Thinking about an EOSII or ArgoHP C4

It's about time I got off my duff and bought a decent headlamp. Half-Watt, if you are out there, how do the EOSII and ArgoHP C4 compare? It just so happens I have a small cache of CR123s, so batts are no problem in either case. It would be used infrequently, mostly the occasional camping trip or power outage, nothing like caving every weekend. I'm leaning towards the ArgoHP, it's much less expensive and I do have sufficient batts for it, but I don't have any real idea how useful the beams for each compare.

dlrflyer said:

It's about time I got off my duff and bought a decent headlamp. Half-Watt, if you are out there, how do the EOSII and ArgoHP C4 compare?

Click to expand...

i haven't cp. them side by side, nor done any light box or light meter quantitative measurements.

i'll have to try the SL ArgoHP C4 again, as well as the Argo C4 (3xAAA - MUCH, MUCH improved over the prev. non-C4 version of the 3xAAA Argo - which was a poor HL in terms of burntime, IMO)

i'll Post back after i've done this (it won't be today though). i'll have a chance to test all three of them side-by-side tomorrow.

to the best of my recollection, the two SL HL's will have a brighter hotspot, but still have plenty of spill. the PT EosII is much floodier, but still plenty bright on HI for me to use when hiking an unfamiliar trail.

all three are very nice, IMO. you should choose the one that best fits your needs. whatever you choose, you certainly haven't made a bad/poor choice.

so, that's it for now, i'll Post again (versus editting this Post), after i get a chance to try all three HL's side by side.

times like this make me think that i ought to go and purchase my first ever camera as a picture is worth a thousand words. not to hijack this Thread, any suggestions as to make, model, and price? PM me if you want to advise me in this regard so that we don't hijack this Thread. many thanks, pj aka half-watt

Wow half-watt, I'm still amazed you have no camera. Even most cellphones have decent cameras these days.

I recommend the Canon SD1000 as your first camera. Simple, cheap, robust, and excellent quality.

LED-holic said:

Wow half-watt, I'm still amazed you have no camera. Even most cellphones have decent cameras these days...

Click to expand...

i work in a secure area. no audio or video recording devices allowed. last thing i want is to get in hot water w/the Dept. of Homeland Security. a vacation cell in Gitmo is *NOT* my idea of a fun [doing] time-share!!!

Thanks half-watt, I'll look for your report. I think you've become the resident hl expert, I can't of anybody with more hl than you. I just wish the EOSII wasn't so pricey, but I do like the thought of a more floody beam.

here's a rough comparison of the the EosII (3xAAA), the ArgoHP C4 (2xCR123A), and the Argo C4 (3xAAA).

IMO, the easiest one to hike w/would be the EosII on *HI*. it is a wall of light. very broad and reasonably bright spill - all very useful for picking up anything in its field of illumination out past 60' or so (which is how far i was testing it).

on LO, i would NOT be able to use the EosII for hiking due to my personal requirement of 30' of decent (fairly bright) illumination.

the remaining question is the EosII burntime on HI. if it's too short, then, IMO, PT should have kept a MED setting. the original Eos was usable by me on MED for trekking a trail after dark. however, the small/tight spot and poor spill was its main downside for me.

the ArgoHP C4 was plenty bright on HI w/a brighter, more defined spot producing better throw than in the EosII. however, its broad spillbeam was noticeably dimmer than the EosII spillbeam. on HI it was still usable, IMO. on LO, the bright spot would allow picking out faded, lo contrast blazes on trees and rocks at 50-60 feet, but the spillbeam becomes too dim to be useful for anything the is not up close and personal. if one doesn't mind a bit of "tunnel vision", so to speak, then hiking on LO might be possible.

the Argo C4 was even a bit better than the ArgoHP C4 (a quantum leap forward as cp. to the pre-C4 Argo). on HI its spot was larger then the HP's and just as bright and its spillbeam, while noticeably dimmer (just like the HP's) was very broad and quite useful. on MED it was noticeably dimmer than HI, but much better than the EosII LO and ArgoHP C4 LO. on MED, the Argo C4's spot was still plenty bright to hike by and though the broad spillbeam dimmed noticeably, it was useful enough to prevent the darkness from closing in all around and causing "tunnel vision". on MED, i would still be able pick out blazes at 60' (twice my personal minimum requirement for nighttime trekking). on LO it was like the HP C4 on LO and so i wouldn't feel comfortable hiking unfamiliar trails on LO.

here are the Mfr. claimed specs for the ArgoHP C4 and the Argo C4:

ArgoHP C4:
HI (100%) = 55lm --> 52lm @6h; 6h reg. o.p. + 3h unreg. o.p.
LO (33%) = 18lm for 30h

Argo C4:
HI (100%) = 56lm for 7h
MED (45%) = 25lm for 11h
LO (20%) = 11lm for 20h


the EosII is supposed to be 50lm on HI.

I was thinking about the Argo C4 for my night kayak trips. Guessing the C4 LED is a Cree. I need a bit more throw then my EO2 for this. I wonder how much more throw the C4 has over the EOS2 on high? The EOS seems dunkable. I wonder if the C4 is dunkable?

if the bezel is removeable, adding a slightly diffused sheet of plastic would bring the stark contrast of the hotspot closer to that of the spill. some 'throw' would be lost, bue that will depend on the grainuity of the diffuser.

the diffuser material could be a cheap namecard holder, slip-in file, anything...

i have not tried dunking my non-C4 Argo HP....

Does anyone know if the Argo is rated for lithium batteries. I think so as it is regulated.

LED-holic said:

Wow half-watt, I'm still amazed you have no camera. Even most cellphones have decent cameras these days.

I recommend the Canon SD1000 as your first camera. Simple, cheap, robust, and excellent quality.

Click to expand...

I second that on the SD1000, hmmm it's not a flashlight, but it does have a flash