# New HL from Petzl: Pixa series



## Yucca Patrol (Nov 2, 2010)

They are not incredibly bright, but look very well made and very durable. Would be a good backup light for a caving or other extreme outdoor activities where water and other elements threaten other lights.



Combo flood/throw mode is a first from a mainstream manufacturer.



http://www.petzl.com/us/page/pixa-no...es-et-robustes


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 17, 2011)

There doesn't seem to be much on CPF about this headlamp yet.

My brother just asked for a headlamp recommendation, and I suggested the one or two version of this series. As per the thread title, does anyone have any direct experience with one?


----------



## uk_caver (Mar 17, 2011)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> There doesn't seem to be much on CPF about this headlamp yet.


There was more in this thread, but it went with the great crash.

There was a discussion on: http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=11235.0


----------



## Bolster (Mar 17, 2011)

You can see a beamshot of Pixa here

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?310856-Flood-Beam-Headlamp-List-2011

I like the 2xAA power source; I may buy one; wish it were brighter. I think high is 25-30 lumen for 12 hours on 2xAA? (That's for flood, not spot. Spot is higher lumen, I think 40-50?).

Wish I knew what the tint and beam angle was like...


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 17, 2011)

Thanks for the link, uk_caver. I didn't see that thread in my googling around. I just emailed it to my brother. He bought the Pixa One this morning on my recommendation. 

I just hope he doesn't need the medium mode of the Pixa Two. He will most likely use it for scrounging around in his pack, setting up camp, etc., so I think the One will suffice.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 20, 2011)

Does anyone know if the Pixa One and Pixa Two have a different beam profile in low/flood?

I would like to get one, but I am concerned that it may be too narrow...


----------



## Bolster (Mar 20, 2011)

Wondering exactly the same thing. Comparing flood beam, I've noticed the Pixa 1 has lower lumens than Pixa 2 or 3 on flood (25 not 30) but same runtime (12 hrs). Looking at the Pixa 1, its lens is entirely frosted. I wonder if they frosted the lens to get the wider beam and gave up some lumens in the process? 

I'm tempted to get the Pixa 1, but 25 lumens isn't very bright. If you ran two Zebra H501s together (to equal the Pixa's 2xAA power) you'd have 36 lumens at midlevel for 19 hours as opposed to 25-30 lumens for 12 hours on the Pixas. And the 501s would also give you the high end (almost 200) if you wanted it, whereas the flood beams on the Pixas top out at 25-30. 

The other unknown is, what's the beam spread? I don't like narrow beam "floods." I'm spoiled by 80-90 degree lights. I'd want to know what the Pixa gave before spending.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 20, 2011)

From the information on the Internet, the build quality, crush resistance, and robust ON/OFF switch really make me want to buy an iteration of this light, either the One or Two. However, you are definitely on the right track by calling the beam profile of flood into question. I would mostly use the low mode, and might even spring for the more expensive Pixa Two if the flood were slightly brighter and at a wider angle. A narrow beam would feel very confining, and I certainly do not want that.

The Pixa One uses discrete 5mm LEDs, right? I am trying to tell what the Pixa Two uses to achieve flood. Does it use a power LED? Let's see if I can find some pics...

Okay, here:

Pixa One Face

Pixa Two Face

So, yes; the Pixa One uses 5mm discrete LEDs, while the Pixa Two uses what appears to be a single power LED. How, then, is the single power LED "told" to provide a flood or a more concentrated beam?


----------



## Bolster (Mar 20, 2011)

Ah, good find. I think the Pixa 2 uses a single LED for both spot and flood, simultaneously. That is, a flood, with a hot spot in it. No flood by itself, not spot by itself. Which would mean a "partially reflectored" LED that gave some flood and some spot.


----------



## Bolster (Mar 20, 2011)

Went back and watched the Pixa video. When they showed the Pixa 2, they indeed implied it gave both flood and spot _at the same time_, "no need to change the mode." (Part of the confusion comes from the narrator saying "two models" or possibly "two modes" when I think she means "two beams.") Notice also the icons for the Pixa 2, on the video and on the Pixa Line page: They show the "spot plus flood" icon TWICE, one for working, one for walking. I think that means same spot+flood beam, which is useful for either closeup work or walking. (I beg to differ. I'd hate to use a spotted flood for close work.) 

If I'm right, then the Pixa 2 is definitely not for anyone who wants a smooth, even floody beam. There's a hot spot in the middle of it. 

One other question: Look at the flood beam profile I captured from the Pixa promo video, and posted halfway down the page here. 

Does that look like the kind of beam you'd get from three LEDs behind a frosted lens? I don't think so...frosted lens you'd not get such a sharply defined edge. I'm suspicious that flood beamshot is from the P3 on flood mode, looking at the P3's optical arrangement. 

Pixa Three Face.

So now the question is, which has a nicer flood beam, the Pixa 1 or the Pixa 3?


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 21, 2011)

Bolster, we make a good team! A few things come to mind:

1) I have never seen an LED make a perfect circle like that without an optic. Never. I seriously doubt that circle from their promo video and from your screen grab is from the Pixa One. Just does not mesh with reality. I've seen optics, and yes, I'm heavily biased against them: I've never met one I liked.

2) I agree with your assessment that the Pixa Two is a mixed spot/flood. I don't see any other LEDs in the Pixa Two faceshot, and if there aren't any to switch between, then the switch most likely only boosts the current, making it brighter. This will change the amount of lumens coming out, _not _the beam pattern.

If I have time tomorrow, I will call Petzl and ask them. Otherwise, is there anyone here who owns one of these and can comment from direct experience with the lamp? Of course, that would be ideal.


----------



## vtunderground (Mar 21, 2011)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> I have never seen an LED make a perfect circle like that without an optic.



A conical reflector (Carclo 10170 for example) will give you a perfect even circle of light. I DO think that Petzl is using an optic, though, not a reflector. The only optic I've seen that'll produce a beam like the PIXA 3 is the optic from a Surefire Saint, IF if you it behind a round hole instead of the rectangular hole of the Saint.



Bolster said:


> So now the question is, which has a nicer flood beam, the Pixa 1 or the Pixa 3?



I'm gonna go ahead and guess that the PIXA 1 has a wider flood beam, but with the usual 5mm blueish tint


----------



## Bolster (Mar 21, 2011)

Some creative detective work here...will be interesting to see if we've guessed accurately. So here's my guess, just for fun: Agree with VTUnder that the P1 will have a blueish tint, and that the beam's wider than the P3. Have no idea if the beam is "sufficiently" wide (70-90 degrees). Also guessing the P1's beam may not be as even, edge-to-edge, as we see in the (I'm guessing) P3 beamshot. 

Honestly, all this investigation is making me want to wait for some good recommendations to come in before picking up a Pixa 1. There are enough niggling doubts now that I need to be persuaded the P1 is worthy. The P3 is still looking attractive to me though. Concerned about beam tint and angle of the flood beam.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 21, 2011)

Fear not, fellow CPF'ers! I just called Petzl, and I left a message for the headlamp product manager/resident guru. The gentleman who transferred me said that the headlamp manager would love to talk specs with me. I told him I was calling on behalf of a bunch of flashlight/headlamp nuts, and that we would love as much information as possible. I got his voicemail, and I left my email (with phonetics) twice. Hopefully he'll get back to me and I can post detailed answers here!

If the information from the Petzl manager confirms that the Petzl One has a wide flood, I will most likely buy it. I love 5mm headlamps (for close activities), and would rather use a flashlight for distance/spotting trail markers on trees for away.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 24, 2011)

Since I never received a phone call back, I called Petzl again and asked for the email of someone "in the know." Perhaps this evening he will get back to us, or even post the answers here if we are lucky!

Gotta run.



LEDAdd1ct


----------



## Bolster (Mar 24, 2011)

Thanks for staying on them!

I've got the same issue happening with foxfury lights...been after them for beamshots for a month...they keep saying they'll be here soon...


----------



## Szemhazai (Mar 24, 2011)

I have Petzl Pixa 2 in my hands and going to make some outdoor photos tonight... :huh:

In my opinion it's to heavy for any activity faster than walking...


----------



## Bolster (Mar 24, 2011)

Nifty. Would you mind measuring 1. diameter of beam and 2. distance of wall (or whatever) to the source? So I can calculate beam angle? Thanks!


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 30, 2011)

I just left a voicemail for the Headlamp Manager/Division Specialist for headlamps at Petzl with my first name and phone number, telling him that I was calling for detailed information on the LEDs inside the Pixa series of headlamps. If anybody would know, I have a feeling it would be him...


----------



## turboBB (Mar 30, 2011)

Woo hoo!, Pixa 3 should be here next week. 

Hello,

We have good news! We're able to get this part of your order to you faster than we originally promised: 

 "Petzl E78CHB PIXA 3 Headlamp"
 Previous estimated arrival date: April 13 2011 - April 15 2011
 New estimated arrival date: April 05 2011


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Mar 31, 2011)

Looking forward to pics of the LEDs for emitter identification!


----------



## Szemhazai (Mar 31, 2011)

It is Cree XP-E - bin unknown, judging from the color difference between to pixa's - no tint sorting.


----------



## turboBB (Apr 1, 2011)

OK, it actually arrived today! Initial immediate impression was "Woah, this thing is huge and heavy!". There is an XP-E in the flood side but due to the tight lens, I can't make out emitter on the spot side (but most likely XP-E as well).

Bolster, you're gonna be disappointed, the flood has a subtle hot spot in it. I'll grab some shots later for you.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## turboBB (Apr 1, 2011)

Pixa 3 Beamshots @f2.7

Flood (1/13" | 1/80") - below set is shifted from center to highlight the hotspot:
















Duo (1/13" | 1/80")







Note that the spot beam is not centered and the spot is running at perhaps half power.

Spot (1/13" | 1/80")











I plan on conducting a review of this HL in the coming weeks and will post when ready.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Bolster (Apr 1, 2011)

Woohoo! Thanks for the beamshots. I'd have no problem with such a minor brightness in the center, looks good to me. Pretty neutral colored beam is it? It feels pretty chunky, you say? I think the beam combo mode is well thought out, with beam high and flood low, sort of like how a bifocal glasses lens works. Looking forward to your review! Thanks for taking point on this light!

Oh...one more thing: could you measure beam width & distance from wall? Then I can work out beam angle calculations. Thanks!


----------



## turboBB (Apr 2, 2011)

22" width beam measured 2ft from the wall. Using protractor = roughly 56 degrees. Yes the beam is neutral but definitely on the cool side and not warm by any means. Although it's only been a few hours, I'm really digging this HL!


----------



## Bolster (Apr 2, 2011)

Trigs to just a scootch under 50 degrees. Either measurement puts it close to the Minimus for beam angle. Thanks for the measurement!


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Apr 2, 2011)

Thanks for the beamshots!


----------



## Yucca Patrol (Apr 7, 2011)

Today I received my Petzl Pixa 3 from Karst Sports.

I purchased it to be a very rugged backup for caving and it definitely appears that it will serve this purpose very well. 

It is a chunky piece of rubberized plastic, a little bigger than I expected, and feels very solid. It really looks like a lot of thought was put into making this a durable piece of gear and they got a lot of things right. The battery compartment is sealed with an o-ring that has 3 ridges, effectively making it perform like 3 o-rings. This, along with the ATEX/HAZLOC rating suggest that this lamp will handle the sort of wet and wild treatment cavers will put it through. The knob to select the different modes is nice and chunky and very easy to manipulate with gloves.

The lamp can be rotated 180' so that the lens is facing backwards, protecting it from an impact that might happen in a caving pack. Even better is the fact that the light cannot be accidentally turned while on in this position. This is a huge plus in my book. It also appears that the battery case cannot be accidentally opened when the light pointing straight ahead during use.

It does have one minor flaw in my opinion. The documentation makes a pretty big deal about how well they designed it to have a wide flood beam on the low and medium settings. However, I estimate that the flood beam is somewhere around 60 degrees (sorry but I left my compass and protractor in my 6th grade math class so I'm not going to measure it exactly). I compared it with a Fenix HP10 and an Energizer Hard Case and both of the other lamps had a wider beam. Ideally, I'd prefer something at least 90 degrees and perhaps a bit more than that for flood.

Lastly, it could be brighter than 50 lumens on high, especially if someone wanted to use it as their primary caving headlamp, but as a backup it is more than perfectly serviceable and still very comparable to lamps we all thought were pretty darn bright a few years ago. And by not going full blast, it will have very long run-time, which is very desirable for a backup caving lamp.

Perhaps Petzl will take all the good stuff from this lamp and make a "Pixa 4" with a separate 4xAA battery pack and 150 lumens on high? Now that would be a stellar piece of gear!!!

In short, this is a great headlamp, mainly for it's use of 2xAA format and very durable waterproof construction. I can see it being very popular with cavers as well as construction/industrial professionals. If you are looking for the brightest thing out there and do not require extreme rugged construction, you might be disappointed. But if you are looking for something that is going to survive incredibly harsh conditions like wet and muddy caves and runs for a very long time on just 2 AA batteries, it's a winner.

*Edit: One comment on the excellent beam shots above. You'll see that the spot is not centered at the middle setting. This is not a flaw. It is intentional and functional. You adjust the headlamp so that the spot is pointing straight ahead. This then allows the flood light to be angled toward the ground, allowing the floodlight to illuminate your immediate vicinity while walking while still shining the spotlight straight ahead. I consider this to be one of the most innovative and functional aspects of this lamp. This makes is so that you only need to move your eyes and not your head to see both near and far, and this is especially beneficial for your neck if wearing it on a helmet for extended periods of time.*


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 7, 2011)

Yucca Patrol said:


> Perhaps Petzl will take all the good stuff from this lamp and make a "Pixa 4" with a separate 4xAA battery pack and 150 lumens on high? Now that would be a stellar piece of gear!!!



Give it a 90+ degree flood beam, too, and I'll pay whatever they want for it.


Thanks for the review.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Apr 7, 2011)

Thank you for the writeup. This definitely whets my appetite for trying the Pixa One, since I prefer flashlights for distance and 5mm floods for "local" activities. Your comments on the build quality and probable durability are definitely heartening. 

*thumbs up*


----------



## Bolster (Apr 7, 2011)

Glad to get more info on this light. Like LEDAddict, I'm also very curious about the Pixa 1. The beam width of the Pixa 3, which has been estimated by various methods in the 50-60 degree range, is a little limiting. I consider 60 degrees the bottom number that a floody beam "should" be. That's just my opinion. I'm wondering if the frosted diffuser of the Pixa 1 will open the beam up a little more. 

One thing I'd like to see is the light held in the hand or a closeup on the forehead. Almost every report so far mentions the larger size of this lamp, and for some reason I didn't get that impression watching Petzl's videos...maybe they used people with really big heads to make it look smaller? 

But a comparison shot, showing the Pixa next to a known quantity like a Zebralight would be instructive. Thanks for the writeups!


----------



## turboBB (Apr 7, 2011)

Yucca Patrol said:


> *Edit: One comment on the excellent beam shots above. You'll see that the spot is not centered at the middle setting. This is not a flaw. It is intentional and functional. You adjust the headlamp so that the spot is pointing straight ahead. This then allows the flood light to be angled toward the ground, allowing the floodlight to illuminate your immediate vicinity while walking while still shining the spotlight straight ahead. I consider this to be one of the most innovative and functional aspects of this lamp. This makes is so that you only need to move your eyes and not your head to see both near and far, and this is especially beneficial for your neck if wearing it on a helmet for extended periods of time.*


 
I must confess that when I first noticed this, I was like "WTH" but after using it a bit, it became apparent that this was completley intentional and as you've said, an EXCELLENT idea! HOWEVER, to your other point about the flood beam being acute in nature, not sure how much of a benefit this *could* have had vs. a wider flood. Nontheless still a great idea.

When I have time, I might look into swapping the optics on the flood to see if it can be widended.

EDIT:


Bolster said:


> But a comparison shot, showing the Pixa next to a known quantity like a Zebralight would be instructive. Thanks for the writeups!


 
Ask and ye shall receive, I was going to include this in the upcoming review but I'll grab a side-by-side shot for you later tonight.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 7, 2011)

I found photos of the Pixa 3's insides here:

http://forum.fonarevka.ru/showthread.php?p=35410&language=en

I like how easy it looks to disassemble, and it looks easy to replace the optics too... but is there really zero heatsinking? And upgrading those LEDs would be beyond my skill level.


----------



## turboBB (Apr 7, 2011)

Here's a shot against some well known HL's as well as a AA and CR123 battery which should give you a good idea as to its size:





Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Bolster (Apr 8, 2011)

That shot's worthy of a photo studio. Many thanks! 

I guess it's about the size I expected it to be, with 2xAA in it!


----------



## turboBB (Apr 8, 2011)

@VT: Thx for the link, after seeing those pics, curiosity got the best of me and 4 torx screws and a gentle pry later, I easily removed the battery holder/board. Those LED's will definitely be a challenge to replace:




















There is defintiely no heatsinking whatsoever and adding any will prove to be quite a challenge. The back of the board sits flush against the battery holder so there's really no where to add any mass:





EDIT: Also, the dual optics are formed in a single piece so I'm not so sure those can be easily replaced either...


----------



## Bolster (Apr 9, 2011)

As my German mother would say to me, "Nicht fur das finger-poken." Seems almost designed to curtail modifications. What's up with no heat sinking?


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Apr 9, 2011)

No heat sinking on a power LED is not cool.

Perhaps your forehead is supposed to be the heatsink? :shakehead


----------



## Yucca Patrol (Apr 11, 2011)

Considering that they do not have these LED's running full blast, the lack of heat sink is probably not that big of a deal except to someone who wants to mod it


----------



## Bolster (Apr 11, 2011)

Why do you suppose they chose to "throttle back" the lumens and skip the heat sink? Seems odd in a marketing environment where mfgrs compete on lumens. Imagine its popularity if it would also put out 100 lumen for 4 hours or so. But 2xAA, topping out at 30 lumen? Why? All that potential, unrealized.

BTW: What's the tint like?


----------



## uk_caver (Apr 11, 2011)

The Pixas look and feel like pretty work-oriented lights, and I can certainly see potential attractions of a Pixa from an employer's point of view.
Longer runtime = fewer disposable cells used or fewer spare rechargeable cells needing to be around (and hence fewer going missing), and fewer opportunities for people to get some slack time by actually or supposedly running out of power.
For ATEX use, longer runtime - less need for opening in a dangerous environment.

I'm sure a decent fraction of people would use whatever light they were given at full blast most of the time. Giving them a light where there isn't a choice saves having to try and get them to do otherwise, and a light where the output was enough for the likely needs might well be just what many people would choose.


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 11, 2011)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> No heat sinking on a power LED is not cool.


 
Agreed. I have a new Black Diamond Orbit lantern that's the same way... just a Luxeon Rebel on a circuit board, no aluminum in sight.


----------



## Bolster (Apr 11, 2011)

Interesting perspective, UK Caver. It's an "employer's light"!


----------



## YIKES (Apr 12, 2011)

Bolster said:


> Why do you suppose they chose to "throttle back" the lumens and skip the heat sink? Seems odd in a marketing environment where mfgrs compete on lumens. Imagine its popularity if it would also put out 100 lumen for 4 hours or so. But 2xAA, topping out at 30 lumen? Why? All that potential, unrealized.
> 
> BTW: What's the tint like?


 
It's for next year's model, so now you have to buy two! Agreed that 30 lumens are too short of a great package. I'm still on on board with the 2 AA power.


----------



## Yucca Patrol (Apr 13, 2011)

I did an informal runtime/waterproofing test. Set it on the middle setting and tossed it in my 2.5 foot deep fish tank for 6 hours. After that, the battery compartment was bone dry. The lamp continued to run for another 3 hours before dropping to the reserve power mode.

Although we all wish for more lumens, this lamp is more of a Prius than a Corvette. And for a backup caving headlamp, long runtimes combined with adequate light output make this a stellar headlamp. I will cave confidently knowing that I have this for a backup when everything else fails.

But yes, I too would love to see a high power version in the future.


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 13, 2011)

Yucca Patrol said:


> I did an informal runtime/waterproofing test. Set it on the middle setting and tossed it in my 2.5 foot deep fish tank for 6 hours. After that, the battery compartment was bone dry. The lamp continued to run for another 3 hours before dropping to the reserve power mode.



What batteries did you use? Alkaline?


----------



## Yucca Patrol (Apr 13, 2011)

freshly charged eneloops


----------



## vtunderground (Apr 14, 2011)

Yucca Patrol said:


> freshly charged eneloops


 
The way runtime test should be done  

Thanks!


----------



## joegreen42 (Apr 18, 2011)

Here is a runtime post from a UK Caving site..

OUR OWN TESTS USING DIFFERENT TYPES OF BATTERY:

NiMh Rechargeable AA Batteries: (Energizer 2500mAh) Usable Light: 11h:00m
Ran for 10h:25m on the middle 40 lumen setting before there was any noticable drop in output, which is considerably longer than expected.
00h:00m: On.
10h:25m: LED's flashed to signify end of regulated output.
10h:55m: Output had reduced significantly but still bright enough to cave on.
11h:10m: Very dim so ended the test.

Alkaline AA Batteries: (Duracell Procell) Usable Light: 8h:00m
Ran for 8h:00m on the middle 40 lumen setting before there was any noticable drop in output.
00h:00m: On.
08h:00m: LED's flashed to signify end of regulated output.
08h:05m: Output had reduced significantly.
08h:20m: Very dim so ended the test.

Lithium AA Batteries: (Energizer Ultimate) Usable Light: 13h:00m
Ran for 13h:00m on the middle 40 lumen setting before there was any noticable drop in output. Not as long as we were expecting bearing in mind that the NiMh rechargables did 10h:25m. Normally there's a strong argument for lithium batteries but possibly not in the Pixa 3 unless using it in very cold conditions. This is probably something to do with the way the Pixa regulates the output.
00h:00m: On.
13h:00m: LED's flashed to signify end of regulated output.
13h:10m: Output had reduced significantly.
13h:15m: Very dim so ended the test.


----------



## joegreen42 (Apr 27, 2011)

Here are a few beam shots of the Pixa 3 with a little scotch tape added to the Flood LED...

Low (no more hot spot... well, maybe just a little one.)






Combo





Scotch tape Diffuser installed


----------



## Bolster (Apr 27, 2011)

That looks good! Viva la tape.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Apr 28, 2011)

Cool "mod." Cheap and effective. I like it!


----------



## gcbryan (May 25, 2011)

So the flood on the Pixa 3 to me looks more like the spot beam on my Storm when I use tape over it rather than like the flood mode (on the Storm).

When you use just the flood mode can you really see all around you or just in front? In other words is there any real advantage to having the flood light on when the spot light is on?


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (May 25, 2011)

I have a Pixa One inbound...will let everybody know whether I enjoy it as much as I hope to!


----------



## Bolster (May 26, 2011)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> I have a Pixa One inbound...will let everybody know whether I enjoy it as much as I hope to!



Woohoo...have been waiting for an informed opinion on the One...I have high hopes for it. Thanks for taking point.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (May 26, 2011)

My pleasure! Traded one of my last Favourlight Warm White Mini Lanterns for it...I'm looking forward to using the lantern around the house and during blackouts. I think in this application, the Pixa One will excel.

I'll pop back in the thread once it arrives, so stay tuned!


----------



## Bolster (May 26, 2011)

Tuned. 

Unclear above: you gave up a Favourlight lantern to get the Pixa 1? If so, hope it's a good trade. Those Favourlight warm lanterns are a near-ideal lantern IMHO.

Regarding Pixa One: You already know what I'm going to ask for but here goes anyway: Measurement of diameter of beam, and distance from wall when you took it. Would really like to know beam angle on this baby. Am hoping for something 60 degrees or larger.


----------



## yowzer (May 27, 2011)

I played around wth a Pixa 3 recently... too bulky and not enough output levels for my tastes. Seemed well built and sturdy compared to other Petzl models, but just not my thing. I think if I worked construction I'd consider one for a hardhat, but for camping and SAR, which are my primary headlamp uses... I'll pass.


----------



## Bolster (Jun 9, 2011)

Any update on the Pixa 1 yet?


----------



## ringzero (Jun 10, 2011)

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 (Jun 10, 2011)

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 (Jun 10, 2011)

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 (Jun 10, 2011)

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 (Jun 10, 2011)

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 (Jun 10, 2011)

*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 (Jun 10, 2011)

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 (Jun 15, 2011)

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 (Jul 1, 2011)

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 (Jul 1, 2011)

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 (Jul 5, 2011)

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 (Jul 5, 2011)

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 (Jul 5, 2011)

Bolster said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2011)

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 (Jul 6, 2011)

Bolster said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2011)

I meant, drives you crazy to measure it.


----------



## ringzero (Jul 6, 2011)

Bolster said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2011)

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 (Jul 6, 2011)

uk_caver said:


> 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 (Jul 6, 2011)

Very interesting Ringzero, thanks for posting that.


----------



## bogmonster (Jul 7, 2011)

The light looks a bit awkward to me. It is not really bright enough for a primary caving light - maybe it would have been 10 years ago while lots of people were still using incan. As a backup there is plenty of light but it is too big really unless going in a pack. Due to its size it will be difficult to mount on a helmet alongside a primary light unless you primary is smaller than your backup. Maybe if your primary is easily removable it would be ok as long as you were happy not to have it ready to run on your helmet (not ideal for SRT or on difficult climbs).

I use either a side mounted hand held and / or a H51 (dubious about reliability) as these can be helmet mounted alongslide my primary wheras the Pixa could not due to its size. It is also too big to comfortably fit in an oversuit pocket for snug caves.

If it had Myo RXP outup levels then it would be a much better proposition and could be used as a low end primary in a pinch. Otherwise I would just go down the Myo RXP route and make sure the battery compartment is dried out after each trip.


Looks like a good rugged worklight though.


----------



## Bolster (Jul 7, 2011)

Wow...H51 gets dinged for reliability, but Myo RXP is OK even though the battery compartment leaks? Have you experienced an H51 failure?


----------



## bogmonster (Jul 7, 2011)

Bolster said:


> Wow...H51 gets dinged for reliability, but Myo RXP is OK even though the battery compartment leaks? Have you experienced an H51 failure?


 

Not saying the Myo RXP is any more reliable than the H51, would not know. I would not really want to rely on the Myo RXP or the H51. I do know a few people who cave with RXPs as light weight primary lights and they appear quite reliable and the head is reasonably water proof. The battery compartment is not but not a big deal if it gets water in it as long as you dry it afterwards. Otherwise everything goes nasty. I do have an H51 and it does let moisture in but it has not failed yet.

The other issue with the H51 is that if you need to change batteries underground it is difficult to not get crud in the main light. Not a problem with the Myo RXP as you only get crud in the battery compartment where it can do less damage.

At least with the Myo RXP you can use it as a primary (and H51), the Pixa is not really bright enough for this.

For a backup I am much happier with direct drive, non regulated lights without clicky switches and fully waterproof. Neither the H51, Myo RXP or Pixa meet these criteria. The only reason I sometimes use the H51 as a backup is because it fits under my primary light whereas my preferred backup is cable tied to the side of the helmet and can get in the way in tight caves. Don't get me wrong, the H51 is a fine light but I am not 100% confident in it. If anything, I tend to use the H51 as a very light weight primary on tight caves and when digging and carry a backup in my pocket.

I did buy the H51 in preference to the Myo RXP mainly because of its smaller size (initially bought it as a backup). I would buy the Myo RXP over the Pixa because of size and usability (can be used as a primary). However, not really sure any of the above are great backups for the reasons stated. I can live with a primary that is not 100% reliable, but the backup must be close.

Also, sure the Pixa as a great light, just don't see it as meeting many of my requirements as an ideal caving light (backup or primary).


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jul 7, 2011)

bogmonster said:


> Also, sure the Pixa as a great light, just don't see it as meeting many of my requirements as an ideal caving light (backup or primary).



you seem to have some harsh things to say about lights that weren't designed for your preferred use. maybe they don't work well for caving because they just weren't made for caving. kind of like saying you got an Aston Martin, took it off road, and you were disappointed by it's performance.

the PT Attitude that you like so much started out as a dive light, so it's actually overbuilt for caving.

i'm curious what you use as your primary caving lamp.

also curious what other lights you have/ have had. so far i gather you have a PT Attitude and a Zebra H51, but what else?


----------



## bogmonster (Jul 12, 2011)

robostudent5000 said:


> you seem to have some harsh things to say about lights that weren't designed for your preferred use. maybe they don't work well for caving because they just weren't made for caving. kind of like saying you got an Aston Martin, took it off road, and you were disappointed by it's performance.
> 
> the PT Attitude that you like so much started out as a dive light, so it's actually overbuilt for caving.
> 
> ...


 
I mentioned the caving backup use case as some people expressed the view that the Pixa was ideally suited to this task. I don't really see that. Does not mean it is not a good light.
I have the following lights:


Oldham headset with Custom Duo Pitlamp LED conversion and Speliotechnics headlite battery and custom AA battery pack - 400lm - reliable and very robust headset.
Petzl Duo with Custom Duo LED inserts - 350lm - very plasicy and has suffered broken connection. Otherwise not bad.
Speliotechnics Headlite - retired as too unreliable - switch contacts are not very good and battery contacts are even worse.
Speliotechnics FX3 - not many lumens - gathering dust.
A couple of old carbide lamps.
Petzl Tika (not sure which version) - broken, full of cave gunk.
Mk 1 Petzl zoom - broken, canibalized for parts, especially great battery box.
Zebralight H51 - lets in moisture but still working.
PT Attitude - 30lm - backup light - 100% reliable so far 
Numerous MagLites and other lights.
I dont own but have used:


Little Monkey Huricane - great light but quite pricy - might buy one of there.
Speliotechnics Super Nova.
Petzl Myo RXP - great light in my opinion, reliable, small, reasonably bright - not too rugged so maybe not the best backup.
Speliotechnics headset with Mine Explorer LED conversion - 350lm - good LED module, poor headset - would me much better in the Oldham.
Underwater Kinetics eLED 4AA light - good backup but a bit too big.
For my next primary it will either be an Oldham with Mine Explorer LED insert and Lithiom Ion battery pack - good cheap solution 

Alternatively I will get the next Little Monkey light.
For backup I will stick with the trusty PT Attitude as I am very happy with it.

For a backup caving light I am quite happy to have 'overspec' as caving is a very harsh environment where light failure can be dangerous.


----------



## uk_caver (Jul 12, 2011)

The headlite battery boxes do generally seem to respond positively to some gentle maintenance (I've only owned one, and that doesn't really count - found at the bottom of a deep pool, and only used as part of a demo setup for an LED insert), but I've serviced a few, as well as servicing a load of FX2s/FX3s over the years which have similar contact issues).
The headset switch contacts _can _be pretty bad - I've had a go at a few when fitting LED inserts into them, but since my higher-end inserts only use the switch for signalling rather than power supply, borderline contacts are less of an issue for me than with some other units.

Personally, even though I carry backup lights, I really can't recall ever having used one (excluding lending to other people)
The electric unit on my Laser carbide/electric setup with a non-halogen bulb was boringly reliable and had a good battery life, and the accompanying Fisma acetylene generators were pretty reliable if looked after properly - maybe a non-field-repairable failure once every 3 or 4 years of good use.
When I started making LED lights I went for twin-beam with independent drivers for each LED, internal redundancy within each driver and a solid battery connection, so it would take quite a lot of misfortune to stop them working.

I wouldn't use an RXP as a backup - I've seen a couple misbehave simply as a result of getting damp (not even meaningfully wet).

For a caving backup, I think there's a lot to be said for something like an E01 - low power so limited chance of heat issues, adequate light for moving with dark-adapted eyes, enough runtime for me to get out of pretty much anywhere I'm likely to be even if I don't have a spare cell, and small enough that it doesn't get in the way the 99.whatever% of the time I don't need it.
I may carry other lights as well at times, (my Zebralight is a really good light for underground camping) but I /always/ have the E01.

As for the Pixa, as I _think_ I said before the original thread disappeared, from the size/output/design and even colour scheme, it looks like a working light whose natural home is a toolbox.
It may happen to be good for other uses as well, but maybe more by accident than design.

I like the Pixa3, but I don't personally have a niche it fits into.


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jul 12, 2011)

bogmonster said:


> For a backup caving light I am quite happy to have 'overspec' as caving is a very harsh environment where light failure can be dangerous.


 
yeah, stick with the Princeton Tec dive lights. those things are dead reliable. i don't think any of the general use headlamps on the market will do it for you.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 12, 2011)

UKCaver, nice post. I'm not a caver but it's interesting to read of some of the equipment design needs for that environment.

Dual beam with independent drivers sounds interesting. I'm into redundancy however in hiking/climbing and diving I think it generally makes more sense to just carry two light mainly because two beams doesn't work well underwater and for climbing it uses too much battery power. I like to read about a really robust design though.

I tend to have a A3 around my neck and tucked into my shirt whatever I"m doing where light might be an issue. It's usually a 3rd backup.

I hadn't thought of a Zebralight for underground uses but there is an easy walk-in lava tube formation fairly close to where I live and I think the Zebralight would be great in that application.

What is the toughest condition that a caving light has to deal with? Is it water or being treated roughly? I was just wondering if dive lights would make good cave lights (backup at least)?


----------



## uk_caver (Jul 12, 2011)

gcbryan said:


> Dual beam with independent drivers sounds interesting.


It was intentional, but would have been fairly hard to avoid anyway - given the available space, suitably small microcontrollers that fitted on stripboard for the prototype didn't have enough pins to drive two LEDs with the driver design I wanted to use.



gcbryan said:


> I'm into redundancy however in hiking/climbing and diving I think it generally makes more sense to just carry two light mainly because two beams doesn't work well underwater and for climbing it uses too much battery power.


Actually, I think that for caving/walking, having twin blendable beams can potentially save power.
Given flood and spot beams with power levels (extra-low, low, medium, high) about a factor of 3 apart, a medium flood with added low (or even extra-low) spot might well be more usable than a full-power flood - having the right (ie small) amount of spot in the mix can seem to increase the throw of the flood even outside the spot's area - I think it's a mental effect of semi-distant things borderline-lit by the flood seeming to stay subjectively more visible once they've been better lit by the spot moving over them and properly seen.



gcbryan said:


> I hadn't thought of a Zebralight for underground uses but there is an easy walk-in lava tube formation fairly close to where I live and I think the Zebralight would be great in that application.


Personally, I find the 'pure' flood of my H50 a bit flat - the flood on my caving light is more forward-biased, and that does seem distinctly more useful for walking. Also, my flood isn't exactly smooth - there is some unevenness as well as the forward biasing, and I think the unevenness may help on 'visually flat' surfaces like muddy floors, where a smooth flood can make it fairly hard to see the relief - having beam imperfections seems to give the eye a bit of help in triangulating things and judging distances.



gcbryan said:


> What is the toughest condition that a caving light has to deal with? Is it water or being treated roughly? I was just wondering if dive lights would make good cave lights (backup at least)?


Small dive torches can be useful backups, though they do tend to be single power, and caving can have very variable light needs.


----------



## gcbryan (Jul 12, 2011)

There are magnetic based ring systems on dive lights now that are variable power. They aren't exactly designed for muddy conditions or hitting against the walls in a cave but it's something to look at as they are both designed for harsh conditions. I rarely use anything but high in diving but for hiking I generally use everything but high.

When you mentioned dual beams I was thinking of two beams that were the same. Now that I realize (of course) that you are talking about spot and flood that's more appealing (not for diving but for everything else). Particularly when they both operate at the same time. Most hiking headlamps that I've been around (at least the ones without a separate battery pack) can only do one or the other at the same time.

I like the idea of adjusting the beam profile for the conditions (mix of spot and flood).

I understand the flatness of flood light that you are describing and it can make it hard to see irregular surfaces but I find it pleasing in other ways. When the level is not too high it reminds me of walking about with my own personal moon. I frequently wonder if I need the light at all (thinking that perhaps it's just the ambient light) until I turn it off and all is dark 

In getting into more natural looking beams these days rather than the harsh beam profiles we've become (somewhat) accustomed to.


----------



## Yucca Patrol (Jul 12, 2011)

uk_caver said:


> I like the Pixa3, but I don't personally have a niche it fits into.


 
As a fellow caver, my niche for it is to throw it in the bottom of my caving pack and know that it will work when/if i ever need it as a backup. And when/if I ever need it, i will be confident that it will survive whatever nasty cave I might happen to be in at the time.

Like you, I love the EO1 as a helmet mounted backup.


----------



## ringzero (Jul 13, 2011)

Yucca Patrol said:


> As a fellow caver, my niche for it is to throw it in the bottom of my caving pack and know that it will work when/if i ever need it as a backup. And when/if I ever need it, i will be confident that it will survive whatever nasty cave I might happen to be in at the time.




+1

A few times over the years my primary light source (helmet mounted carbide) suffered catastrophic failure - meaning it was unfixable in the cave.

At those times, I'd have been absolutely thrilled to have been able to pull a long runtime Petzl Pixa out of my caving pack and strap it to my helmet!

In my experience the Pixa output of 30 to 40 lumens is plenty of light to make it out of even a fairly demanding cave, because I've found my way out of caves using considerably less light than that.

As somebody mentioned, the Underwater Kinetics 4AA lights are great caving backup lights. Waterproof and very rugged, models are available with outputs from 30 lumens to something over 120 lumens, runtimes from 4 hrs to over 20 hours, and with side, tail, or twisty switches as preferred. These are fairly compact for 4AA lights, so they can be strapped to a helmet as easily as a typical 2AA light.

.


----------



## bogmonster (Jul 25, 2011)

I don't suppose anybody with a Pixa also has a Petzl Vertex helmet (2011 model). As I understand it the Pixa will clip into a slot at the front of this helmet without using the strap. I really like the Vertex helmets - comfortable, no vat (if you buy as safety equipment), strong and very secure. It would be good if the inbuilt slot would take a cap lamp blade mount for an Oldham / Speleo Technics. If anybody has this helmet a picture of the slot would be great. Alternatively a pic of the fixxing on the back of the Pixa would help. My worry is that fitting a standard metal blade mount to this helmet might now be difficult.


----------



## coors (Jul 25, 2011)

I finally got around to testing the difference in lumen output of Eneloops vs. Energizer Ultimate lithiums, in the Pixa 1. Eneloops, fresh off charger, are 80-90% less bright than the Ultimates. These particular Ultimates that I used for this testing had been used for 15-20 minutes prior to this test. Also, within a few minutes the Eneloops lose their initial brightness and the light dims back slightly, yet noticeably. I don't know if these findings will hold true for the Pixa 2 and Pixa 3 models.


----------



## coors (Jul 25, 2011)

Perhaps I worded the above reply in a confusing way. What I should have written is that the Ultimates are giving 80-90% more luminous output, in the Pixa 1, than the Eneloops. If the 80-90% were actually 100%, then that would mean the light output/brightness from using Ultimates would be exactly twice that of the Eneloops.


----------



## clemence (Aug 29, 2011)

Hi guys,
I bought Pixa3 about 3 months ago. It worked well enough for my various applications (hiking, camping, working, caving, and even snorkelling). I'm very satisfied with this HL although it's not very bright especially when I need to see longer than 30m. The STD Pixa3 lacks beam uniformity (both flood and spot mode). I plan to modify it's optics using a simple sandblasted acrylic piece glued/taped. I'm still looking for the best method to replace the XPE, I have hundreds of R5 XPGs here.
I was wondering why Petzl is using this outdated XPE LED for this product. The most satisfying answer was from Cree's tech. guy: "...In terms of optics efficiency XPE is better than XPG..." (still not enough to prevent me to modify this HL though 8|.
And as for the dim output, I think Petzl designed this prod. to be used in hazardous (flammable) environments. Thus, preventing the use of external heatsink or metal casing (which would be warmer than the surrounding air)


----------



## turboBB (Jan 3, 2012)

Here are some indoor shots I took as part of my indoor beamshots compilation, the PIXA3 was aimed so that the spot would be centered w/middle of door to be consistent w/other lights.

 Flood


 

 

 

Flood/Spot


 

 



Spot


 

 

 

Cheers,
Tim

EDIT: Incidentally, the new 3R is forthcoming, too bad the batteries are not compatible and vice versa:
http://www.petzl.com/en/pro/new-pro...e-multibeam-headlamp-configurable-performance


----------



## clemence (Mar 1, 2012)

*Finally, a modified PIXA3 (XPG R5 Mod.)*

Yiiiiiihaaa! :wave:

Guys, this is my modified Petzl PIXA3 beam shots.
This HL originally uses two Cree XPE emitters. I replaced them with Cree XPG R5 emitters (binned as: XPGWHT-L1-0000-00H51).





Picture description. (left std, right modified): 
- Top low, flood set...ting
Not much lumen difference but, XPG gives a more uniform beam with less abrupt "halo" and bigger center spot.
- Middle: med, flood & spot setting
At higher current XPG start to show it's performance. Notice how the spot is much brighter and gives wider spot.
- Bottom: high, spot setting
XPG definitely knock-outs the XPE. Bigger and brighter beam!

FYI, it was really easy. I used fabric iron at highest setting to remove and replace the LED's. I wasn't so sure that all of the solder perfectly melted (my iron max. temp was only 190C-210C). So, I used a hot air gun set at approx 260C using thermocouple placed near the LED's as a guide.
I don't know how many extra lumen this mod. add. Based on Cree Prod. Characterization Tool (http://pct.cree.com/), at 0.13mA (roughly the current at highest spot setting) XPE should get 49.9lm before all the efficiency loss. At the same current and efficiency loss XPG should get 53.3lm, a net 6.8% improvement in brightness. Bonus, it gets better beam patterns.


----------



## clemence (Mar 2, 2012)

*Re: Finally, a modified PIXA3 (XPG R5 Mod.)*

Tonight I'm going to remove the domes. I think I need more throw and also eliminate unwanted stray lights as much as possible. Wish me luck guys!


----------



## clemence (Mar 2, 2012)

*De-domed XPG's R5 on PIXA3*

Can't wait until tonight. I succesfully removed all the dome from those XPG's

Here's the picture of the beam shots!







Picture description. (left std, center XPG mod., right XPG mod. + de-domed): 
1a. Standard low, flood setting
1b. Not much lumen difference but, a more uniform beam with less abrupt "halo" and bigger center spot.
1c. Warmer yellowish beam. Very clear cut off. The center spot is smaller than std but the areas is much more uniform in brightness. The rectangular shadow below is completely gone

2a. Standard med, flood & spot setting
2b. At higher current XPG start to show it's performance. Notice how the spot is much brighter and gives wider spot.
2c. Bigger, well defined, and much more uniform spot. Very nice beam

3a. Standard high, spot setting
3b. XPG definitely knock-outs the XPE. Bigger and brighter beam but still too much stray lost. Not good for throwing power
3c. Tighter and brighter spot (it's to tell by the pic but it is brighter in reality).

I really like this mod. since the HL is now friendlier to the eyes and also brighter with very nice uniform beam. I don't know if this would also improve the CRI as well.


----------



## clemence (Mar 2, 2012)

*Re: De-domed XPG's R5 on PIXA3*

I think I should move my recent post to a new thread.


----------



## Tobias Bossert (Mar 5, 2012)

*Re: De-domed XPG's R5 on PIXA3*

I got a Pixa3 in my hands. Very solid mechanically. But far too narrow beams for progression in a cave.
Here are some beam shots with mode 1 (wide beam only), mode 2 (combined wide and narrow beam) and mode 3 (narrow beam only).
Mode 1






Mode 2





Mode 3





All three beams are not realy smooth and edge free. Petzl should improve the optics!

For comparison, here is a beam shot of my own helmet lamp, which is optimized for walking in a cave or at a rough terrain.





Tobias


----------



## clemence (Mar 5, 2012)

*Re: De-domed XPG's R5 on PIXA3*

Tobias,

Yes, the beams are bad, that's why I modified them. But it was a win-loss mod. I got a very nice spread of beams in flood and spot modes, but that sacrifice lumen output (also mean less throw). The ultimate mod. would be an upgrade to higher performance LEDs (XPG/XTE) and DEFINITELY different optics! But, since this HL originally designed for close works and occasional medium sights, other than those defective beam patterns, it's OK with me. Caving activities require more intense and longer throwing beam, it's no place for this poor PIXA3 (But you can still share your adventure with it from your back-up compartment). 
An easy fix for the low beam spread is to use scotch tape as mentioned earlier by the other member. Or you could just place a thin clear sanded hard plastic (like those found on books cover).


----------



## larcal (Jan 21, 2014)

*Check in time everyone!*

Well now its been 2 1/2 years and time I'd say time for everyone who bought one of these to belly up to the bar and ladle out their complaints and praise for this light, prefaced perhaps by how much you have actually used and abused it.

Especially since there have not been any other threads on this since.

One main issue of course is whether they are really as durable as first believed.

Is the switch mechanical or electronic?

Personally I'm especially interested in the #1 so how about it Coors, Led addict, and whomever else I'm forgetting that said they bought a Pixa 1? 

Bolster, you were considering the 1 a lot in 2011. Did you ever spring for it?


----------

