I know I'm about to stir up some debate for which I apologize, but I really need to ask, why do reefers purchase excessively high intensity lights at such insanely high prices only to underutilize them? Let me explain.......
I am returning to this hobby after being in pretty deep back in the mid-late 90s, when I ran several LFS fish rooms. Back then we used VHO fluorescents and 175w halides for most applications and did very well. Granted, the new found availability of different kinds of SPS has created a need for marginally better lighting than what we had, however has the industry gone too far at this point, creating lights that both cost a fortune and FAR exceed the needs of most of our tanks? Does the industry suffer from GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) turning our hobby into something that's only accessible to a few? Or at minimum does the culture of over-equipping dissuade outsiders who get the impression that you need to have $$$$ to enjoy a reef tank?
As someone with a decent foundation of knowledge about coral/reef biology, but also a newcomer to the newer technologies now available, it strikes me as illogical to pay thousands of dollars for SUPER high output LED pucks which would burn most any coral if run full-bore and certainly the eyes of anyone unfortunate enough to look at them, only to run them at 30%, and still have to place them 24" (or more) above the tank, when you can pay 1/8th the price for for less powerful lights, and place them 3-4" above the water, still having good PAR on the rocks and not have all the light spill issues. I suppose our T5 crowd falls into the latter to some degree.
I see the popular justification of having that extra power on tap "in case", yet very few are running these porta-suns on full power. That's like buying a Ferrari to pick up groceries, just "in case" you needed to outrun Batman to the last gallon of milk. Seems a little Tim Taylor right?
There's also the justification of controllability, but again once someone finds the spectrum they like and is working, how often are you really adjusting them anyway? On the most part the only time I notice folks adjusting their lights over established tanks is when they realize they are running them too bright. (see point one)
I've also seen the justification that "a light that puts out 9 million PAR run at 5% will last longer then the light that delivers 200 PAR run at 100%", but the economics rarely support that. You could replace your reasonably powered lights 5 times before you paid for mini-supernova over your tank.
Anyway, I wanted to see how people felt about the idea that perhaps the industry has driven us to over-light our tanks in search of profit margin, instead of the actual needs of our tank inhabitants and certainly over the needs of fish-keepers. To be clear, I know there are some advantages, but do they justify spending $$$$$$$ on lights, when you can accomplish it with so much less under-utilized power at 1/10th the cost? Take the same argument to freshwater, and it becomes even more clear.....
Anyway, fun discussion.......
I am returning to this hobby after being in pretty deep back in the mid-late 90s, when I ran several LFS fish rooms. Back then we used VHO fluorescents and 175w halides for most applications and did very well. Granted, the new found availability of different kinds of SPS has created a need for marginally better lighting than what we had, however has the industry gone too far at this point, creating lights that both cost a fortune and FAR exceed the needs of most of our tanks? Does the industry suffer from GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) turning our hobby into something that's only accessible to a few? Or at minimum does the culture of over-equipping dissuade outsiders who get the impression that you need to have $$$$ to enjoy a reef tank?
As someone with a decent foundation of knowledge about coral/reef biology, but also a newcomer to the newer technologies now available, it strikes me as illogical to pay thousands of dollars for SUPER high output LED pucks which would burn most any coral if run full-bore and certainly the eyes of anyone unfortunate enough to look at them, only to run them at 30%, and still have to place them 24" (or more) above the tank, when you can pay 1/8th the price for for less powerful lights, and place them 3-4" above the water, still having good PAR on the rocks and not have all the light spill issues. I suppose our T5 crowd falls into the latter to some degree.
I see the popular justification of having that extra power on tap "in case", yet very few are running these porta-suns on full power. That's like buying a Ferrari to pick up groceries, just "in case" you needed to outrun Batman to the last gallon of milk. Seems a little Tim Taylor right?
There's also the justification of controllability, but again once someone finds the spectrum they like and is working, how often are you really adjusting them anyway? On the most part the only time I notice folks adjusting their lights over established tanks is when they realize they are running them too bright. (see point one)
I've also seen the justification that "a light that puts out 9 million PAR run at 5% will last longer then the light that delivers 200 PAR run at 100%", but the economics rarely support that. You could replace your reasonably powered lights 5 times before you paid for mini-supernova over your tank.
Anyway, I wanted to see how people felt about the idea that perhaps the industry has driven us to over-light our tanks in search of profit margin, instead of the actual needs of our tank inhabitants and certainly over the needs of fish-keepers. To be clear, I know there are some advantages, but do they justify spending $$$$$$$ on lights, when you can accomplish it with so much less under-utilized power at 1/10th the cost? Take the same argument to freshwater, and it becomes even more clear.....
Anyway, fun discussion.......