**NEW** Nitecore EA4 Pioneer (4*AA, 860lm)

[sbbsga]

I just found out that the LED on both my EA4's are lit up very dimly during the voltage readings - switch lock-out and tail cap reconnection. The same thing happens on my TM15W too. But they are off after that.

 

[AVService]

If they produce a version with a low mode, I'll buy it. I can't see spending so much money on a hobbled light.

Isn't everything really about comprimises?
So this light has no real low mode but it does have a blinding output from standard readily available and inexpensive batteries which does seem to define a new class of light somewhat.

I like my HDS Rotary because the interface does offer the absolute best option for really having it any way you want with both flexible presets and complete variable control at the same time.
It does not however feature the blinding output and throw of the EA4 and it does not use AA batteries.

I don't like it any less for the differences at all.

I also love my SC600w and it does provide high output with a varied assortment of really low modes but again only on less than common batteries.

This is why we are here in the first place,isn't it?

 

[KirthGersen]

Isn't everything really about comprimises?

Sometimes a missed opportunity or poor design choice is just that. There was no design tradeoff in choosing not to implement a proper low mode, just thoughtlessness as to how the light would be used by many people. As close as it is to "great" in my book, it's not great without a low mode. I like many things about the light (form factor, battery type, waterproofing / build, lockout mode, etc.), but will wait until they fix that design flaw. Hopefully someone will read up on prospective customer feelings when designing the next version. I am also avoiding the Fandyfire Rook because of the glaring lack of a low mode. I don't intend to drop a non-negligible amount of money on a light that I consider to be uselessly hobbled.

 

[grepeyre]

Thanks for all the info on the eneloops.

I somewhat agree that it would have been kind of the ultimate light to have had it included a lower low (or a much lower low). But from my perspective, I would pick up the EA4 only if I knew I was needing serious lighting like going for a walk and checking things out outside. I have a 78lm torch at the moment and I find that it's the bare minimum for that kind of job, so a lowest of 65lm seems no problem. I probably wouldn't use it on any lower setting than that had it included one.

For round the house things like not bothering people at night by turning on all the lights or checking the weird rattling noise behind the fridge or whatnot I've also ordered an EC1. Very small and handy. The combo of these two should be pretty much what someone would need in terms of lighting I would think.

Then after that the TM-15

 

[Tybo22]

This light is being marketed as a searchlight. Working SAR I dont need or want a lower low than 65 lumens. When mine arrives it will be a utility belt light to go along with my main fenix tk75. I love moonlight and firefly modes but not in a searchlight. Just my opinion.

 

[Timothybil]

Happy New Year everyone! It's 2am and 1F out here in the wilds of Iowa, and I just got back from running #1 son over to his girl friend's house. I just got my NW EA4 from the Post Office this morning, and loaded it with a set of 2022 EA91s. I left it in the car all day, and took it out just now when I got home, so you know it was cold. Did some distance shots and it really is a nice little pocket searchlight. Easily lit things up 175 m away. But the really interesting part was that after about 5 minutes of play out in the cold, it showed 5.8 volts when I put it into lockout. Yet when I pulled one of the cells 5 min later to get the date off of it, it showed 6.2 v when I put it back together. Amazingly resilient little cells, aren't they.

I personally think 65lm is fine for a low. When I was walking back to the apartment from playing around, it was just enough to light up the ground around me. If I need anything less than that, that's why I carry my SL ProTac EMS (3.6, 10, & 60 lm).

On an unrelated topic, does anyone know what the two long numbers are trying to tell us?

PS: No rattles.

 

[Devildude]

This light is being marketed as a searchlight. Working SAR I dont need or want a lower low than 65 lumens. When mine arrives it will be a utility belt light to go along with my main fenix tk75. I love moonlight and firefly modes but not in a searchlight. Just my opinion.

I for one would have to agree, this light just about perfect in its current design. If you want a moonlight mode get a smaller light, for outdoors the low is just right for walking and turbo is just a press away for anything that goes bump in the night.

 

[dc38]

Happy New Year everyone! It's 2am and 1F out here in the wilds of Iowa, and I just got back from running #1 son over to his girl friend's house. I just got my NW EA4 from the Post Office this morning, and loaded it with a set of 2022 EA91s. I left it in the car all day, and took it out just now when I got home, so you know it was cold. Did some distance shots and it really is a nice little pocket searchlight. Easily lit things up 175 m away. But the really interesting part was that after about 5 minutes of play out in the cold, it showed 5.8 volts when I put it into lockout. Yet when I pulled one of the cells 5 min later to get the date off of it, it showed 6.2 v when I put it back together. Amazingly resilient little cells, aren't they.

I personally think 65lm is fine for a low. When I was walking back to the apartment from playing around, it was just enough to light up the ground around me. If I need anything less than that, that's why I carry my SL ProTac EMS (3.6, 10, & 60 lm).

On an unrelated topic, does anyone know what the two long numbers are trying to tell us?

PS: No rattles.

I stopped for a sec after reading that you " just got back from running #1 son over" lol. Did the light make a nice hand warmer in that super freezing temperature?

 

[markr6]

This light is being marketed as a searchlight. Working SAR I dont need or want a lower low than 65 lumens. When mine arrives it will be a utility belt light to go along with my main fenix tk75. I love moonlight and firefly modes but not in a searchlight. Just my opinion.

Agreed. And I'm going to guess you have a backup stashed away (and another backup to the backup?) anyway, which could serve other tasks with lower lumens. Trying to have an "all-in-one" would be a very risky situation in a potentially dangerous situation.

 

[markone]

I'm a bit disappointed with my EA4 I received today. It looks like the bezel was either cross-threaded, or the threads were cut un-square on the body. Plus there's a rattle even when I remove the tailcap and batteries, with the switch depressed as well. Anyone else notice this?

Talking about the "uneven" bezel my fresh EA4 (received yesterday from UK) had the same defect, but i solved unscrewing (with the aid of a rubber foil) and screwing it with some care.

It took a couple of minutes.

The cause of misplacement is the "play" between threads, no signs of cross-threading or CNC machining errors.

The rattle is detectable only under heavy shaking action.

Apart the fixed bezel problem, i love the UI and the flashlight is performing in amazing way, considering size and battery type.

Sure it's worth also at EU price (75-80E).

Right now my only concern is about the switch assembly working life ....time will tell !

 

[RBH]

That is my only concern.

Right now my only concern is about the switch assembly working life ....time will tell !

 

[Verndog]

I don't intend to drop a non-negligible amount of money on a light that I consider to be uselessly hobbled.

Wow....uselessly hobbled? So more light is more useless then less light? Are you blind by chance?

Just ordered mine (NW on backorder), and the 65 low is a non issue given the MAIN PURPOSE of this light for my uses. In fact 65 lumens is a very good indoor mode for me, if I need less then that I have other correct tools for that job.

 

[KirthGersen]

I for one would have to agree, this light just about perfect in its current design. If you want a moonlight mode get a smaller light, for outdoors the low is just right for walking and turbo is just a press away for anything that goes bump in the night.

Describing a failure to include a proper low mode as a plus is just denying the obvious; a light without a proper low mode is not just about perfect. A moonlight mode would be all right in addition, but at least I'd like to see a light which doesn't imply that people need a wasteful 65 lumens to see one's way in the dark, etc.. Nor is it a meaningful answer to state that I can carry another light to remedy this failing. Of course I can-- the point is that I don't intend to carry two lights because one of them is hobbled; I'll wait for the non-hobbled one.

 

[KirthGersen]

Wow....uselessly hobbled? So more light is more useless then less light? Are you blind by chance?

No, I just tend to state the obvious without blinding myself. You obviously don't like it when anyone "insults" your gear, but I take a more rational approach. If you go back and read my post again, maybe you'll get it. The point is that the silly absence of a real low mode wasn't based on a useful design tradeoff; it's just a dumb oversight that makes the light less all-around useful. Sorry you self-identify with your lights so much, but sense is sense.

 

[KirthGersen]

Agreed. And I'm going to guess you have a backup stashed away (and another backup to the backup?) anyway, which could serve other tasks with lower lumens. Trying to have an "all-in-one" would be a very risky situation in a potentially dangerous situation.

These arguments that one should ignore a missing feature by carrying more lights just don't make sense to me. Let's consider your backup argument: of course I have backup lights. We have backups because the primary light may fail, not to use because the primary light has missing features. In this case if your "backup" were to fail, you'd be left without a proper low mode.

The point is that there was no useful purpose in leaving out a low mode in this light. For general purpose use, I'd rather have one all-around useful light to carry instead of a bunch of lights because features were left out which should have been included on some of them. That's the reason that I usually carry just one light in my pocket, instead of one for throw, one for spill, etc. I also tend to just put one light in my glove box, which I would also like to not be hobbled by failure to include features that would have been involved no drawbacks to include.

There's just no way to spin the failure to include a low mode so that it makes sense. Some can pretend they would never use it (because they like to waste battery life, I guess the argument runs); some can pretend that they would prefer carrying multiple lights. None of this comes off as anything but a heap of rationalizations for a design flaw.

 

[KirthGersen]

I personally think 65lm is fine for a low. When I was walking back to the apartment from playing around, it was just enough to light up the ground around me.

65 lumens is never "just enough to light up the ground" around a person, for anyone with properly working eyes. With night adapted eyes 1-3 lumens is plenty for lighting the ground around a person, enough to serve as an aid in night hiking, and I know of some people that would use even less. There is a vast gulf between 1-3 lumens or so and night-vision destroying, battery-wasting 65 lumens. A low mode of around 10 lumens, multiplying maximum battery runtime by around six times, would make so much sense that the failure to include it ignores how many people use their lights.

Witness the many complaints about the lack of a low mode; Nitecore's sales are reduced by this obvious lack. Sure, the light is nice in many ways. I'll just wait for the light of this type that's not hobbled by the lack of a low mode. Hopefully that's an EA4 with an updated driver; this flaw is fortunately easy to correct.

 

[applevision]

Not to fuel any flaming here, but I agree that a low-low would make this light even better!

BUT, and here's the big BUT... what if in order to do this, other trade-offs would truly hamper the light, perhaps by making it less efficient overall? I don't know this for a fact, but wonder if this is not a real possibility from overhearing others who know about design. Part of the reason Zebralight is so special, for example, is that they seem to be able to get a huge range of light with insane efficiency... but I suppose that it is possible that this is not an easy task! We sort of take it for granted.

Anyway, I'd love to hear from Nitecore about this, and I still maintain that this is an amazing light, and still my current favorite of my entire collection! For my purposes, it is truly perfect, but as with all tools, some are better suited for certain tasks than others... so YMMV.

 

[markr6]

These arguments that one should ignore a missing feature by carrying more lights just don't make sense to me. Let's consider your backup argument: of course I have backup lights. We have backups because the primary light may fail, not to use because the primary light has missing features. In this case if your "backup" were to fail, you'd be left without a proper low mode.

The point is that there was no useful purpose in leaving out a low mode in this light. For general purpose use, I'd rather have one all-around useful light to carry instead of a bunch of lights because features were left out which should have been included on some of them. That's the reason that I usually carry just one light in my pocket, instead of one for throw, one for spill, etc. I also tend to just put one light in my glove box, which I would also like to not be hobbled by failure to include features that would have been involved no drawbacks to include.

There's just no way to spin the failure to include a low mode so that it doesn't make sense. Some can pretend they would never use it (because they like to waste battery life, I guess the argument runs); some can pretend that they would prefer carrying multiple lights. None of this comes off as anything but a heap of rationalizations for a design flaw.

Good points, I agree with you here as well. I'm sure most owners would want a lower mode. But can we agree that if the light did have a moonlight mode, lets say 1 lumen, people would be complaining about the gap between 1lm and 65lm? So we add something like a 20 lumen mode - now we're up to six modes to cycle through which would probably also get many complaints. We could cut out one of the higher modes, but then that would make others upset.

I guess we'll never be 100% satisifed, but agree it was an oversight to make 65lm the lowest mode. Although not "moonlight", an extra 15lm mode would be perfect in my opinion.

 

[Timothybil]

I stopped for a sec after reading that you " just got back from running #1 son over" lol. Did the light make a nice hand warmer in that super freezing temperature?

Nah, that's what gloves are for. And super freezing around here doesn't start till about -10F!

 

[Verndog]

No, I just tend to state the obvious without blinding myself. You obviously don't like it when anyone "insults" your gear, but I take a more rational approach. If you go back and read my post again, maybe you'll get it. The point is that the silly absence of a real low mode wasn't based on a useful design tradeoff; it's just a dumb oversight that makes the light less all-around useful. Sorry you self-identify with your lights so much, but sense is sense.

I don't need to read you post again, I get it...BUT I totally disagree. I have a similar light LD41 U2 that has just what your looking for. 5 lumen low. I have never used it in low, and just gets in my way as I have to cycle past it. If I need a little bit of light, I don't grab for a 4 cell...period. It's like driving a semi to the corner grocery for a soda...wrong tool for the job. Food for thought....I have NEVER blinded myself even on turbo. I point the light to the ground when I turn it on....works awesome!