Unboxing Olight i1R EOS

rookiedaddy

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
941
Location
A Place Called HOME
Received this newly release i1R EOS from Olight for testing and review... posting this in a tad bit different manner this round... all text embedded in pictures...

E7nvMGJ.png


cSPs2jz.png


nmmwFAK.png


5IjWJBM.png


ysQ6a4Y.png


SyZRn6h.png


3E6qWIm.png


ntmAljy.png


S7EjSfL.png


65MgGft.png


KdoiaSt.png


SYBtLRo.png


aJS2yr3.png


ZAzjuWW.png


yl2n6C1.png


Sa34OvL.png


iqtflof.png


IaQRBcC.png


eGz9anl.png


That's all folks... :grin2:
 

djans1397

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,356
Location
Bozeman, Montana
Looks like it'll make a great cheap keychain light. Thanks for the review.

Can you post some simple indoor and outdoor beamshots?
 

maukka

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Messages
641
Location
Finland
Nice to see the Luxeon used there. Is the beam shape and tint consistency identical with the i3E EOS?
 

rookiedaddy

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
941
Location
A Place Called HOME
Can you post some simple indoor and outdoor beamshots?
Nice to see the Luxeon used there. Is the beam shape and tint consistency identical with the i3E EOS?
white wall beam shot below:
uu76nn4.jpg

the beam shape is identical to i3E EOS, but as you can probably tell from the above, the tint is leaning towards slight greenish similar to the silver 120 lumens version, and it's also the brightest among them at high mode.
the TIR optics diameter is identical to i3E EOS too.
 

jirik_cz

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,605
Location
europe
Looks like a nice light, but the thread on the body seems very short. I would be afraid about its long term durability.
 

rookiedaddy

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
941
Location
A Place Called HOME
Looks like a nice light, but the thread on the body seems very short. I would be afraid about its long term durability.
I'm no machinist... and honestly, I had the same worries too when I first saw that short thread... then when I compare the weakest point with other similar lights I have...
ZTQO7Oz.jpg

I no longer carry that worry no more... and starts to enjoy using it... :kiss:
 

busseguy

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
578
The instruction sheet shows that it gets 20 minutes on the high setting but the graph shows much lower runtime on high.
Unless I'm reading it wrong?
 

rookiedaddy

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
941
Location
A Place Called HOME
you are reading it right. It's a declining runtime curve and it's one of the thing that I have problem with ANSI/NEMA/PLATO-FL1 standard. They quote the runtime down to 10% of the brightest setting where sometimes they hit and sometimes they miss.
oh... how I miss the good'ol day of the "tactical" runtime quote from SureFire... :candle:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
642
Holy thread resurrection Batman! This better be important!

Well, yes, it is. Just got the i1R2 EOS. Except for 20 more claimed lumens on high and using a , notice that every single spec is WORSE than the original i1R EOS. Lower runtimes. Lower candella. Lower beam distance (throw). And the tint sucks too!

Tint is subjective and hard to photograph, but here is my best try (i1R left, i1R2 right):
i1R vs i1R2.jpg


To my eyes, the original i1R is about as bright, has less sharply defined spot margin (though it doesn't look that way in photo), and looks very much like a high CRI image. It may not be, but that's what it looks like when I use it.
 

aznsx

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
1,634
Location
Phoenix, AZ USA
Holy thread resurrection Batman! This better be important!

Well, yes, it is. Just got the i1R2 EOS. Except for 20 more claimed lumens on high and using a , notice that every single spec is WORSE than the original i1R EOS. Lower runtimes. Lower candella. Lower beam distance (throw). And the tint sucks too!

Tint is subjective and hard to photograph, but here is my best try (i1R left, i1R2 right):
View attachment 49797

To my eyes, the original i1R is about as bright, has less sharply defined spot margin (though it doesn't look that way in photo), and looks very much like a high CRI image. It may not be, but that's what it looks like when I use it.

I've found that with some manufacturers, 'new and improved / Vn', etc., is likely to translate to 'cost reduced' (with a few more lumens). They often aren't 'better'. Sorry that it proved disappointing, but I guess you still have your original version as well.
 
Last edited:

gurdygurds

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 7, 2014
Messages
1,993
Holy thread resurrection Batman! This better be important!

Well, yes, it is. Just got the i1R2 EOS. Except for 20 more claimed lumens on high and using a , notice that every single spec is WORSE than the original i1R EOS. Lower runtimes. Lower candella. Lower beam distance (throw). And the tint sucks too!

Tint is subjective and hard to photograph, but here is my best try (i1R left, i1R2 right):
View attachment 49797

To my eyes, the original i1R is about as bright, has less sharply defined spot margin (though it doesn't look that way in photo), and looks very much like a high CRI image. It may not be, but that's what it looks like when I use it.
I think I like the old one better too. The only thing the newer one has going for it is the captive head.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
642
I've found that with some manufacturers, 'new and improved / Vn', etc., is likely to translate to 'cost reduced' (with a few more lumens). They often aren't 'better'. Sorry that it proved disappointing, but I guess you still have your original version as well.

Yes, old faithful is going strong. Noticeable more compact as well.
 
Top