LED's and Luxeons are great lights. I have a bathtub full of them and I keep getting more, like yesterday when I ordered a Nuwai Q III. I have some of the best Luxeon III ever made by the best modders in CPF, lights with Surefire E2e bodies and PR T heads with Down Boys 917 and TYOJ bins.

My first Luxeon was a Surefire Digital Lumamax L-4, a 5 watts Luxeons with a fantastic wall of light for such a small light (just a tad bigger than the E2e)

But as much as I like them, they can not supplant the incandescent from a good flashlight company like Surefire or Streamlight.
They don't throw as far as the incandescents do (an E2e will throw farther) and by the lack of the red spectrum they lack definition.
I have a raccoon feeder at 25 yards from my window. I do all kinds of experiments shinning incandescents and Luxeons at the animals out of that window. At that distance, even when the Luxeon III lights show that the animals are there, the lack of definition in comparison with the G-2, 6P, or C3 etc is outstanding.
LED's tend to blend the animals with the background and the viewing is poor, even using my PR T's heads.





If you take Luxeon V or III in any kind of weather you will quickly learn how poor performers they are in conditions of Rain, Fog, Snow and Smoke. Smoke is the reason why firefighters will not use them due to the poor penetration.
Smoke, Fog, Rain, and Snow are the reasons why the US Army will not use them as weapon lights or even as handhelds.

Surefire M-4 using the turbo head will easily reach up to 100 yards ditto and more for the Surefire M-6 Guardian with the 500 lumens lamp, and my own MAG 951 with the 951 lumens will easily reach 200 yards. No Luxeon light in existence today will get that far or put any serious amount of lumens at any long distance.

I have a piece of my fence 78 yards away (by laser rangefinder). I have put one of my black bear mounts with their deep black "light-drinking" fur, and only certain incandescents can show that the bear is there, none of the Luxeon III’s will do it for me.

Besides, we have the issue of reliability. Yes because the bulb doesn't burn they are reliable in the bulb department, but electronics can fail. If this happens when you are in the wilderness or the field you will have to rely on another flashlight to keep you going.
My own survival kit has an E2e with spare lamps and several batteries with a Z-52 LOCT switch (I also dislike clickies as I have repaired three of them on my own lights).
I can stack my survival on that light as nothing can go wrong that a change of batteries (10 years shelf life) and a new bulb cannot cure.

I have dropped my L-4 and it stopped working, needing a trip to Surefire to fix it. So that is why for outdoor adventures I will not take any LED or Luxeon unless I am also carrying an incandescent with spare bulbs.

Under my rifles: for a good throw I have TACM III with remote pressure pad switch; they throw much father than Surefires with 2 and 3 batteries due to their bigger diameter smooth reflector.



Incandescents are here to stay and are not becoming obsolete because Luxeon lights out there are getting a big piece of the flashlight market.
When professionals, rescue people, firefighters and Police need a serious illumination tool they reach for a good quality incandescent light.

.
black bear 84

It's a little early to say for sure. Luxeons and similiar LED technology are less than 10 years old. It'd be like comparing a light bulb from 1889 with those available today. The comparison stops there, though, since LEDs are advancing much more quickly than the light bulb, for several reasons.

From your post, it would seem the only advantage incandescents have over LEDs are color rendition and throw. In most every other area (durability, lifetime, etc) LEDs already beat the pants off hot wires, and are catching up fast in the color / distance area.

The next 10 years are going to be fun. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Groo,

I don't think so, as they rely in electronics, the durabiliti issue is on question (specially for survival issues) as a incandescent will only need a new bulb if something goes wrong, a LED will need a trip to the factory for repair of the electronic board.

That is why in my survival kit I have a E2e with spares bulbs and batteries.

And in the issue of throw, let me show you what the Surefire L-4 Digital Lumamax (which I have) will do at 20 yards in comparison with a Surefire 6 P (both output 65 lumens)

Surefire 6 P (65 lumens retail for $56.00) at 20 yards



Surefire L-4 Digital Lumamax reatil for $160.00 65 lumens at 20 yards



So, they say a picture is worth 1000 words!!

black bear 84

BlackBear-

I have a 6P (I'll confess, all my others are Luxeon-based except for Photon and Infinity Ultra), and thinking about buying the P61 high output lamp.

Do you have firsthand experience? For the ~$25, thumbs up or down, notwithstanding the shoooort runtime?

Thanks.

Or when it burns out, or when it you drop the flashlight and the filament breaks or...

Lumileds, the company that makes Luxeon Star LEDs, was founded in 1999. The first public demonstration of a lightbulb was Dec 31, 1879. You're comparing a 6 year old technology with one that's 126 years old. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Let's meet back here in 10 years (may not take even that long), and see if you're any happier with LEDs. <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Blackbear,

I've also got a mix of incandescent and LED lights. I agree that incandescents are superior in terms of throw and color quality. LEDs have their advantages also. That's why I have a mix. I'm curious, what is the rifle below the Mini-14?

Steve

Stevez,
It is a .22 LR. CBC MAGTECH model 70/22 it is a Brazilian rifle.
CBC stand for Compania Brasileira of Cartouches the main proveyor of ammo for Brazil

Rifle shoots good an use 10 rounds magazines I bought it about 6 years ago at Wal-Mart on sale for $50.00

regards
black bear 84

Blackbear,

I'm not familiar with it. But I DO know that Brazil is known for quality lower-cost firearms. Good choice I'm sure. The Mini-14 is another favorite of mine. Thanks for the photos.

Steve

Bless you for throwing light on this subject!

I was trying to make similar points in a different post. I carry a SureFire C2 hard finish on my belt at all times. It lights up the night! I keep an LED in my pocket for everyday work.

<img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Currently, with LEDs you basically have a choice of throw or flood. My E1L/E2L out-throws a regular E1e/E2e (though has little flood). While the KL4 on an E2e body (L4) has slightly less throw then a regular E1e, but has more flood then my E2e.

That is why I like Surefires interchangability though. I can carry an E2L or L4 for everyday tasks where I want extended runtime and to not have to worry about bulbs, or I can switch to a regular E2e just by changing the head and bulb if I want. The same can be done with the 6P/G2/C2/ect.

Anyway, I'm sure for the average person LEDs will all but replace incans in a few years.

My take on the incan vs. LED argument...

Incandecent will always be easer to focus into a spot. An incan is just a piece of white-hot wire. This wire can be coiled a little, which makes the light-emitting portion only a couple of milimeters.

LED's, on the other hand, use a PN junction of a slab of semiconductor. Generally, more light -> a larger slab semiconductor.

So the LED is at a disadvantage because the light comes from a larger area. When focusing the light, you want the source of the light to be as small as possible (it's a math thing). As the light source grows, the reflector has to grow in proportion. So, for an equivalent spot at 100 yeards, the LED will need a larger reflector to achieve the same beam spread. Of course, you can compensate by using fancer optics (lenses and such), but lenses have the following problems:
1) If the lens covers the entire fron aperature, then you get absolutely no "side spill" light.
2) If the lens only covers part of the aperature, then you get ugly rings on the side spill.
3) Lenses will generally increase the length of the light, and likely the cost and weight.
4) More work to engineer a lensed system.

So, for long-throw applications in the smallest possible package, incandecent wins hands down.

You don't need lenses for focusing to a spot, or producing spill. You simply have to match the reflector design to the emitting characteristics of the LED you're using. Take the HDS lights for example. Tight spot, great spill, one reflector, no lens.

This whole discussion has shades of "Horseless carriages will never completely replace horses". <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Xbanker,
By all means go with the P-61 lamp is a tremendous improvement in brightness and in the area of illumination (The hot spot is bigger) which will aid you when you enter a room to clear it.
The throw remain the same, due to the reflectors been the same (heavily stippled) the reflector is designed to provide a quality beam without holes or artifacts with a very good flood or side spill.
For a weapon light to be mounted in a rifle a smooth reflector will give you more throw.
As an example I have several TACM III mounted on my long guns that have a lot more throw. (70 yards opposed to about 45 for the Surefire) this is due to the reflector been slightly bigger but smooth, not orange peel.
When you get to light with the intensity of over a 100 lumens the artifacts disappear at a few yards range.

You will be happy with the 120 lumens lamp on the 6 P because it is more intense and you will start seeing the white light that Surefire talk about.

The more lumens you put out the more you are going to see and the bigger area that will cover, an P-91 lamp (200 lumens) in a Surefire 9 P or C-3 is a revelation, and from that you will want to go to bigger things like the Surefire M-4 or M-6, (350 lumens and 500 lumens)

Let me show you the relationship in brightness between those lights, lets start with your Surefire with the stock lamp (P-60, 65 lumens)

Surefire P-60 65 lumens



Surefire M-4 350 lumens



Surefire M-6 500 lumens



And now the most powerful flashlight in the world (which I made) the MAG 951 (951 lumens)



NOTICE:
Lumens can be additive and hazardous to your wallet!!

Oh, but it is so nice to have in your hand something that will really blind your opponent!!!!

The biggest advantage is the lack of need of panning the room with your light, a Surefire M-6 at 500 lumens will let you see everything around (more so the MAG 951, that have the advantage of been rechargeable as well as double the lumens).
Both are fantastic lights to use against dogs that chase joggers, the critters are scare of the light and will be blinded by it.
The normal reaction on them is to stop and not move; because they are positively blinded they don't move as they can not see where they are going.
More or less same reaction than deer exhibit when you approach them with your car in the middle of a road.

regards
black bear

BlackBear-

Thanks for your insight.

My decision's made (but thanks to you, my attempts to save money by avoiding Candlepower Forums just went up in smoke <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />).

Eh. It usually takes a generation or two before the holdouts are completely gone. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The goal is to convert energy into photons with maximum efficiency. Heating a wire until it glows currently (heh) has two advantages: The emitted spectrum is close to sunlight, so it looks good, and it's possible to dump massive amounts of energy into it to increase the brightness (with horrible efficiency). The only other advantage is that it's technologically simple. That's it... Once a replacement comes along that produces the same spectrum at the same or greater brightness, and does so more efficiently, incandescents are dead.

What's less clear is whether the replacing technology will be LEDs or something even more exotic. Early work with quantum dots suggests it will eventually be possible to tailor the output spectrum and have near 100% conversion efficiency. Sweeeeeet. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Of course incandescents will still be around. How can you reenact the 20th century if you don't use exact replicas? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If they could just come up with a laser that had decent beam spill <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />