient when driven at the same output. Not anything you would probably notice.

The 3 emitters have to work harder to match the 4 emitters, so actual wattage is still pretty similar. In fact, since the 3 emitters have to work harder, they are running in a less efficient zone than the 4 emitter design. So run time will be a bit less and heat a little more.

Probably not enough difference that you would notice, though.

[TSO]

@JasonWW

@TSO

Thanks for the review!
I’m a little disappointed in the candela reading of 90,000. Thats 30% less than the Imalent dt70. I would have thought with deeper, smooth reflectors, the new light would have a better throw and intensity than the Imalent, which has shorter, orange peel reflectors and, according to testing, less actual lumens (around 13,000)
A parallel question (sorry for my ignorance) - does the new 70.2 emitter draw more or less power than the 70 version at its theoretical full brightness? I know it can emit more lumens driven at full, but is it more efficient?
In comparing, I would think that a three-emitter 70.2, which can emit about the same lumens as a four- emitter 70, would have less heat and less drain, this extending run times, especially on turbo.

anybody with the actual numbers or experience? Thanks!

The DT70 uses shaved/sliced dome emitters. That might account for the difference in candela. This also lowers it lumen output.

The 70.2 is a tiny bit more efficient when driven at the same output. Not anything you would probably notice.

The 3 emitters have to work harder to match the 4 emitters, so actual wattage is still pretty similar. In fact, since the 3 emitters have to work harder, they are running in a less efficient zone than the 4 emitter design. So run time will be a bit less and heat a little more.

Probably not enough difference that you would notice, though.

So, just to be clear - the run time and throw on the MT09r at approx. 15k lumens will be LESS (due to the emitters efficiency at that level of drive) than the DT70 at 14K lumens?
As in, on turbo, the MT09r with three 70.2 emitters will probably step down quicker than the DT70? And will maintain brightness at a medium lumen setting less time than the four emitter HXP 70’s?
Again, sorry for the painful clarity and redundant questions - I’m in the market for a BRIGHT soda can light, funds are scarce, and I have a morbid fear of buyers remorse, lol.

[TSO]

@DENGOH

@TSO

Thanks for the review!
I’m a little disappointed in the candela reading of 90,000. Thats 30% less than the Imalent dt70. I would have thought with deeper, smooth reflectors, the new light would have a better throw and intensity thAn the Imalent, which has shorter, orange peel reflectors and, according to testing, less actual lumens (around 13,000)
A parallel question (sorry for my ignorance) - does the new 70.2 emitter draw more or less power than the 70 version at its theoretical full brightness? I know it can emit more lumens driven at full, but is it more efficient?
In comparing, I would think that a three-emitter 70.2, which can emit about the same lumens as a four- emitter 70, would have less heat and less drain, this extending run times, especially on turbo.

anybody with the actual numbers or experience? Thanks!

DT70 is using dedomed XHP70. That’s why it has higher throw and less output. It’s more expensive too.

When you factor in discount codes and the fact that you get batteries included, the price is almost the same, I believe.

[byarnell05]

Is the switch lit?

[Terry_White]

@byarnell05

Is the switch lit?

Yep...

[Terry_White]

The problem I've found with the Imalent multi emitter lights is finding one that works... I've been sent 4 samples all of which failed in just a few minutes.

I've seen them discounted all the way dowb to dealer cost. The only reason a retailer would every discount that much... Well that seems kind of obvious.

One other thing... Those are numbers claimed by Imalent. I am not aware of anyone that has verified the candela on either of the multi emitter models.

I honestly really would like to know if anyone has verified the candela raiting....

The 70.2 version of the MT09R is designed to be pretty good at both. Kind of middle of the road. So far it does that better than any light it this price range I've seen.

When the thrower arrives I will fully verify it's Candela rating and I have a pretty good idea what it will retail for so I will totally stand by my statement twice the light at half the price. I would by 10 MT09R's at full retail before I would buy any of the multi emitter Imalents even at dealer cost.

[Terry_White]

@TSO

@JasonWW

@TSO

Thanks for the review! I’m a little disappointed in the candela reading of 90,000. Thats 30% less than the Imalent dt70. I would have thought with deeper, smooth reflectors, the new light would have a better throw and intensity than the Imalent, which has shorter, orange peel reflectors and, according to testing, less actual lumens (around 13,000) A parallel question (sorry for my ignorance) - does the new 70.2 emitter draw more or less power than the 70 version at its theoretical full brightness? I know it can emit more lumens driven at full, but is it more efficient? In comparing, I would think that a three-emitter 70.2, which can emit about the same lumens as a four- emitter 70, would have less heat and less drain, this extending run times, especially on turbo. anybody with the actual numbers or experience? Thanks!

The DT70 uses shaved/sliced dome emitters. That might account for the difference in candela. This also lowers it lumen output. The 70.2 is a tiny bit more efficient when driven at the same output. Not anything you would probably notice. The 3 emitters have to work harder to match the 4 emitters, so actual wattage is still pretty similar. In fact, since the 3 emitters have to work harder, they are running in a less efficient zone than the 4 emitter design. So run time will be a bit less and heat a little more. Probably not enough difference that you would notice, though.

So, just to be clear - the run time and throw on the MT09r at approx. 15k lumens will be LESS (due to the emitters efficiency at that level of drive) than the DT70 at 14K lumens? As in, on turbo, the MT09r with three 70.2 emitters will probably step down quicker than the DT70? And will maintain brightness at a medium lumen setting less time than the four emitter HXP 70’s? Again, sorry for the painful clarity and redundant questions - I’m in the market for a BRIGHT soda can light, funds are scarce, and I have a morbid fear of buyers remorse, lol.

The painful part is... It will step down at 55 degrees C. When it does you can kick it right back into turbo and keep doing it until either you can't hold it any longer or the cells die...

I'm not an Imalent hater some of their best reviews were done by me with their single emitter models. The multi emitter models are just not worth the price.