NiteCore EZ AA-W (Warm tint) Comparison Review

I wrote to NiteCore to ask which bin they used for the EZaaW -
their reply was mainly Q3 5B.

The 5B is designated by Cree a Neutral White -
its tint is in the color temperature range 4,000-4,300 degK -
but it is just on the green side of the Planckian Locus
- whereas the 5A is on the red side.

Here's the crop from Cree's pdf on the XR-E bins -


The color representation of the CIE 1931 Color space:

Does anyone know if this light is available to order? I can't seem to find the warm version anywhere online. Thank you!

KarstGhost said:

Does anyone know if this light is available to order? I can't seem to find the warm version anywhere online. Thank you!

Click to expand...

It is available at 4Sevens.com they call it Neutral-White -
which is actually the correct name/tint
- but it is the same model [N.EZAAW].

KarstGhost said:

Does anyone know if this light is available to order? I can't seem to find the warm version anywhere online. Thank you!

Click to expand...

Ordered one from 4sevens a couple days ago. Got the shipping notification yesterday. Last time I checked they still had them in stock.

Update: Just got it in the mail this afternoon. Tiny little bugger! I know it's longer than the Quark Mini AA but I like the longer, slimmer profile. Came with a short lanyard, a clip and split ring, and a couple extra o-rings. Threads need some lube, but otherwise very nicely built. Walls of the battery tube are thin, but once the battery is in it feels solid and well built. Projects a beam pattern; very distinct hotspot but a narrower cone of light than my Quark and the spill is more intense. I put the lanyard on it and slipped it in my pocket; seems right at home.

With respect to the color; NICE! :grin: Looks much more natural than my Quark. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm now one of the Gang of Neutrals, as I can go either way and still be happy. But, for my intended use for this light, it will be nice to have the neutral color.

UnknownVT said:

Our eyes/brain behave differently from a camera.

Cameras can only have a single white balance - and its behavior is relatively set/predictable.

Click to expand...

That is not the end of the story, I'm afraid. Two facts

• Digital cameras behave differently from film cameras
• Film has been developed to render colors as accurately as the human eye can perceive

Speaking of contemporary digital cameras, they suffer from two shortcomings that most films don't

1. Tonality: this is a measure of how many "shades" are visible/available/captured by digital sensors
2. Dynamic range: measure of how wide a difference in brightness and darkness can be captured in the same scene

Our eyes can look at a bridge brightly lit in the sun and can make out details in both the dark undersides of the bridge as well as in sunny bright areas.

The bottom line is, when you post digital pictures of an outdoor scene lit by a bright flashlight, the digital sensor is working overtime and due to limitations of current technology ends up showing high contrast images. :thumbsdow

tk40 said:

Film has been developed to render colors as accurately as the human eye can perceive

Click to expand...

That may be so.....

But film is only balanced for a single or narrow range of color temperature.
So if a scene under tungsten light is taken with a daylight balanced color film
- would this really render colors as accurately as the human eye can perceive?

If the film were that accurate why then the "difference" in rendering between say Kodchrome 25 which is well known for very rich saturated colors and Fujichrome - known for its clean colors?

Then there's the whole world of color print film - as anyone who used to have their film developed and printed will attest that most of the time prints do not come out as expected.....

Sorry, film even though has had great research and technology over many, many years -
has as many failings as digital.

It's kind of like saying analog sound recording is better than digital -
the answer is both yes and no - depending on one's tastes.

Film is no more accurate than digital - after all both big film makers Kodak and Fuji have digital cameras and I am sure they have applied their film knowledge to digital to try to gain an advantage for better market share -
but their digicams are no more accurate than those from the traditional camera makers such as Canon, Nikon etc.

In fact "Popular Photography" magazine have their lab measurements of color accuracy - and for some years now the better digital cameras have measured higher in color accuracy than any film.

Great information. I found this post very interesting. I'm really starting to search more and more for neutral lights. Thanks for posting!

BlueMarble said:

Great information. I found this post very interesting. I'm really starting to search more and more for neutral lights. Thanks for posting!

Click to expand...

Welcome, and glad to be of some help.

I thought it was infatuation with neutral white LEDs initially -
but I find I like the NW tints - my eyes seem much more tolerant - as I seem very sensitive to tiny amounts of off-white in cool-white LEDs - I have always preferred warmer white tints and although neutral whites do seem more than just "warmer" cool-white (oxymoron :o) my eyes seem to accept them as "white" - I have also found that neutral white LEDs do not seem to lose the ability to show blues and yellows which is a real advantage.

I now carry neutral white flashlights as my EDC (EveryDay Carry) both at home and when I am out of the house -
I use a Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA at home
and carry a 4Sevens Q-MiNi AA Titanium Neutral White when I go out
(links to reviews).

Hi, I have two questions ?

01. Is the low mode also usable in real world scenarios... like building a computer etc. ?
Or would you just say that the low mode is not high enough for using for anything.

02. Do you still use your EZ-AA as your primary EDC or did you replace it by anything else..?

:popcorn:

smithman said:

01. Is the low mode also usable in real world scenarios... like building a computer etc. ?
Or would you just say that the low mode is not high enough for using for anything.
02. Do you still use your EZ-AA as your primary EDC or did you replace it by anything else..?

Click to expand...

The low is a generally useful level - if anything, sometimes I think it is a bit high for closer tasks (handheld). I hardly ever use the high - but then I tend to use flashlight more indoors than outdoors.

My at home EDC currently is Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA - just because the low is very low - often I tap to the next level up (lvl 2) and occasionally to the next up (lvl 3)

Quark AA NW level 3 is just a bit brighter than the low of the EzAA-W.

smithman said:

Is the low mode also usable in real world scenarios... like building a computer etc. ?
Or would you just say that the low mode is not high enough for using for anything.

Do you still use your EZ-AA as your primary EDC or did you replace it by anything else..?

Click to expand...

The two levels are very well chosen, and although I would have liked a lower low if the light had three levels, I'm very pleased with them.
As for building a computer, I'd say absolutely, the low is just fine.

To your second question, I never used mine as my primary, except for daylight usage when searching for something in an area with a lot of light around the dark area I need to search, and that is when the punchy beam of the EZ series comes through. For night I usually prefer a floodier beam, but when I want some throw then I reach for the EZAAw. ;)

UnknownVT said:

The low is a generally useful level - if anything, sometimes I think it is a bit high for closer tasks (handheld). I hardly ever use the high - but then I tend to use flashlight more indoors than outdoors.

My at home EDC currently is Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA - just because the low is very low - often I tap to the next level up (lvl 2) and occasionally to the next up (lvl 3)

Quark AA NW level 3 is just a bit brighter than the low of the EzAA-W.

Click to expand...

kaichu dento said:

The two levels are very well chosen, and although I would have liked a lower low if the light had three levels, I'm very pleased with them.
As for building a computer, I'd say absolutely, the low is just fine.

To your second question, I never used mine as my primary, except for daylight usage when searching for something in an area with a lot of light around the dark area I need to search, and that is when the punchy beam of the EZ series comes through. For night I usually prefer a floodier beam, but when I want some throw then I reach for the EZAAw. ;)

Click to expand...

BIG THX to both of you ! :twothumbs

This will be my FIRST LED FLASHLIGHT. :naughty:

Previously I used a Non-LED MagLite Mini AA (2 cells).
Would you say that the low of the EZ-AA could be enough to replace my old Mag ?

As I mentioned this will be my first flashlight (beside the mag) and I want to make a wise decision. Maybe I will be also a Flashaholic after this... :popcorn:

BTW: You mentioned also the Quark AA, does it still have the 'preflash' problem. I've heard about this sometimes.

smithman said:

BTW: You mentioned also the Quark AA, does it still have the 'preflash' problem. I've heard about this sometimes.

Click to expand...

The Quarks that I have at hand all have a very fast pre-flash - hardly noticeable unless one is looking for it.

With one exception if the light was used in the high level or max level modes last then switching on in minimum (the very low low) then the pre-flash seems more noticeable - I think this diminishes if the light is left off for a longer period of time.

I have to choose betwen the quark aa tactical or the ez-aa.
I am not sure if they will handle the problem of the pre-flash, because I've also read that the pre-flash on the tactical-series is more noticeable.

However, I am still not sure... :confused:

Would you say that Nitecore is going to release a new version of the EZ-AA in the near future ? :popcorn: :candle:

smithman said:

I am not sure if they will handle the problem of the pre-flash, because I've also read that the pre-flash on the tactical-series is more noticeable.

Click to expand...

Seems to me a lot has blown way out of proportion on this pre-flash on Quarks -
I wouldn't have even noticed it until it was mentioned to me and I started to look for it and experiment to see if I could actually make it worse.

So my observations are quite deliberate and premeditated -

In all practical use since it is my EDC I had forgotten all about it - until you brought it up again - the pre-flash is not a blinding flash of light - it is mostly something that one may notice and say didn't the light come on a bit brighter?

I am not trying minimize or diminish the effect - it's just not that bad to me, and hardly noticeable .....

But then of course you may be much more sensitive to it than me,
so as always YMMV.

smithman said:

Previously I used a Non-LED MagLite Mini AA (2 cells).
Would you say that the low of the EZ-AA could be enough to replace my old Mag ?

BTW: You mentioned also the Quark AA, does it still have the 'preflash' problem. I've heard about this sometimes.

Click to expand...

It's been a while since I even turned on a Maglite Mini AA but I'm pretty sure you'll be happy when you see the smooth beam coming out of whichever of these lights you choose.

I've never had one of the tactical Quarks but my regular Quark has no pre-flash, nor do I recall any of them that I've given away having it.

smithman said:

I have to choose between the quark aa tactical or the ez-aa.

Would you say that Nitecore is going to release a new version of the EZ-AA in the near future ? :popcorn: :candle:

Click to expand...

This seems like a really odd pairing to choose between since the Quark is pretty large and has a button operation, compared to the EZAA single twist. The Quark MiNi would be a more even comparison, with it's twisty UI and compact dimensions.

Internet troubles!

Same as above

Another question,

with which other flashlight could be the 130 LM of the EZ-AAw be compared ?

I mean are the 130 Lm really a good value for this class and may it be possible that this value is also good for competing with flashlights of higher classes (like bigger edc's).

What about the 'WOW-Effect', Is there one, for example if I show it to anyone who is a non-flashaholic ?? :candle:

The Nitecore EZAAw is NOT good for WOWing non-flashaholics.
The tint is a dirty brown. Ugly when compared to a pure white regular LED but lacks the warmth of an incandescent.
The warmer tint of the neutral LED seems less bright than the cool tints of regular LEDs. The EZAAw is not impressive despite its brightness on high while my EZAA (the older Q5 version) is bright. This has its advantages. I can read menus in dark restaurants comfortably with the 10 lumens of the EZAAw but a L0P SE (ye olde Luxeon 1W) low of 5 lumens produces too much glare.

To impress go with a CR-123A light. The Quark Mini 123 R5 189 OTF lumens, The Quark 123 R5 206 OTF lumens.

Remember non-flashaholics buy at DX too. MP3 players, earphones etc. They could have easily stumbled across a Tank007 E07 (1AA 120 lumens) for $14.05 or a TrustFire XP-EF23 (150-Lumen 1*AAA/1*10440) for $13.61 or the big pile of P7, MCE, SST-50 lights at less than $50. So you may not impress them.
Ditto eBay.