How many of you still use incans over LED's?

[bstrickler]

A MagLite Solitaire is a great way to navigate the house at night, using an incan.

Only time I use the solitaire, is when the moon mode on my AA^2 is too bright for my eyes. The soli is about 1/3 as bright on new cells (may be because of a defective bulb, but thats all its good for, for me).'



Personally, I have always liked LED over incan (except the "white" LED's that end up being blue). Incan's have made everything an ugly yellow/brown for me, even on fresh bulbs, while LED has had better CRI for me (Cool and neutral LED are all I've used so far, and I don't plan on going with warm, since I don't like the yellowness). LED's also provide better contrast for me, while incans make it harder to distinguish things.


I'm all for freedom of choice, but for me, LED works best, though it may not work well for other people. It may be because of my color deficiency, and not being able to see the full spectrum (I don't see reds and blues as well as the rest of the spectrum), which might explain why LED's look more natural to me than incan's.

I also don't need to see 500+ yards away. What good is that really going to do me, in 99% of uses? 100 or so is plenty. If I want throw, I'll modify my mag to use an SST-90, and an aspheric lens, or make my own version of the DEFT and use an SST-90, if I want extreme throw for no real reason (for me).


With that said, I have all LED's, except for 1 of my 6P's, which uses a Lumens Factory EO-4 dropin. The only reason I use that, is to cycle my cells, and find out what cells are dead. I bought the dropin, because I thought I'd try a decent incan bulb, but it doesn't do any better than my Quark AA^2 Neutral, and is actually dimmer.

With that dropin, I've cleared out about 10 18650's that otherwise would have been considered fine, by my LED P60 dropin (they lasted about 1 1/2 hours under that), because they only stood up to about 90 seconds of 2 amp draw, before they suddenly plummeted to below 1 volt, and went in the bag of dead li-ions.

Please, lets keep this a friendly topic. I've steered away from threads like this, because of the reason they kept getting shut down due to people being aggressive and extremely asinine.

~Brian

 

[paulr]

For caving? LED, without doubt, just for the runtime and because you can break the incan bulb. You dont want to be left without light inside a cave and the weight of the batteries an incan need doesnt help either.

I actually thought the reliability argument went in favor of incan. LED lights are full of complex high tech electronics, but practically nothing can go wrong with a traditional incan light that you can't fix with a pocket knife or a spare bulb (which is tiny). Many lights actually have spare bulbs stored inside the light body. I do agree that for long-duration use like caving, the extra weight of batteries for a moderately bright incan could be decisive.

I do still occasionally edc an incan light, but mostly out of "hey, I like that old light and haven't carried it in a while", sort of like wearing a wind-up wristwatch. LED's are way ahead technically but they are more like digital watches.

 

[kaichu dento]

A MagLite Solitaire is a great way to navigate the house at night, using an incan.

Once...

That's funny!

I just remmembered kaichu dento's sign

I made me laugh as hard as the first time I read Marduke's post which I pilfered!

On a serious note, I would love to have a tiny incan from Surefire in the same size range as the Solitaire that actually lasted a little while and had a decent beam. If they could get 20 minutes out of it I think it would be pretty enticing!

 

[kaichu dento]

Many lights actually have spare bulbs stored inside the light body.

I do still occasionally edc an incan light, but mostly out of "hey, I like that old light and haven't carried it in a while", sort of like wearing a wind-up wristwatch. LED's are way ahead technically but they are more like digital watches.

I wish I could store a spare in the tailcap of my E1e!

You're reasoning for carrying a incan is something I relate to so strongly that it's actually one of the reasons I like some of the more yellowish LED's - they make me feel like a flashlight should (nostalgic influence), but with all the runtime of LED. I don't want a wind up watch, but I'm fascinated with them too. Nice post Paul!

 

[hoongern]

...
Personally, I have always liked LED over incan (except the "white" LED's that end up being blue). Incan's have made everything an ugly yellow/brown for me, even on fresh bulbs, while LED has had better CRI for me (Cool and neutral LED are all I've used so far, and I don't plan on going with warm, since I don't like the yellowness). LED's also provide better contrast for me, while incans make it harder to distinguish things.
...

That's a valid opinion But would just like to straighten up one thing - LEDs don't have higher CRI than incans. Incans by definition have a CRI of 100, the highest you can get, and LEDs can only be [theoretically] equal or lower. (CRI is objective, not subjective. Whether CRI is the best method to use for color accuracy comparison is a different topic)

However, maybe what you meant was that LEDs render the tint of things in a way you prefer to incans?

 

[Outdoors Fanatic]

I have just closed one Incan vs. LED thread; if this one goes the same way, with flaming and rudeness, culprits can expect to be suspended. You have been warned.

Don't worry, I'm leaving CPF.

Good bye.

 

[SureAddicted]

OF, mate I hope your not leaving. You love flashlights, especially the incans .
The incan section wouldn't be the same without you.

 

[paulr]

That's a valid opinion But would just like to straighten up one thing - LEDs don't have higher CRI than incans. Incans by definition have a CRI of 100, the highest you can get, and LEDs can only be [theoretically] equal or lower. (CRI is objective, not subjective. Whether CRI is the best method to use for color accuracy comparison is a different topic)

However, maybe what you meant was that LEDs render the tint of things in a way you prefer to incans?

I thought that 100 was the CRI of sunlight and that incandescents came nowhere near it. Maybe I'm confused though.

 

[bstrickler]

That's a valid opinion But would just like to straighten up one thing - LEDs don't have higher CRI than incans. Incans by definition have a CRI of 100, the highest you can get, and LEDs can only be [theoretically] equal or lower. (CRI is objective, not subjective. Whether CRI is the best method to use for color accuracy comparison is a different topic)

However, maybe what you meant was that LEDs render the tint of things in a way you prefer to incans?

Yes, thats what I meant. I couldn't think of the wording for it, so I just used CRI. (Yeah, I know CRI has the word render, but it didn't click for me, when trying to figure out what I was trying to say).


Paulr, hoongern is right, according to http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/cri_explained.htm

Quoted from the website:
"Incandescent bulbs have a CRI rating of 100, yet are far from ideal for color rendering and matching. Why? With a color temperature of only 2700k they are far too weak at the blue end of the spectrum making it next to impossible to distiguish between various shades of blue. The CRI rating of 100 simply means that the 8 samples look exactly the same as they would under a black body radiator at 2700k. The same can be said for lamps that exceed 6000k in color temperature as they are too weak in the red end of the spectrum, making reds and oranges appear too similar creating a "washed out" appearance. The northern sky with a color temperature of about 7500k and a CRI of 100 is not necessarily the ideal color rendering light source either. An ideal light source for color rendering will have both a color temperature similar to daylight and a high CRI value."

So, the reason incans don't look right to some of us, is because they are on the lower end of the temperature spectrum, so they lack the blues and whites, while (cool white) LED's are lacking in the red end.


I think it would be a good idea for people on the forum to try an Isihara test, and see if more people that are hardcore LED fans are red-green color deficient than the incan fans.. That would give a good explanation as to why some of us can't stand incans (we can't see the reds anyways, so how are we benefiting from the incans, which show more red, and lack blue), while others love it, because their eyes can see the full normal human-eye capable spectrum. It may not be 100% scientific, but that would explain why some of us prefer LED over incan, and vice-versa.


~Brian

 

[jtr1962]

I thought that 100 was the CRI of sunlight and that incandescents came nowhere near it. Maybe I'm confused though.

They both have a CRI of 100. CRI is by definition 100 for any light source which is a black body radiator. The sun and incandescents both qualify BUT the CCT between them differs. CRI is really only valid for comparing light sources of the same CCT. To me personally a 5000K, 85 CRI light source will hands down beat a 3000K, 100 CRI light source. The former just renders colors closer to how they would appear in sunlight, even if it's not perfect. However, if I have two lights sources which are both 5000K, then a CRI 96 source will handily beat the CRI 85 source.

I'll also add that a common misconception regarding LEDs is the assumption that warmer LEDs automatically have a higher CRI than cooler ones. This is only the case because nobody has made a high-CRI cool white LED. There are several examples of warm or neutral high-CRI LEDs. However, many warm or neutral LEDs are not high-CRI. In some cases the CRI might be slightly higher than their cool-white cousins owing to the differences in the relative peaks of the blue and phosphor curves. Subjectively some may say they're MUCH better if colors are rendered in a way they find more pleasing. Generally, such a medium CRI warm or neutral LED will allow disguishing warm colors better at the expense of distinguishing cooler colors. The reverse is true for a cooler LED. Which is preferable depends upon both what you are viewing, and how you see. Some people just don't notice the absence of significant parts of the color spectrum, others do.

 

[jtr1962]

I think it would be a good idea for people on the forum to try an Isihara test, and see if more people that are hardcore LED fans are red-green color deficient than the incan fans.. That would give a good explanation as to why some of us can't stand incans (we can't see the reds anyways, so how are we benefiting from the incans, which show more red, and lack blue), while others love it, because their eyes can see the full normal human-eye capable spectrum. It may not be 100% scientific, but that would explain why some of us prefer LED over incan, and vice-versa.

That might explain part of it but not all. I'm not red-green color deficient at all. I definitely notice the red deficiency of most LEDs. That being said, I notice the color balance of a light source even more. I find lack of a white point, with the resultant color shift, to be ten times more annoying than a red deficiency. This is the primary reason I've never been a big fan of incandescent lights, even going back 40 years ago when white LEDs were but a remote fantasy. I actually preferred to sit under an admittedly lousy halophosphor cool-white flourescent than under an incandescent simply because it actually had a reasonable white point which made most colors ( except reds ) look relatively normal. I knew the fluorescent made red objects look brick red. However, this tradeoff was perfectly acceptable to me. Fast forward to 2010 and any run of the mill cool-white LED is nirvana compared to those old-school fluorescents. Sure, I still notice there's a tradeoff regarding deep-reds, but in this case it's way less than the tradeoff I found perfectly acceptable with the old-school fluorescents. Soon we will have cool-whites without even that relatively small trade-off.

On the flip side, I've often wondered if those who prefer incandescents might have either a deficiency in the blue area of their vision, or simply more red cones than average. That would go a long way towards explaining it. They may well be able to pick out subtle shades of red which elude the average person. Incandescent would have a great advantage rendering those subtle shades of red. So they'll notice a lack of red much more than they'll notice a lack of blue.

There really is no "right" answer to light source preference. I only know what I prefer. If someone sees the world totally differently, then who am I to tell them their preferences are wrong? And vice versa?

 

[AlexLED]

...
I'm not red-green color deficient at all. I definitely notice the red deficiency of most LEDs. ...
On the flip side, I've often wondered if those who prefer incandescents might have either a deficiency in the blue area of their vision, or simply more red cones than average. That would go a long way towards explaining it. They may well be able to pick out subtle shades of red which elude the average person. Incandescent would have a great advantage rendering those subtle shades of red. So they'll notice a lack of red much more than they'll notice a lack of blue.
...

Good point and might apply to me.
Personally, I really consider the red deficiency of LED annoying and on the other hand I sometimes noticed haveing a hard time identifying shades of blue.
So, my preference of incan seems logical and personal.

 

[Phaserburn]

I prefer incans outdoors because the browns and greens that are dominant out here in the woods just don't look right under led light. They look washed out, 2D, almost greyscale to me. I often use leds outdoors, but given lights of the same output and beam, the red content of incans seem to work better. I don't think my vision is the problem.

I can tell you what IS a "problem" of many here on CPF after reading some tens of thousands of posts: People consistently discuss and focus on the color of their light beam, not the color of objects IN the light. It's white wall hunting +1 and then some. I have been as guilty as anyone of this, but being outdoors down a path trumps it nicely, as your surroundings force you to pay attention to what you see more than how you're seeing it.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I have just closed one Incan vs. LED thread; if this one goes the same way, with flaming and rudeness, culprits can expect to be suspended. You have been warned.

:green: ...... :sweat:...... ...... :green: ....... .......:mecry:....

 

[DaveG]

I have always loved flashlights and leds got the juices going for me again over the past few years.But with all the new types of led out there I cant keep up with them all.And I do love my led lights but, I find I am starting to get to use my incans again.I guess what once was old is new again,at least to me.I am going to start packing a incan flashlight,and a led headlamp on my night fishing trips once the season opens.That way I have one foot in the old world and one in the new so to speak.

 

[bullfrog]

I dont have any incandescent flshlights anymore...

My last to go was a red Surefire A2 Aviator with Strion socket/bulb mod and delrin tale (sold to our own nfetterly, IIRC)... great light and I miss it, but my Malkoff M60WL just got grabbed almost every time... :candle:

 

[hoongern]

...
I'll also add that a common misconception regarding LEDs is the assumption that warmer LEDs automatically have a higher CRI than cooler ones. This is only the case because nobody has made a high-CRI cool white LED. There are several examples of warm or neutral high-CRI LEDs. However, many warm or neutral LEDs are not high-CRI. In some cases the CRI might be slightly higher than their cool-white cousins owing to the differences in the relative peaks of the blue and phosphor curves. Subjectively some may say they're MUCH better if colors are rendered in a way they find more pleasing. Generally, such a medium CRI warm or neutral LED will allow disguishing warm colors better at the expense of distinguishing cooler colors. The reverse is true for a cooler LED. Which is preferable depends upon both what you are viewing, and how you see. Some people just don't notice the absence of significant parts of the color spectrum, others do.

Absolutely! i think this has been a major sticky point for me - I often hear people saying "I prefer neutral tints because they have better CRI", which is not necessarily true. Tints [CCT] and CRI are independent variables.

(And another note: Again it can be debated that CRI is not necessarily the best indicator of color accuracy)

For reference: The CRI of Cree's Neutral & Cool tints are exactly the same. They only differ in tint.

...
There really is no "right" answer to light source preference. I only know what I prefer. If someone sees the world totally differently, then who am I to tell them their preferences are wrong? And vice versa?

I agree - Honestly, I'm a bit tired of the views that "cool is better than warm", "warm is better than cool" (of course, within limits, I do think that a 2000K or 9000K light source is ridiculous), but I've found that it's mainly a personal preference. However, I would say that a HIGH color rendering source at the person's preferred tint is what is preferable.

For me personally, because I grew up with outdoor sunlight and cool fluorescent lighting, I like using cool LED tints indoors, but I use my incans when I go outdoors. I'm patiently waiting for a high CRI cool-ish LED light (no $ to spend on lights for now)

 

[paulr]

I'm very happy with the Nichia 083 High CRI led in my Sundrop. I don't know the CCT but the spectrum is really nice, and subjectively seems like sunlight. I don't get the same feeling at all from the "neutral white" Cree XR-E led in my Quark Mini.

Incan color varies a lot too, from sickly yellow to fairly full spectrum white.

 

[paulr]

They both have a CRI of 100. CRI is by definition 100 for any light source which is a black body radiator. The sun and incandescents both qualify BUT the CCT between them differs. CRI is really only valid for comparing light sources of the same CCT.

Ah, this explains. Thanks.

 

[Swedpat]

Only time I use the solitaire, is when the moon mode on my AA^2 is too bright for my eyes. The soli is about 1/3 as bright on new cells (may be because of a defective bulb, but thats all its good for, for me).

Around 10 years ago I had a Solitarie to my keychain. I then found this to be nice and pretty bright for it's size...
I cannot compare now, but have hard to believe that a Solitaire with fresh battery is dimmer than Quark AA2 on moonmode. The reason to that low brightness can be that the bulb to Solitaire (the same with Minimaglite bulb) after a while will be carbonised on inside and therefore lowers the output.

Regards, Patric