Hi again, flashlight people!
I got my Armytec Predator Pro V2.5 in the mail today, and spent 2 hours earlier this afternoon learning about its features and programming it to my needs. I then did other tasks while waiting until it got dark, then took my EagleTac S200C2 and the Predator for a 1 mile walk near the woods. I did this in order to do a detailed side-by-side comparison between the two lights. My intention was to find out which of the two would suit my purposes better as my "headlamp companion" for long night hikes, a role that up until now has been filled by the EagleTac S200C2. Has the Armytek Predator Pro unseated the S200C2 as my "baby throw utensil" of choice? Read on and find out!
First impressions:
I really, really like the programmability and customization possible with the Armytek Predator Pro. The programming interface was not as difficult to learn and memorize as I had initially feared - a few hours spent with the light and instructions and I can now pretty much make it do what I want, with maybe a brief reference to the instruction sheet to recall the number of flashes for certain modes, etc. I now have the light set up in a way that works for me, giving me instant access (from off) to moonlight and super-high modes, with no annoying mode memory or blinky modes I'll never use. Perfect! I will never understand why Armytek dropped the programmable interface with their new version 3.0 lights, it seems like a huge step backwards to me. But... I digress!
The quality of the Armytek light is fantastic. Heavy, grippy black anodizing that's really nice to look at and hold. Smooth threading on the head and tail switch section. A huge beefy spring and contact for the battery. Sweet crenelated bezel, and nice clear glass over the reflector. All in all, a beautifully built light that screams out quality and durability.
Tint Comparison:
I had a difficult time even finding a Predator Pro 2.5 at a reasonable price, and when I finally did locate one it was available with a cool white emitter only. This was almost a complete deal breaker, until I read the specs more and realized it was a 5500K emitter, not 6000+ like most cool whites. I decided this might be on the outer edge of acceptable for me, as I prefer 4500K-5000K emitter with as "neutral" and untinted a beam as possible. I took a chance, and I'm glad I did! It turns out that the "cool white" of the Armytek is actually a reasonably neutral emitter, there are still hints of the properties of cool white emitters that I dislike, but they are just that - hints. I can see a slight bit of green in the central portion of the beam, but mostly it is a bright yellow-white with a touch of gray-blue lavender in the spill. Acceptable.
The EagleTac S200C2 that, up until now, I've been using in this role is the "neutral white" emitter version. I would say that it is more toward the "warm" end of the spectrum as compared to the true neutral emitters that I prefer, it has a yellowish-brown tinting that I guess I've never really grown fond of... though it is much better than, say, my SRT3 "cool white" emitters or the puke-green emitters of just about everything 10 years ago.
So... the EagleTac is a bit too warm for my tastes, the Armytek is a bit too cool. I'd say the tint comparison between the two lights is pretty much a wash for me, but I do feel that the S200C2 has a tiny edge due to it's better color rendition in vegetation, greens just seem more real and lively in the EagleTac's beam. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a few CRI points higher on the scale than the Armytek, but I have no real evidence either way. The EagleTac beam is, subjectively, a little more "comfortable" to me for long-term viewing, the Armytek cool white beam just seems a bit harsh and jarring after a while, something that most cool white LED emitters (and fluorescent lighting) does to me with prolonged viewing.
Beam Comparison
The Armytek has a "tighter" beam. A slightly smaller hotspot, and about 20% less diameter on the spill beam coverage. For real-world use, in the intended uses I've assigned these lights for, this means absolutely... well... nothing. I found no situation during this evening's walk where one or the other light's beam "tightness" or coverage area made any difference at all. Keep in mind, my purpose for these lights is as a headlamp companion, to see further up the trail or into side canyons or trees. For this usage, both lights worked exceptionally well. I did turn off my headlamp briefly for one part of my hike, and tried walking with both lights, one then the other, as my only illumination source. Neither light was ideal for this usage, but neither really worked better for this than the other one either. In a pinch, either light will work as your only walking light, but I personally prefer something with more flood diameter/brightness and a larger hotspot.
Now for the surprising part:
The EagleTac S200C2 is rated around 1,000 Lumens. The Armytek is rated around 650 lumens. Because of the emitter type differences and reflector differences, however, the ANSI throw rating for the Armytek is actually a little higher than the EagleTac. The ArmyTek accomplishes this with a smaller diameter bezel as well! What does all this mean in real-world use when projecting light out there to see detail at a distance? Nothing. You heard me right - it means absolutely, positively NOTHING in real-world performance. I was looking during almost the entire hike for SOMETHING that one of the lights would allow me to see that the other would not... some shape, detail, shadow, or color at a distance that maybe the other light missed or was not powerful enough to reveal. I searched completely in vain, the two lights are so closely matched in throw and output performance that the ONLY difference I was consistently noticing was the color rendition differences due to the emitter tints. Real-world throw and detail rendition at distance is a wash... don't buy one or the other of these lights thinking that one will somehow be a superior "thrower" for anything other than performance numbers on specifications sheets.
Ergonomics:
This is a real mixed bag. Even though the EagleTac S200C2 has knurling on the barrel, and the Armytek is smooth, the particular anodizing used on the Armytek felt excellently grippy. Like holding a piece of fine grained stone - slate or river pebble. The EagleTac with its deep, beautiful rich shiny black anodizing felt positively slippery by comparison! I never felt like the Armytek would slip out of my grip - ever. Very nice!
The EagleTac, on the otherhand, just feels better to hold. The shape is more streamlined and pleasant to grip, without the sudden "bulge" where the Armytek body meets the head. I also liked the EagleTac's rubber "cigar" grip piece better, it's smaller and less bulky, and fits my fingers better than the Armytek's large lumpy rubber piece. However, I've never really liked the integral pocket clip on the EagleTac S200C2, it always seemed out of place on a not-very-pocketable light, and I've never really liked how it felt in my fingers, making me rotate it to a certain angle so it's not as noticeable to my fingers. The Armytek has a removeable clip that doesn't even come attached to the light out of the package - a much better situation for a light like this in my opinion.
The bezel diameter difference between the two lights is minimal, but somehow it seems to make the perceived size and bulk of the Armytek smaller by an appreciable degree. I took turns putting the EagleTac and ArmyTek (when unused) in my left hand and left pant pocket during the hike, and overall the Armytek just felt smaller and more carryable/pocketable. I was really surprised by this, because I was expecting that the two would probably be about the same level of awkward bulkiness that I had come to expect from the S200C2.
No clear winner when it comes to ergonomics, but if pressed I'll say that I enjoyed carrying the EagleTac in it's "being used" position a little more, but liked everything else (storing, carrying by my side, and just plain holding) the Armytek better. I definitely felt that the Armytek was more "secure" to carry, and less likely to slip out of my hand.
Features:
I love the simple 3-mode, no blinky UI of the EagleTac S200C2.
I love the feature-rich flexibility and power of the Armytek Predator Pro 2.5.
They're both excellent in their own way - but in the long run, I think the Armytek just plain offers more - a LOT more. You can make the UI on the Armytek as simple, or as complex as you want. You can do things with the Armytek (like check the battery level) that the EagleTac can't dream of. You can use unprotectected batteries in the Armytek without worrying about over-discharging them. You can use flat top batteries in the Armytek without needing magnets. I like the crenelated bezel of the Armytek, you can see your mistake if you set the light down after forgetting to turn it off. All around, the Armytek is just a better overall package of features, and most of them seem really well thought out and implemented.
I do like the lanyard attachment and tailcap switch better on the EagleTac though... and the lower quantity of printed graffiti on the EagleTac is always a nice bonus too!
Reliability/Durability:
I have no doubt that the Armytek, with its potted electronics and excellent build quality, drop rating, and lack of timed emitter stepdown is probably the more reliable and durable of the two lights. Everything about its fit, finish, construction, and materials seems to indicate serious military-level ruggedness, this is a light I would not have much concern about if I were to drop it or accidentally kick it over the edge of a trail to bounce around on the rocks below. The EagleTac? Not so much. The build quality is there, but the construction of the light says "classy" and "precise" more than it says "tough".
Final thoughts:
This has been a long review/ comparison for me to write. Part of this is because I'm still trying to convince myself that one of these lights is clearly superior to the other in enough ways that I should get rid of the other. When I bought the Armytek Predator Pro 2.5, it was with the very clear goal in my mind of comparing the two, selling the "lesser" of the two lights, then obtaining a spare of the winning light so I'd have a backup in case of loss or damage. I can now see that this is an impossible proposition - there is really no clear winner here. Both lights are truly excellent in their own right, and each has something to offer that the other does not.
I have decided that both lights deserve an honored place in my collection, and rather that sell one and buy a spare of the other, I will rotate them and let them be "spares" to each other. That kind of is, after all, the flashaholic way!
I got my Armytec Predator Pro V2.5 in the mail today, and spent 2 hours earlier this afternoon learning about its features and programming it to my needs. I then did other tasks while waiting until it got dark, then took my EagleTac S200C2 and the Predator for a 1 mile walk near the woods. I did this in order to do a detailed side-by-side comparison between the two lights. My intention was to find out which of the two would suit my purposes better as my "headlamp companion" for long night hikes, a role that up until now has been filled by the EagleTac S200C2. Has the Armytek Predator Pro unseated the S200C2 as my "baby throw utensil" of choice? Read on and find out!
First impressions:
I really, really like the programmability and customization possible with the Armytek Predator Pro. The programming interface was not as difficult to learn and memorize as I had initially feared - a few hours spent with the light and instructions and I can now pretty much make it do what I want, with maybe a brief reference to the instruction sheet to recall the number of flashes for certain modes, etc. I now have the light set up in a way that works for me, giving me instant access (from off) to moonlight and super-high modes, with no annoying mode memory or blinky modes I'll never use. Perfect! I will never understand why Armytek dropped the programmable interface with their new version 3.0 lights, it seems like a huge step backwards to me. But... I digress!
The quality of the Armytek light is fantastic. Heavy, grippy black anodizing that's really nice to look at and hold. Smooth threading on the head and tail switch section. A huge beefy spring and contact for the battery. Sweet crenelated bezel, and nice clear glass over the reflector. All in all, a beautifully built light that screams out quality and durability.
Tint Comparison:
I had a difficult time even finding a Predator Pro 2.5 at a reasonable price, and when I finally did locate one it was available with a cool white emitter only. This was almost a complete deal breaker, until I read the specs more and realized it was a 5500K emitter, not 6000+ like most cool whites. I decided this might be on the outer edge of acceptable for me, as I prefer 4500K-5000K emitter with as "neutral" and untinted a beam as possible. I took a chance, and I'm glad I did! It turns out that the "cool white" of the Armytek is actually a reasonably neutral emitter, there are still hints of the properties of cool white emitters that I dislike, but they are just that - hints. I can see a slight bit of green in the central portion of the beam, but mostly it is a bright yellow-white with a touch of gray-blue lavender in the spill. Acceptable.
The EagleTac S200C2 that, up until now, I've been using in this role is the "neutral white" emitter version. I would say that it is more toward the "warm" end of the spectrum as compared to the true neutral emitters that I prefer, it has a yellowish-brown tinting that I guess I've never really grown fond of... though it is much better than, say, my SRT3 "cool white" emitters or the puke-green emitters of just about everything 10 years ago.
So... the EagleTac is a bit too warm for my tastes, the Armytek is a bit too cool. I'd say the tint comparison between the two lights is pretty much a wash for me, but I do feel that the S200C2 has a tiny edge due to it's better color rendition in vegetation, greens just seem more real and lively in the EagleTac's beam. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a few CRI points higher on the scale than the Armytek, but I have no real evidence either way. The EagleTac beam is, subjectively, a little more "comfortable" to me for long-term viewing, the Armytek cool white beam just seems a bit harsh and jarring after a while, something that most cool white LED emitters (and fluorescent lighting) does to me with prolonged viewing.
Beam Comparison
The Armytek has a "tighter" beam. A slightly smaller hotspot, and about 20% less diameter on the spill beam coverage. For real-world use, in the intended uses I've assigned these lights for, this means absolutely... well... nothing. I found no situation during this evening's walk where one or the other light's beam "tightness" or coverage area made any difference at all. Keep in mind, my purpose for these lights is as a headlamp companion, to see further up the trail or into side canyons or trees. For this usage, both lights worked exceptionally well. I did turn off my headlamp briefly for one part of my hike, and tried walking with both lights, one then the other, as my only illumination source. Neither light was ideal for this usage, but neither really worked better for this than the other one either. In a pinch, either light will work as your only walking light, but I personally prefer something with more flood diameter/brightness and a larger hotspot.
Now for the surprising part:
The EagleTac S200C2 is rated around 1,000 Lumens. The Armytek is rated around 650 lumens. Because of the emitter type differences and reflector differences, however, the ANSI throw rating for the Armytek is actually a little higher than the EagleTac. The ArmyTek accomplishes this with a smaller diameter bezel as well! What does all this mean in real-world use when projecting light out there to see detail at a distance? Nothing. You heard me right - it means absolutely, positively NOTHING in real-world performance. I was looking during almost the entire hike for SOMETHING that one of the lights would allow me to see that the other would not... some shape, detail, shadow, or color at a distance that maybe the other light missed or was not powerful enough to reveal. I searched completely in vain, the two lights are so closely matched in throw and output performance that the ONLY difference I was consistently noticing was the color rendition differences due to the emitter tints. Real-world throw and detail rendition at distance is a wash... don't buy one or the other of these lights thinking that one will somehow be a superior "thrower" for anything other than performance numbers on specifications sheets.
Ergonomics:
This is a real mixed bag. Even though the EagleTac S200C2 has knurling on the barrel, and the Armytek is smooth, the particular anodizing used on the Armytek felt excellently grippy. Like holding a piece of fine grained stone - slate or river pebble. The EagleTac with its deep, beautiful rich shiny black anodizing felt positively slippery by comparison! I never felt like the Armytek would slip out of my grip - ever. Very nice!
The EagleTac, on the otherhand, just feels better to hold. The shape is more streamlined and pleasant to grip, without the sudden "bulge" where the Armytek body meets the head. I also liked the EagleTac's rubber "cigar" grip piece better, it's smaller and less bulky, and fits my fingers better than the Armytek's large lumpy rubber piece. However, I've never really liked the integral pocket clip on the EagleTac S200C2, it always seemed out of place on a not-very-pocketable light, and I've never really liked how it felt in my fingers, making me rotate it to a certain angle so it's not as noticeable to my fingers. The Armytek has a removeable clip that doesn't even come attached to the light out of the package - a much better situation for a light like this in my opinion.
The bezel diameter difference between the two lights is minimal, but somehow it seems to make the perceived size and bulk of the Armytek smaller by an appreciable degree. I took turns putting the EagleTac and ArmyTek (when unused) in my left hand and left pant pocket during the hike, and overall the Armytek just felt smaller and more carryable/pocketable. I was really surprised by this, because I was expecting that the two would probably be about the same level of awkward bulkiness that I had come to expect from the S200C2.
No clear winner when it comes to ergonomics, but if pressed I'll say that I enjoyed carrying the EagleTac in it's "being used" position a little more, but liked everything else (storing, carrying by my side, and just plain holding) the Armytek better. I definitely felt that the Armytek was more "secure" to carry, and less likely to slip out of my hand.
Features:
I love the simple 3-mode, no blinky UI of the EagleTac S200C2.
I love the feature-rich flexibility and power of the Armytek Predator Pro 2.5.
They're both excellent in their own way - but in the long run, I think the Armytek just plain offers more - a LOT more. You can make the UI on the Armytek as simple, or as complex as you want. You can do things with the Armytek (like check the battery level) that the EagleTac can't dream of. You can use unprotectected batteries in the Armytek without worrying about over-discharging them. You can use flat top batteries in the Armytek without needing magnets. I like the crenelated bezel of the Armytek, you can see your mistake if you set the light down after forgetting to turn it off. All around, the Armytek is just a better overall package of features, and most of them seem really well thought out and implemented.
I do like the lanyard attachment and tailcap switch better on the EagleTac though... and the lower quantity of printed graffiti on the EagleTac is always a nice bonus too!
Reliability/Durability:
I have no doubt that the Armytek, with its potted electronics and excellent build quality, drop rating, and lack of timed emitter stepdown is probably the more reliable and durable of the two lights. Everything about its fit, finish, construction, and materials seems to indicate serious military-level ruggedness, this is a light I would not have much concern about if I were to drop it or accidentally kick it over the edge of a trail to bounce around on the rocks below. The EagleTac? Not so much. The build quality is there, but the construction of the light says "classy" and "precise" more than it says "tough".
Final thoughts:
This has been a long review/ comparison for me to write. Part of this is because I'm still trying to convince myself that one of these lights is clearly superior to the other in enough ways that I should get rid of the other. When I bought the Armytek Predator Pro 2.5, it was with the very clear goal in my mind of comparing the two, selling the "lesser" of the two lights, then obtaining a spare of the winning light so I'd have a backup in case of loss or damage. I can now see that this is an impossible proposition - there is really no clear winner here. Both lights are truly excellent in their own right, and each has something to offer that the other does not.
I have decided that both lights deserve an honored place in my collection, and rather that sell one and buy a spare of the other, I will rotate them and let them be "spares" to each other. That kind of is, after all, the flashaholic way!
