New HL from Petzl: Pixa series

[ringzero]

The whole Pixa series looks like they'd be hard to beat as caving backup lights.

Also, Pixas look like a good bet for tradesmen who need lights daily in their work, where they will inevitably be banged around and dropped on a regular basis.

People keep refering to them being heavier than the competition, but if anyone quoted their actual weights in this thread I missed it. None of the online places selling them seem to list their weights. Anyone know the actual weights of Pixa 1 to 3?

I wouldn't mind buying a somewhat heavier headlamp for true waterproofness and extra ruggedness.

.

 

[Bolster]

Any Pixa (1, 2, or 3) weight with batteries: 160 g, or 5-1/2 ounces.

For comparison, two Zebralight H501s would weigh 4.4 oz. Or, two H51F's would weigh 6oz. So the Pixa is within a normal range for a 2xAA headlamp, IMO. (The problem with this comparison, is that two H51Fs would output 36 lumens for 19 hours, or max 192 lumens for 2-1/4 hours...whereas a Pixa would give max 25-30 lumens for 12 hours of flood.) The Pixas just don't put out a large volume of light, period. But I find that 25-30 lumens is pretty good for close-up hand work.

For me, it comes down to what's the beam spread on the Pixa 1? On the Pixa 3 it's somewhere in the 50 degree range, but I'm hoping that the dedicated-flood Pixa 1 is wider.

 

[gcbryan]

That's only because there aren't many 2 AA headlamps without separate battery packs. The Storm is (4) AAA which is more or less the same as (2) AA and it is 3.9 oz. The Tikka XP 2 is 3.1 oz I believe.

It may be rugged but it's not bright or light weight

 

[ringzero]

Thanks, Bolster.

So, a Pixa is not quite twice the weight of Tikka 2, +2, XP2...

OK, I could live with that for a canoe trip, caving trip, etc. where robustness and waterproofness is highly desirable.

For nighthiking or backpacking I'd probably go with one of the Tikka 2 series to save some weight.

.

 

[coors]

Any info to share about the Pixa-1? I'm really interested in this one, right now, for possible nighttime trail navigation and camp setup, etc. Would really appreciate reading about your experience with the Pixa-1!

 

[coors]

Pixa-1 Review Link

Most have probably already seen this Pixa-1 review, but for those that have not, yet: http://forum.fonarevka.ru/showthread.php?t=3834&language=en

 

[LEDAdd1ct]

Guys, I am sorry, this one is my fault. I have the Pixa One upstairs. I'll get something together for CPF before the weekend is through. :thumbsup:

 

[clemence]

Hi guys,

I just got my Pixa 3. Bought from SG for SGD124 from Allsport Singapore. Been playing with the Petzl for almost 15years. The last Petzl I had was Tikka XP, a big disappointment :scowl: (very dim, lens slider stuck easily in sandy/muddy conditions, unregulated like most older Tikka series, short elastic head band life). I bought this Pixa 3 for my work and occasional late night camping & climbing. It's heavier than the Tikka but feels much more durable. The best thing about this HL is its chemical resistance such as from gasoline and alcohol (I ruined almost all of my previous Tikka's rubber button with my gasoline stained fingers) .

A bit dissapointed about the Cree XPE LED's inside . Any idea about how to remove this XPE? I have 100's of fresh unused XPGs. I think the XPG would be an excellent replacement for the OEM XPE in terms of brightness and beam spot. Usually most XPE's optics are interchangeable with XPG's because they share the same dies footprint. In Carclo's website we can see that optics designed for XPE will produce wider and sometimes more uniform spot with XPG.
I think a simple upside fabric iron plus a heat gun will do the removal job but, how to keep the other IC's remains intact?

 

[coors]

I've been using a Pixa 1, for a little more than a week now. It is certainly bigger than expected, as numerous others have said about these various Pixa models. Realestate-wise I'd say that total area of the Pixa 1 equates to about 2.5 Princeton Tec EOSs:

Fully charged Eneloops give just over 10 hrs of runtime before dropping into the reserve power mode. The 2x alkaline, Duracell, batteries that came in the packaging did seem to burn brighter than the Eneloops. Will have to get another alkaline set and some Energizer Ultimate Lithiums to test with a meter. The light's beam pattern is nicely wide and bright enough out to 50 feet. I do find myself wanting a bit warmer tint, but my use is outdoors in foliage this time of year. Overall I'm VERY pleased with this headlamp.

 

[Bolster]

Thanks for the report! Some of us are very eager to know about the Pixa 1.

Could I beg of you, to tell me how wide the beam is (figure edge of beam about where it's half as bright as center), and also measure how far from wall? Then I can calc beam angle.

Nice photo, too!!

 

[coors]

Sorry to take so long to reply. I just measured the Pixa 1 beam's hotspot and from 40" (1 meter) it itself is 27" across. That's just the bright central part of the beam and it gradually fades out to about 150 degrees before extinguishing. In use, with the headlamp tilted downwards so that the top of this bright spot is falling at about 50' distance, the usable beamspill completely covers the entire periffery(?) of the scene/ human vision. I'll try to take some images that show what I'm saying, tonight.

 

[Bolster]

Thanks! So the hotspot trigs to 37 degrees.

I generally measure the "edge" of the usable beam at what my eye tells me is half the brightness of the central portion of the beam...if that helps. I don't measure to the "very last light" because it's not really usable light if your eye is adjusted for the central portion.

 

[gcbryan]

Thanks! So the hotspot trigs to 37 degrees.

I generally measure the "edge" of the usable beam at what my eye tells me is half the brightness of the central portion of the beam...if that helps. I don't measure to the "very last light" because it's not really usable light if your eye is adjusted for the central portion.

How to you measure a true flood then which has no brighter central portion?

 

[Bolster]

True floods such as the H501 are easy, there is light in the center, and then there is no light at the edge, and the transition point is abrupt. The border on an H501 is well defined, have a look at a beamshot in the flood beam thread. Whereas a light like the Irix Icon drives you crazy because it slowly tapers to nothing. I measured maybe 5 times and took the average, trying to find that point my eye thought was about half the brightness of the center.

I know some people measure beam width, counting where there is any light at all. My thinking is that if the eye is adjusted for the brightness of the center, then the dim light at the edge is pretty worthless.

Do you think there is some standard way you could measure beam width? Would be nice if there were.

 

[gcbryan]

True floods such as the H501 are easy, there is light in the center, and then there is no light at the edge, and the transition point is abrupt. The border on an H501 is well defined, have a look at a beamshot in the flood beam thread. Whereas a light like the Irix Icon drives you crazy because it slowly tapers to nothing. I measured maybe 5 times and took the average, trying to find that point my eye thought was about half the brightness of the center.

I know some people measure beam width, counting where there is any light at all. My thinking is that if the eye is adjusted for the brightness of the center, then the dim light at the edge is pretty worthless.

Do you think there is some standard way you could measure beam width? Would be nice if there were.

I have no idea. I justed wondered what your thoughts were and how you do it. I like the lights (in flood mode) where they taper to nothing.

 

[Bolster]

I meant, drives you crazy to measure it.

 

[ringzero]

Do you think there is some standard way you could measure beam width? Would be nice if there were.

The standard way is to measure the angle off the center axis where the beam intensity down is down to 70 percent of the central peak beam intensity.

The reason for using 70 percent intensity, is because 70 percent squared is very close to one-half.

The reason for squaring is because beam intensity squared is directly proportional to beam power.

In other words, the 70 percent intensity angle equates to the Half Power angle of the beam.

The Half Power angle is the most commonly used spec for beam patterns, both for optical beams and antenna beams.

.

 

[uk_caver]

Surely, squaring to get power applies when measuring voltage, or some similar amplitude measure, where power is proportional to amplitude squared?

With light, if we're measuring lumens, aren't we measuring power directly (effectively, getting a measure proportional to photons/sec, if ignoring the subjective colour-related correction factors)

 

[ringzero]

Surely, squaring to get power applies when measuring voltage, or some similar amplitude measure, where power is proportional to amplitude squared?

With light, if we're measuring lumens, aren't we measuring power directly (effectively, getting a measure proportional to photons/sec, if ignoring the subjective colour-related correction factors)

One model used in optics treats light as an Electro-Magnetic Wave, which works very well for many purposes.

Another model treats light as discrete particles - photons - which takes into account the quantum mechanical nature of light. This also works very well for many purposes.

Neither model is useful in all situations.

The first model treats light as an electomagnetic wave with two components - electric and magnetic - that are both perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the light beam.

The amplitude of the electric field component of a light beam is directly proportional to the intensity of the beam. (Electric field vector in light is similar to AC voltage in an electrical circuit.)

Power transmitted along a light beam is proportional to the square of the magnitude of its electric field component.

The directionality of the electric and magnetic components of the beam account for its polarization.

Methods used to find power within electrical systems can be applied to light, radio waves, etc.

The essential equivalence of light, radio waves, and other EM waves was first worked out in detail by the great British scientist James Clerk Maxwell back in the 19th Century.

.

 

[Bolster]

Very interesting Ringzero, thanks for posting that.