is 300watt T5 same as 300watt MH??

[goda]

T5 is better then MH. this whole point source stuff dosnt really effect anything besides temp and glimmer lines ( and deep tanks but thats a different story)

 

[goda]

better = longer lasting and a lil safer

 

[Putawaywet]

Ok, since it appears that personal opinions in this thread are being tossed around as fact without any substantiating data (I'm excluding you here Amphiprion as your point actually provided something that is tangible) I will take the counter point and declare MH lighting as being of a lesser quality and performance. After all, it's been proven long ago that they are considerably inefficient given that a considerable chunk of their energy is not converted to light, but rather lost in the form of heat.

I don't know how many people here have real hands on experience with both, but I do, and I wouldn't hesitate to have either form of lighting over my tank.

They both have pluses and minuses, good points and bad, but the bottom line is they will both get you to where you need to go. It all depends on how you prefer to get there.

Brett

 

[mecold]

I can tell you from experience, if you get t5's get good reflectors. I went with t5's not to save money, but heat. If I am not mistaken, there are several places that sell mh retros for much less than comparable wattage t5's. I love my t5's, but will most likely go with mh in the future for the shear number of bulb choices.

 

[bertoni]

Actually, I think Sanjay Joshi's site has data on MH versus fluorescent, and fluorescent are better than some and worse than other MH setups. Same goes for reflectors, as far as MH choices. I think that data is there, but I have several references from him, so I might have some searching. The best at last check was MH, but it's really too close and too variable to be all that significant, if memory serves.

There's no real choosing on efficiency without naming exact bulbs, ballasts, and reflectors. Sanjay's site is great for MH choices.