- Joined
- Jun 23, 1999
- Messages
- 1,209
These two types of lights are both single LED lights, and they use very similar (if not identical LEDs). Their brightness, given new batteries, is roughly equivalent, but there the similarities stop. I have some of both the Photon II, III, and the new ARC AAA lights, so here is a little ad-hoc comparison...
Before we get to comparisons along more technical lines, lets consider price... The Photon II and the ARC are roughly the same price, about $20 most places. The newer photon III is $5-$7 more than this, the higher figure going to the "covert version" of the photon III.
1. Advantage of the Photon II and III.
Smaller and much lighter than the ARC. The II has an instant switch and a continuous-on switch, while the III has the instant switch, a timed "on", and then all the various lamp modes (high/medium/low, flashing, etc.). The non-covert version of the II and especially the III is more suitable for emergency signalling because it spills light across a whole hemisphere instead of only straight ahead. Batteries last longer than in the ARC, but this is not as much of an advantage as it should be (see below).
2. Disadvantage of the Photon II and III.
Mostly this has to do with the battery and how the light uses it. The batteries are watch batteries, and thus harder to get and more expensive. They are also harder to replace, especially so in the Photon II, though the Photon III has to a great degree mitigated this issue. In my photon II, the batteries were depleted steadily, with the light dropping in intensity slowly through the life of the battery. This means the initially bright light doesn't stay that way for very long as the light is used. Finally, the photon does not appear to be as rugged as the ARC, but it is probably roughly equivalent here as its much lighter weight makes it easier to protect its parts from shock. It is less immune to dirt and water damage, though people have successufully showered with the newer photon III without problem, it is NOT waterproof.
3. Advantages of the ARC
Rugged, waterproof to 3 feet. Very nicely machined of aluminum. LED has a small reflector around it which makes it a little brighter than the Photon. Batteries are cheap, easy to get, and trivial to replace. Battery life is very good especially given the relatively low expense of the batteries. The ARC has circutry that pumps up battery voltage as its current drains keeping the LED at maximum brightness through most of the battery's life. After this is switches down to a "low mode" for a few hours, just to warn you that it is almost dead. This is a great feature!
4. Disadvantage of the ARC
A heavier and larger than the Photon. Has only a rotating head switch, and no user-selectable LED brightness mode (this compares only to the more expensive Photon III).
5. Other things...
Battery shelf life should be taken more or less into account depending on the role invisioned for the device. I think ordinary Alkaline AAA batteries of this day have a shelf life of 5-10 years (so they say) and that's about what watch batteries are supposed to have too I think, so this could be a wash, I don't know...
If you want a tiny light that you are actually going to use routinely for something or other every day, then by all means the ARC makes more sense, if for no other reason than they use battery more efficiently, and much easier to replace.
I've worn a photon around my neck for years. I don't even know its there. I wore an ARC for a week, and definately noticed it. Not that it was a problem, but the extra weight and size of the ARC does make a small difference in that kind of carry.
If different brightnesses will really be useful - you intend to use it with fully dark-adapted eyes, then the special features of the photon might be worth the battery issues. I like, for example, to read in movie theaters, and the low-intensity mode of the "covert version" of the photon is perfect for both my dark-adapted eyes and it doesn't seem to bother those sitting around me.
For general purpose, my nod would have to go to the ARC. The photon would be my choice only if it had to be the absolute lightest and smallest, or where the LED mode features were going to really be used..
Before we get to comparisons along more technical lines, lets consider price... The Photon II and the ARC are roughly the same price, about $20 most places. The newer photon III is $5-$7 more than this, the higher figure going to the "covert version" of the photon III.
1. Advantage of the Photon II and III.
Smaller and much lighter than the ARC. The II has an instant switch and a continuous-on switch, while the III has the instant switch, a timed "on", and then all the various lamp modes (high/medium/low, flashing, etc.). The non-covert version of the II and especially the III is more suitable for emergency signalling because it spills light across a whole hemisphere instead of only straight ahead. Batteries last longer than in the ARC, but this is not as much of an advantage as it should be (see below).
2. Disadvantage of the Photon II and III.
Mostly this has to do with the battery and how the light uses it. The batteries are watch batteries, and thus harder to get and more expensive. They are also harder to replace, especially so in the Photon II, though the Photon III has to a great degree mitigated this issue. In my photon II, the batteries were depleted steadily, with the light dropping in intensity slowly through the life of the battery. This means the initially bright light doesn't stay that way for very long as the light is used. Finally, the photon does not appear to be as rugged as the ARC, but it is probably roughly equivalent here as its much lighter weight makes it easier to protect its parts from shock. It is less immune to dirt and water damage, though people have successufully showered with the newer photon III without problem, it is NOT waterproof.
3. Advantages of the ARC
Rugged, waterproof to 3 feet. Very nicely machined of aluminum. LED has a small reflector around it which makes it a little brighter than the Photon. Batteries are cheap, easy to get, and trivial to replace. Battery life is very good especially given the relatively low expense of the batteries. The ARC has circutry that pumps up battery voltage as its current drains keeping the LED at maximum brightness through most of the battery's life. After this is switches down to a "low mode" for a few hours, just to warn you that it is almost dead. This is a great feature!
4. Disadvantage of the ARC
A heavier and larger than the Photon. Has only a rotating head switch, and no user-selectable LED brightness mode (this compares only to the more expensive Photon III).
5. Other things...
Battery shelf life should be taken more or less into account depending on the role invisioned for the device. I think ordinary Alkaline AAA batteries of this day have a shelf life of 5-10 years (so they say) and that's about what watch batteries are supposed to have too I think, so this could be a wash, I don't know...
If you want a tiny light that you are actually going to use routinely for something or other every day, then by all means the ARC makes more sense, if for no other reason than they use battery more efficiently, and much easier to replace.
I've worn a photon around my neck for years. I don't even know its there. I wore an ARC for a week, and definately noticed it. Not that it was a problem, but the extra weight and size of the ARC does make a small difference in that kind of carry.
If different brightnesses will really be useful - you intend to use it with fully dark-adapted eyes, then the special features of the photon might be worth the battery issues. I like, for example, to read in movie theaters, and the low-intensity mode of the "covert version" of the photon is perfect for both my dark-adapted eyes and it doesn't seem to bother those sitting around me.
For general purpose, my nod would have to go to the ARC. The photon would be my choice only if it had to be the absolute lightest and smallest, or where the LED mode features were going to really be used..
) on Candlepowerforums.com, I think we can assume that he was just engaging in a bit of sarcasm.
