Due to cellphone camera limitations, (all photos are underexposed).
Roche M170, 3-xml, NW, 2400-lumen,3-XML (here you already see the M170 is much brighter than this photo is showing)
FF4, low, 24W (aimed higher, less spill than the other pics)
FF4, high, 40W
TK70, turbo
FF4, turbo, 60W
This pics are taken at only about six feet away from wall. At this very near distance, it does not really give justice to the mode changes of the FF4, (although you will notice the increasing intensity of its hotspot) but notice how the beamshots of the Roche M170 seem to get dimmer in comparison at each increase of the FF4’s output!
FF4@ 24W vs Roche M170, 2400-lumen
FF4@ 40W, same setting on M170
FF4@ 60W - Same setting on the M170 (notice how the M170’s beamshot seems to go dimmer!)
Nice! I was scrolling down through the pics and got to the tk70 turbo pic and thought, "that's the light everyone make such a fuss over? The TK70 destroys it!". Then I scrolled down a little further to the last pic and "Whoa! That's what all the fuss is about! " :bigsmile:
You should see it beamed at a much greater distance to appreciate it more. At far distances, when the TK70 runs out of breath, it takes over handily. The photos actually does not represent what I see because it’s an old Nokia X6 phone, (the pics are dimmer) useless to take photos even just a little farther away than the pics above.
Thinking back, the TK70 pics were taken at a later time coz I have to take it out of its box, and must have made a different setting. The cellphone does not retain its previous setting. The TK70’s output is actually in between the FF4’s 24W and 40W mode.
There are some pics that show it better than a PH50 while in turbo.
Now some are getting to the USA it will be interesting to see a definitive comparison done by someone that has both of them. Mind you I think I can do without the instant on, keep the 4 and have the £1400 difference in price in the bank.
