Are incandescent flashlights considered obsolete?

With the advances that the LED has made, it does make sense to phase out old technology, but it doesn't mean that there is no longer a market for it. I understand why many stores now only carry LED lights, but it is a shame that I have to go online to order a light based on such a simple concept of batter/wire/bulb.

For example, I went to Walmart a couple days ago to buy an incandescent flood flashlight to tide my NV illumination woes until my Surefire M1 arrives... Nothing but a wall of LEDs. Later that day I showed my nephew how to use his iPod to imitate NVG by using an IR light source, and he can't just go down to a local store and pickup a cheap incandescent light and throw a filter over the lens. I might just have to go to autozone and pick up some wire, bulbs, reflector, and a few adequate batteries and let him build one.

LEDs are superior to incandescents in terms of efficiency, but incandescents are still a lot better in terms of light quality.

We have about one "no one uses incans anymore" thread every other month...

Imon said:

We have about one "no one uses incans anymore" thread every other month...

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is like having to do monthly pennance after going to Catholic Confession, although I can't remember the last time I did that.

To answer the OP's rhetorical question: In common mass market retail operations, the masses have moved to LED. There will always be a use and appreciation for various technologies as changes are made. In this incand example, it is why those of us seeing the changes coming stocked up on the variety of bulbs we knew and enjoyed using. Buying from the internet on almost everything except groceries and heavy, bulky products (i.e. gas grill, bed mattress, furniture, appliances, etc.) has become my preference. One of my least favorite things is having to go to a large shopping mall, or the various Walmart, Home Despot, Lowes type superstores.

I have one incan flashlight and the bulb blew in it almost a year ago. The problem for me at least is that they do have a tendency to blow and a $10-20 bulb is expensive compared to the new XM-L2 led that will put out insane amounts of light and do it cheaply. How do incans have superior light quality? With high CRI and multiple bins now leds have extremely specific color rendition and with the new designs of reflectors to accommodate all of these flashlights I don't see it. Besides Philips and a few other companies have excellent colored leds and you have to use a filter for incans. There are IR and UV leds as well and with a P60 drop in so easy to use, I just don't see the point in incans any more. Other than to burn stuff, or if you don't care about efficiency at all you can put out a lot of light, like the 20,000 lm 1000W bulb that I have (don't ever use it and it was not realistic to put in a body). To each his own as long as there is a market for it I hope they improve.

Lots of people still drive cars equipped with carburetors. The old 60s cars are worse than a modern car in every way when it comes to mileage, handling, braking, ride comfort, but there's just something about them...

It's one of those things where if you have to ask why, you'll probably never understand.

langham said:

How do incans have superior light quality? With high CRI and multiple bins now leds have extremely specific color rendition and with the new designs of reflectors to accommodate all of these flashlights I don't see it.

Click to expand...

Compared to low CRI LEDs, high CRI LEDs are great. Compared to incans, they're just not quite as bad as low CRI LEDs. If you graph the amounts of each component wavelength in the light of a LED emitter, you will find lots of peaks and valleys. A similar graph of incandescent light will reveal a much smoother curve. Visually, particularly in outdoor environments, that smoother curve translates to much better color reproduction and better illumination of subtle details.

JCD said:

Compared to low CRI LEDs, high CRI LEDs are great. Compared to incans, they're just not quite as bad as low CRI LEDs. If you graph the amounts of each component wavelength in the light of a LED emitter, you will find lots of peaks and valleys. A similar graph of incandescent light will reveal a much smoother curve. Visually, particularly in outdoor environments, that smoother curve translates to much better color reproduction and better illumination of subtle details.

Click to expand...

If we want to dive down the CRI/Color Perception/etc rabbit hole, one could ask, "How long have humans been seeing by 3000K near-black-body radiation light?" And the answer to that is pretty simple: About fifty years, give or take. So it certainly isn't honest to claim that filaments give the best lighting/color rendering/color perception. Of course, you have't said that, and I acknowledge that. Sunlight is filtered near-black-body radiation, with strong tints throughout the day. Clearly our eyes have had millennia to adjust to light that has a non-smooth SPD. See this page click for some examples. Filaments are quite different from sunlight's (noontime) output, but our eyes seem to have adjusted to that difference quite nicely.

The more complex questions, like "What CRI is best?" or "What SPD gives the best color rendering" or "...is best for working" or "looks best" are each rather harder to answer. As an example, "Incandescents give better color reproduction" is false for distinguishing navy from black. Most LED or fluorescent sources will do better, partly through higher color temperature. Similarly, a high CRI LED can be weaker in reds or browns, depending on how it's made.

Incandescent lights are not obsolete, in the sense of "No Longer Produced Or Used." For general lighting, it may be phased out (Out of Date, 2nd definition). Indicator lamps, certain signal lamps, and many technical lights MUST have characteristics that are easy to get with filaments, and difficult to get other ways.

langham said:

I have one incan flashlight and the bulb blew in it almost a year ago. The problem for me at least is that they do have a tendency to blow and a $10-20 bulb is expensive compared to the new XM-L2 led that will put out insane amounts of light and do it cheaply. How do incans have superior light quality? With high CRI and multiple bins now leds have extremely specific color rendition and with the new designs of reflectors to accommodate all of these flashlights I don't see it. Besides Philips and a few other companies have excellent colored leds and you have to use a filter for incans. There are IR and UV leds as well and with a P60 drop in so easy to use, I just don't see the point in incans any more. Other than to burn stuff, or if you don't care about efficiency at all you can put out a lot of light, like the 20,000 lm 1000W bulb that I have (don't ever use it and it was not realistic to put in a body). To each his own as long as there is a market for it I hope they improve.

Click to expand...

There's already "20 million" previous threads discussing the superior light quality of incands. Review some threads here before you make your assumptions.

AnAppleSnail said:

As an example, "Incandescents give better color reproduction" is false for distinguishing navy from black. Most LED or fluorescent sources will do better, partly through higher color temperature.

Click to expand...

Yes, blues tend to look bluer with under LED light. That's a consequence of having an overabundance of blue component wavelengths. It comes at the expense of most other colors being reproduced quite poorly. Outdoors, those other colors tend to be pretty important. In that environment, LEDs still lag far behind.

Lots of things are obsolete as far as day-to-day use but still lots of fun as hobbies. If you enjoy incandescent lights and find value from them, then they're not obsolete to you personally. Some people still drive old cars, or use tube amplifiers, or ride old bicycles, or type on vintage typewriters, or run old steam locomotives. For the masses, these technologies are as dead as a door nail. And many others are destined to join them relatively soon, such as internal combustion engines. For now it looks like incandescent will join them, but who knows for sure? Trains were written off as obsolete technology once planes and cars become common, but evolved into today's efficient freight systems and 200 mph wonders. I wouldn't bet the house on the same thing happening with incandescent, but there is some interesting research on infrared coatings. And who knows if material science will stumble upon filament materials which can burn much hotter than tungsten? Even if none of these developments take place, there will be hobbyists who keep incandescent alive for a long time. Obsolete doesn't necessarily mean dead. Some technologies even enjoy a bit of a renaissance once relegated to hobby status.

It depends on which incandescent flashlight we are talking about. Maglite primary battery powered incandescent flashlights might be approaching the obsolete category because their size and weight outweigh their runtimes. There is still a market for incandescent spotlights because of price, and the fact that your general stores haven't been able to sell an LED spotlight for cheap. A Streamlight Stinger is still a great working mans flashlight with good brightness, decent runtime, a long track record for ruggedness and dependability, compactness, UL listed, and best of all, they are selling used for dirt cheap compared to any other rechargeable flashlight in its class.

We still depend on this ancient technology in our everyday lives in the form of automotive headlights. Why? The price. This obsolete technology is here to stay for a while. Possibly for the next 2 decades.

Stress_Test said:

Lots of people still drive cars equipped with carburetors. The old 60s cars are worse than a modern car in every way when it comes to mileage, handling, braking, ride comfort, but there's just something about them...

It's one of those things where if you have to ask why, you'll probably never understand.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more.

mesa232323 said:

It depends on which incandescent flashlight we are talking about. Maglite primary battery powered incandescent flashlights might be approaching the obsolete category because their size and weight outweigh their runtimes. There is still a market for incandescent spotlights because of price, and the fact that your general stores haven't been able to sell an LED spotlight for cheap. A Streamlight Stinger is still a great working mans flashlight with good brightness, decent runtime, a long track record for ruggedness and dependability, compactness, UL listed, and best of all, they are selling used for dirt cheap compared to any other rechargeable flashlight in its class.

We still depend on this ancient technology in our everyday lives in the form of automotive headlights. Why? The price. This obsolete technology is here to stay for a while. Possibly for the next 2 decades.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Anyone who's tried a p91 on 2 imr cells or an eo9 or any of the custom hotwires would be hard pressed to call it obsolete. If we're talking stock maglite on primary cells than ya. They were obsolete when first created

P91 is a great example of a lamp that can still run with most single LED flashlights. It's only real practical use is for tactical purposes and a great EDC if you don't plan on using it for long.

I think incandescent flashlight are obsolete for long run times in the small EDC form factor. That may slowly change over time in the advancement of rechargeable batteries.

If I am buying a new flashlight I have no interest whatsoever in an incan bulb, so from my personal standpoint, yes they're obsolete. But everyone's different, so YMMV.

they'll still be around for a while, can't beat simplicity of .99C light with a bulb. there are planty of ppl that don't care if it is led or bulb. as long as they can get a box of 10 for $9.99, and keep them in their garage for emergencys.

alpg88 said:

they'll still be around for a while, can't beat simplicity of .99C light with a bulb. there are planty of ppl that don't care if it is led or bulb. as long as they can get a box of 10 for $9.99, and keep them in their garage for emergencys.

Click to expand...

the 2D incan 99 cent lights come without batteries while you can buy a 2AA LED light with batteries for 50 cents more that has longer runtime and more lumen output and is smaller on top of it all. Compare the cost of 2AA vs 2D when the batteries deplete and you wil want to stop using D cell incans for good.

Lynx_Arc said:

the 2D incan 99 cent lights come without batteries while you can buy a 2AA LED light with batteries for 50 cents more that has longer runtime and more lumen output and is smaller on top of it all. Compare the cost of 2AA vs 2D when the batteries deplete and you wil want to stop using D cell incans for good.

Click to expand...

i was not talking about 2d lights. i have seen plenty .99c 2aa inc/. lights at .99c stores around here, with batteries.

like i said before, some (make it most) ppl don't care if it is led or not, some don't even know what led is, they buy things they are familiar with.

If you value quality of light over quantity, you will understand the true beauty of an incand. That, and if you have ever had a finicky driver or one that just quits on you, http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?355947-JetBeam-M1XM-Died , then you will really appreciate the value of replaceable drop in bulbs.......

And if incands are so inferior, why do LED manufacturers spend millions trying to duplicate their beams?