I no what ur talking about I have the pd35 had it for a few years now and it definitely is a pain trying to find the side button especially with gloves I’ve actually had to use my phones screen light to find that function button. That’s why I love my pd 40 with the rotary switch. I never carry my light up by my head like law enforcement,when ur hand is up there it’s definitely easy to turn on and off and cycle through all the different lights but the rotary switch is awesome got ur hands by ur side and u can do everything on off all brightness levels plus strobe and sos all with one hand I love it. But it is time to add a night core light to my collection and the mh12 looks like the one for me
mAh is the capacity. The larger the mAh the more runtime it will have on a single charge for the same output voltage. Think of mAh as a fuel tank and output voltage as how many gallons are being consumed per mile.
I think I prefer the Fenix. The step-down of the Nitecore is just too aggressive. If the Nitecore steps down to 1200 lm after just 30 s you'll be left with 26,000 cd, while the Fenix will still output 39,000 cd and has a more linear step-down. I like the fact that they show very detailed output diagrams on their website. It feels a bit like Nitecore only offers such high output levels for marketing purposes. For my intended use case, occasionally looking around at night on turbo for a few minutes, but mostly walking on lower brightness levels, the Fenix seems to be well-suited. Also, I think the UI of the Fenix is more intuitive. Sure, you can't access ultralow mode directly and there is also no beacon or SOS, but the way these modes are activated on the Nitecore seem unnecessarily complicated. You have to hold the mode button when the light is activated to cycle through the special modes, meaning if you need strobe and hold the button for too long, you'll end up with beacon or SOS, and you can't access beacon or SOS without going through strobe first. I think both manufacturers should have just put special modes except for strobe on holding the mode button while clicking the tail switch, as is used for ultralow on the Nitecore.
100% agree, I do my own independent research. I have dozens upon dozens of different brands of flashlights from different retailers.. my top three in no particular order are Olight, Fenix, nitecore.
I was leaning towards the nitecore just from the runtime and lumens, but after your field test , I'm going with the Fenix I prefer white light over that puke green , WTH nitecore.
Amazing video the Nightcore even ships with one of your Longhorn Tactical branded battery protective case which is awesome if you want to look into ordering an extra battery. Also Nightcore can run 18650s with an adapter or off two cr123s not sure if PD36R has that ability. Only nitpick with the MH12 PRO is I wish it had a 2m drop rating.
This is like comparing someone that is 4ft to someone that is 8ft. The MH12 has twice the turbo, but twice the heat and it steps down fast.I would still buy the Fenix though because I don't have to drop it when it starts smoking in my hands from being too hot.
You cant go wrong with Nitecore or Fenix but i love my Olight Baton 3 Pro Max with warm white the most. Bad weather is coming and that tint its superior to any lumen output. I would say that the brighter the cold white light is, the worse you see (in fog and snowing conditions). Edit: and yet this week i bought a Nitecore BR25 for my bike and a Fenix Nebula cause i put the Fenix hm65rt to the biking helmet.
@@FlashBro-r4w this is like Apple vs Android. Olight being Apple aka proprietary battery and charger. Once you get an Olight you will tend to buy only Olights because you already own magnetic charging cables. Nitecore is 500m throw, Olight is 300m. Easy win for Nitecore, but be aware, both flashlights are very slim, under 30mm, im absolutely sure both get warm very fast. Edit: my choice in throwers was an Acebeam L17. They also made L18 and L19 with increased price and throw. L17 use 18650. My point is to buy something with bigger head so it can transfer heat better.
@@randomescu “thank you for the pearls” as my grandpa use to say. They each have their pros n cons. What im noticing with nitecore is the fast step down… and im not wanting a light that steps down that quick! So now im looking into the Olight seeker 4 😂 Here we go again 😂
Mh12pro failed me after only 1 hr of use couple of minutes use at a time. Proximity sensor never worked light did com back on the next day ant failed again. Nitecore supplier has yet to replace 7 months later.
I took my streamlight protac hlx and lit a cigarette before. Try that with a nitecore and you will simply render your light useless. Down to low lumens. Nitecore needs to make a work light with 4000lumens. 5000 milliamp battery 650meter range. No proximity sensor no stepdown.
I don't think so. The PD36R V2.0 has a more focused beam and actually higher candela than the PD36R Pro. The beam characteristic is quite comparable to the Nitecore, only that the Nitecore offers much higher brightness for a short amount of time. On lower modes, they have almost identical specs.
@@subaruforester5062 Sure, the difference in luminous intensity would barely be noticeable, but that also means that the perceived brightness of the hotspot would be similar. The higher luminous flux of the PD36R Pro compared to the PD36R V2.0 would probably just result in a wider hotspot, maybe also more spill. And of course shorter battery life and more heat output. I think it depends if you want to compare lights with similar luminous flux or similar luminous intensity. I prefer that they chose to do the latter, because the luminous flux is strongly affected by thermal regulation, while the beam characteristic isn't. After the step-down the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro will have 1200 lm and just under 1000 lm respectively, while the turbo on the MH12 Pro only lasts 23 s to 30 s, about a minute on the PD36R Pro. The turbo on the PD36R V2.0 will last more than a minute, with a linear step-down to 700 lm over the course of 1 h. This means the MH12 Pro will offer 63,000 cd for 23 s to 30 s and 26,000 cd afterwards, while the PD36R Pro will offer 36,000 cd for about 1 min, followed by several minutes of a linear decline to 12,000 cd. The PD36R V2.0 starts out at 39,000 cd and holds that the longest and will reach ~16,000 cd after 1 h. In my opinion, comparing the MH12 Pro to the PD36R V2.0 is clearly the better choice, as in terms of perceived brightness, they will be equal opponents for about 30 minutes. Nonetheless, a comparison of the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro would also be interesting. I think it's quite fascinating how much you can tell about a lights' performance by simple physics. All three lights are made from aluminium and have similar sizes and masses, meaning their qualities as heat spreaders are comparable. The NiteLab UHi 40 LED of the MH12 Pro has the highest efficiency, allowing for the highest sustained luminous flux under thermal regulation. Since the beam characteristic is similar to the PD36R V2.0, it is to expected that it outperforms it in terms of brightness in the long run. The PD36R V2.0's biggest advantage is its low power consumption, as it allows the light to delay the point of crossover to around 30 minutes. The PD36R Pro seems to sit right in between in terms of luminous flux, but due to its wider beam, its sustained performance as a thrower will be inadequate. Sorry for the wall of text. I do not intend to sound condescending, I just want to share my thoughts, because I just think it's an interesting topic. :)
@@subaruforester5062 Sure, the difference in luminous intensity would barely be noticeable, but that also means that the perceived brightness of the hotspot would be similar. The higher luminous flux of the PD36R Pro compared to the PD36R V2.0 would probably just result in a wider hotspot, maybe also more spill. And of course shorter battery life and more heat output. I think it depends if you want to compare lights with similar luminous flux or similar luminous intensity. I prefer that they chose to do the latter, because the luminous flux is strongly affected by thermal regulation, while the beam characteristic isn't. After the step-down the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro will have 1200 lm and just under 1000 lm respectively, while the turbo on the MH12 Pro only lasts 23 s to 30 s, about a minute on the PD36R Pro. The turbo on the PD36R V2.0 will last more than a minute, with a linear step-down to 700 lm over the course of 1 h. This means the MH12 Pro will offer 63,000 cd for 23 s to 30 s and 26,000 cd afterwards, while the PD36R Pro will offer 36,000 cd for about 1 min, followed by several minutes of a linear decline to 12,000 cd. The PD36R V2.0 starts out at 39,000 cd and holds that the longest and will reach ~16,000 cd after 1 h. In my opinion, comparing the MH12 Pro to the PD36R V2.0 is clearly the better choice, as in terms of perceived brightness, they will be equal opponents for about 30 minutes. Nonetheless, a comparison of the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro would also be interesting. I think it's quite fascinating how much you can tell about a lights' performance by simple physics. All three lights are made from aluminium and have similar sizes and masses, meaning their qualities as heat spreaders are comparable. The NiteLab UHi 40 LED of the MH12 Pro has the highest efficiency, allowing for the highest sustained luminous flux while under thermal regulation. Since the beam characteristic is similar to the PD36R V2.0, it is to be expected that it outperforms it in terms of brightness in the long run. The PD36R V2.0's biggest advantage is its low power consumption, as it allows the light to delay the point of crossover to around 30 minutes. The PD36R Pro seems to sit right in between in terms of luminous flux, but due to its wider beam, its sustained performance as a thrower will be inadequate. Sorry for the wall of text. I didn't want to come across as a smart-ass. I really just wanted to share my thoughts as thoroughly and conclusively as possible, because I think it's quite a captivating topic. :)
@@subaruforester5062 Sure, the difference in luminous intensity would barely be noticeable, but that also means that the perceived brightness of the hotspot would be similar. The higher luminous flux of the PD36R Pro compared to the PD36R V2.0 would probably just result in a wider hotspot, maybe also more spill. And of course shorter battery life and more heat output. I think it depends if you want to compare lights with similar luminous flux or similar luminous intensity. I prefer that they chose to do the latter, because the luminous flux is strongly affected by thermal regulation, while the beam characteristic isn't. After the step-down the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro will have 1200 lm and just under 1000 lm respectively, while the turbo on the MH12 Pro only lasts 23 s to 30 s, about a minute on the PD36R Pro. The turbo on the PD36R V2.0 will last more than a minute, with a linear step-down to 700 lm over the course of 1 h. This means the MH12 Pro will offer 63,000 cd for 23 s to 30 s and 26,000 cd afterwards, while the PD36R Pro will offer 36,000 cd for about 1 min, followed by several minutes of a linear decline to 12,000 cd. The PD36R V2.0 starts out at 39,000 cd and holds that the longest and will reach ~16,000 cd after 1 h. In my opinion, comparing the MH12 Pro to the PD36R V2.0 is clearly the better choice, as in terms of perceived brightness, they will be equal opponents for about 30 minutes. Nonetheless, a comparison of the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro would also be interesting. I think it's quite fascinating how much you can tell about a lights' performance by simple physics. All three lights are made from aluminium and have similar sizes and masses, meaning their qualities as heat spreaders are comparable. The NiteLab UHi 40 LED of the MH12 Pro has the highest efficiency, allowing for the highest sustained luminous flux while under thermal regulation. Since the beam characteristic is similar to the PD36R V2.0, it is to be expected that it outperforms it in terms of brightness in the long run. The PD36R V2.0's biggest advantage is its low power consumption, as it allows the light to delay the point of crossover to around 30 minutes. The PD36R Pro seems to sit right in between in terms of luminous flux, but due to its wider beam, its sustained performance as a thrower will be inadequate. Sorry for the wall of text. I didn't want to come across as a smart-ass. I really just wanted to share my thoughts as thoroughly and conclusively as possible, because I think it's quite a captivating topic. :)
The fenix does not have thay stupid sensor that thinks snow is a reason to turn down your brightness level. I dont want any stupid light sensors. If i want to start a fire with my light i want the ability to do such.
I chose these two because of the similar battery size, release date, and beam shape, and one thing that I have learned is lumens isn't everything, there are a lot of quality-of-life things that people consider when comparing lights, honestly if the side switches and indicator lights were swapped between these lights, I probably would have called it a tie!
This guy use to do good reviews on he's own ytube channel before he was employed by Nitecore i preferred when he was neutral and not bias towards other brands
@@FlashBro-r4w I would give fit and finish to Fenix every time. I have 5 of them. However I would give it to Nitecore for performance most of the time. Both are great Manufactures. But I own a little over twice the number of NiteCores over the Fenix.
You should make it clear to all that you are a employee of nitecore. There is a clear conflict of interest here.
yup.. im agree with you.. theres's almost 1/3% will keep the true content..
I thought longhorn was an independent torch retailer
There must always be clear full disclosure. Can't just be a quick vague passing comment.
This is absolutely disgusting that he doesn't make this very clear that there is a conflict of interest. Never watching this channel again
Nitecore does not hire employees Nitecore is a china company these are just resellers and does some Nitecore promotion
I no what ur talking about I have the pd35 had it for a few years now and it definitely is a pain trying to find the side button especially with gloves I’ve actually had to use my phones screen light to find that function button. That’s why I love my pd 40 with the rotary switch. I never carry my light up by my head like law enforcement,when ur hand is up there it’s definitely easy to turn on and off and cycle through all the different lights but the rotary switch is awesome got ur hands by ur side and u can do everything on off all brightness levels plus strobe and sos all with one hand I love it. But it is time to add a night core light to my collection and the mh12 looks like the one for me
Turn the pocket clip so you can use it as a physical index as to where the power level switch is.
Good suggestion!
I am all about performance. Function over Form. That is why I ordered the MH12 Pro.
mAh is the capacity. The larger the mAh the more runtime it will have on a single charge for the same output voltage. Think of mAh as a fuel tank and output voltage as how many gallons are being consumed per mile.
not that simple.
A better comparison would be with the PD36R Pro. The PD35R is also an awesome light.
I liked the PD35R so much, I bought a second one to keep in my vehicle. Yes, I know, that's not what you were testing.😊
The smaller 1 gen 3 is awesome. I just slip it in my pocket and it goes with me everywhere.
I get 3min of solid turbo so I just keep it set that way.
Right on that's also a classic Fenix favorite!
I think I prefer the Fenix. The step-down of the Nitecore is just too aggressive. If the Nitecore steps down to 1200 lm after just 30 s you'll be left with 26,000 cd, while the Fenix will still output 39,000 cd and has a more linear step-down. I like the fact that they show very detailed output diagrams on their website. It feels a bit like Nitecore only offers such high output levels for marketing purposes. For my intended use case, occasionally looking around at night on turbo for a few minutes, but mostly walking on lower brightness levels, the Fenix seems to be well-suited.
Also, I think the UI of the Fenix is more intuitive. Sure, you can't access ultralow mode directly and there is also no beacon or SOS, but the way these modes are activated on the Nitecore seem unnecessarily complicated. You have to hold the mode button when the light is activated to cycle through the special modes, meaning if you need strobe and hold the button for too long, you'll end up with beacon or SOS, and you can't access beacon or SOS without going through strobe first. I think both manufacturers should have just put special modes except for strobe on holding the mode button while clicking the tail switch, as is used for ultralow on the Nitecore.
100% agree, I do my own independent research. I have dozens upon dozens of different brands of flashlights from different retailers.. my top three in no particular order are Olight, Fenix, nitecore.
Hmmmm def the nitecore, they have never let me down! Thx cool review
Thanks for watching!
I was leaning towards the nitecore just from the runtime and lumens, but after your field test , I'm going with the Fenix I prefer white light over that puke green , WTH nitecore.
Hey, that's why we compare beam shots!
@LonghornTactical we appreciate that!
Will the nitecore mh12 p hold up as a shotgun light?
probably but id look for lights with dual springs. better shock/drop resist.
HE NEEDS TO LEARN ABOUT RUN TIME GRAPHS Oo THAT NC DOES NOT STAY 1200 lm FOR 4:30
You are a member of nitecore, is that right?
It looked like the fenix pd36r V2 was throwing light just as far as the nitecore mh12 pro? Am I missing something?
Amazing video the Nightcore even ships with one of your Longhorn Tactical branded battery protective case which is awesome if you want to look into ordering an extra battery. Also Nightcore can run 18650s with an adapter or off two cr123s not sure if PD36R has that ability. Only nitpick with the MH12 PRO is I wish it had a 2m drop rating.
This is like comparing someone that is 4ft to someone that is 8ft. The MH12 has twice the turbo, but twice the heat and it steps down fast.I would still buy the Fenix though because I don't have to drop it when it starts smoking in my hands from being too hot.
Texan light fanatic here.... great video. FENIX is over priced like Surefire for lumen output. Liked and subbed.
Awesome, thank you for your comment!
You cant go wrong with Nitecore or Fenix but i love my Olight Baton 3 Pro Max with warm white the most. Bad weather is coming and that tint its superior to any lumen output. I would say that the brighter the cold white light is, the worse you see (in fog and snowing conditions).
Edit: and yet this week i bought a Nitecore BR25 for my bike and a Fenix Nebula cause i put the Fenix hm65rt to the biking helmet.
I’m between the Olight warrior 3S and the nitecore mh12 Pro?
Which should I get?
@@FlashBro-r4w this is like Apple vs Android. Olight being Apple aka proprietary battery and charger. Once you get an Olight you will tend to buy only Olights because you already own magnetic charging cables.
Nitecore is 500m throw, Olight is 300m. Easy win for Nitecore, but be aware, both flashlights are very slim, under 30mm, im absolutely sure both get warm very fast.
Edit: my choice in throwers was an Acebeam L17. They also made L18 and L19 with increased price and throw. L17 use 18650. My point is to buy something with bigger head so it can transfer heat better.
@@randomescu “thank you for the pearls” as my grandpa use to say. They each have their pros n cons. What im noticing with nitecore is the fast step down… and im not wanting a light that steps down that quick!
So now im looking into the Olight seeker 4 😂
Here we go again 😂
@@FlashBro-r4w Seeker 4 is not a pure thrower. If you dont need a real thrower, Seeker4Pro is the best light i ever seen.
The Warrior X4 is awesome. You really do need to check this one out! Not really an EDC, but an absolutely fantastic flashlight nonetheless.
Mh12pro failed me after only 1 hr of use couple of minutes use at a time. Proximity sensor never worked light did com back on the next day ant failed again. Nitecore supplier has yet to replace 7 months later.
I took my streamlight protac hlx and lit a cigarette before. Try that with a nitecore and you will simply render your light useless. Down to low lumens. Nitecore needs to make a work light with 4000lumens. 5000 milliamp battery 650meter range. No proximity sensor no stepdown.
Love your videos bro! Keep doing what your doing!!
You're a rainbow rider too
@@EzratheConqueror8 kid calm down does mommy know your on the internet. MR CONQUEROR🤣🤣🤣 go conquer your video games
Can you compare them to OLIGHT Seeker 4Pro
The pd36r pro would of been a more even comparson at 2800 lumens
I don't think so. The PD36R V2.0 has a more focused beam and actually higher candela than the PD36R Pro. The beam characteristic is quite comparable to the Nitecore, only that the Nitecore offers much higher brightness for a short amount of time. On lower modes, they have almost identical specs.
@saschathiede difference is less then 3k candela you wouldn't notice that by eye 1700 lumens to 2800 you will notice a light brighter tho
@@subaruforester5062 Sure, the difference in luminous intensity would barely be noticeable, but that also means that the perceived brightness of the hotspot would be similar. The higher luminous flux of the PD36R Pro compared to the PD36R V2.0 would probably just result in a wider hotspot, maybe also more spill. And of course shorter battery life and more heat output.
I think it depends if you want to compare lights with similar luminous flux or similar luminous intensity. I prefer that they chose to do the latter, because the luminous flux is strongly affected by thermal regulation, while the beam characteristic isn't. After the step-down the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro will have 1200 lm and just under 1000 lm respectively, while the turbo on the MH12 Pro only lasts 23 s to 30 s, about a minute on the PD36R Pro. The turbo on the PD36R V2.0 will last more than a minute, with a linear step-down to 700 lm over the course of 1 h. This means the MH12 Pro will offer 63,000 cd for 23 s to 30 s and 26,000 cd afterwards, while the PD36R Pro will offer 36,000 cd for about 1 min, followed by several minutes of a linear decline to 12,000 cd. The PD36R V2.0 starts out at 39,000 cd and holds that the longest and will reach ~16,000 cd after 1 h. In my opinion, comparing the MH12 Pro to the PD36R V2.0 is clearly the better choice, as in terms of perceived brightness, they will be equal opponents for about 30 minutes. Nonetheless, a comparison of the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro would also be interesting.
I think it's quite fascinating how much you can tell about a lights' performance by simple physics. All three lights are made from aluminium and have similar sizes and masses, meaning their qualities as heat spreaders are comparable. The NiteLab UHi 40 LED of the MH12 Pro has the highest efficiency, allowing for the highest sustained luminous flux under thermal regulation. Since the beam characteristic is similar to the PD36R V2.0, it is to expected that it outperforms it in terms of brightness in the long run. The PD36R V2.0's biggest advantage is its low power consumption, as it allows the light to delay the point of crossover to around 30 minutes. The PD36R Pro seems to sit right in between in terms of luminous flux, but due to its wider beam, its sustained performance as a thrower will be inadequate.
Sorry for the wall of text. I do not intend to sound condescending, I just want to share my thoughts, because I just think it's an interesting topic. :)
@@subaruforester5062 Sure, the difference in luminous intensity would barely be noticeable, but that also means that the perceived brightness of the hotspot would be similar. The higher luminous flux of the PD36R Pro compared to the PD36R V2.0 would probably just result in a wider hotspot, maybe also more spill. And of course shorter battery life and more heat output.
I think it depends if you want to compare lights with similar luminous flux or similar luminous intensity. I prefer that they chose to do the latter, because the luminous flux is strongly affected by thermal regulation, while the beam characteristic isn't. After the step-down the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro will have 1200 lm and just under 1000 lm respectively, while the turbo on the MH12 Pro only lasts 23 s to 30 s, about a minute on the PD36R Pro. The turbo on the PD36R V2.0 will last more than a minute, with a linear step-down to 700 lm over the course of 1 h. This means the MH12 Pro will offer 63,000 cd for 23 s to 30 s and 26,000 cd afterwards, while the PD36R Pro will offer 36,000 cd for about 1 min, followed by several minutes of a linear decline to 12,000 cd. The PD36R V2.0 starts out at 39,000 cd and holds that the longest and will reach ~16,000 cd after 1 h. In my opinion, comparing the MH12 Pro to the PD36R V2.0 is clearly the better choice, as in terms of perceived brightness, they will be equal opponents for about 30 minutes. Nonetheless, a comparison of the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro would also be interesting.
I think it's quite fascinating how much you can tell about a lights' performance by simple physics. All three lights are made from aluminium and have similar sizes and masses, meaning their qualities as heat spreaders are comparable. The NiteLab UHi 40 LED of the MH12 Pro has the highest efficiency, allowing for the highest sustained luminous flux while under thermal regulation. Since the beam characteristic is similar to the PD36R V2.0, it is to be expected that it outperforms it in terms of brightness in the long run. The PD36R V2.0's biggest advantage is its low power consumption, as it allows the light to delay the point of crossover to around 30 minutes. The PD36R Pro seems to sit right in between in terms of luminous flux, but due to its wider beam, its sustained performance as a thrower will be inadequate.
Sorry for the wall of text. I didn't want to come across as a smart-ass. I really just wanted to share my thoughts as thoroughly and conclusively as possible, because I think it's quite a captivating topic. :)
@@subaruforester5062 Sure, the difference in luminous intensity would barely be noticeable, but that also means that the perceived brightness of the hotspot would be similar. The higher luminous flux of the PD36R Pro compared to the PD36R V2.0 would probably just result in a wider hotspot, maybe also more spill. And of course shorter battery life and more heat output.
I think it depends if you want to compare lights with similar luminous flux or similar luminous intensity. I prefer that they chose to do the latter, because the luminous flux is strongly affected by thermal regulation, while the beam characteristic isn't. After the step-down the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro will have 1200 lm and just under 1000 lm respectively, while the turbo on the MH12 Pro only lasts 23 s to 30 s, about a minute on the PD36R Pro. The turbo on the PD36R V2.0 will last more than a minute, with a linear step-down to 700 lm over the course of 1 h. This means the MH12 Pro will offer 63,000 cd for 23 s to 30 s and 26,000 cd afterwards, while the PD36R Pro will offer 36,000 cd for about 1 min, followed by several minutes of a linear decline to 12,000 cd. The PD36R V2.0 starts out at 39,000 cd and holds that the longest and will reach ~16,000 cd after 1 h. In my opinion, comparing the MH12 Pro to the PD36R V2.0 is clearly the better choice, as in terms of perceived brightness, they will be equal opponents for about 30 minutes. Nonetheless, a comparison of the MH12 Pro and the PD36R Pro would also be interesting.
I think it's quite fascinating how much you can tell about a lights' performance by simple physics. All three lights are made from aluminium and have similar sizes and masses, meaning their qualities as heat spreaders are comparable. The NiteLab UHi 40 LED of the MH12 Pro has the highest efficiency, allowing for the highest sustained luminous flux while under thermal regulation. Since the beam characteristic is similar to the PD36R V2.0, it is to be expected that it outperforms it in terms of brightness in the long run. The PD36R V2.0's biggest advantage is its low power consumption, as it allows the light to delay the point of crossover to around 30 minutes. The PD36R Pro seems to sit right in between in terms of luminous flux, but due to its wider beam, its sustained performance as a thrower will be inadequate.
Sorry for the wall of text. I didn't want to come across as a smart-ass. I really just wanted to share my thoughts as thoroughly and conclusively as possible, because I think it's quite a captivating topic. :)
I woukd have purchased many nitecore. But they keep using proximity sensors. And no thanks i dont need my flashlight turning down my settings.
Can you blind someone in daylight or just in the dark?
Both of them can blind in the daytime! The MH12 Pro especially
It was better to compare mh12 pro vs fenix pd36r pro
Indeed. I have the MH12Pro but I keep looking at the PD36R Pro....
The fenix does not have thay stupid sensor that thinks snow is a reason to turn down your brightness level. I dont want any stupid light sensors. If i want to start a fire with my light i want the ability to do such.
well done
Thank you!
Great video 👏🏾👏🏾
Thank you! Glad you liked it!
green tint is a no for me
Why u compre diffrent lumens ? Ofcourse better mh12 pro because 3300lumens
I chose these two because of the similar battery size, release date, and beam shape, and one thing that I have learned is lumens isn't everything, there are a lot of quality-of-life things that people consider when comparing lights, honestly if the side switches and indicator lights were swapped between these lights, I probably would have called it a tie!
650 meter throw. 4000 lumens and no proximity sensors. Then you can boast about nitecore Chinese lights. And no green tint
This guy use to do good reviews on he's own ytube channel before he was employed by Nitecore i preferred when he was neutral and not bias towards other brands
I love my Fenix
Yeah, its definitely a great light!
def not the same class, nightcore much better
Then you haven’t tried a “real authentic fenix light”. I’d recommend u try a fenix fenix pd35 v3 or pd35r. Very good lights.
@@FlashBro-r4w I would give fit and finish to Fenix every time. I have 5 of them. However I would give it to Nitecore for performance most of the time. Both are great Manufactures. But I own a little over twice the number of NiteCores over the Fenix.
@@FlashBro-r4w seems like pd36r v2 is not a real authentic fenix light for you
Stop shaking your hands !!!!!!!!!!!!!!