My Nitecore EA4

It is, but it still is a good idea of what the EA4 can do. It lights up the trees and the hill pretty good in person. Just not as intense. Great light!

Can’t you photo-shop adjust it to what it really is. First thought in my mind when I saw pic was this just can’t be.

That’s what happens when you take pictures in auto exposure with a very long shutter speed. Manual exposure with a 1.2 sec shutter would reduce that photo above by I would say 75%.

75%, not a chance. You would not even be able to see anything. Like I said before it is just a bit more intense. Look at the pics rikr first posted. This thing is a beast.

I have been to Rick’s place and know how far those pictures are approx. Those trees you have lit up are way off like how far did you say they were. There ain’t no way in hell that a light that throws less than the TK35 is even going to come close to doing that to those trees in the distance. I know. I have a TK35. I also know what taking pictures will do to a beam with long shutter speeds of much over 1.2 sec. Go take that same photo on the settings I posted and turn white balance to fine. Use a focal of 4 and put your ISO on 400 and then get back with me on your results. My bet is you will do good to see the beam on the trees much at all and nowhere near what your trying to insinuate in that photo above.

And get rid of the embedded photo file format so people can see what your camera settings are truly are. Heck on mine you can go find out all my details of the camera info.

Case in point below of a TK35 beam at 110yds on the setting I told you about above.

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv204%2Fbrad541thb%2FDSCF4100Small.jpg

Notice the trees in the far background at approx 200yds behind that last electric pole you really can’t even see them lit up at all. That’s my point what 1.2 sec shutter will do to a beam at a distance.

Well sorry master photo taker!! I was not trying to hide anything, I said from the start that it was my first attempt at beam shots. It is what it is. I took a second one with lower shutter speeds and it still looked good. I adjusted what I could on my camera. I know what I can see with my eyes and I looked at Google earth and the distance is accurate. You can see the trees with this light, it is not just as intense. NO matter what you think or say.

Not cutting you down. I have been in your shoes. Been there and done that. I know for a fact I used to do the exact same thing your doing now. So take it how you wish. You can tell it like it is, or keep misleading folks with your photos. I decided to fix mine and tell it like it is.

Like I said I did the retakes. I said in the original post that the first pics were more intense and the second one was a bit to dim. Actual performance was somewhere in between.

But on your retakes you still had a 3 sec manual exposure. Now reduce that down to over half and post those again. Then you will rule out that last phrase somewhere in between.

If I went to a 3 sec manual exposure time on that TK35 shot above, it would make it a lot brighter. But I refuse to do this because I know it would be misleading my viewers. And believe me in the past I did just that. I hope you will see the light. But that remains up to you. I know I did. Trooplewis on here was the guy that educated me on camera settings and info. He helped me a bunch. And believe me I was as stubborn as they come and even got mad. But now I know he was only telling me the truth about my photos.

Here we go again!! Brad he was trying!! Not everyone has the cameras with all the settings, he did take more photos and posted them on his link. Just because someone takes pictures and they are not done to your standards is no reason for you to call them out every time!!

Well when someone post a photo to mislead viewers in a thread like this and people buy this light thinking it will do what he showed in the photo here above, and they end up being depressed and misled afterwards don’t do those folks any good either. It is what it is Rick regardless if you agree or not. I come to see that just like I got you to use the same settings. I can’t make anyone use these settings, but I can’t sit back and let overexposed pictures just keep popping up in threads and mislead members here and remain silent either.

Calling it like its is all that I have done. This is your thread, and had that picture not hit it you wouldn’t have heard my comments on it. So go back to business at hand. I hope your headache gets better.

Sorry we disagree on the matter.

Looks like I stirred up a hornets nest. J)

Don't worry about it. I like your photo, even if it's overexposed a bit. BTW, Merry Christmas to you.

Merry Christmas to you to, and everyone on the forum. :slight_smile:

Photography and camera settings can be confusing. Normally there are 4 settings if you have manual settings on your camera. Aperture, shutter speed, light and ISO. Each setting affects the picture somehow. You cannot take settings from one camera and expect them to work the same with another. I have an older camera and usually leave it on ISO 200 (the higher the number the brighter the picture is, all other settings being the same) but my pictures get very grainy with anything over 200. To sum up my camera for night shots. ISO 200 as explained, light setting on daytime and the aperture on the smallest number the camera has. These settings can more than likely be used as a base setting on most cameras. That only leaves the shutter speed to play with to get the picture that you see yourself. Good luck and happy experimenting. Thanks for taking the time to post the pictures you have.

Thanks! I was not trying to mislead anyone. I got the EA4 and people wanted to see what it looked light. I put them up pretty fast, and did a new one for a better reference. For all who have this light they know how great it is. I have not saw one person say anything negative about this light. Other than not having a lower low.

With the christmas noose so snugly around my neck I have no financial lattitude ATM,but as soon as I do,I WILL BUY THIS.Like everyone said there's no slew of negatives pouring in,so why not.I don't like the 65 lumen low,but I can easily live with that.