And, to get that output they've either upped the current over the S1100's XML driver, or the MTG2 is on copper. (or, well, I guess there's a third option: they're lying about the lumens)
I agree. What's the point of buying something that doesn't need improvement?!
The reflector is a different design than the XML version, OP and no flat area around the emitter hole at the base.
I'm not a fan of the warmer tints in general, but the MT (at least the one we've all been getting from Cutter) somehow makes every other tint I have in XML and XPG look like poo, without itself being noticeably yellowish or brownish. That's something I don't think is possible to plot out on a graph.
I wonder how much different the beam pattern will be from the smooth S1100 reflector retrofitted with the same LED... mine didn't change between the XML->MTG2 except that everything got BIGGER (and prettier). It still has the same tight center spot, with an intermediate, erm, spot, around it, and then the soft outer spill.
edit: Also their description of the UI seems different, I can't work out if it's really been changed. It sounds almost like the blinkies are hidden? I can't make sense of it...
Doesn't look like it's available yet on Solarforce sales but when it is (if it doesn't cost as much as a car) I'm all over it. Foy needs to get MT-G2 unstupid.
If it's the same driver as the XML version, it's 3.3 amps at 6.whatever volts. If they're using a copper MCPCB, it'll be a good bit higher than what's in Match's test graph. (the S1100 uses a pseudo-copper board, with dielectric between the LED & base)
So it's actually conceivable (even based on Match's graph) that this light is hitting 2200 lumens! :D
Would be nice to see a light with it on copper and driven fully.
I realize manufacturers have to be conservative, but seems like there is a lot of unused headroom left, and heat sinking aside, little reason not to push harder.