# 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review



## UnknownVT (Jun 11, 2009)

I get this e-mail from 4Sevens saying he has one of each of the 4 Quarks for me to look at.

Before he's pressed the send button - I was knocking on his door 

First thing I noticed was the packaging - WoW! what a great impression - the boxes were in an almost mole-skin/suede like matte black material.












There's a flap that's held closed actually by 2 magnets - to open up to a gatefold - revealing the flashlight.





In the box is an inner packaging - which means things don't just fall out of the box - they all are in place and easy to access (and even re-package) -





I'm impressed with this level of detail - even in the packaging.

A couple of shots of the Quark Series -











This comparison review is of the Quark AA - single AA model -

Size -





Head -




The 4Sevens Quark series is using the Cree XP-E R2 LED emitters.

More attention to detail - the threads on the Quark series are square cut both for better fit and less chance of mangling from cross-threading..... nice.





How does it compare?

vs. NiteCore D10 -Q5 both max NiMH







No, despite the Quark AA using a Cree XP-E R2 it is not as bright as the NiteCore D10-Q5 rated at 130 lumens - well, checking the Quark AA specs - it is rated at 90 lumens Max - perhaps 4Sevens has chosen to have a more conservative output for better life and runtime?

vs. Fenix LD10 both Max NiMH







Again not as bright as the Fenix LD10-Q5 (rated at 120 lumens).

BUT the one thing to notice is the beam - how artifact free the Quark seems - 
this is due to self-centering of the LED to reflector - there is a special plastic piece that self-centers the LED dome to the reflector - very clever and effective. The beam is also much wider than either the Fenix or NiteCore which makes it perhaps more useful indoors......

How about the Minimum Low?
Quark's specs boasts 0.2 lumens - that's as lower than the NiteCore D10/EX10 that use high frequency PWM to get as low as 3 lumens -

vs. NiteCore D10 Min NiMH -







The Quark AA is definitely lower on Min than the NireCore D10's already examplary minimum low - this is really good for a quick close shot of light without disturbing anyone - and it is great to be the first level On.

All in all a pretty spectacular introduction - great attention to detail - really nice artifact free beam (due to clever self centering).

More to come on comparison of the lower levels.

_*INDEX* *to follow up parts* -_

Square threads clarified - Post #*24* 

Accessories - clip and finger loop - Post #*27* 

Operation/UI - Post #*29* 

Lower light levels compared - Post #*32*

Beacon Mode - Post #*34*

Quark AA specifications - Post #*38*

Comparison with some really low output flashlights - Post #*50*

Comparison with Quark 123 - Max and Min levels - Post #*55*

Comparison on Li-Ion and Quark 123's min and Max levels - Post #*62*

Standardized Stairway beamshot comparison - Post #*117*

Showing Quark regulation by comparing Quark AA on 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 directly with NiMH - on Max and lowest levels - Post #*121*

Standardized Stairway beamshot using 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 - Post #*122*


----------



## Beacon of Light (Jun 11, 2009)

Wow great to see comparison to a Nitecore D10. I love the tint on my Nitecore. I think I will still prefer the Nitecore cooler tint, but the main reason I bought the Quark is the low low. Seriously.


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 11, 2009)

Nice first impression thanks. Can you do a beam comparison with the 2xcr123 against a PD30 or PD20. Also it looks like the holster is similar to a older Fenix holster is that correct.

I really don't need one nor am very exited about these light's but because its 4sevens I almost feel obligated to give one a shot.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jun 11, 2009)

That's a very nice beam. What does that special attatchment thingy look like? Thanks!


----------



## Igor Porto (Jun 11, 2009)

Very nice! Imagine that: 4Sevens sells and knows a lot of brands, including the best ones around nowadays. They acquired the knowledge about what to do and what NOT to do with a flashlight. I bet these Quarks have only the best aspects of all the good brands. Besides that, they know what flashaholics like to have.

Vincent, can you post some specs about them? Lumens, modes, operation style, runtimes? Outdoor beamshots? I know, I'm asking too much, but we can't wait!


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 11, 2009)

Can you run them on 14500 batts and compare...that I believe, might be where we see the Quark shine. Like the super wide beam. And the packaging...fit for fine perfume.


----------



## qip (Jun 11, 2009)

what do the accessories look like, holster in detail unscrunched


----------



## Federal LG (Jun 11, 2009)

YEAH!!

Just celebrating the first review... Now I´ll come back to first post to read it.

lovecpf

Thanks for the review, VT...

What do you think about it´s finish ? Anodization and knurling ?


----------



## berry580 (Jun 11, 2009)

hi, I'd just like to know how does the Regal EDC's spill compares with the Quark AA's spill beam?

thank you.


----------



## victor01 (Jun 12, 2009)

Thank you for a very quick "comparison review". The size comparison with the D10 is revealing. I prefer compact and practical lights. I'll be sticking to my D10 for now


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

Beacon of Light said:


> Wow great to see comparison to a Nitecore D10. I love the tint on my Nitecore. I think I will still prefer the Nitecore cooler tint, but the main reason I bought the Quark is the low low. Seriously.


 
Thanks for the feedback -
I agree the low-low of the Quark is very useful.

One thing to note though - 
notice in the side-by-side comparison beamshots when on Max how close the tints of the Quark AA and the Nitecore D10 are?

It's only on low that the Quark AA goes a bit more yellow-green - this is normally the case with regulated flashlights - the LED seems to go toward yellow-green with lower drive current. Whereas the D10 uses PWM (high frequency) to get to its low level - and the tint remains basically unchanged.


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 12, 2009)

Can we get a pic of the lanyard and holster that would be great thanks.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 12, 2009)

Cool review! Is that a 4 7 logo I see molded into the push button? 

Now I'm just anticipating a review of the 123...


----------



## Crenshaw (Jun 12, 2009)

This i me hoping the review for the 1 x CR123a is next...

thats indeed a much lower low, which is good! would you say that the low is really truly indeed 0.2 lumens?

Crenshaw


----------



## csshih (Jun 12, 2009)

hahah.. darn.. if only 47s lived near me..

awaiting that darn package!


----------



## MaxP (Jun 12, 2009)

Great review. I've been looking forward to seeing these babies in action, so well done!


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 12, 2009)

I went ahead a ordered a 123x2 overnight delivery so I can get it by the weekend. I love the XP-E thanks to Eagletac and like the color of the finish on the nitecore and this looks similar. Since this light is 190 OTF I am thinking it will be as bright as my PD30 and hopefully will be some more throw. 

So the color of the finish the accessories, and the XP-E R2 pushed me over. Oh yeh the 10 year warranty to. I couldn't be left wondering what if while the rest of you enjoy it.


----------



## victor01 (Jun 12, 2009)

Check out this Quark lights' youtube review


----------



## Moonshadow (Jun 12, 2009)

Great stuff ! 

It's really nice to see these lights "in the flesh" and on time - no vapourware here !

Any chance of a close-up of the perfectly-aligned LED ?


----------



## Fred S (Jun 12, 2009)

Are they "real" square threads or ACME?


----------



## tsl (Jun 12, 2009)

Vincent, can you review the UI? There's been a lot of discussion about it, and it would be nice to get real-world feedback.


----------



## Splunk_Au (Jun 12, 2009)

I almost mistoke these for fenix lights, even the pcb board at the back of the head are identical?


----------



## hatman (Jun 12, 2009)

victor01 said:


> Check out this Quark lights' youtube review



In what language is this review?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

Fred S said:


> Are they "real" square threads or ACME?


 
It looks to be true square cut to me - 
I can't see the 29deg thread angle of the ACME (Wikipedia link)


----------



## oldpal (Jun 12, 2009)

hatman said:


> In what language is this review?



Polish.

Hugh


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Jun 12, 2009)

Very nice. You just bumped my anticipation level through the roof!


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

qip said:


> what do the accessories look like, holster in detail unscrunched


 


jhc37013 said:


> Can we get a pic of the lanyard and holster that would be great thanks.


 







defloyd77 said:


> What does that special attatchment thingy look like? Thanks!


 
The finger loop is simply two loops at right angles to each other as shown in the photo above.

First remove the clip - it's easy just unscrew the ribbed ring below the O-ring and pull the clip away.






Re-tighten that ring and simply push the finger loop on the tailap (or anywhere else you prefer).

In place -





In use -





I like this accessory, as it really doesn't take up much (if any) extra room in the pocket since it is soft and flexible, and the loop around the finger gives one a very secure feeling.





Toohotruk said:


> Is that a 4 7 logo I see molded into the push button?


 
dang, you got good eyes - yes, it is



Toohotruk said:


> Now I'm just anticipating a review of the 123...


 


Crenshaw said:


> This i me hoping the review for the 1 x CR123a is next...


 
since I have always been a single cell advocate - yes, the 1x CR123 is next as soon as I have finished anwering questions here and posted my low level beamshots.....



Crenshaw said:


> thats indeed a much lower low, which is good! would you say that the low is really truly indeed 0.2 lumens?


 
Can't say for sure, and I do not have any measuring instruments to confirm or deny that - but it does sure look low and definitely lower than the rated 3 lumens of the NiteCore D10..... but 1/15th?

Under room lighting often I can click the light On - but actually have to check that it came on because I can't see it shining against a wall if it's more than about 6 ft away.....


----------



## DM51 (Jun 12, 2009)

An eagerly-awaited review, already on to Page 2! Looking forward to reading more about these...

Moving this to the Reviews section.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

tsl said:


> Vincent, can you review the UI? There's been a lot of discussion about it, and it would be nice to get real-world feedback.


 
The operation is similar to Fenix lights.

Tighten the head - switch on to Max - tap the switch (for momentary Off) and get the fast strobe - tap again back to Max.

Loosen the head - switch On to Minimum/lowest level (1); tap > Level 2 (still pretty low); tap > level 3; tap > level 4; tap > SOS; tap > beacon mode (flashes about once every 10 secs); tap again > back to level 1.



Splunk_Au said:


> I almost mistoke these for fenix lights, even the pcb board at the back of the head are identical?


 
Well, there is a reason - the former makers of the circuit boards for Fenix did these. I understand Fenix now make their own circuit boards.


----------



## NoFair (Jun 12, 2009)

Very nice:thumbsup:

Looking forward to the warm white tacticals 
Sverre


----------



## Federal LG (Jun 12, 2009)

This first batch is cool tint ?

When they will release the warm white batch ?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

Lower light levels -

Level 2 vs. NiteCore D10 Min NiMH







Quark AA's level 2 is definitely brighter than the minimum (3 Lumens) of the NiteCore D10. But the Quark's Low level 2 is supposed to be 3.5 lumens according to the specs - so either the D10 is quite a bit lower than its spec'd 3 lumens or the Quark is quite a bit brighter than its spec of 3.5 lumens?

Lowest Level 1 vs. Fenix LD10 Min NiMH - 







It's no surprise that the Quark AA minimum (level 1) is quite a bit lower than the Fenix LD10 minimum rated at 9 lumens.

Level 2 vs. Fenix LD10 Min NiMH -







level 2 (rated 3.5 lumens) is still lower than the Fenix LD10 minimum (rated at 9 lumens)

Level 3 vs. Fenix LD10 Min NiMH







yes, Level 3 (rated at 18 lumens) is brighter than the minimum level of the Fenix LD10 (rated 9 lumens) - but is it really twice as bright?

Let's try the minimum of the classic Fenix L1D-Q5 rated at 12 lumens -

Level 1 (min) vs. Fenix L1D-Q5 Min NiMH -







Quark AA's minimum level 1 is definitely much lower than the Fenix L1D-Q5 minimum.

Level 2 vs. Fenix L1D-Q5 Min NiMH







again the level 2 is still noticably lower than Fneix L1D-Q5's minimum....

Level 3 vs. Fenix L1D-Q5 Min NiMH -







these levels seem reasonably close....?
Quark AA is supposed to be rated at 18 lumens, and the L1D-Q5 is rated at 12 lumens - perhaps the beams only "look" similar because the Quark AA's is spread wider and its hotspot seems more intense?


----------



## Nake (Jun 12, 2009)

UnknownVT,

When I turn on the beacon mode, it flashes 6 times with a 1 second interval, then continues with about a 12 second interval. Is yours like that?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

Nake said:


> When I turn on the beacon mode, it flashes 6 times with a 1 second interval, then continues with about a 12 second interval. Is yours like that?


 
Yes, mine seems to do that as well but it flashes five times before settling into the beacon mode of about 10 second intervals (perhaps the way you count it is 6 since I do not count the first beacon flash - which is recognizable because it ramps up and down) -

although at first I thought it was the flashlight "completing" its SOS sequence before going into the beacon mode - but I experiemented with switching over from different parts of the SOS sequence and the light still flashes five times before the beacon mode. So perhaps it is a signal to confirm it has reached the beacon mode?


----------



## parkschr (Jun 12, 2009)

Trevor at 4 sevens said "the warm tint will be available in very limited quantities in early July" and Mary at 4 sevens said they did not know what kind of warm tint it would be.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 12, 2009)

Nake said:


> UnknownVT,
> 
> When I turn on the beacon mode, it flashes 6 times with a 1 second interval, then continues with about a 12 second interval. Is yours like that?




The beacon mode will flash 5 times and then begin beacon mode: one immediate ramp-up-ramp-down every ten seconds. 

Also, just a friendly reminder - the Quark series outputs are measured in out-the-front lumens. Nitecore's are measured at the emitter. That explains the perceived discrepancy of output comparisons. :thumbsup:


----------



## Nake (Jun 12, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> ...... one immediate ramp-up-ramp-down every ten seconds.


 
OK, I wondered about the ramp-up-ramp-down. If I didn't just learn that, it looks almost like a bad component in the circuit. :thumbsup:


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

Here's a copy of the specs from the included "Operator's Manual" sheet -





Next up, comparisons with some really, really low output lights.


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 12, 2009)

Thanks for the pic of the accessories UnknownVT that lanyard looks like a neck lanyard is it the same for the 123x2?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

jhc37013 said:


> that lanyard looks like a neck lanyard is it the same for the 123x2?


 
or....
for very _BIG_
wrists 

The accessories are the same for all of the models, except for the respective supplied batteries and the finger loop which are with the single cell models - 
the two cell models have a different "palm strap" (similar to camcorder style).


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 12, 2009)

Thanks for the response guess I will have to cut it down in size. How is that 123x2 tint is the same color as the AA models. Sometimes with Fenix models the AA tint can be slightly greener than the 123 models. I get mine tomorrow so sorry about all the questions but I'm sure you know how the anticipation can kill ya.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 12, 2009)

jhc37013 said:


> Thanks for the response guess I will have to cut it down in size. How is that 123x2 tint is the same color as the AA models. Sometimes with Fenix models the AA tint can be slightly greener than the 123 models. I get mine tomorrow so sorry about all the questions but I'm sure you know how the anticipation can kill ya.


 
When there is a lower current driving the LEDs, they tend toward a yellow-green tint. 

So the LED looks white when on max or high (level 4) but they tend toward yellow-green at lower levels (which is not such a bad thing as our eyes tend to see yellow'ish warmer tints as "neutral" at lower light levels)

Instead of cutting the neck lanyard - why not make a wrist lanyard yourself? - attach a keyring and use a length/loop of nylon cord (eg: the inexpensive stuff for curtains)..... in fact most of my carry pocket flashlights have this kind of home made wrist loop - I prefer them over even the supplied wrist loops.


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 12, 2009)

I put in the Duracell AA Alky when I got mine. Then I put in a 14500 of unknown voltage that had been sitting in another light several months with occassional use. HUGE difference on the AA Quark with the 14500. I belieive it will be the same output at the 123 Quark model so 170 Lumens. I think the heads are identical if have have understood the threads I've read correctly. I'm surprised this info isn't included with the AA model. These are incredibly well done and a top notch professional package. Thanks for the review UnknownVT - I found a couple things here I had missed as I just got mine after fairly minimal research. 4sevens really did these right!


----------



## Nake (Jun 12, 2009)

matrixshaman said:


> I put in the Duracell AA Alky when I got mine. Then I put in a 14500 of unknown voltage that had been sitting in another light several months with occassional use. HUGE difference on the AA Quark with the 14500. I belieive it will be the same output at the 123 Quark model so 170 Lumens. I think the heads are identical if have have understood the threads I've read correctly. I'm surprised this info isn't included with the AA model.


 
The info is here, the chart at the bottom.

https://www.4sevens.com/quark/


----------



## swiftwing (Jun 12, 2009)

parkschr said:


> Trevor at 4 sevens said "the warm tint will be available in very limited quantities in early July" and Mary at 4 sevens said they did not know what kind of warm tint it would be.



4sevens mentioned in the marketplace that they have purchased a huge pile of Cree 5As (i think its Q3 but i'm not absolutely sure).


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 12, 2009)

Wow! that's the first time I've ever been accused of having good eyes! :duh2:


Boy, it's really getting difficult to resist that urge...


----------



## pobox1475 (Jun 13, 2009)

> I put in the Duracell AA Alky when I got mine. Then I put in a 14500 of unknown voltage that had been sitting in another light several months with occassional use. HUGE difference on the AA Quark with the 14500. I belieive it will be the same output at the 123 Quark model so 170 Lumens.


 If that is the case I would like to know real world run time difference between 123 and AA on max (170 lm).


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 13, 2009)

Nake said:


> The info is here, the chart at the bottom.
> 
> https://www.4sevens.com/quark/



Nake, yes I've seen that chart. It says the AA model can use 0.9 to 4.2 and that the AA model output is 90 Lumens. However I believe it's already been stated by 4Sevens that the AA model head is the same as the AAx2 (and I believe the same as the CR123) so since the AAx2 can do 170 Lumens and the CR123 does 170 Lumens one can conclude that with a 14500 3.6 volt Li-Ion (which actually has a bit more power than a RCR123) that one can get 170 Lumens from the AA model when using 14500's. I think that makes it the best deal of the bunch - not only is it the lowest price but it has the versatility of running on the widest variety of batteries. :thumbsup:


----------



## matrixshaman (Jun 13, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> If that is the case I would like to know real world run time difference between 123 and AA on max (170 lm).



I got into a discussion before with Thujone about the difference between 14500 and RCR123's. I had thought originally the RCR123's had a little more power but after presenting me with some details I realized the 14500 did have a little more power. I forget how much more but I'm guessing about 15% to 20% more based on the mah ratings I've seen on batteries (and nearly all are over rated so that being equal I think it will be close to my guess). I do still wonder though why AW rates his RCR123 and 14500 batteries with the same mah rating.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 13, 2009)

Real low-low comparisons -

Quark AA with some of the lowest output lights I have -






How Low is low?

vs. Rigel SkyLite Mini Red/White - on mimimum white -
this is a purpose built flashlight for astronomers - 
Red is mainly used - but the SkyLite Mini has an option to use white which reaches a pretty low level -







as we can see the Rigel SkyLite Mini does reach a much lower level than the Quark AA - but the Quark's lowest level is exemplary for a normal use flashlight - in fact as mentioned the Quark's minimum is so low that under even low normal room lighting I have to check that the light is switched on, because the hotspot won't even show on a wall more than about 6ft away!

vs. eternaLight Ergo 3 Red/White on mimimum white (on single LED with PWM) -
again another light that is reputed to reach a very low level - this is an earlier model - so the LEDs are the "less bright" ones (and I resisted upgrading to brighter LEDs) - which is a distinct advanatge for lower output.







comparable..... actually this is a hard call to make by eye - 
the Quark has a more concentrated hotspot - hence the apparent difference between the full exposure where the eternaLight looks brighter - but in the -2 Stops Underexposed shot the Quark looks brighter......

Overall this is a pretty impressive low......

There flashaholics waxing lyrical about _DIM_ flashlights!!!

It's not news.... 
see -

joys of a DIM flashlight

from March/2004.....


----------



## nudel (Jun 13, 2009)

Do your testlights also make a short flash when turned on to the lowlow setting ? This problem was exibited in another review.


----------



## bee-man (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks for the review!

Is the flash on Beacon mode bright or dim? I'm just wondering because I really like Novatac's locator flash mode, but the runtime specs for the Quark's Beacon mode (18hrs) indicates that it wasn't meant to be used long term, relatively speaking.

Also, is the Quark's low lower than the Novatac's low? I don't have any of the low output lights you have for reference...

Thanks again!


----------



## LightWalker (Jun 13, 2009)

Do you have a 17670 to try in the 2X 123 light?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 13, 2009)

nudel said:


> Do your testlights also make a short flash when turned on to the lowlow setting ? This problem was exibited in another review.


 
Not that I can see -
but for me turning on any light there is always a very brief period of "dazzle" which could be mistaken for a pre-flash. But I definitely can see the pre-flash on earlier Fenix LxD series especially the ones based on the Rebel (RB) series.

I handled a pre-production Tactical Quark AA - which had a pre-flash - but only if one had the light on Max previously - turning off then twisting the head for a lower level - on turning on there was a pre-flash for that one case only - after that there was no perceptible pre-flash.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 15, 2009)

Comparison of Quark AA and single cell Quark 123 -





the Quark AA, AA-2 and 123 basically share the same head - but there is a slight exception - the Quark 123 has the clip attached to the head (there is also a clipless version of the Quark 123 which would have the same interchangeable head)

vs. Quark 123 Max -







the Quark 123 is noticably brighter (specs 123 = 170 lumens, AA = 90 lumens)

Minimum level comparison -
vs. Quark 123 Min -







interesting... the full exposure seems to show that the 123 is just a bit lower - one can only just make that out in the -2 Stops Underexposed shot - which normally is more revealing of differences in brightness levels.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 15, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> interesting... the full exposure seems to show that the 123 is just a bit lower - one can only just make that out in the -2 Stops Underexposed shot - which normally is more revealing of differences in brightness levels.



Yup, interesting indeed. HKJ also found it in his test. He thinks that this is just an random effect of component tolerance. Maybe they built AAs from a better batch...


----------



## 4sevens (Jun 15, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Yup, interesting indeed. HKJ also found it in his test. He thinks that this is just an random effect of component tolerance. Maybe they built AAs from a better batch...


The QAA doesn't exhibit this because of the 1.5v battery source.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 15, 2009)

4sevens said:


> The QAA doesn't exhibit this because of the 1.5v battery source.



I don't understand what you mean. Probably I wasn't clear in what I wrote above. In HKJ's test the QAA is compared to the Q123, both with an Li-Ion battery. The lights should have the same head but the QAA is brighter. In Vincent's test the QAA is also brighter. This time the battery is different but the current on the LED should be the same - shouldn't it? I wrote that both the results may be caused by the component differences e.g. a (random) selection of LEDs with a lower Vf in QAAs than in Q123s.

Is there something wrong in my reasoning here? Can you confirm that the heads in QAAs and Q123s are identical (except maybe component tolerance differences)?


----------



## HKJ (Jun 15, 2009)

wapkil said:


> In Vincent's test the QAA is also brighter. This time the battery is different but the current on the LED should be the same - shouldn't it? I wrote that both the results may be caused by the component differences e.g. a (random) selection of LEDs with a lower Vf in QAAs than in Q123s.



You can not expect exactly same brightness with different battery voltages, even with a smart driver. With my test I could also see small changes in output when changing between NiMH and LiIon.


----------



## Federal LG (Jun 15, 2009)

Nice thread, VT. Thanks for keep posting pics! 

It looks like Quark AA head and Fenix heads have the same diameter. 
Maybe we can use Fenix white diffuser on Quark lights ?


----------



## ninjaboigt (Jun 15, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> It looks like Quark AA head and Fenix heads have the same diameter.
> Maybe we can use Fenix white diffuser on Quark lights ?


 
Thats what i wanna know! lol

i love the diffuser...speaking of the diffuser, some of my friends saw it the other night and got a realllllly good laugh out of it and i quote " Luke, i used this on your mother"


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 15, 2009)

Different brightnesses for the same interchangeable heads?

I have on hand -





1x Quark AA and 1x Quark 123 clip and 1x Quark 123 clipless.

Comparison on Rechargeable Li-Ion batteries.

Quark AA on Li-Ion 14500 vs. Quark 123 (clip) Li-Ion RCR123 both on Minimum -







These do look close - the Quark AA is perhaps just a sheade brighter? - but it's a hard call - the differences can easily be attributed to emitter (or component) differences/variations.

To double check -
Quark AA Li-Ion 14500 vs. Quark 123 clipless Li-Ion RCR123 both on Minimum -







again very close - the Quark AA may again be a shade brighter - so it seems that the Quark AA may have a slight more efficient emitter? or it may be some other variation in component tolerance?

Just to double-check on Maximum output -

vs. Quark 123 (clip) - both on Li-Ion Max -







very close - I'd say even?

vs. Quark 123 (clipless) both Li-Ion and Max -







again very, very close - this time even the tints are close.

So from this limited comparison - I would say the Quark AA and Quark 123 heads are interchageable and pretty consistent behavior on Li-Ion other than the slight tint diffeence of the 123 (clip) version - but again that has to be down to sample variation.


----------



## Nake (Jun 15, 2009)

Does the clipless head have the indention that the head with clip has, where the clip enters the head?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 15, 2009)

Nake said:


> Does the clipless head have the indention that the head with clip has, where the clip enters the head?


 
No, the clipless 123 head is like the AA and AA2 heads - no indentation.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 15, 2009)

Looks like the clipless head is slightly shorter that the regular one...or is it an optical illusion? 

If it is shorter, that's the one for me! :thumbsup:


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 15, 2009)

Well, I just couldn't take it any longer...I just pulled the trigger on a 123 and a 1AA body. I tried to hold out, but after reading about these lights for the last few weeks (especially the reviews, like on this thread), and seeing all the pics, etc, I just couldn't resist the temptation! :shakehead


Damn all of you Quark owners out there!!! :tsk:


----------



## Federal LG (Jun 15, 2009)

Toohotruk said:


> ...Damn all of you Quark owners out there!!! :tsk:



*+1*

At least you will not have to wait 12 days to your new Quark arrives in Brazil (my home)...


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 15, 2009)

That's true...that is an unbearably long time to wait!








Reminds me of ordering lights from DX/KD...it sucked waiting for those lights, and they were often disappointing. At least you know your wait will be rewarded nicely with these lights! :thumbsup:


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 15, 2009)

Toohotruk said:


> Looks like the clipless head is slightly shorter that the regular one...or is it an optical illusion?


 
It's not an illusion.... (just a good slight of hand  kidding.....)
The Quark 123 clipless head is the same length as the AA and AA-2 heads (in fact they are interchangeable/same)
the clipped version is slightly longer because of the clip......


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 16, 2009)

Cool, can't wait till it gets here! :naughty:


----------



## Haz (Jun 16, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toohotruk*
> 
> 
> ...


 
Does it leave a permanent indent?... otherwise I will need to receive royalty everytime I pull out my thumb


----------



## defloyd77 (Jun 16, 2009)

Haz said:


> Does it leave a permanent indent?... otherwise I will need to receive royalty everytime I pull out my thumb



Normally they would give royalties, but unfortanatly they won't for backward logos


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 16, 2009)

Federal LG said:


> It looks like Quark AA head and Fenix heads have the same diameter.
> Maybe we can use Fenix white diffuser on Quark lights ?


 


ninjaboigt said:


> Thats what i wanna know! lol
> i love the diffuser...speaking of the diffuser, some of my friends saw it the other night and got a realllllly good laugh out of it and i quote " Luke, i used this on your mother"


 
Unfortunately the Quark head seem just a shade wider and the diffuser doesn't want to fit - but it only just misses - 
I didn't want to force it - it might fit - but then again it might crack.....


----------



## 4sevens (Jun 16, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Unfortunately the Quark head seem just a shade wider and the diffuser doesn't want to fit - but it only just misses -
> I didn't want to force it - it might fit - but then again it might crack.....


Yes they are tight - I actually use the traffic wand alot. I honestly think it was too loose with the fenixes. They fit the quarks nice and firm


----------



## Hiker (Jun 17, 2009)

How is the 2AA on throw?

How does it compare on throw to an LD20?


----------



## benhar (Jun 17, 2009)

Hiker said:


> How is the 2AA on throw?
> 
> How does it compare on throw to an LD20?


I'm curious to hear this too, wondering how it compares to a Scorpion incan or TK20.


----------



## Burgess (Jun 17, 2009)

Me three ! 



How does it compare to the Fenix TK20 ?


_


----------



## Palor (Jun 18, 2009)

@Federal LG

Not regarding the diffusor but I think this is also valid for the colour filters: 

I sent an email to 4sevens regarding the Red Filter Adapter.
The Quark has a head diameter of 0.86 inches. The Fenix Red Filter Adapter has only 0.8 inches. :thinking:
Maybe the Olight T series red filter will fit (around 0.84 inches).
As soon as I get an answer which red filter will fit I'll post the answer here. 

Palor


----------



## timbo114 (Jun 18, 2009)

Palor said:


> I sent an email to 4sevens regarding the Red Filter Adapter.
> The Quark has a head diameter of 0.86 inches. The Fenix Red Filter Adapter has only 0.8 inches. :thinking:
> Palor



My red Fenix filter will not fit on my Quark 123-2.


----------



## Federal LG (Jun 18, 2009)

Palor said:


> @Federal LG
> 
> Not regarding the diffusor but I think this is also valid for the colour filters:
> 
> ...



Cool! I´m waiting for your answer... :wave:


----------



## defloyd77 (Jun 18, 2009)

That's what our good friend Mr. Dremel is for


----------



## KiwiMark (Jun 19, 2009)

timbo114 said:


> My red Fenix filter will not fit on my Quark 123-2.



My red Olight filter fits lots of lights, including my Fenix L2D - I am guessing that it would fit nicely on the Quark.

http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=86_96&products_id=1593
http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=86_96&products_id=1592
I bought both these filters from 4Sevens & I have a white diffuser of the same design that I got with my Olight Titanium Infinitum. I like them, much better than my white or red Fenix 'traffic wand' style diffusers that look just a bit too much like sex toys for my liking.


----------



## Palor (Jun 19, 2009)

Hi,

I received an answer regarding the red filter from Trevor:

"We have no accessories yet for these lights but plan to have them in the future. Keep an eye on the website for updates." :mecry:

I agree with KiwiMark. Maybe the Olight Redfilter fits.
If somebody could please check. :candle:

Greetings,
Palor


----------



## KiwiMark (Jun 19, 2009)

Palor said:


> I agree with KiwiMark. Maybe the Olight Redfilter fits.
> If somebody could please check. :candle:



I am positive it will fit - it fits my Fenix L2D which is not much smaller and it fits my minimag which is noticeably bigger in diameter and clearly too big for my fenix diffusers. The Olight filter is rubber and is designed to fit a range of diameters - it works on quite a large number of torches. The green one is really good if you want to check a map at night without screwing up your night vision - it would be pretty good for night orienteering. It's a pity that 4Sevens don't list the white diffuser - I have used it on my Olight and voila no hotspot!


----------



## Palor (Jun 20, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> The green one is really good if you want to check a map at night without screwing up your night vision - it would be pretty good for night orienteering. It's a pity that 4Sevens don't list the white diffuser - I have used it on my Olight and voila no hotspot!



Hi,

a little off-topic, but:
What is better for night orientation, red or green filter? :thinking:
I would like to buy one for nightwalks. 

Thank you,

Palor


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 20, 2009)

Palor said:


> a little off-topic, but:
> What is better for night orientation, red or green filter? :thinking:
> I would like to buy one for nightwalks.


 
Neither ...
or both -
it depends on what you mean by night orientation.

To be able to see well outdoors among woodlands - there is a strong support camp for incandecent lights - ie: yellow'ish white. 

There is a very good reason - as our eyes/brain has evolved/conditioned to red-yellow light under lower light conditions - eg: sunset, sunrise and lighting by fire, candlelight.

So although yellow'ish "white" light may not give the truest color rendition - we actually do see better using those lights under lower light conditions.

Good color rendition does _NOT_ necessarily = seeing better.

This is a really stupid example - but it illustrates the point -
invisible UV dyes cannot be seen under sunlight - and can only be seen using UV light. We all know sunlight is probably the "best" light source for color rendition - but we definitely see those UV marking under a UV source better.

Now if you are talking about true scotopic night vision (sorry to be pedantic) 
- then the only correct color to preserve this scotopic _human _night vison is red with wavelength greater than 650nm. Under scotopic human night vision the rods of the eyes are used and they are _*IN*_sensitive to red light so using red light allows the cones of the eyes to work without flooding/disturbing the rods - any other color will disturb if not flood the rods which take 10's of minutes to adapt to night vision......

All this is discussed in detail in the sticky thread - Human Night Vision Preservation backed by quotes from the USAF flight surgeon's guide.

Green is the correct color for compatibility with Night Vision *Equipment*! and not our eyes.

If however all one wants to do is keep whatever dark adaption - ie: still be able to see well under dim conditions (and not necessarily true scotopic human night vision) then almost any color will do, as long as it is dim and does not dazzle the eyes - down to personal choice for this casual informal usage. 

I personally like amber/yellow as I seem to see better with that color under dim conditions and it is probably the least disturbing/attracts least attention since yellow light is kind of commonplace......


----------



## burntoshine (Jun 21, 2009)

4sevens said:


> Yes they are tight - I actually use the traffic wand alot. I honestly think it was too loose with the fenixes. They fit the quarks nice and firm



i'll have to completely disagree with you here. the fenix diffuser tip does NOT fit my quark AA at all. maybe it's possible that my quark head is bigger (but then UnknownVT had the same experience as myself) and/or both of my diffuser tips have a smaller inside diameter (one was purchased from 7777, one from some guy on ebay in china)...? i would have to sand down those vertical lines on the inside of the diffuser tip to get it to fit onto my quark AA. 

also, they are not too loose on the fenix'. they fit rather perfectly on both my P2D and P3D. not loose at all. they slide on easy and become more and more snug as you push them further on and they're very firm when pushed all the way on. perfectly made for the standard fenix head.

believe me, i tried to get them on the quark. if i did manage to get it on my quark, i'd have a hell of a time getting it off.

someone else try it out and see if they can get it to work reasonably well.


----------



## bodhran (Jun 21, 2009)

I tried the Fenix white diffuser and traffic wand on my Quark. It is close but won't fit on mine. :mecry:


----------



## benhar (Jun 22, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> To be able to see well outdoors among woodlands - there is a strong support camp for incandecent lights - ie: yellow'ish white.
> 
> There is a very good reason - as our eyes/brain has evolved/conditioned to red-yellow light under lower light conditions - eg: sunset, sunrise and lighting by fire, candlelight.
> 
> ...


This kinda raises an interesting question for me. I was planning on buying a standard Quark as opposed to the neutral/warm, since it is supposedly brighter. However, if we see things better under the warmer color, then would that make up for the loss in brightness?


----------



## jhc37013 (Jun 22, 2009)

benhar said:


> This kinda raises an interesting question for me. I was planning on buying a standard Quark as opposed to the neutral/warm, since it is supposedly brighter. However, if we see things better under the warmer color, then would that make up for the loss in brightness?



With all the technical stuff aside I believe it just really becomes an issue of personal preference what your eyes may see others eyes might not see it or adjust to the different tints the same way. If you believe you see better with a warmer tint then thats just a eye/brain preference and it may or may not change. 

For me I love tints as white as I can get them and found the most resent Fenix LD and PD lights to be more consistent with sending me more of a white tint even on lower modes that the older L and P models of the past.


----------



## funkychateau (Jun 22, 2009)

Any Quark owners also have an Akoray K-106? I'd love to see a side-by-side beam comparison on high with 14500s.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 22, 2009)

jhc37013 said:


> With all the technical stuff aside I believe it just really becomes an issue of personal preference what your eyes may see others eyes might not see it or adjust to the different tints the same way. If you believe you see better with a warmer tint then thats just a eye/brain preference and it may or may not change.


 
Can't disagree with personal preference...

but one also cannot ignore actual human physiology either -

Our eyes/brain adapt to the conditons/lighting levels - 
at lower light levels we tend to see better under yellow-red tints - 
this is through evolution/conditioning - 
eg: sunset and sunrise, seeing by fire and candle light. 

There have been accredited scientific studies of this pheonmena - 
*please* click on and read about the *Kruithof curve* -

" _The __colour__ sensation of a given light mixture may vary with absolute luminosity, because both rods and cones are active at once in the eye, with each having different colour curves, and __rods__ taking over gradually from __cones__ as the brightness of the scene is reduced. This means, for example, that light with a colour temperature of 6000 __K__ may appear white under high __luminance__, but appear bluish under low luminance. Under the same low luminance conditions, the colour temperature may need to be adjusted to, say, 4700 K, to appear white. This effect leads to a change in __colour rendition__ with absolute illumination levels that can be summarised in the __empirical__ *Kruithof curve*.[3]_
_As the brightness of the scene decreases, the brightness of red colours decreases more rapidly than those of blue colours, this being the so-called __Purkinje effect__._ " 

Still you are right - it still comes down to personal preference -
for example if I insist I can see better by UV light - 
who's to argue?


----------



## wapkil (Jun 22, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Can't disagree with personal preference...
> 
> but one also cannot ignore actual human physiology either -
> 
> ...



No. I think no one would argue. I certainly wouldn't. Is it true that garlic is highly unpleasant for your kind? :duck:



The light perception is dependent on physiological factors but note that the Kruithof curve is experimental and subjective. I remember reading about the results of an experiment in which most of the people who were presented with different illuminations of a low light scene indeed said that (I think) ~3500K is best for them but there were also those who selected ~5000K (once again, IIRC). Fortunately I'm in the statistical majority who prefer warmer tints but I think that there may be those few who really see the light in the way a little different than I do.

Not to mention that the light perception is relative to the ambient light (if there is any). "Most pleasing" doesn't necessarily mean "giving the best color representation". The best color representation may be not what we are actually look for. The correlated color temperature is not a good way of describing non-planckian emitters. And so on, and so forth


----------



## bodhran (Jun 22, 2009)

I'm just tired of stubbing my toe on the coffee table.  Seriously, thanks VT for the information. I wonder if there is an age related preference of tint, as in my poor old eyes have changed alot as I've gotten older.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 22, 2009)

wapkil said:


> The light perception is dependent on physiological factors but note that the Kruithof curve is experimental and subjective.


 
well, kind of - the *Kruithof curve* is actually empirical (definition at Wikipedia) - and _NOT_ anecdotal - this may seem pedantic (for which I apologize) empirical means from observation and it's reproducible - whereras ancedotal means it is based on opinion.

Of course when we come down to personal preference that is anecdotal -

However when one conducts proper scientific experiments and with statistically significant evidence - even though there may not be rigorous proof - it is empirical. 

There is a a lot of weight given to empirical evidence - of which includes the Kruithof curve - it should not be mistaken for ancedotal... 
but then anything can and is subject to personal opinion....(sorry)



wapkil said:


> "Most pleasing" doesn't necessarily mean "giving the best color representation". The best color representation may be not what we are actually look for. The correlated color temperature is not a good way of describing non-planckian emitters. And so on, and so forth


 
I agree.

The problem is that we mostly like numbers - as it seems absolute and definite - eg: 10 is greater than 7....

but sometimes those things bear no resemblance to real usage.

CRI (color rendering index) oft quoted to show superiority of one light over another - is notorious - for being misunderstood and often a good/high CRI does NOT necessarily give the better color rendition.

I have gone as far as saying 

CRI does _NOT_ necessarily = good color rendition

Good Color Rendition does _NOT_ necessarily = seeing better.

There is a long thread discussing lots of aspect of this 
- please click on -

Puny LED flashlights (Not!) + COLOR RENDITION Comparison


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 22, 2009)

bodhran said:


> I wonder if there is an age related preference of tint, as in my poor old eyes have changed alot as I've gotten older.



I thought that as the eye ages, it yellows.
So to compensate, you need to emit more blue biased light to maintain 'normal' vision/seeing.
I call HID headlights, AARP lights.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 22, 2009)

MichaelW said:


> I thought that as the eye ages, it yellows.
> So to compensate, you need to emit more blue biased light to maintain 'normal' vision/seeing.
> I call HID headlights, AARP lights.


 
I don't think so - 
blue light being shorter wavelength scatter more easily and that is counter to good definition.

Also blue tends to dazzle more - again contrary to seeing "better".

However there is a slight caveat - see below.

As our eyes get older then definition/focus under Red light becomes more difficult - so I would avoid pure red. The focus difficulty may actually be relieved by a different wavelength which may help focus light on retina - in this case blue the other end of the visible spectrum wavelength may be focussed better..... but beware of the objections to blue light above.

A yellow/amber light tends to help definition under lower light conditions - but a pure yellow/amber lgiht like a yellow LED is so limited in spectrum that a white light still mostly better - but at lower/dimmer levels probably a warm white or incandescent may be preferable. But in this day of really bright flashlights - in the end, there is nothing to beat adequate light - under bright and adequate light - then normal cool white is "better".

Confused yet?

But as mentioned it is still all down to personal preference - try it and see for yourself - no matter what I say or try to illustrate with photos (eyes are not the same as a camera) 
- there is nothing that beats your own personal experience/usage.


----------



## wapkil (Jun 22, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> well, kind of - the *Kruithof curve* is actually empirical (definition at Wikipedia) - and _NOT_ anecdotal - this may seem pedantic (for which I apologize) empirical means from observation and it's reproducible - whereras ancedotal means it is based on opinion.
> 
> Of course when we come down to personal preference that is anecdotal -
> 
> ...



I think that I should explain what I intended to say. I never wrote that the Kruithof curve is anectdotal. It is indeed an important part of the state of the art in this area, still frequently cited despite its age. 

I wrote that it is experimental, although I admit that empirical could probably be a better word here. What I meat is that it is based on the experiment and statistical interpretation of the result. I wanted to note that it is valid when discussing the population in general but hard to use for an individual case. It is possible that the person we are dealing with is an "outlier" that lies away from what the statistics, based on a limited sample, predicts.

I also wrote that the Kruithof curve is subjective because AFAIK only the subjective "pleasantness" of the light was analyzed in the experiment. Of course there is nothing wrong in it but this subjectiveness has to be taken into consideration when interpreting the result.


----------



## ninjaboigt (Jun 22, 2009)

man there is just wayyyy too much science going on right here lol....

i would just have to see each side by side, to judge for my self which one is better, as of right now, ima go wtih the stanard quarks...

hey UNKNOWNVT can you do some out door beam shots? peferably the standard tint AA^2?


----------



## burntoshine (Jun 22, 2009)

link invalid


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 22, 2009)

burntoshine said:


> anyone else have this problem?




Nope, I tried with both bodies (1AA & 123), not a single flicker. There seems to be more wrong than simple dirty contacts going on...better contact 7777, I'm sure he'll take care of you.


----------



## CoolLEDs (Jun 23, 2009)

UnknownVT,
Would you be able to post some "Standardized Stairway beamshots" comparing the Quark AA, AA^2, Fenix LD10 and LD20 using NiMH on their highest levels?


----------



## burntoshine (Jun 24, 2009)

Toohotruk said:


> Nope, I tried with both bodies (1AA & 123), not a single flicker. There seems to be more wrong than simple dirty contacts going on...better contact 7777, I'm sure he'll take care of you.



7777 got back to me right away and pointed me in the right direction. it was indeed a contact problem. it was in the threads. they looked clean, but upon closer inspection there was some grime in there. i think it was due to silicone grease that i had applied to the o-rings. i think i put a tad too much on. some had probably worked into the threads hindering contact. i'm guessing that's what that grime was. it was difficult to see, but it was there.

i removed the video 'cause it wasn't a true representation of a normal functioning quark and i don't want to cause any undue problems with the brand reputation. especially such a new light... and such an awesome light!


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 24, 2009)

burntoshine said:


> 7777 got back to me right away and pointed me in the right direction. it was indeed a contact problem. it was in the threads. they looked clean, but upon closer inspection there was some grime in there. i think it was due to silicone grease that i had applied to the o-rings. i think i put a tad too much on. some had probably worked into the threads hindering contact. i'm guessing that's what that grime was. it was difficult to see, but it was there.
> 
> i removed the video 'cause it wasn't a true representation of a normal functioning quark and i don't want to cause any undue problems with the brand reputation. especially such a new light... and such an awesome light!




Glad to hear that's all it was...

They really are cool aren't they! :naughty:


----------



## bodhran (Jun 24, 2009)

The company and Quark's are both top notch. You know they are going places...just hope they don't change.


----------



## burntoshine (Jun 29, 2009)

Toohotruk said:


> Glad to hear that's all it was...
> 
> They really are cool aren't they! :naughty:



very!

and 7777 customer service is the best ever!!


----------



## mon90ey (Jun 29, 2009)

Don't know about all the science, and quite frankly, it's too late for me to delve into it anyway (both in years as I'm 56, and in hours, as I have to get up at 5:00 in the morning) but I know that in my 30's I always preferred a warm tinted (almost yellow) light, especially outdoors, but I have found as I age, I can not longer see as well with the warmer tints, and now much prefer a cooler, slightly bluer tint to my lights. Years ago, all you could find were the yellow incans unless you had a halogen, which was pretty cool for its time. I've drained many a car battery with a halogen hand held spotlight. Now-a-days with the LEDs (thank the Lord!) I can see much better with a fraction of the power. Tried a Surfire incan not long back-just didn't cut it for me. Not that there was anything wrong with the Surefire; great light, well made, but I just couldn't see with it. went straight back to my LEDs, and I guess that's where I'll stay-with cool white LEDs. So I guess in my case you might say, the older I get, the cooler  I get! LOL! Night all! :sleepy:


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 30, 2009)

mon90ey said:


> I know that in my 30's I always preferred a warm tinted (almost yellow) light, especially outdoors, but I have found as I age, I can not longer see as well with the warmer tints, and now much prefer a cooler, slightly bluer tint to my lights.


 
There is a good reason (science) for this -
" _the refractive characteristics of the eye causes blue light to focus in front of the retina and red light to focus behind the retina, when compared to yellow light that is focused on the retina. In other words, when the eye is emmetropic for yellow light, it is myopic for blue light and hyperopic for red light. This difference in color refraction, known as the chromatic interval_ " (USAF Flight Surgeon's Guide Chapter 8)

For younger "normal" sighted people yellow is the wavelength that is focussed on the retina - therefore giving the most acute (sharpest) vision.

As we get older red light becomes more and more difficult to focus -
" _red light creates or worsens near point blur in the pre-presbyopic or presbyopic pilot, as red light comes to a focus behind the retina and requires more accommodation to bring it into focus._ " (USAF Flight Surgeon's Guide Chapter 8)
(Presbyopia = old sight) -
so blue light which was focussed in front of the retina for young normal sight 
- is now focussed on the retina for old sight.....


----------



## Haz (Jun 30, 2009)

thanks for your wonderful explanation on how age changes the way we see light


----------



## mon90ey (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks Vincent. That's good information. I have always known something was going on, but not sure what it was. Glad to know it's probably a normal thing and not something serious. :thumbsup:


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jun 30, 2009)

mon90ey said:


> Don't know about all the science, and quite frankly, it's too late for me to delve into it anyway (both in years as I'm 56, and in hours, as I have to get up at 5:00 in the morning) but I know that in my 30's I always preferred a warm tinted (almost yellow) light, especially outdoors, but I have found as I age, I can not longer see as well with the warmer tints, and now much prefer a cooler, slightly bluer tint to my lights. Years ago, all you could find were the yellow incans unless you had a halogen, which was pretty cool for its time. I've drained many a car battery with a halogen hand held spotlight. Now-a-days with the LEDs (thank the Lord!) I can see much better with a fraction of the power. Tried a Surfire incan not long back-just didn't cut it for me. Not that there was anything wrong with the Surefire; great light, well made, but I just couldn't see with it. went straight back to my LEDs, and I guess that's where I'll stay-with cool white LEDs. So I guess in my case you might say, the older I get, the cooler  I get! LOL! Night all! :sleepy:[/QUOTE
> 
> I find that I need more light to read as I grow cooler. I haven`t noticed to much about tint...just like bright.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 30, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> I find that I need more light to read as I grow cooler. I haven`t noticed to much about tint...just like bright.


 
More light also makes good sense (science) -
when there is more light the eye pupil contracts and becomes smaller -
(a camera lens aperture is similar) 
with a smaller opening/aperture - the deeper the depth of field.

Anyway more (adequate) light is always easier to see by....


----------



## Lite_me (Jun 30, 2009)

This is all great information and good to know. Thanks! I'm glad it's not just me!


----------



## Palor (Jul 3, 2009)

Good News,

I received my Quark 2AA yesterday, along with the Olight T-series red filter. 

@Federal LG and everyone who is interested:
The red filter fits perfectly and with the space between head casing and the red filter the heat can dissipate. Great. lovecpf

The Quark 2AA is nearly perfect. The often mentioned too hard to press button is the only slight negative issue I could find. But this is only a matter if you switch the flashligt on or off. The cycling through the modes is no problem. Maybe it is good to have a hard to press button in order to avoid accidental activation. Who knows.... :thinking:

I have no real other worthy flashlight compared to the Quark.
Only a Maglite Solitaire :sick2: and a Maglite LED 2AA, which was(!) nice. :duh2:

The 3rd mode of the Quark (13 lumens) has more light output (but a weaker hotspot) than the Maglite. :naughty:

I love the wide spill of the Quark. Perfect for me to illuminate a room. This and the moonlight mode were the major reasons for me to purchase this light. 

While attaching the ring of the lanyard onto the light I need several tries and I could not find any scratches at the casing from the sharp edge of the ring. :thumbsup:

If 4sevens brings out a AAA version I will maybe consider to substitute my Solitaire. 

For information: Delivery to Germany took 9 days.


Palor


----------



## LightWalker (Jul 3, 2009)

Palor said:


> Good News,
> 
> I received my Quark 2AA yesterday, along with the Olight T-series red filter.
> 
> ...


 
You need to replace that Solitare with a Fenix E01 for about 15 bucks. The E01 is brighter and runs several hours.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 3, 2009)

LightWalker said:


> You need to replace that Solitare with a Fenix E01 for about 15 bucks. The E01 is brighter and runs several hours.


 
Good call -
please take a look at -
Fenix E01 Comparison Review and at Post #*26* 

Not only that the E01 come in colors -


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 5, 2009)

Standardized Stairway beamshot -


----------



## Toohotruk (Jul 5, 2009)

Great shots!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## funkychateau (Jul 8, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> (USAF Flight Surgeon's Guide Chapter 8)
> (Presbyopia = old sight) -
> so blue light which was focussed in front of the retina for young normal sight
> - is now focussed on the retina for old sight.....


 
This is correct when discussing up-close viewing, but not distance. In a relaxed state, the eye's optics are focused at the maximum distance. The eyes have to "work" to pull the focus in closer.

What actually happens with "older" eyes is that we lose the ability to "thicken" the lens to bring close-up objects in focus. I believe this is primarily due to lens hardening and muscular atrophy. 

The "relaxed" focus (nominally at infinity) is not affected by these phenomena. So, if yellow light (in the absense of age-related loss of focusing ability) was focused on the retina for a distant view, then it will continue to be so. "Cooler" light may be marginally better for reading as we get older, but should not show a similar advantage for more distant viewing.

Actually, there is much more benefit to be had by brightening the light versus shifting the tint - brigher light allows the pupils to contract (smaller opening), which increases depth-of-field in the same manner as for a camera. If your aged eyes can only manage to pull the nominal focus in to three feet, increased depth-of-field can allow for a greater range about this nominal to still appear sharp.

Try this - poke a small hole in a piece of paper or foil, hold it close to your eye, and note that you will seem to "focus" much better when looking through it. Unfortunately, the scene will be dim because you're not getting as much light, but if the light were brighter then the small aperture would be demonstrating exactly how the bright light / depth-of-field advantage happens.

There was once a commercial sunglass product which capitalized on this effect. Instead of tinted lenses, the glasses were totally opaque, but with hundreds of tiny round holes. When you wore them, you were always looking through one hole or another with each eye. The scene became dimmer, because the holes were small, but that's what you wear sunglasses for anyway. The "majic" part was that everything would be in sharp focus, even if you needed prescription lenses. 

I require a myopia correction of -2 diopters, with about a half-diopter of astigmatism in each eye, yet I could put on these "univeral" sunglasses and read street signs as well as if I were wearing my prescription lenses. Plus, my mother (who has always needed reading glasses) could read a newspaper with them, as long as the room was bright enough.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jul 8, 2009)

I'd love to get my hands on a pair of those babies, as long as they really work!


----------



## UnknownVT (Aug 31, 2009)

I was trying to show how well regulated these Quarks were in Post #*3* of 
Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review
my main problem there was that I only had one AA2 head and one 123-2 head in the neutral whites to compare.

Then I realized between the regular cool white Quark AA and 123 - I had more than one head to compare directly the behavior on 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 and regular 1.2V NiMH - this would conclusively for me show how well regulated these Quarks were.

Quark AA 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 vs. Quark AA NiMH both Max








it's pretty obvious that the Quark AA on 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 is substantially brighter than the same on AA NiMH.
(as an aside - notice the shift in tint difference? the Li-Ion is more blue and the NiMH driven is warmer but more green?)

Just as a sanity check - 
how bright is the Quark AA on 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500? 
- well I've done this before and compared it directly with the single CR123A versions in Post #*62* - 
but just for grins I thought I'd compare it with the Quark 123-2 (2x CR123A - I used the Tactical version, as the regular one I have has quite a blue tint)

Quark AA Li-Ion 14500 vs. 4Sevens Quark 123-2 (tactical) both Max -







pretty d*rn close - but I think the 123-2 may just be a bit brighter?
But this shows that on Li-Ion 14500 the Quark AA is way up there......

So finally -
how well regulated are these Quarks?
Using the two lowest levels to compare -

Quark AA Li-Ion 14500 vs. Quark AA NiMH - both on Minimum level 1 Moon mode -







close enough to show that on Li-Ion and NiMH these are pretty well regulated the same.....

double check with the next lowest level -

Quark AA Li-Ion 14500 vs. Quark AA NiMH - both on level 2 Low -







again close enough to show that the regulation on these Quarks works really well.

I found out there is a reason why the Quark AA on regular single AA battery (alkaline or NiMH) seems to be lower than other rival single AA lights.

This is because the Quark AA, AA2 and 123 (same head) uses a Buck/Boost circuit - so intrinsically it is not as efficient as a pure boost circuit. 

Why Buck? because the Quark AA, AA2 and 123 are rated a true 0.9-4.2V - this means they were designed to handle a single 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion battery (eg: 14500 or RCR123) by bucking the voltage down to the true safe Vf - 

This may not seem much - 
since don't other lights all seem to handle 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion?
well, kinda yes, more by "luck" than "design" -
most boost circuits are by-passed when the battery Vin exceeds the rated Vout (set for the Vf of the LED) of the circuit - and basically becomes direct-drive by the 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion.

A good example are the very well designed Fenix L/PxD and L/PDx series - when used with 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion batteries - all their lower levels are basically High until the Li-Ion battery drops its voltage below the Vf and the lights once again become regulated - as one can see this did not happen with the Quarks - the lower levels are still (regulated) lower levels.

We "get away" with this most of the time - because the Li-Ion voltage drops under load somewhat and the slight over-voltage does not do immediate harm to the LED emitter.

But in the long term the LED is gradually damaged and the overall life is shortened - most of us on CPF probably don't care too much even if the life-span of the LED is halved as 50,000 hours halved is still 25,000 hours - still pretty long and a CPF'er probably will have moved on to other lights by then.

Ah! but not so fast - 
most would use Li-Ion because we want the extra brightness (kinda like at no extra cost) - so will tend to use the light on max brightness - which is exactly when the most damage will occur - and in the long term there still might not be sudden death - but the characteristic of the LED changes - I have a Fenix L1D-Q5 - so it is not that old - and I did not use it on Max all the time - but it has turned quite an obvious shade of Blue - enough that I had to stop using it as a comparison and get another L1D-Q5 for that purpose - so, as far as I am concerned it was damaged beyond repair.......


----------



## UnknownVT (Aug 31, 2009)

Standardized Stairway beamshot with 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 -


----------



## PLI (Sep 10, 2009)

Palor said:


> Good News,
> 
> I received my Quark 2AA yesterday, along with the Olight T-series red filter.
> 
> ...


 I received my AA quark warm tint also and do you think
that the Olight T-series red filter fits also on my
AA version ? 
It's a really great light :twothumbs
Maybe I'll buy another one.


----------



## UnknownVT (Sep 10, 2009)

PLI said:


> I received my AA quark warm tint also and do you think
> that the Olight T-series red filter fits also on my
> AA version ?
> It's a really great light :twothumbs
> Maybe I'll buy another one.



Thanks for the input.

Since the Quark series head is the same for the AA, AA2 and 123 - 
if the O-Light filter fits as Palor suggested - 
then it should fix the Neutral White version you have.

BTW - there is also -

Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review


----------



## B0wz3r (Oct 2, 2009)

Hi folks.

First, let me say this is a fantastic thread... answered everything I wanted to know about the Quark lights. I really want to get a QAA and some 14500's for it now. I want the power of the 14500's and still have the output regulated, and also the versatility of being able to use any old AA size batts that end up being available when needed.

With respect to all the light perception info, for the most part the discussion here is spot on; I'm a perceptual psychologist by training (PhD in perceptual psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2005) and in my work (lecturer in the psychology/cognitive science department at another UC). Just to clarify a few things is that first, the ability of the lens to accomodate does indeed reduce as we age. By the time we get about 50, we've lost about 85% of the lens's ability to change focus. However, as long as your vision was normal to begin with, it's not debilitating because the cornea actually provides the majority of the light gathering/focusing power in the human eye. Also, we are indeed more sensitive to yellow light because the sun's energy output is primary in that range of wavelengths. Also, for two light sources of equal brightness (objective brightness in lumens), if one is a very saturated yellow, it will be judged (subjectively perceived) as slightly brighter than the pure white light.



funkychateau said:


> This is correct when discussing up-close viewing, but not distance. In a relaxed state, the eye's optics are focused at the maximum distance. The eyes have to "work" to pull the focus in closer.
> 
> What actually happens with "older" eyes is that we lose the ability to "thicken" the lens to bring close-up objects in focus. I believe this is primarily due to lens hardening and muscular atrophy.
> 
> ...


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 2, 2009)

B0wz3r said:


> I'm a perceptual psychologist by training (PhD in perceptual psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2005) and in my work (lecturer in the psychology/cognitive science department at another UC).
> Also, we are indeed more sensitive to yellow light because the sun's energy output is primary in that range of wavelengths. Also, for two light sources of equal brightness (objective brightness in lumens), if one is a very saturated yellow, it will be judged (subjectively perceived) as slightly brighter than the pure white light.



Many thanks for chiming in here.

Thank you for the input on yellow sensitivity.

So all other things being equal a more yellow biased light would appear to be brighter?

I think that would explain why when compared side-by-side, the Neutral White version of the Quarks seemed as bright as the normal cool white versions - but when I removed the tint/color from the comparison shots it was pretty clear that the cool white was brighter.

Please see: 

Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review

Neutral White (Warm Tinted) - Quark AA2 Neutral White Comparison Review

4Sevens Quark 123-2 Neutral, Tactical, Cool White Comparison Review


----------



## Rod911 (Oct 3, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Unfortunately the Quark head seem just a shade wider and the diffuser doesn't want to fit - but it only just misses -
> I didn't want to force it - it might fit - but then again it might crack.....





burntoshine said:


> i'll have to completely disagree with you here. the fenix diffuser tip does NOT fit my quark AA at all.
> ...
> 
> believe me, i tried to get them on the quark. if i did manage to get it on my quark, i'd have a hell of a time getting it off.
> ...





bodhran said:


> I tried the Fenix white diffuser and traffic wand on my Quark. It is close but won't fit on mine. :mecry:



A few here have said that their Fenix diffuser (non-TK) does not fit on their Quark. See the pics below.



 



It is a tight fit and there is some force required to getting it on there (not much, mind you), but it will fit. As for getting it off - if you were able to get it on, you can get it off as well.



4sevens said:


> Yes they are tight - I actually use the traffic wand alot. I honestly think it was too loose with the fenixes. They fit the quarks nice and firm


----------



## B0wz3r (Oct 9, 2009)

VT,

Yes, the effect of a bright yellow light compared to a white light is purely perceptual. The intensity of each beam may be objectively the same, but the yellow one will look slightly brighter. This has to do with the way the cones work in the retina. I won't go into it here, but the simple description is that they activate more for yellow than pure white light, so the brain gets a stronger signal for brightness as a result.

I've been mulling getting a neutral white light, but I'm waiting for the new Fenix MC10 before I buy again. It looks like it will be the perfect little outdoor light, and I do a lot of bicycling, much of it on unlit back country roads. Having the angle head and being able to set it down so I can use both hands to patch a tube, stuff like that, will be a god-send. It will go into my cycling bag, and I'll keep my L1Tv2 as my EDC light until I can get a QAA neutral white. That way I can use 14500's in it for the 170L power they'll produce, still be fully regulated, and also be able to use most any old AAs that I happen across when needed.



UnknownVT said:


> Many thanks for chiming in here.
> 
> Thank you for the input on yellow sensitivity.
> 
> ...


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 9, 2009)

B0wz3r said:


> I've been mulling getting a neutral white light



Not to feed your flashaholism - but if one checks 4Sevens site the Neutral White Quarks were only a limited run and all the regular mode Quarks are now sold out and cannot be back-ordered - only the tactical versions are now available.....


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 9, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Not to feed your flashaholism -



On this site? Heaven forbid!



UnknownVT said:


> but if one checks 4Sevens site the Neutral White Quarks were only a limited run and all the regular mode Quarks are now sold out and cannot be back-ordered - only the tactical versions are now available.....



I did that - none in stock, but I wanted one. So I paid extra and bought a body and head and tailcap (the 3 pieces instead of a complete light) - all are still available. I'd rather pay $10 more and have the light I want. Those parts & my new Nitecore D10 R2 should arrive any day now.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Oct 9, 2009)

Sigh. I have a neutral white tactical aa^2 sitting at my apartment, and I'm home on fall break visiting the family. I'm looking forward to using it, but clearly I have a flashlight problem. Today at Wal Greens I saw a 3-C cell flashlight - 1 halogen bulb centered among 6 white LEDs, with 3 settings: 3 LED, 6 LED, and halogen. I nearly bought it, just barely remembered that I had no C cells, and a flashlight waiting for me. Looked like a good light, had the ringy etching all the way up.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 10, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> So I paid extra and bought a body and head and tailcap (the 3 pieces instead of a complete light) - all are still available. I'd rather pay $10 more and have the light I want.



WoW! now that's great, still being able to do that.

You are absolutely right to get the light you want rather than compromise - admirable.

I hope you'll enjoy the neutral white. 

Personally I am liking the neutral white more and more - 
I had occasion to use my EDC Fenix L01D the other night - 
like I say when it's dark any light is better than no light - 
but I noticed how gray/blue things looked with that light - 
and I thought I was used to "white" LEDs 
(The RB80 is also a bit warmer than the average coll white Cree Q5) - made me wish for an AAA neutral white to carry.....


----------



## B0wz3r (Oct 11, 2009)

Hey VT, et. al...

I'm going to go ahead and get a QAA in a couple of days, even though the neutral white ones are out of stock. I'm also going to get a couple of AW 14500's and a charger as well.

I'm signed up for an overnight leader's training session in two weeks with boy-scouts (I'm the den leader for my son's cub-scout Webelos den this year), and I want to make sure I've got a light that will at least go toe to toe with the best of them. (Even better if I blow a few people away with it too.  ) I think I'm going to like throwing 170L from a 1x AA light. 

One more thing... is there any time limit on using the Quarks on turbo? I've read that on some of the Fenixes they say you should only run them on turbo for five minutes or less because otherwise you'll burn out the emitter. Is that also true for the Quarks? From what I can tell they all use the same head, but I haven't found anything on 4seven's website indicating a turbo mode time limit.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 11, 2009)

B0wz3r said:


> One more thing... is there any time limit on using the Quarks on turbo? I've read that on some of the Fenixes they say you should only run them on turbo for five minutes or less because otherwise you'll burn out the emitter. Is that also true for the Quarks? From what I can tell they all use the same head, but I haven't found anything on 4seven's website indicating a turbo mode time limit.



Don't know for sure - you best ask 4Sevens that question.

I do know that the Quarks (AA, AA2 and 123) have buck/boost circuits - so they actually buck/lower any voltage (up to 4.2V) down to the proper Vf of the LED which not only means the lights retain their lower levels - but protects the LEDs from over-voltage - which sometimes does not automatically mean sudden death - but can have detrimental effects over time.

However I do not know whether their max output modes are over-driving the LED or not (I suspect they are not, because of the overall conservative outputs of the lights).

But you'd have to ask 4Sevens for the definitive answer.

You do know you can still buy the Neutral white Quark heads separately - and since the Quarks are "Lego" in their interchangeability between AA, AA2 and 1x123 you can easily get a neutral white as part of your repertoire.


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 11, 2009)

My package from 4Sevens arrived today - the Nitecore D10 R2 is really nice, but the colour is more pleasant from my Quark. I receive a 1 x AA body, the reverse clicky tailcap and the neutral white normal head. I put removed the clip and put the light together - it is very nice with a great colour of light.

The reason I bough the non-tactical (normal) version is because I really wanted full power and minimum power (head loose goes straight to minimum, head tight goes straight to full power) but also I want the ability to bump up from minimum to low or medium because sometimes minimum is too low and low or medium are more useful, but high or full are too much.

I am not too sure that I need a tactical AA light - I already have a tactical 18650 light and a tactical 16340 light. I also now have several 1 x AA lights (Jet-I Pro V2, D10 R2, Quark AA) actually I also have another warm emitter 1 x AA light on the way from 4Sevens - the Nitecore EZAA on their 25% off special. Anyone would think that I am a fan of the 1 x AA (1 x 14500) format! It is a pretty nice format for EDC - short enough and slim enough for most pockets and plenty enough lumens for most tasks. Of course 4 of this format may seem odd to some - but when I carry spare batteries I keep them in battery holders that are also flashlights, for not that much more size than a AA cell you can carry a spare flashlight that contains a spare AA.


----------



## B0wz3r (Oct 16, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Don't know for sure - you best ask 4Sevens that question.
> 
> I do know that the Quarks (AA, AA2 and 123) have buck/boost circuits - so they actually buck/lower any voltage (up to 4.2V) down to the proper Vf of the LED which not only means the lights retain their lower levels - but protects the LEDs from over-voltage - which sometimes does not automatically mean sudden death - but can have detrimental effects over time.
> 
> ...



Hey all,

I ordered a QAA2 today... upgraded to priority shipping too. I was originally going to get a QAA, but I don't have the extra cash for the 14500's and charger I wanted so I thought I'd get the AA2 for now, and get a 1xAA body and charger and batteries in another month or so. That way I can Lego it back and forth for 1xAA for EDC or 2xAA when I need the run-time.

I also emailed 4sevens to ask about the turbo mode thing, and they told me there was no time limit on any of the Quarks in turbo. Another reason I chose a Quark; I've read that the Fenix's can only run in turbo for a few minutes before starting to burn the emitter, so clearly the Quarks are the better light in that respect. I still love the two Fenix's I have, but I'm really looking forward to getting the new Quark.

Anyway, thanks for all your advice and help. I'm looking forward to getting my new light soon. :grin:

-B


----------



## HKJ (Oct 16, 2009)

B0wz3r said:


> I've read that the Fenix's can only run in turbo for a few minutes before starting to burn the emitter



Just because you have read it, does not make it true, I am using a Fenix L2D for, at least, ½ hour on turbo each day with no problems and has been doing so for two years.

The Quark are very good lights, they have fixed a lot of non-optimal details from the Fenix lights, but turbo mode is not one of the details.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 16, 2009)

HKJ said:


> Just because you have read it, does not make it true, I am using a Fenix L2D for, at least, ½ hour on turbo each day with no problems and has been doing so for two years.



I'm not too sure if Turbo mode was the problem with Fenixes - although they do get rather warm/hot when on Turbo -
however Fenix themselves warn to use caution when using Turbo mode





I know I had problems running a Fenix L1D-Q5 with 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 - which it is _NOT_ spec'd for - 
when using 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 the brightness can be spectacular, but in the long run the emitter is affected - 
that Fenix L1D-Q5 has turned a very obvious shade of blue/violet - and most of the time I used the lower modes rather than turbo.....


----------



## HKJ (Oct 16, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> I'm not too sure if Turbo mode was the problem with Fenixes - although they do get rather warm/hot when on Turbo -
> however Fenix themselves warn to use caution when using Turbo mode



I know this warning, but note the text that says "high ambient temperatures". This is the same problems with *all* led lights, they need to get rid of heat, some manufacturers put a warning in the manual, other does not. The problem is the same in both cases.



UnknownVT said:


> I know I had problems running a Fenix L1D-Q5 with 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 - which it is _NOT_ spec'd for -
> when using 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 the brightness can be spectacular, but in the long run the emitter is affected -
> that Fenix L1D-Q5 has turned a very obvious shade of blue/violet - and most of the time I used the lower modes rather than turbo.....



Using LiIon is another case, you are driving the led with 50% to 100% more power than turbo mode, this will exaggerate the heat problem.


----------



## B0wz3r (Oct 16, 2009)

Mary at 4sevens did indirectly mention to beware of heat, but she did also specifically say the Quarks don't have any kind of time limit on Turbo mode. But I have seen, as mentioned above, that Fenix recommends no more than a few minutes on Turbo at a time. I've got an L1Tv2 and my understanding is I _could_ but a 14500 in it if I wanted, but that I'd probably fry the emitter in the process. I really like my L1Tv2 and have no desire to do that to it, but I also want an EDC light that I _can_ put a 14500 in to boost its power. Mary at 4sevens said that was perfectly acceptable for the QAA's and it would bump the power of a QAA up to the same level as a QAA2, at the expense of run-time of course. Regardless, my goal is to eventually have an EDC light that will run any AA size battery but also give me the option of using a 14500 so I can get the 2xAA power out of a 1xAA light. 

Oh, and I got an email confirming shipment already, and I only put the order in a couple of hours ago! Talk about fast service!


----------



## Toohotruk (Oct 16, 2009)

They are definitely FAST at getting your order shipped!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 29, 2009)

Based in part on this thread and the Quark review roundup, I decided to purchase a Quark AA. I had initially ordered a Fenix LD10 but then after reading the comments here about the Quark line and seeing just what nice lights they are, I had a twinge of buyer's remorse. Thankfully, the LD10 was back ordered and hadn't shipped yet so I was able to cancel my order and then place a new order for the Quark. I'm also looking at the tactical switch because momentary on would be nice to have, and I honestly can't remember a time when I've ever actually tail-stood a flashlight other than to confirm the fact that it can tail-stand (in practice they're very prone to being knocked over, so it works just as well to just lay them on a table).

*Edit:* Though now that I think about it, I do have a question about using the tactical switch with the regular lights: Would rapidly pressing the switch cause the light to cycle through its modes? For example, if I press the button momentarily and then press it again a few seconds later, would it come on in moon mode or go to level 1?


----------



## pobox1475 (Oct 29, 2009)

^ Did you get one of the remaining warm tint versions? You will love your new light. I have a standard warm 123 and tac warm 123(2).


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 29, 2009)

The warm/neutral lights are all sold out except for the tactical models, so I'm getting the cool white version. I'm not too bothered since I don't really obsess about beam color.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 29, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> *Edit:* Though now that I think about it, I do have a question about using the tactical switch with the regular lights: Would rapidly pressing the switch cause the light to cycle through its modes? For example, if I press the button momentarily and then press it again a few seconds later, would it come on in moon mode or go to level 1?



If you are talking about using the regular (non-tactical) version head with a tactical switch - rapidly switching the light on and off will definitely change modes - since that is the method to change modes.

On the Tactical head rapidly switching the light on and off will not change any modes 
The Tactical version differs from the regular version Quarks in that the Tacticals (obviously) have a forward/tactical clicky - it can have two memorized modes accessed by tightening loosening the head - each of the two accessible modes can be programmed from a choice of 8 modes -
I'll just attach the scan of that part of the manual here -






there is a slight typo/mistake - there ought to be an arrow between Max and SOS.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 29, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> If you are talking about using the regular (non-tactical) version head with a tactical switch - rapidly switching the light on and off will definitely change modes - since that is the method to change modes.


O.K., that's what I was wondering. So a tactical switch with a standard head wouldn't be quite as useful as I was hoping. Guess I'll stick with the stock switch.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 29, 2009)

4sevens rocks. I placed my order around 9 this morning and got an email around 3pm informing me that it's shipped! Talk about fast!

Regarding the tactical switch/regular head combo:



> The tactical switch's momentary-on function will cause the regular
> Quark to cycle through modes, as the programming in the head of the
> light will read the momentary-on as a "soft press."
> 
> ...


so UnknownVT was correct.


----------



## flasherByNight (Oct 29, 2009)

any update on the use of 14500s? (what about in the titanium AA?)


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 30, 2009)

flasherByNight said:


> any update on the use of 14500s? (what about in the titanium AA?)



What is it that you want to know about 14500 usage?

I have beamshots of the Quark AA using 14500 in Post #*121* and the standardized stairway beamshot in Post #*122*.

The Quark AA head (same as the 2x AA and 1x CR123) is rated for 0.9V to 4.2V and its circuit is a Buck-Boost which means any voltage above the Vf of the LED emitter (up to 4.2V) is bucked/lowered/regulated to the Vf.

That's why the Quarks which are current regulated still retain all their lower levels when using 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 or RCR123 (unlike the Fenix where all the lower levels become high).

According to 4Sevens.com not only are 14500 safe to use, the lights are designed to use them.


----------



## flasherByNight (Oct 30, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> According to 4Sevens.com not only are 14500 safe to use, the lights are designed to use them.



oh, had the impression somewhere in your review that they _could _be used, but would ultimately be pretty detrimental to the lights.
(just wondering if anyone had seen any effects by now)


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 30, 2009)

flasherByNight said:


> oh, had the impression somewhere in your review that they _could _be used, but would ultimately be pretty detrimental to the lights.
> (just wondering if anyone had seen any effects by now)



Don't think I said that - 
Perhaps you may have mistaken what I said about the Fenix and other lights that "get away" with using Li-Ion?
(please read the lower half of my Post#*121*)


----------



## flasherByNight (Oct 30, 2009)

I see, thought you were alluding that those were your test cases and that is what you expected to happen to the quarks as well.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 30, 2009)

flasherByNight said:


> I see, thought you were alluding that those were your test cases and that is what you expected to happen to the quarks as well.



er, no...
Is my writing really _that bad?_
I was saying precisely the opposite - 
my exact words were-
" _Why Buck? because the Quark AA, AA2 and 123 are rated a true 0.9-4.2V - *this means they were designed to handle a single 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion battery (eg: 14500 or RCR123)* by bucking the voltage down to the true safe Vf - 

This may not seem much - 
since don't other lights all seem to handle 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion?
well, kinda yes, more by "luck" than "design" -
most boost circuits are by-passed when the battery Vin exceeds the rated Vout (set for the Vf of the LED) of the circuit - and basically becomes direct-drive by the 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion._ "

was that really that _UNclear_?


----------



## flasherByNight (Oct 30, 2009)

no no, my apologies. Just having a case of information overload I think :duh2:

Thanks again for the review :goodjob:


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Oct 30, 2009)

A comment and a question.

I think when I can afford to I will order a QAA and a 123 clipless body.

This is based on: Does the Standard Quark work EXACTLY like the Fenix L and P models? 

IE: If you click it on in moonlight, will a bump at ANY interval later take it up a level?

That is the main feature that I like about Fenix.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 30, 2009)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> This is based on: Does the Standard Quark work EXACTLY like the Fenix L and P models?
> IE: If you click it on in moonlight, will a bump at ANY interval later take it up a level?



If you turn any of the regular Quarks on with the head slightly loosened it will come on in the lowest "Moonlight" level.

From that point at any time -
1) tap the reverse clicky switch (giving a momentary off) the light will go to the next level up - what 4Sevens calls Low.
or
2) tighten the head - the light will go to the max level.

But there is a slight difference from the Fenix - 
if one gets to one of the other higher levels - 
then twist the head tight 
on the Quark - the light goes to Max as expected - but loosening the head the Quark goes back to that last (higher) level - 
whereas the Fenix would go back to its lowest level.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Oct 30, 2009)

Thanks Vincent!

Confirms that when able I will get a Quark!


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 30, 2009)

Quick question if anybody knows the answer:

I happen to have some non-rechargeable 14500 Lithium cells and was wondering if they'd be safe to use in the Quark AA. They're branded as Saft batteries and indicate a 3.6V output. A legend on the bottom says "Li-SOCI2".

Here's a link with more info: http://www.batteryjunction.com/plc-ls14500-ba.html

*Edit:* I'll just post the pertinent part here so people don't have to go chasing links:

Energy+ Part: LS14500-BA
Brand: Saft
Type: Lithium
Voltage: 3.6
Capacity: 2450 mAh
Color: White Green
Size: 0.56" dia. x 1.97" tall
Contacts: Button Type

Thanks for the help.


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 30, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> I happen to have some non-rechargeable 14500 Lithium cells and was wondering if they'd be safe to use in the Quark AA. They're branded as Saft batteries and indicate a 3.6V output. A legend on the bottom says "Li-SOCI2".
> Here's a link with more info: http://www.batteryjunction.com/plc-ls14500-ba.html



I would say.... actually I should say - ask 4Sevens.com.

But my best guess is that they ought to be OK since the nominal voltage is below the rated 4.2V max.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 30, 2009)

Yeah, I figured I'd ask here first before bugging them. I know the Quark is rated to handle up to 4.2V, so I figured these would be fine, but I wanted to make sure since all the stuff I've read only refers to 14500 rechargeables.

If the answer is yes then I should be set for a few years because I have about a dozen of these cells sitting in a drawer.


----------



## pobox1475 (Oct 30, 2009)

> I happen to have some non-rechargeable 14500 Lithium cells and was wondering if they'd be safe to use in the Quark AA. They're branded as Saft batteries and indicate a 3.6V output. A legend on the bottom says "Li-SOCI2".


 Wow, first time I have seen any cells like this. At $4.50 retail a pop I honestly IMO would save them and and take advantage of their 10 year shelf life for emergency use and run rechargeables daily. If the _stuff ever hits the fan_ supplies like this will be indispensable.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 31, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> Wow, first time I have seen any cells like this.


They were for a portable heart monitor that my wife was using. The company we rented it from also gave us a bunch of these batteries, and when the testing period was complete, they just told us to keep whatever was left over.



pobox1475 said:


> At $4.50 retail a pop I honestly IMO would save them and and take advantage of their 10 year shelf life for emergency use and run rechargeables daily. If the _stuff ever hits the fan_ supplies like this will be indispensable.


Well, I don't have any rechargeables or a charger, so it could easily cost me $50+ to get some whereas I have these batteries now and they're free, so maybe I'll just take my chances.


----------



## Lagerregal (Oct 31, 2009)

Hey! That is great! I never knew about 3,6V Lithium-Cells... Thanks. Now the argument "no primaries for AA-format" does not count any more.
Here in Germany you can buy some for 3,55€/piece. Thats not cheap, but for emergency or people who do not use them often it is ok


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Oct 31, 2009)

I figure based on my usage habits, I should get about a year out of each battery. I got over six-months out of a pair of Energizer lithiums in my Nitecore D20, so I'm guessing these will last even longer.

That's if 4sevens gives me the O.K. to stick them in my Quark AA (which I should have in my hands by Monday! ).


----------



## NoFair (Nov 1, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Quick question if anybody knows the answer:
> 
> I happen to have some non-rechargeable 14500 Lithium cells and was wondering if they'd be safe to use in the Quark AA. They're branded as Saft batteries and indicate a 3.6V output. A legend on the bottom says "Li-SOCI2".
> 
> ...



I think those are the same type we used in radio collars on animals (for tracking in the mountains) and they can't deliver more than about 100mA constantly so will not be able to power a quark at the higher levels. 

They should last for ages on low though...


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 1, 2009)

You're probably right. Found this on another site:



> The LS14500 cell is designed specifically for long-term (3 to 15 years) applications, featuring a few UA based currents and periodic pulses, typically in the *5-150 mA* range.


According to 4sevens, the current draw of the Quark AA on high and max is 250mA and 350mA respectively (medium is 50mA).

Ah well, and here I thought I was sitting on a gold mine. Guess I'll just stick with the cheap standard AA's and hang onto these as a do-or-die last resort since they'd probably work like a champ on medium and lower.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 1, 2009)

^ Don't know how often you use your lights, but after going to AW's and a Pila IBC I use _at least_ one within a 24 hour period . Initial investment especially for charger is a little steep. The break even point comes within the first couple years on average and Mother Nature is much happier with me now . It is also nice to be able to "top-off" your cells often so you almost always have full run times available.

http://www.flashlightz.com/product.php/pila/bc01-ac01/?product=171829&category=#tabStart

There are other much cheaper units available. After I did extensive research got a Pila because it seems to be the best currently available.

*Good luck . . .*


----------



## cave dave (Nov 1, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> You're probably right. Found this on another site:
> 
> According to 4sevens, the current draw of the Quark AA on high and max is 250mA and 350mA respectively (medium is 50mA).
> 
> Ah well, and here I thought I was sitting on a gold mine. Guess I'll just stick with the cheap standard AA's and hang onto these as a do-or-die last resort since they'd probably work like a champ on medium and lower.



The 3.6v Saft are designed for low current draw. No good for these lights, I have some but am afraid to use them. 

The above info is incorrect. The current *to the LED* is 350mA. The current *draw *from the battery can be much higher on low voltage sources. (~1000mA on an AA)


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 1, 2009)

pobox:

I use my flashlight a few times a night and occasionally during the day, so batteries tend to last me pretty good. I could easily convince myself that I need a good rechargeable system, but convincing my wife would be another story. 

----------



cave dave said:


> The 3.6v Saft are designed for low current draw. No good for these lights, I have some but am afraid to use them.
> 
> The above info is incorrect. The current *to the LED* is 350mA. The current *draw *from the battery can be much higher on low voltage sources. (~1000mA on an AA)


Hmmm... good point.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 2, 2009)

Just got my Quark AA in the mail! Woohoo!

Quick first impressions:

The packaging is topnotch. It's very slick and thoughtfully designed without being pretentious like an Apple product.

The quality of the light itself has, at least on first look, lived up to my expectations. The fit and finish is excellent, and the beam is as gorgeous as advertised.

Operation is simple, although I was surprised at just how light a touch it takes to change modes, almost to the point that one could do it unintentionally if they happen to keep their thumb on the button after turning the light on. It's not a big deal, just a matter of learning how the light works.

The clip came pressed very tightly to the body and made a scraping noise whenever I turned the bezel. I don't see any damage, but I was concerned that long-term use would wear off the anodizing, so I bent the clip back slightly so now there's a tiny gap between the clip and the surface. It still holds securely in my pocket but it no longer scrapes against the bezel.

My light does exhibit the infamous pre-flash, but it's not like you get a face-full of night vision-killing high-power before it settles down to moonlight mode. In fact, it's so brief and only subtly brighter that I probably wouldn't have noticed straight away if people hadn't been talking about it here. It doesn't even rank as a minor annoyance in my book.

Looks like a terrific light. No buyer's remorse here!


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 3, 2009)

A few more observations after playing around with the light for the better part of two days:


 SOS is way too slow, and the spacing between letters is way too long. Seems to me it'd be difficult for someone to recognize the pattern the way it's set-up. They should have asked some hams what it should look like when designing that feature.
 The difference between High and Turbo is barely perceptible with a AA cell, but that's what you'd expect going from 70 to 90 lumens.
 My light tends towards slightly greenish on moonlight and becomes more yellowish as I increase the brightness, very similar to the beam shots posted earlier in this thread.
 I wish the time it took to "reset" the light after turning it off was shorter. 3-seconds is a fairly long time (though it seems closer to 4). I think 1-second would have been sufficient. Short wait for it to reset, but you wouldn't have to rapid-fire click it to change modes.
I love moonlight mode. It's just the right amount of usable light for dark-adjusted eyes.
Surprisingly good throw for such a small light powered by a single AA. It puts a decent spot on my back fence about 100ft away, though I'd love to see what it could do with a higher power cell.
Just a few random thoughts.


----------



## flasherByNight (Nov 3, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> A few more observations after playing around with the light for the better part of two days:
> 
> [*] SOS is way too slow, and the spacing between letters is way too long. Seems to me it'd be difficult for someone to recognize the pattern the way it's set-up.



+1 Almost makes it completely useless imo...same to beacon, way too long between blips. 10 seconds :thumbsdow


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 4, 2009)

For these simple reasons I favor my warm tac 123(2) over the warm standard 123 I got first. Really wish they could hide the _blinking_ functions :sigh:. With all the hoopla about low lows I actually run my tac tight high and loose max. Guess I'm one who feels more is better and even at night around house my eyes have not been affected by the mega output .


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 4, 2009)

Did a quick eyeball comparison between the Quark AA and Nitecore D20:

Both lights have roughly the same size hotspot at roughly the same intensity. The Quark's spill is slightly larger than the D20's, but the D20's spill is about twice as bright. Both lights put out very similar amounts of light despite the D20 having bigger lumen numbers in the promotional literature which leads me to believe that Nitecore fudged the numbers a bit. The D20's low, which is advertised as 2 lumens, appears no brighter than the Quark's advertised 0.2 OTF lumens. On high, the D20 at (supposedly) 180 lumens is only slightly brighter then the Quark at 90 lumens. The D20's beam is a bit uneven and "ringy" but still very good while the Quark's is smooth and flawless.

So based on my informal tests, the Quark AA compares very favorably to the D20 in a package half the size and without the wonky piston drive interface.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 4, 2009)

Having never even touched a Nitecore I do think I'd agree with "Wonky Piston Drive"

I like simple. I have a few lights in which it is all to easy to change modes without meaning to.

Quark Standard is about as simple as one could ask for and I REALLY want an AA.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 5, 2009)

Anybody know what kind of lubricants are safe to use on the Quarks? Do we need to stay away from petroleum lubes?

Regarding the D20 piston drive, yeah, I just didn't find it consistent or reliable enough even as a non-critical EDC light. I was never 100% sure that it would come on when I pressed the button -- it did the majority of the time, just not _every_ time. I also had it happen on occasion that pressing the button to ramp up slightly from low could inadvertently trigger full-bright which was a real pain especially when all I wanted was just a little more light. You _can_ get fairly predictable performance out of a D20 if you clean and lubricate it regularly -- like every few weeks -- but disassembling the thing requires small tools and is not a particularly easy or convenient project (and forget about trying to perform maintenance in the field). That's been my experience, but I know there are folks out there who wouldn't trade their D20 for the world.

The Quark, on the other hand, has so far operated reliably and consistently every time.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 5, 2009)

I use this stuff; http://www.lighthound.com/NyoGel-760G-25GM-Tube_p_1344.html

http://www.cpfreviews.com/Flashlight-Care-Nyogel-Lubricants.php


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 5, 2009)

Yeeks! 10 bucks a tube? You know, one thing I gotta say for Maglites: I love the fact that you can use cheap and readily available petroleum jelly on them.


----------



## flasherByNight (Nov 5, 2009)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Yeeks! 10 bucks a tube? You know, one thing I gotta say for Maglites: I love the fact that you can use cheap and readily available petroleum jelly on them.



don't turn this into a lube thread :ironic:


----------



## DM51 (Nov 6, 2009)

Further lube posts here will be deleted. 

There's an existing thread for the discussion of lubricants.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 6, 2009)

^ Wish I had known, sorry


----------



## icharry (Nov 17, 2009)

Ok - total noob - so plz be kind. I just (like 2 hours ago) got my first real flashlight, a Quark AA... wow is it bright & small. I can easily see the flashaholic thing affecting me.

Anyway, on with my noob question. I see people talking about getting even more lumens by using a 14500 battery. Is that like this - Energizer® Ultimate Lithium Batteries? Or would these at least give more light then the regular copper-top that the Quark shipped with?

Thanks!


----------



## HKJ (Nov 17, 2009)

icharry said:


> Anyway, on with my noob question. I see people talking about getting even more lumens by using a 14500 battery. Is that like this - Energizer® Ultimate Lithium Batteries? Or would these at least give more light then the regular copper-top that the Quark shipped with?



They are not, the 14500 batteries are LiIon, they are marked with 3.7 volt (sometimes 3.6) and has up to 4.2 volt of the charger. Put them into equipment not designed for them and it might blow up.
They requires a special LiIon charger.

Some light will (nearly) double their output with these batteries, including Quark.


----------



## Sarlix (Nov 17, 2009)

HKJ said:


> They are not, the 14500 batteries are LiIon, they are marked with 3.7 volt (sometimes 3.6) and has up to 4.2 volt of the charger. Put them into equipment not designed for them and it might blow up.
> They requires a special LiIon charger.
> 
> Some light will (nearly) double their output with these batteries, including Quark.





You say they need a special charger, what would happen if you put a protected 14500 into a regular AA charger?. Would it just eventually reduce the life of the battery, or would it be more serious than that, as-in possible explosion?.

I ask because I was going to buy a 14500 today, but because I only want one and will only use it occasionally I don't really want to splash out on a special charger for it.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 17, 2009)

Sarlix said:


> You say they need a special charger, what would happen if you put a protected 14500 into a regular AA charger?. Would it just eventually reduce the life of the battery, or would it be more serious than that, as-in possible explosion?.
> 
> I ask because I was going to buy a 14500 today, but because I only want one and will only use it occasionally I don't really want to splash out on a special charger for it.



It will not work, a NiMH charger is for 1.2 volt batteries, it might be damaged and the battery might also be damaged, because it will not be charged, but discharged (A protected battery might be able to handle that).

LiIon chargers are not that expensive.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 18, 2009)

> because I only want one and will only use it occasionally I don't really want to splash out on a special charger for it.


 I am assuming this is not an EDC light? Li-Ion's main advantages are that they do not LSD and can be topped off often so you almost always have a full charge available _IMHO_. In a light that is not utilized frequently Eneloops _may_ be the better choice.


----------



## UnknownVT (Nov 18, 2009)

icharry said:


> I see people talking about getting even more lumens by using a 14500 battery.



The 14500 is a rechargeable Li-Ion battery of nominal 3.6-3.7V, these require a charger specifically for Li-Ion's.

14500 are fine in the Quark AA - as the Quarks are actually specifically designed for them - using a buck/boost circuit.

14500 will give quite noticeable higher brightness on Max (only).

Comparison on Li-Ion and Quark 123's min and Max levels - Post #*62*

If the light is to used frequently with 14500 - then the general advice is to use *Protected* batteries of good repute and a reputable charger (most are not expensive).

But a word of caution - Li-Ion can be potentially dangerous if not treated and used properly - please see:

Using Li-ion cells in LED flashlights safely


----------



## icharry (Nov 18, 2009)

Cool thanks for the replies....

I see there are a few non-recharge 14500's out there. I'd like to buy 1 to see if its worth it / if I need / want that much more light. I went to RadioShack they had one for $16 !!! If I get into it, then maybe I'll $pend for a recharge system.

Is there a recommended brand to buy for cheaper? Place to buy from? Are you allowed to post links to vendors? 

Uggg I am already a flashaholic... yesterday the boards were down & I was bummed, and I am already excited for 4Sevens Thursday....

Thanks again.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 18, 2009)

icharry said:


> I see there are a few non-recharge 14500's out there. I'd like to buy 1 to see if its worth it / if I need / want that much more light. I went to RadioShack they had one for $16 !!! If I get into it, then maybe I'll $pend for a recharge system.



You could call any AA battery 14500, but around here we only use than name for LiIon batteries and they are always rechargeable.
A lithium AA battery is not the same, it is around 1.5 volt like other AA batteries, not the 3.7 volt of LiIon.




icharry said:


> Is there a recommended brand to buy for cheaper? Place to buy from? Are you allowed to post links to vendors?



The favorite dealer with LiIon and charger is AW, but you pay for the reliability and safety. Another much cheaper place is DX, but you also get lower quality and much longer delivery times.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 18, 2009)

A word or several here....

When it comes to 14500 (AA Size) 17500, 17670 and 18650 I find Trustfire & Ultrafire batteries from DX to be good enough.Even the 16340 (123 size) seem to be ok.

The little 10440 (AAA Size) do not have the oomph for all aaa applications.

Lighthound in Pearland, TX also carries AW cells and I plan to get some good 10440s there.


----------



## icharry (Nov 18, 2009)

HKJ said:


> You could call any AA battery 14500, but around here we only use than name for LiIon batteries and they are always rechargeable.
> A lithium AA battery is not the same, it is around 1.5 volt like other AA batteries, not the 3.7 volt of LiIon.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 18, 2009)

I _suspect_ the Rat Shak cell is not made for high current use.

I've no way to say yes or no.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 18, 2009)

icharry said:


> But this is 3.6V and says non-recharge - would this be what I want to use to test the higher light level of my new quark without buying a whole system?



I do not known what battery Radio Shack has, can it supply at least 2.4 volt at 2.3 amp. current? That is what Quark requires to reach maximum brightness.


----------



## UnknownVT (Nov 18, 2009)

icharry said:


> But this is 3.6V and says non-recharge - would this be what I want to use to test the higher light level of my new quark without buying a whole system?
> Is this a good brand?
> FORGOT TO ADD LINK: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002GK406C/?tag=cpf0b6-20



The primary or Non-rechargeable 14500 apparently are not designed for high current usage - actually came up earlier in this thread - 
please see Posts #*165*, #*166*, #*168*


----------



## KiwiMark (Nov 18, 2009)

icharry said:


> HKJ said:
> 
> 
> > LINK: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002GK406C/?tag=cpf0b6-20
> ...


----------



## icharry (Nov 18, 2009)

Thanks... bummer... unless somewhere there is a high drain one of these. Guess I'll stick with the regular old AA's till then.


----------



## pobox1475 (Nov 18, 2009)

^ Why not Eneloops?

_Welcome to CPF..._


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 18, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> ^ Why not Eneloops?
> 
> _Welcome to CPF..._



Or Rayovac Hybrids, or Uniross Hybrios, or Kodak Precharged or Duracell "duraloops"


----------



## WillJitsu (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm interested in purchasing some AW 14500 batteries for my Quark AA that I got for Christmas. Is there a charger out there that I can purchase that will charge those batteries without me needing to worry about pulling them out as soon as they reach a particular voltage. I imagine the charger will be more expensive, but what options do I have for this?

Thanks!


----------



## pobox1475 (Dec 29, 2009)

I trust my Pila IBC Li-IOn charger. Best one I know of IMHO.


----------



## Egsise (Dec 29, 2009)

Dealextreme sku.3435 TrustFire 14500 Li-ion didn't fit in to my Quark AAW, the cell is too long.

The difference in brightness using Eneloop or 14500 Li-ion was not that big to me, 14500 Li-ion doubles the output but theres no wow effect.

For a beginner i would recommend the CR123 body, easier and safer way to double the output.


----------



## Wiggle (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm running 14500s on my AA Tactical. I get about 48-50 mins run time on the Black Trustfure 14500s. It is very convenient to use these cells because I can top off as often as I want to make sure I always have a full charge. The WF 139 charger plus protected 14500s works well for me and is not terribly expensive. The only disadvantage is a lack of warning before you deplete the battery, it will run full brightness right til the protection circuit kicks in. With my batteries I can switch to lower mode and run a bit longer before the circuit kicks in again but you shouldn't do this regularly as it could be bad for the cells long term life/performance.

Here's a comparison of the Quark AA on max with AA versus 14500 Li-ion. In reality it doesn't look quite this dramatic but it is noticeable for sure:

AA






14500 Li-Ion


----------



## pobox1475 (Dec 29, 2009)

> it doesn't look quite this dramatic


 :wow: , _Does to me..._


----------



## Wiggle (Dec 29, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> :wow: , _Does to me..._


Oh yeah, there's a serious lumen difference for sure. Once your eyes adjust to one or the other, the useful brightness is not as different as those pictures would imply. But still, with 14500 the Quark is really throwing out some serious light 

Those 14500s are working well for me. They are DX sku 26124, black Trustfire 900 mAh. 900mAh is maybe a little optimistic but it seemed like the AWs were lasting almost the same 45-50mins according to a review I saw. They are a bit longer than AA but it fits fine in my Quark and Ultrafire C3.

Here they are pictured beside my QAAT, 18650, Duraloop and Energizer 2450:


----------



## Toohotruk (Dec 29, 2009)

That Duraloop has a different label than I'm used to...is it a newer one?


----------



## Wiggle (Dec 29, 2009)

It's new. I just bought two packs before Christmas at local Wal-Mart. I've been out of the AA loop for a while but I'm pretty sure its Duraloop - 2000mAh, White top, Made in Japan, Pre-Charged.


----------



## Burgess (Dec 29, 2009)

Perhaps it's the Duracell-branded NEW Eneloop, 

which is now rated for 1500 charge cycles.


They were supposed to be available this month.


Just a thought.


----------



## Toohotruk (Dec 30, 2009)

That would be cool. :thumbsup:


I'll have to check the local Wallyworld to see if they have the new label ones.


----------



## ZRXBILL (Dec 30, 2009)

4Sevens told me that when a 14500 is used in place of a AA in the QuarkAA the 109 lumens goes up to 206.
The above picture seems to support that.


----------



## defloyd77 (Dec 30, 2009)

ZRXBILL said:


> 4Sevens told me that when a 14500 is used in place of a AA in the QuarkAA the 109 lumens goes up to 206.
> The above picture seems to support that.



That's for the XP-G version by the way, the R2 XP-E will go from 90 to 170.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jan 11, 2010)

I have posted -

4Sevens Quark AA-_*R5*_ Comparison Review

that compares side-by-side the new XP-G R5 with this original XP-E R2 version.


----------



## luisdent (Sep 6, 2010)

KiwiMark said:


> I am positive it will fit!



I saw a pic of the olight red filter, and it looks like other colors leak out... Was that just the photo? Would an olight red filter on a quark aa2 let out anything other than red light?


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 7, 2010)

luisdent said:


> I saw a pic of the olight red filter, and it looks like other colors leak out... Was that just the photo? Would an olight red filter on a quark aa2 let out anything other than red light?



You will only get red light coming out in front of the filter, but there may be some interesting colours out at an angle - in use it doesn't seem to be an issue in my experience.


----------



## luisdent (Sep 10, 2010)

Well, it's in the mail! My quark aa2, and the aa body!  Can't wait...


----------



## bollenberg (Sep 12, 2010)

I am an LEO and every time I think I have decided on a nice backup light I read the next review...and start back at square one.


----------



## luisdent (Sep 13, 2010)

bollenberg said:


> I am an LEO and every time I think I have decided on a nice backup light I read the next review...and start back at square one.



I'm with you on that. Ha. I thought I knew the light I was buying, then I saw a review of a fenix. Then I knew I was getting the fenix, but of course I saw a review of the quark. Ultimately I got the quark. Just came today!

I got the fenix diffuser as well, but wasn't sure how well it would fit (if at all) unmodified. For the record, the fenix diffuser fits on the quark with no modifications. It's a bit tight, but doesn't seem to affect the finish in any way. And it stays on well. I posted a video to demonstrate if anyone is curious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAQHRgSD2XE

So far I love the light. Smaller than I expected from the photos. Very sexy. 4sevens has been great as well with good service!

p.s. I'm also working on a way to fit the maglite filters on the quark. I'm close.


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 13, 2010)

The Olight diffusers fit too:
http://www.batteryjunction.com/olight-t-series-acc.html
Also - they don't look like they might be a sex toy.


----------



## luisdent (Sep 14, 2010)

KiwiMark said:


> The Olight diffusers fit too:
> http://www.batteryjunction.com/olight-t-series-acc.html
> Also - they don't look like they might be a sex toy.



ha. those are cool too. i got the fenix because i want a lantern style illumination for camp, etc. but the red filter would be nice, i've just heard it spills other colors out at angles... :-/ i was going to try the fenix red filter, but i'm thinking if it is as tight as the diffuser, but harder plastic it probably won't fit.

i have a maglite rubber cap that holds their filters on a maglite. It's too big, but a good size o-ring would probably close the gap perfectly and it would work....


----------



## luisdent (Sep 7, 2011)

I tried using an o-ring with no luck. I tried many sizes and styles but they don't work as well as one might think. I ended up buying a $5 mag brand red filter kit that comes with the rubber cap, red, clear and blue filters. Since my maglite came with an anti-roll rubber cap (the same exact cap that holds the filters on), I cut it into about a third the length around.

I then put the red filter in and wedged the 1/3 rubber "C" piece inside the main rubber cap. This works so well it's crazy. I can actually remove the whole filter and cap and the inner rubber doesn't slip out at all, so it is like a one piece cap. The rubber piece makes the red filter lock in place so it can't fall out. Lastly, there is zero light spillage, because the rubber goes around the quark about the length of the cap, so no light can escape at all.

$5 and a perfect solution for me.


----------



## TwitchALot (Sep 8, 2011)

KiwiMark said:


> The Olight diffusers fit too:
> http://www.batteryjunction.com/olight-t-series-acc.html
> Also - they don't look like they might be a sex toy.


 
Holy smokes! I'm glad someone bumped this thread. I was under the impression that there was no good diffuser out there for the Quark series and it really bummed me out. Glad to know that the Olight's use glass and fit well! Thanks a ton!


----------

