# 4Sevens Quark AA-2 X and 123-2 X Review (XM-L): RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS and more!



## selfbuilt (Sep 8, 2011)

*Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *











4Sevens has just released an update to their core Quark line of lights, now featuring the Cree XM-L emitter (in the AA-2 and 123-3 builds). The original Quark series contained XP-E R2 emitters (which I reviewed here). These were subsequently upgraded to XP-G R5 (with a limited run of S2 emitters). The new “X” series of Quark lights contain the higher-output XM-L emitter. 

*Manufacturer Specifications:* 

*Common Specs*

LED: Premium Cree XM-L
5 Current Regulated Output Levels
3 Flash modes: Strobe, SOS, Beacon
Available in Regular or Tactical configurations (different tailcaps and interfaces)
Square threads for lifetime smooth operation
Type III Hard Anodized finish
Fully knurled
Reversable/Removable Clip
Flexible & secure hand grip accessory
IPX-8 Waterproofing
Impact-resistant glass lens with Dual-coating - sapphire coating on the outside and anti-reflective coating on the inside for optimal efficiency and durability.
T-6061 Aircraft-grade Aluminum Body
Reverse-polarity protection
Stands on Tail (candle mode) – only on Regular version
Momentary Activation – only on Tactical version
Level Memorization – only on Tactical version
Included accessories: Two batteries, lanyard, holster, hand-grip, spare o-rings, instruction manual.
MSRP: ~$69 before discounts
*123-2 X Specs*

Powered by: 2 CR123A batteries (included) 
LED Emitter: 3.0V ~ 9.0V 
Dimensions: Length: 4.5 inches, Diameter: 0.86 inches, Weight: 1.8 ounces
Typical Output Levels and Runtimes
Moonlight: 0.3 OTF lumens for 25 days
Low: 3 OTF lumens for 5 days
Medium: 65 OTF lumens for 11 hours
High: 160 OTF lumens for 4 hours
Max: 360 OTF lumens for 1.7 hours (990ma)
Strobe: 360 OTF lumens for 3.4 hours
Beacon:0-360 OTF lumens pulse for 16 hours 
*AA-2 X Specs*

Powered by: 2 AA batteries (included)
LED Emitter: Voltage range: 0.9V ~ 4.2V
Dimensions: Length: 5.8 inches, Diameter: 0.86 inches, Weight: 2.2 ounces
Typical Output Levels and Runtimes
 Moonlight: 0.3 OTF lumens for 15 days
Low: 2.7 OTF lumens for 3 days
Medium: 24 OTF lumens for 20 hours
High: 115 OTF lumens for 2.5 hours
Max: 280 OTF lumens for 0.8 hours
Strobe: 280 OTF lumens for 1.6 hours
SOS: 280 OTF lumens for 3 hours
Beacon: 0-280 OTF lumens pulse for 8 hours
I received only the bare lights to review, so I don’t know what final packaging will look like. I expect it will be comparable to other 4Sevens products.












From left to right: Surefire CR123A, Duracell AA, 4Sevens Quark 123-2 X, Thrunite Neutron 2C, Nitecore IFE2, Zebralight SC600, Lumintop ED20, 4Sevens Quark AA-2 X, Fenix LD20-R4, Jetbeam BC20.

All weights with no batteries.

*Q123-2 X* (Regular tailcap): Weight: 44.6g, Length: 112.7mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
*QAA-2 X* (Tactical tailcap): Weight: 60.1g, Length: 149.1mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm

The Quark series remains quite petite for their respective classes. You can see the Q123-2 X is slightly smaller than even the Thrunite Neutron 2C or Lumintop ED20. The QAA-2 X is slightly shorter than most of the competition.














First off, note that build is unchanged with these new “X” versions of the Quark line. You can still lego (mix-and-match) heads, tailcaps and bodies across the whole line.  That said, note that the Q123-2 uses a different head from the other models (i.e. QAA, QAA-2 and Q123 share a common head). 

Overall build quality remains high. Anodizing is type III (hard anodized), and lettering is fairly sharp and clear. Overall fit and finish is very good on both samples. There is a generous amount of knurling to help with grip (reasonably aggressive). Screw threads are square-cut, as before.

Also as before, there is a removable single-direction clip, attached by default to either the "tail" region of the battery tube. However, since the head and tailcaps are reversible on the battery tube, you can "switch" the direction of the clip by simply exchanging the head and tail regions. :thumbsup: The clip is secured in place by its own removable cover/grip ring. 

Note there is anodizing on the tailcap threads, allowing you to lock-out the light. Most lights use a double-coating of anodizing (i.e. on both the tailcap and body portions of the threads), but that would prevent you from switching around the body tube in this case. I recommend you be careful not to damage the single coat of anodizing on the tailcap threads.

Battery tubes are wide enough to accommodate protected cells, although the Q123-2 X may not be able to take all protected AW 17670 cells (18650 certainly won’t fit).

Regular versions use a standard reverse clicky, with a fairly typical feel (maybe a bit stiffer than some). The lights can tailstand on these Regular series Quarks. The Tactical versions use a protruding forward clicky switch, and are capable of momentary action (but of course, cannot tailstand).

*Video Overview*

_*NEW:* Normally at this point in the review, I like to show the beamshots. But I’m trying something new - video reviews showing both the basic build and user interface. Beamshots will follow after the user interface and circuit discussion._



Video was recorded in 480p, but YouTube defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the 360p icon in the lower right-hand corner, and select the higher 480p option. 

*User Interface*

The Quark interface on the Regular series lights will seem very familiar to users of Fenix or Klarus lights. With the bezel slightly loosened, click on to activate Moonlight mode. Soft-press to advance to Lo, followed by Med, Hi, SOS, and Beacon mode in sequence. With the bezel fully tightened, activation yields Turbo. Soft-press to advance to rapid Strobe. 

If you turn the light off-on within ~2-3 secs, you will advance to the next mode (i.e. acts as a soft-press). Otherwise, if you leave off longer, you will return to the first output state (i.e. Moonlight or Turbo, depending on the bezel state). There is no long-term mode memory. 

For the Tactical interface, you can configure the bezel loose/tight states to have one memorized level from the above sets. Default setting is loose bezel set to Moonlight and tight bezel set to Max. Soft press the switch for momentary on, click for locked on.

To reprogram the each bezel state, you need to loosen-tighten the head 4 times quickly, ending in the state you want to re-program. After 3 secs, the light will flash 3 times, and you can now advance through all the possible modes by clicking off-on. To select the mode you want memorized, wait 10 secs with the light on in that mode. When you turn off the light, that mode will become the memorized set mode for that bezel state.

See the video above for a visual illustration of the Regular and Tactical interfaces.

*PWM/Strobe*

Q123-2 X





QAA-2 X





Strobe was a rapid ~9.5 Hz on both lights.

There was no evidence of PWM on any output level . As before, I believe the Quark X series lights are current-controlled. 

*Beamshots:*

And now the part you’ve all been waiting for.  










As before, the Quark reflector has a light-to-medium orange peel (textured) reflector, to help smooth out the beam. The reflector is fairly small, suggesting these lights will not be great throwers. The opening of the base of the reflector is larger than before, to accommodate the larger XM-L die. Emitters were well centered on my samples.

For white-wall beamshots, all lights are on 1x3.7V Li-ion (18650 or 17670) for Q123-2 X comparisons, 2xSanyo Eneloop for the QAA-2 X comparisons. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from the wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. All beamshots taken immediately upon activation.

_Q123-2 X Comparisons_





























































_QAA-2 X Comparisons_





























































As expected, the beam profile is fairly floody on the new X Quarks. Spillbeam width is similar to other Quarks models (and wider than the Thrunite Neutron XM-L models, for example)

*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have recently devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

*Effective November 2010, I have revised my summary tables to match with the current ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.sliderule.ca/FL1.htm for a description of the terms used in these tables.*

_Q123-2 X Comparisons_
















_QAA-2 X Comparisons_






 *Note:* _There is now a step-down feature just after 3 mins runtime on max, designed to help limit thermal issues on extended runs. For the Q123-2 X, output drops from ~520 estimated lumens to ~400 estimated lumens, while the QAA-2 X drops from ~400 estimated lumens to ~300 estimated lumens. I put the higher lumen values in the table, as that is what I measured at exactly 3 mins into the run (i.e. just before the drop)._

As you can see, neither light is a great thrower – but initial output is impressive for the class/size light.

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

_Q123-2 X Comparisons_





















_QAA-2 X Comparisons_





















For both lights, initial output is very high for their respective classes. You can see the step-down in output after 3 mins runtime on max. 

Runtime efficiency is typically top-of-class.

Note that I do not have XP-G-based Quarks to compare (my Quark samples above are all the earlier XP-E R2 versions).

*Potential Issues*

The pre-flash effect is still present on some samples (i.e. a bright quick flash before coming on in Moonlight low mode). I observed it on my QAA-2 X Tactical, but not my Q123-2X Regular. As before, I believe presence of the pre-flash effect is highly variable between individual lights.

Tailcap lock-out is possible, but anodizing is only present on the tailcap portion (i.e. may be less robust than dual-anodizing).

*Preliminary Observations*

The XM-L upgrade is a welcome update to the flagship 4Sevens Quark line-up. 

Compared to the earlier XP-G emitters, XM-L emitters are capable of much higher output – with equivalent runtime – when driven at relatively high levels. There has clearly been a lot of interest here for 4Sevens to come out with this option.

That said, my experience with other lights that offer both emitter options is that the output/runtime efficiency of XM-L tends to drop at lower drive levels – becoming equivalent to XP-G by typical Med output levels. I haven’t compared low modes, but based on Cree specs, I doubt there’s any significant runtime difference at lower drive currents.

In this case, the runtime efficiency of the Quark X models seems excellent at the levels tested. I was particularly struck by the runtime advantage on the QAA-2 X model on Hi (i.e. one down from Turbo). oo: It is also the brightest 2xAA light I’ve seen yet (on Turbo).

These Quark X samples both had smooth beams, with reasonably wide spillbeams (and well-centered emitters). Note also that XM-L emitters produce floodier beams compared to XP-G (when comparable optics are used), due to the larger die size of the XM-L. Subjectively, this will over make XM-L-based lights seem even brighter at close distances or in confined spaces, but will make them appear dimmer at further distances. 

The step-down feature after 3 mins on Turbo is a reasonable upgrade to the circuit. This is something I am seeing more and more often among XM-L lights, and it makes good thermal sense (especially in the case of small lights such as these). You can always restore max initial output by simply turning the light off-on or switching the bezel to low/tight, but I don’t recommend you do that on small mass lights.

The Quark X series adds another option to this versatile line. Hopefully the runtime graphs, output/throw tables, and beamshots will help you decide if they are the right models for you. 

----

Quark X samples provided by 4Sevens for review.


----------



## RI Chevy (Sep 8, 2011)

Another great review. Thanks. :thumbsup:


----------



## powernoodle (Sep 8, 2011)

I have way too many Quark lights already, but I've still got to add one of these puppies to the arsenal. It just keeps getting better and better.

Back in the day, the Surefire 6P was da bomb. 60 big lumens of yellowish, non-regulated light. And the filament lasted only a few hours and broke when you dropped the light.

Now we have 360 lumens in a smaller and rechargeable package [edit: properly configured], with regulated output and no filament to pop. I hope that you guys who weren't around a few years realize just how good we have it now.


----------



## MichaelW (Sep 8, 2011)

I like how we throw around 200,300,400 lumens like we used to throw around 20,30,40


Is there a way to get that 3 minute period of extra brightness to return by switching back/forth from strobe, or head loosened general mode?


----------



## WoodMan (Sep 8, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> *Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *
> 
> That said, note that the Q123-2 uses a different head from the other models (i.e. QAA, QAA-2 and Q123 share a common head), and the forward clicky tailcap needs to be used for the tactical interface.



Is this something new and different for the X series? I put a tactical head (XP-G R5) on a regular Quark AA2 (kept the regular switch for tailstand capability) and it works fine.


----------



## edpmis02 (Sep 8, 2011)

How is the tint? From the video and beamshots, the tint looks fairly green.. I notice the green in my XP-G R5 light, and saw a large number of negative comments about green tints in XP-G S2 lights. I am aware of tint lottery, but I usually come out on the losing side..


----------



## ganymede (Sep 8, 2011)

selfbuilt,

Thanks for the great review and your finger has healed!

I am looking at this photo:






I am wondering why flashlight manufacturers don't use an isolation disk that covers the emitter and shows the dome part only. Frankly, I am a bit irked by that.

Here's my olight sr50's sst-50 for comparison. Much neater don't you think?


----------



## roadkill1109 (Sep 9, 2011)

ganymede said:


> selfbuilt,
> 
> Thanks for the great review and your finger has healed!
> 
> ...



LUMINTOP ED20 also have clean implementation of XML:


----------



## MichaelW (Sep 9, 2011)

*Much ado about nothing*

That shrouding would be just for looks. It makes sense to install as much reflector as possible.
+that allows for some different curvature, (than a straight parabola) which helps to mix the color/light that comes from the edge.


----------



## jerrysimons (Sep 9, 2011)

*Re: Much ado about nothing*

Interesting point about the reflectors. That ED20 looks nice. 

Selfbuilt, Thank You! 
Would you consider adding a high test using CR123a cells? Also maybe energizer lithiums for the 2xAA? Thanks anyway.


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 9, 2011)

*Re: Much ado about nothing*



MichaelW said:


> Is there a way to get that 3 minute period of extra brightness to return by switching back/forth from strobe, or head loosened general mode?


Yes, you can also just twist the head loose-tight to restore full initial output. Works on both the Tactical and Regular versions. I didn't try switching back and forth from strobe, but that should also work (on the Regular version, of course).



WoodMan said:


> Is this something new and different for the X series? I put a tactical head (XP-G R5) on a regular Quark AA2 (kept the regular switch for tailstand capability) and it works fine.


No, all the Quarks were like this - the QAA/AA-2/123 use the same head with a lower voltage range (0.9-4.2V), where as the Q123-2 uses a higher range (3-9V) to accommodate 2x 3.7V/3.0V cells.

So you can indeed use your Q123-2 head on the QAA-2 body, and it will light up with 2x 1.5V AA batteries (or the Q123 body for CR123A/RCR). But it won't work on the QAA (unless you plan to use 14500). The QAA/AA-2/123 head is better optimized for runtimes on lower voltage setups, though.



edpmis02 said:


> How is the tint? From the video and beamshots, the tint looks fairly green.. I notice the green in my XP-G R5 light, and saw a large number of negative comments about green tints in XP-G S2 lights. I am aware of tint lottery, but I usually come out on the losing side..


I would say there is a slight hint of green on my samples (more noticeable at lower outputs), but only just barely. The camera's white balance seems to be accentuating the effect - it's not as bad as it looks in the pics.



jerrysimons said:


> Would you consider adding a high test using CR123a cells? Also maybe energizer lithiums for the 2xAA? Thanks anyway.


I'll try ... just running a little low on L91 lithiums right now.


----------



## powernoodle (Sep 9, 2011)

*Re: Much ado about nothing*

Thanks Mr. Built for your obsession with lighty things. Good stuff. Can you elaborate please on the AW 17670 in the 123x2 - is it your view that some may fit and some not? Thanks.


----------



## jerrysimons (Sep 9, 2011)

*Re: Much ado about nothing*

Cool! I will donate to the general battery fund. Sorry if i was confusing about the "high" 2x123 X test (as you do have a graph titled "High - 2xCR123A"), I meant high mode on the Quark 2x123 X in distinction to turbo/max mode, I am hoping to see the runtimes for both modes.


----------



## WoodMan (Sep 9, 2011)

*Re: Much ado about nothing*



selfbuilt said:


> No, all the Quarks were like this - the QAA/AA-2/123 use the same head with a lower voltage range (0.9-4.2V), where as the Q123-2 uses a higher range (3-9V) to accommodate 2x 3.7V/3.0V cells.
> 
> So you can indeed use your Q123-2 head on the QAA-2 body, and it will light up with 2x 1.5V AA batteries (or the Q123 body for CR123A/RCR). But it won't work on the QAA (unless you plan to use 14500). The QAA/AA-2/123 head is better optimized for runtimes on lower voltage setups, though.


 
I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. I understand the necessity of using the correct head/battery combinations. My comment had more to do with the statement in the review that "the forward clicky tailcap needs to be used for the tactical interface." As I wrote in post #5, I use the regular tailcap with a tactical head without issues. So, I'm wondering, was the quoted statement in error, am I just reading it wrong, or is this something new in the X series?


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 9, 2011)

*Re: Much ado about nothing*



powernoodle said:


> Thanks Mr. Built for your obsession with lighty things. Good stuff. Can you elaborate please on the AW 17670 in the 123x2 - is it your view that some may fit and some not? Thanks.


That's it exactly. Depending on exact tolerances, some Q123-2 tubes may require you to force some cells in (not something I ever recommend, due to risk of damaging the cell). 



jerrysimons said:


> Cool! I will donate to the general battery fund. Sorry if i was confusing about the "high" 2x123 X test (as you do have a graph titled "High - 2xCR123A"), I meant high mode on the Quark 2x123 X in distinction to turbo/max mode, I am hoping to see the runtimes for both modes.


I'm doing the L91 Turbo mode on the QAA-2 X now, will post later today. But I am not planning on doing the Hi mode CR123A on Q123-2 X, sorry. I don't routinely test sub-max modes on CR123A in multi-power lights (due to the cost of primary cells). So I don't have any comparison data to put the results in context. You should be able to estimate based on the Turbo/Hi RCR results, and I suspect the 4Sevens published specs should be pretty accurate (i.e. they are directly based on their CR123A cells).



WoodMan said:


> I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. I understand the necessity of using the correct head/battery combinations. My comment had more to do with the statement in the review that "the forward clicky tailcap needs to be used for the tactical interface." As I wrote in post #5, I use the regular tailcap with a tactical head without issues. So, I'm wondering, was the quoted statement in error, am I just reading it wrong, or is this something new in the X series?


Ah sorry, I see what you mean. You are right, you don't need the forward clicky for the tactical interface - the reverse-clicky tailcap will work as well. I'll revise that line in the review.


----------



## Lagerregal (Sep 9, 2011)

Thanks for the review! Would it be possible to add runtime on 17670 or 14670 for the 123-2? I would like to see the regulation with a single li-ion


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 9, 2011)

Ok, here is the QAA-2 X on L91, on Turbo:








Lagerregal said:


> Thanks for the review! Would it be possible to add runtime on 17670 or 14670 for the 123-2? I would like to see the regulation with a single li-ion


I will try to get to that soon (a little swamped with reviews right now). I don't have much to compare it to on that battery, but show it against typical 18650 lights. Hopefully sometime tomorrow ...


----------



## light36 (Sep 10, 2011)

*Excellent review !!!!.*


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 10, 2011)

Lagerregal said:


> Thanks for the review! Would it be possible to add runtime on 17670 or 14670 for the 123-2? I would like to see the regulation with a single li-ion


Here you go:






Note that output is just a touch lower on 17670, compared to 2x sources (i.e. ~490 estimated lumens at 3 min). Runtime seems good, considering the lower capacity of the 17670 cell.


----------



## Lagerregal (Sep 15, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Note that output is just a touch lower on 17670, compared to 2x sources (i.e. ~490 estimated lumens at 3 min). Runtime seems good, considering the lower capacity of the 17670 cell.



Thank you!


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 15, 2011)

Lagerregal said:


> Thank you!


Sorry, just realized there was an error in the figure legend. As you can probably tell, the solid black line in the new X version. I've uploaded a corrected legend for the graph.


----------



## BWX (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't need any more flashlights, but I want that Quark X AA2! Awesome output/runtime on high mode!! Great max output for a 2AA light on Turbo Mode too.


----------



## mmace1 (Sep 27, 2011)

BWX said:


> I don't need any more flashlights, but I want that Quark X AA2! Awesome output/runtime on high mode!!


 
Describes my situation exactly, probably a lot of people's here actually! I mean...I already have an EDC light. I have a light for travel (Quark mini 2xAA). But this light, wow...almost 400 lumens in 2xAA! That would be neat when taking walks...except my TK41 does twice that and is not too heavy for walks anyway so what am I talking about...

Though I *could* use the .6 setting to view my hamsters at night. Would be better than the 3 lumens from the Quark mini. That's my justification, occasional hamster viewing.


----------



## abladeafficionado (Oct 11, 2011)

Has anybody had any issues with 17670s in the 123^2 X?

I've noticed some people have mentioned it being a tight fit, and having to remove the silver label, but can anybody confirm this? I'd assume that the few people that have mentioned it being a problem are the only ones that comment, while those with it working fine don't say anything because it hasn't occurred to them.

I'm getting ready to retire the Quark AA from EDC and adopt the 123^2 X as my new EDC, but want to make sure the 17670 fits fine before I get one.


----------



## scot (Oct 12, 2011)

I've got a 123-2 X and 11 AW 17670s lying around the house. Every cell fits fine without taking the label off. Other brands may have a problem, but I don't have any other brands to try.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 12, 2011)

abladeafficionado said:


> Has anybody had any issues with 17670s in the 123^2 X?


Between variants and replacements, I've had five different Q123-2 bodies, and all could take my single AW 17670 cell (although two were a bit tight, and needed some minor force to get in or out). None of them required what I would consider an unreasonable amount of force.


----------



## peter5812 (Oct 12, 2011)

Thank you Selfbuilt, the quark x aa2 was my first purchase after joining CPF and reading this review. I think this quark is a great utility light because of the large beam and flood, also I realize how cool and useful a multi mode flashlight can be for different task. It was also hard to believe the small size of this flashlight can be that bright.


----------



## abladeafficionado (Oct 12, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> Between variants and replacements, I've had five different Q123-2 bodies, and all could take my single AW 17670 cell (although two were a bit tight, and needed some minor force to get in or out). None of them required what I would consider an unreasonable amount of force.


Thanks! I'll have to get one.


----------



## weez82 (Oct 14, 2011)

With 2x AW rcr123's is the graph showing the correct Est. Min. Lightbox Lumens of 2.3 or is it supposed to be .23?


----------



## js82 (Oct 14, 2011)

Hi Selfbuilt. Thanks for the awesome review again.

Would it be possible for you to put up your lumens figures for the other output levels as well? Like low, medium, and high. I'm wondering whether there's also a large difference in the actual lumens figures you get for those other levels compared to 4seven's figures, like on turbo (400 vs 280).


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 15, 2011)

weez82 said:


> With 2x AW rcr123's is the graph showing the correct Est. Min. Lightbox Lumens of 2.3 or is it supposed to be .23?


Ah, you mean the table? That was a typo I fixed early on, but your browser cache probably kept the original table image (I used the same file name). I've just renamed the image and updated the review, so it should be showing up correctly now (as 0.22 lumens estimate).



js82 said:


> Would it be possible for you to put up your lumens figures for the other output levels as well? Like low, medium, and high. I'm wondering whether there's also a large difference in the actual lumens figures you get for those other levels compared to 4seven's figures, like on turbo (400 vs 280).


I've only estimated ANSI FL-1 lumens for RCR, but I get the following:

Q123-2 X Turbo: 520 estimated lumens
Q123-2 X Hi: 205 estimated lumens
Q123-2 X Med: 45 estimated lumens
Q123-2 X Lo: 2.5 estimated lumens
Q123-2 X Moonlight: 0.22 estimated lumens

As you can see, the other levels aren't too far off the reported 4Sevens specs.


----------



## weez82 (Oct 15, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> Ah, you mean the table? That was a typo I fixed early on, but your browser cache probably kept the original table image (I used the same file name). I've just renamed the image and updated the review, so it should be showing up correctly now (as 0.22 lumens estimate).



Yeah, meant to type table not graph. And just cleared my cache. Now it's showing correctly. Thanks selfbuilt


----------



## js82 (Oct 16, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> Ah, you mean the table? That was a typo I fixed early on, but your browser cache probably kept the original table image (I used the same file name). I've just renamed the image and updated the review, so it should be showing up correctly now (as 0.22 lumens estimate). I've only estimated ANSI FL-1 lumens for RCR, but I get the following:Q123-2 X Turbo: 520 estimated lumensQ123-2 X Hi: 205 estimated lumensQ123-2 X Med: 45 estimated lumensQ123-2 X Lo: 2.5 estimated lumensQ123-2 X Moonlight: 0.22 estimated lumensAs you can see, the other levels aren't too far off the reported 4Sevens specs.


 Thanks for those figures, selfbuilt!


----------



## Xak (Oct 17, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> The step-down feature after 3 mins on Turbo is a reasonable upgrade to the circuit. This is something I am seeing more and more often among XM-L lights, and it makes good thermal sense (especially in the case of small lights such as these). You can always restore max initial output by simply turning the light off-on or switching the bezel to low/tight, but I don’t recommend you do that on small mass lights.



Do you happen to know if any in the ThruNite Neutron series has this feature?


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 18, 2011)

Xak said:


> Do you happen to know if any in the ThruNite Neutron series has this feature?


The early release samples I tested did not have a step-down feature. I don't know if they have added one since then, or plan to introduce one.


----------



## Woods Walker (Oct 18, 2011)

Great review. For a short time on turbo those lights are spooky bright.


----------



## BulletProofMonk (Oct 19, 2011)

I just ordered my Quark 123-2 turbo x can't wait till it gets here.


----------



## Buckeye (Nov 4, 2011)

I just ordered the Quark X 2AA. Selbuilt, I was wondering if the Quark X 2AA head would be brighter on Max if the head was put on a 123-2 body running an 17670 battery. The Quark X 2AA review is based on 2AA batteries that are 3.0 V. I have wondered about this on all Quark 1AA and 2AA flashlights since the 17670 batteries are 4.2 V and the specs for the 1AA and 2AA say they can handle up to 4.2 V. I realize there is the danger of forgetting which head is on the body and trying to use 2 123a batteries. 
If you could try it and report. No need to do a full battery drain test.
Thanks,
Buckeye


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 4, 2011)

Buckeye said:


> I just ordered the Quark X 2AA. Selbuilt, I was wondering if the Quark X 2AA head would be brighter on Max if the head was put on a 123-2 body running an 17670 battery.


The QAA2-X head will work fine on one 3.7V Li-ion battery (4.2V nominal). If you check out my original Quark review you will see this comparison graph:







The QAA, QAA-2 and Q123 all use the same head, and it works just fine on 1x14500/RCR/17670, etc. I don't think it is officially supported by 4Sevens, but it seems to run fine in my testing.

The only real danger of running this head on the Q123-2 body is forgeting it is there and using 2x sources (as you pointed out).


----------



## excfenix (Nov 8, 2011)

Awesome review. Mad props.I'll be getting my Quark X 123-2 very soon.

However, I'm wondering about the potential pitfalls of using the R17670 for such prolonged period. Any thoughts on this? (ie temperature, etc). I'm new to flashlights and batteries.


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 8, 2011)

excfenix said:


> However, I'm wondering about the potential pitfalls of using the R17670 for such prolonged period. Any thoughts on this? (ie temperature, etc). I'm new to flashlights and batteries.


You should be fine. Note that these new Quark lights have a circuit step-down feature after 3 mins.

As a general rule, I recommend single battery sources whenever possible (i.e. you get better capacity, and less risk of mismatched or damaged cells).


----------



## Nonprophet (Nov 19, 2011)

Would love to see some numbers on a QAA2 X head run on a QAA body with a 14500 battery! I just got a QAA2 X and an QAA body, and when running on an eneloop 1.2v there is no difference between 'high" and "max" settings--I'm assuming this is because the xm-l emitters need more than 1.2v to run on max. So, I'd love to see some data on the [email protected] head on a QAA body in terms of light output and run times--to me this setup could be the ultimate EDC, at least for awhile.....lol!


NP


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 19, 2011)

Sorry, swamped with too many other lights right now. Will try to squeeze in a 14500 runtime on the 2AA head next time I am doing a 1xAA light, but nothing immediate planned.

As a general rule, most lights that upgrade to XML see increased max output with comparable runtime, if that helps.

Sent from my handheld device


----------



## jsalmika (Nov 25, 2011)

Nonprophet said:


> Would love to see some numbers on a QAA2 X head run on a QAA body with a 14500 battery!



Me too. Preferably compared to R5 low voltage head with the same tint... Running on AA, 2AA and 14500 if possible. Perhaps a post (or several posts) with those six pictures already exists but I did not find it yet.


----------



## kreisler (Nov 25, 2011)

Nonprophet said:


> Would love to see some numbers on a QAA2 X head run on a QAA body with a 14500 battery!


+ 1

thanks selfbuilt, looking forward.


----------



## Nonprophet (Nov 25, 2011)

I got my AW 14500's in the mail today and they power the QAA2 X head on a QAA body very, vert well--there's a BIG boost in output over the eneloops that I was using.......it's worth noting that with eneloops I saw no difference between "high" mode and "max" mode because I don't think the 1.2v eneloops have enough power to drive the XM-L emitter on max mode, but the 14500's do great and the max mode is waaaaay bright for such a little light!!

NP


----------



## kreisler (Nov 26, 2011)

Excellent news, thanks. And congrats to your recent acquisitions (QAA2X-T, body, 14500's,..), so now you're becoming a 4Sevens fanboy too lol ;=)


----------



## LanternLover (Nov 27, 2011)

Hi Selfbuilt. Thanks for all your great reviews!

I am a bit confused about the output levels in this and the Neutron 2A review. Your reviews indicate output levels much higher than those reported on light-reviews.com for instance and even much higher than the manufacturer's specs. Moreover, the graphs seem to indicate that the Hi (the second brightest mode) is within ~10% of the Fenix LD20 on max and yet gets nearly twice as much runtime. Can this really be, even with the improved emitter? The manufacturers themselves only claim outputs 135 lumens and 115 lumens respectively versus the 180 lumens of the LD20. This would make it seem like they are hugely underrating their lights.


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 27, 2011)

LanternLover said:


> Your reviews indicate output levels much higher than those reported on light-reviews.com for instance and even much higher than the manufacturer's specs.


My lumen estimates are based on the method described in detail here. As you'll see, there was very good concordance with reported values from a number of manufacturers and CPF users with integrating spheres.

The key point is that the relationships are all relative, based on a calibration to available data. I make no claim as to the accuracy of all the reported lumen values that make up that data set - only that the correlation to my lightbox is highly consistent. So if my lumen estimates are "high" in these cases, than they are "high" in all cases.



> Moreover, the graphs seem to indicate that the Hi (the second brightest mode) is within ~10% of the Fenix LD20 on max and yet gets nearly twice as much runtime. Can this really be, even with the improved emitter? The manufacturers themselves only claim outputs 135 lumens and 115 lumens respectively versus the 180 lumens of the LD20.


Actually, it's more like ~20% (i.e. the LD20-R4 on Turbo is ~20% brighter than the QAA-2-X on Hi). As discussed in the link above, my lightbox's relative output is not linear. If you convert to estimate lumens, you get ~180 lumens for the LD20-R4 on Turbo vs ~150 lumens for the QAA-2-x on Hi.

In any case, the difference can most likely be explained by the fact you are in essence "over-driving" the XP-G R4 in the LD20 on Turbo (i.e. pushing it past the point where efficiency begins to drop more rapidly). Emitters are not uniformly efficient across drive currents - in fact, efficiency drops off rapidly at higher currents (check out Cree literature for specs and curves). The QAA-2-X on Hi is driven a lot less hard the LD20-R4 on Turbo (or the QAA-2-X on Turbo, for that matter).

You can see this by comparing the LD20-R4 on Turbo to Hi: on Turbo, you get ~1.5 hrs for ~180 lumens - but on Hi, you get ~4 hrs for ~100 lumens. So, even though Hi is ~55% the output of Turbo, it's runtime is more than 2.5 times longer (demonstrating it is that much more efficient).

You can also see this by looking at the QAA-2-X: on Turbo, you get 3 mins at ~400 lumens, and 1hr at ~300 lumens. But on Hi, you get 150 lumens for 3.5hrs. So again, about half the output, but nearly 3.5 times the runtime.

The point to the above is simply to demonstrate the diminishing returns of efficiency as you go up in drive currents. However, at lower drive levels, the later-versions of XM-L and XP-G emitters are not very different (i.e. you tend to get similar runtime for output on the Lo-Med modes). Where the emitters differentiate is at Hi-Turbo output levels - you get either more light for equivalent runtime (i.e. comparing at most Turbo mode drive levels), or more runtime for equivalent output (i.e. most Hi modes), or some combination thereof.


----------



## kreisler (Nov 27, 2011)

selfbuilt, if you ever get your hands on the current version of the LD20, please would you include it in your graphs and measurements in addition to the Quark AA1X-Tactical (Quark 1xAA body, with AA2X-Tactical head, with Protected 14500's)?

am maybe asking to much, hehe. sorry.


----------



## SuLyMaN (Dec 5, 2011)

Heh self built. Great great review mate. I have some questions and hope you/other members can answer it...

When you say " you get 3 mins at ~400 lumens, and 1hr at ~300 lumens. But on Hi, you get 150 lumens for 3.5hrs. So again, about half the output, but nearly 3.5 times the runtime."

1) Do you mean that the TURBO MODE will still be TURBO at a decreased lumens or will the flashlight go to high mode from turbo after 3 minutes??

2) Also, a user reported not seeing any increase from high to turbo on eneloops. Can you confirm that?

Thanks for looking.


----------



## MichaelW (Dec 5, 2011)

SuLyMaN said:


> When you say " you get 3 mins at ~400 lumens, and 1hr at ~300 lumens. But on Hi, you get 150 lumens for 3.5hrs. So again, about half the output, but nearly 3.5 times the runtime."
> 1) Do you mean that the TURBO MODE will still be TURBO at a decreased lumens or will the flashlight go to high mode from turbo after 3 minutes??
> 2) Also, a user reported not seeing any increase from high to turbo on eneloops. Can you confirm that?


The initial 3 minutes (or so), is an extra special Turbo+ mode, then due to limited thermal dissipation abilities the output drops to the normal (yet still rocking!) turbo mode
Eneloops have very good power abilities (over 5 watts per cell, if not more), so with the low voltage head, either the Eneloops were nearly discharged, or the 'noticeability' is/was hard to see. I'd lean to the former.
Depending on perspective, it is either good/bad that by cycling from head loosened mode, to head tightened-the circuit always attempts to activate the Turbo+ mode, so if the voltage under [Turbo+] load is insufficient, there might be no increase on lumens from high mode.
From HKJ review: Turbo+ 5.3 watts, Turbo 3.5 watts, High 1.8 watts.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-AA-2-with-measurements-and-outdoor-beamshots


----------



## SuLyMaN (Dec 5, 2011)

@MichealW: Pretty nice answer. Thanks a bunch mate


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 5, 2011)

SuLyMaN said:


> @MichealW: Pretty nice answer. Thanks a bunch mate


Yes, MichaelW summed it up well. 

You should be able to notice the difference going from Hi to Turbo fairly easily on the AA-2-X. On a 1xAA body, that would be another story - the difference between Hi on Turbo on 1xeneloop probably wouldn't be very noticeable (i.e. you need at least a 2xAA or 1x3.7V source to get the full Turbo mode).


----------



## SuLyMaN (Dec 5, 2011)

@selfbuilt: Mate, your review was very through and enlightening as always. However, there is something that slightly bugs me. You seem to be impressed with the High: 115 OTF lumens for 2.5 hours run of the Quark X.
If I am not mistaken, the E21 will do 160 lumens for about 2h30mins?
So, to be impressive, the Quark should have at least pulled 3 hours from high? Correct me if I'm wrong as I know I am very newbish here.
Thanks.


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 6, 2011)

SuLyMaN said:


> @selfbuilt: Mate, your review was very through and enlightening as always. However, there is something that slightly bugs me. You seem to be impressed with the High: 115 OTF lumens for 2.5 hours run of the Quark X.
> If I am not mistaken, the E21 will do 160 lumens for about 2h30mins?
> So, to be impressive, the Quark should have at least pulled 3 hours from high? Correct me if I'm wrong as I know I am very newbish here.
> Thanks.


Exactly right - and so the Quark 2AA-X did.

The problem is when you look at the specs - they can be highly misleading. This is why I do all my testing under identical conditions, you that you can directly compare output and runtime. I have just added the results of the Fenx E21 to the Hi mode Eneloop graph:







Compare the E21 (yellow line) to the second 4Sevens Quark AA2-X (lower black line). Although the E21 is slightly brighter (i.e. slightly higher output reading), it only ran for ~1.5 hours in my testing. In contrast, the Quark AA2-X ran for ~3.5 hours. I'd estimate the E21 produces ~170 lumens on Hi, compared to ~150 lumens for my Quark AA2-X sample.

Clearly, the specs are off for both lights - just in opposite directions (i.e. the E21 overestimates runtime for accurate output, the Q2AA-X underestimates both output and runtime). But looking at the graph, you'll see why I was impressed with my Q2AA-X.

Of course, the above are all based on n=1 samples. But most lights fall within a reasonably consistent range for their emitter types - the Q2AA-X outperformed my expectations for this class.


----------



## SuLyMaN (Dec 6, 2011)

ok. I AM TRULY impressed....3h36mins on about 150 lumens (your rating) is pretty much awesome for a 2xAA battery! Thanks for the clarifications. Much appreciated.


----------



## led2011 (Dec 10, 2011)

HI Selfbuilt. Thanks for the fantastic review.

Thanks for your great information about torch review.
Now I am trying to do some review after referring to your flashlight review.
your review is very useful for me.


----------



## Put (Dec 15, 2011)

Hello gang,
This is my first post on candlepower and I want to thank you all for the good info found here.
I just received my first Quark X123-2B and I wanted to add I love this light. It's my first venture into the CR123 battery venue. I can't believe how bright this light is and how small the unit is. I chose this one over the tactical version, which you can program, because i wanted easy access to the other modes. It's very easy to toggle to the next mode, which in my opinion makes the light very functional. I chose Quark after careful consideration and much study. Hope I'm not dissapointed.
Put


----------



## LanternLover (Dec 20, 2011)

Selfbuilt, thanks for all the clarifications. I understand what you are saying about the efficiency dropping even as the output rises. I have been busy and couldn't look up the charts to check all this in detail, and I doubt I ever will. However, regardless of the actual number, I think my Quark X AA2 is very bright and the runtimes I am getting are close to yours.

I know that you do not make a claim to accuracy with your lumen estimates but as you yourself say, the concordance with other sources is pretty good. In fact, that is part of what makes your reviews so reliable and useful. Thanks for all the useful reviews.


----------



## dannstrait (Feb 14, 2012)

Just picked up a AA-2 X and am very impressed with the output compared to my old AA-2 Neutral (Q3 XP-E) - and all out of a couple of Eneloops!

That said, I have a question about the thermal protection on my AA-2 X version vs the 123-2 X. My AA-2 X heats up noticeably faster on Turbo compared to the XP-E version and I wonder if the 123-2 X's temperature stabilizes after the drop-down considering it only drops to the initial Turbo output level of my AA-2 X model. Does the DC-DC boost circuit in my AA-2 X generate more heat than the buck circuit on the 123-2 X version? Does the 123-2 X have additional or improved heat-sinking compared to the AA-2 X? If there is no heat difference between the circuits and if the heat-sinking is the same as well, would it be safe to say that the 123-2 X will run noticeably hotter throughout its Turbo run compared to the AA-2 X?


----------



## 4sevens (Feb 14, 2012)

dannstrait said:


> Just picked up a AA-2 X and am very impressed with the output compared to my old AA-2 Neutral (Q3 XP-E) - and all out of a couple of Eneloops!
> 
> That said, I have a question about the thermal protection on my AA-2 X version vs the 123-2 X. My AA-2 X heats up noticeably faster in Turbo compared to the XP-E version and I wonder if the 123-2 X's temperature stabilizes after the drop-down considering the it drops to the same output level which heats up my version considerably. Does the DC-DC boost circuit in my AA-2 X generate more heat than the buck circuit on the 123-2 X version? Does the 123-2 X have additional or improved heat-sinking compared to the AA-2 X? If there is no heat difference between the circuits and if the heat-sinking is the same as well, would it be safe to say that the 123-2 X will run noticeably hotter throughout its Turbo run compared to the AA-2 X?


The X series Quarks with XM-L's are driven 44-50% more depending on model. The XM-L's are spec'd higher and can safely take more current.


----------



## dannstrait (Feb 14, 2012)

4sevens said:


> The X series Quarks with XM-L's are driven 44-50% more depending on model. The XM-L's are spec'd higher and can safely take more current.



Wow, thanks David for the _lightning_ fast response...that new branding is already paying off 

I think you guys are wizards plus you stand behind the design with that great warranty policy; I wasn't implying that the light couldn't take the heat, just wondering if the 123-2 X model will be hotter in the hand than the AA-2 X after say, 30 straight minutes on Turbo.


----------



## MichaelW (Feb 15, 2012)

Probably. But can you tell the difference between 106 & 111 degrees F ?


----------



## dannstrait (Feb 15, 2012)

MichaelW said:


> Probably. But can you tell the difference between 106 & 111 degrees F ?



lol. yea I suppose I didn't think it through since the 123-2 Quarks have always been driven harder than their AA-2 brethren and therefore probably run a bit hotter as well.

My thinking is as follows: since the 123-2 X can run for an hour+ at 400 lumens, the primary reason for the AA-2 X's step down to 300 lumens is for decent runtime and less so for thermal protection. Wrong?


----------



## dannstrait (Feb 15, 2012)

dannstrait said:


> lol. yea I suppose I didn't think it through since the 123-2 Quarks have always been driven harder than their AA-2 brethren and therefore probably run a bit hotter as well.
> 
> My thinking is as follows: since the 123-2 X can run for an hour+ at 400 lumens, the primary reason for the AA-2 X's step down to 300 lumens is for decent runtime and less so for thermal protection. Wrong?



Nevermind, literally all my questions have been answered thanks to HKJ and the search function 

Both X models seem to stabilize at similar temperatures at their respective Turbo output levels. Interestingly, the 123-2 X runs at about the same temperature (if not slightly cooler) as the AA-2 X according to HKJ's testing.


----------



## bfksc (Feb 24, 2012)

[h=2]


> 4Sevens Quark AA-2 X and 123-2 X Review (XM-L): RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS and more!


[/h]After reading this thread, I've decided to join the CR123 battery club. I used to use only AA-based lights since I have plenty of Eneloops/Duraloops, but after reading of the brightness of the Quark X 123x2 I can't resist any longer and I ordered one in Neutral White tint. I'll be using rechargeable cells, but I have a question regarding brightness levels using RCR123 x2 or a single 17670 - after the light steps down from full brightness after 3mins, is the single 17670 just as bright as the RCR123 x2?


----------



## selfbuilt (Feb 24, 2012)

bfksc said:


> after the light steps down from full brightness after 3mins, is the single 17670 just as bright as the RCR123 x2?


Not quite (or at least, not on my sample). 1x17670 stepped down to a level that was maybe ~10% lower than 2xRCR or 2xCR123A after step-down. Not a huge difference, and certainly not one you will be able to tell by eye (just something the lightbox picks up on).


----------



## bfksc (Feb 25, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> Not quite (or at least, not on my sample). 1x17670 stepped down to a level that was maybe ~10% lower than 2xRCR or 2xCR123A after step-down. Not a huge difference, and certainly not one you will be able to tell by eye (just something the lightbox picks up on).


Thanks for that info, and thanks for the reviews. Your reviews are why I've bought four Quarks now (the 123x2 will be here next week), and moved to Neutral White versions. Like others, I used to think MagLites were good until I got my hands on one of these Quarks.


----------



## HIDblue (Mar 3, 2012)

Ended up picking up a Quark X 123^2 Tactical version based upon selfbuilt's review. Great floody beam, albeit with a greenish tint :sick2:. The thing that surprises me most is how small, thin and compact this Quark X light actually is. I've always been carrying 1x123 lights primarily based on size, but I've been switching over to 2x123 lights for increased run times. I added 4Sevens' deep carry pocket clip which makes this Quark X basically disappear in the back pocket. Surprisingly, the Quark X is not much larger than my Jetbeam RRT-0.

Great review and great little pocket light.


----------



## DIΩDΣ (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for the review Selfbuilt. Very impressed with the Quark 'X'. I decided to pull the trigger on an AA2 X neutral, was on sale + discount from the 4sevens site. Crossing my fingers on the tint. Seems like the brightest/most efficient 2xAA on high, and my ZL H51 is about the brightest/most efficient single AA, so should pair well I think.


----------



## tlam (Apr 6, 2012)

Thanks for all of the excellent data Selfbuilt. I recently ordered the AA^2 X neutral white as well ( plus an AA body ) , had it for a day now and I am digging it.


----------



## arsenic (Jun 30, 2012)

*What about a little change for the non-tactical users out there!?*

* I* want my quark without the blinky modes, maybe just one like beacon or strobe and only one of either.
*I* am an urban explorer and use it at work and it is really bothersome in both of these scenarios because it often alerts someone to my presence more quickly and angers fellow co-workers and one swore to me if it happened again he was going to fake an epileptic seizure due to the light
*A* bit of satire here however it's true.
*I* just ordered another quark, I purchased the newly branded 4Sevens Quark Pro XM-L 2AA Model and am looking forward to it very much as I have one other four sevens light and it is of great quality, both in build and function. These lights are a virtual godsend from what people were bound to in the way of mobile lighting solutions.
*A*nd a good scenario, so a separate model offerings would not have to be coined for such a change is leaving the Tatical to no tail-stand and all blinkys with the Pro only having one blinky mode(like it is loose=all mode and tightened bezel max and SOS) and the ability to tail-stand, so basically just removing all but SOS from the Pro model line of quarks and I do believe I would be in complete heaven and it would help market the non-gun attached lights and still give people the feeling and usability for a distress signal in case of emergencies. 
*P*lease let me know your thoughts and how I would go about suggesting this to 4sevens. Thanks and have a good one. I do love this place for quick, true, and honest evaluations of multiple products and power options to make these bright things we love blast light for long periods of times!
lovecpf


----------



## Woods Walker (Oct 24, 2012)

Woods Walker said:


> Great review. For a short time on turbo those lights are spooky bright.



LOL! Forgot that I read this review. Just placed an order for one a little over a year later. Thanks again for taking the time to post this selfbuilt


----------



## Mr. Shawn (Oct 26, 2012)

I just got my first Quark, an AA-2 X Regular UI, and I love it, especially since it was such a great price from the Going Gear clearance sale.

I've been eager to try out the moonlight mode after hearing all its awesome feedback here. However, moonlight mode is not as low as I was expecting. My lowest-level light is a NiteCore EX10 GDP, rated at ~ 3 lumens, and the Quark's moonlight mode at .3 lumens is only slightly dimmer. I'm not sure if the only-slight difference is due to the logarithmic scale of how our eyes process light, or that my Quark's moonlight is as low as it should be, or something else.

selfbuilt, do you still have your EX10 GDP from your review? http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...s-D10-amp-EX10-Reviews-BEAMSHOTS-RUNTIMES-etc If so, can you compare for me please?

Thank you for another incredible review!


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 26, 2012)

Mr. Shawn said:


> I just got my first Quark, an AA-2 X Regular UI, and I love it, especially since it was such a great price from the Going Gear clearance sale.
> I've been eager to try out the moonlight mode after hearing all its awesome feedback here. However, moonlight mode is not as low as I was expecting. My lowest-level light is a NiteCore EX10 GDP, rated at ~ 3 lumens, and the Quark's moonlight mode at .3 lumens is only slightly dimmer. I'm not sure if the only-slight difference is due to the logarithmic scale of how our eyes process light, or that my Quark's moonlight is as low as it should be, or something else.


The Nitecore specs have never been very accurate for the lowest levels - I've generally found much lower output levels than they claim.

In the case of my EX10-GDP, I would estimate the lowest output of my sample at just under 0.3 lumens. My Quark AA-2-X estimate is just under 0.1 lumens. Taking into account the normal variability from one sample to the next, I'm not surprised you don't see much of a difference. The Foursevems lights have the more believable specs.


----------



## Woods Walker (Oct 26, 2012)

Mr. Shawn said:


> I just got my first Quark, an AA-2 X Regular UI, and I love it, especially since it was such a great price from the Going Gear clearance sale.
> 
> I've been eager to try out the moonlight mode after hearing all its awesome feedback here. However, moonlight mode is not as low as I was expecting. My lowest-level light is a NiteCore EX10 GDP, rated at ~ 3 lumens, and the Quark's moonlight mode at .3 lumens is only slightly dimmer. I'm not sure if the only-slight difference is due to the logarithmic scale of how our eyes process light, or that my Quark's moonlight is as low as it should be, or something else.
> 
> ...



I also got the same deal and should have the light in a day or so. Maybe in time for the big "Frankenstorm"? Moonlight mode for a week of no power? Hope not.  In any case how was the tint on your light?


----------



## Mr. Shawn (Oct 26, 2012)

selfbuilt said:


> The Nitecore specs have never been very accurate for the lowest levels - I've generally found much lower output levels than they claim.
> 
> In the case of my EX10-GDP, I would estimate the lowest output of my sample at just under 0.3 lumens. My Quark AA-2-X estimate is just under 0.1 lumens. Taking into account the normal variability from one sample to the next, I'm not surprised you don't see much of a difference. The Foursevems lights have the more believable specs.



selfbuilt, I totally appreciate your prompt reply and the sharing of your experience. Based on your observations, of which I have the utmost respect, it looks like I need a light with a lower low to satisfy my moonlight-madness yearning!



Woods Walker said:


> I also got the same deal and should have the light in a day or so. Maybe in time for the big "Frankenstorm"? Moonlight mode for a week of no power? Hope not.  In any case how was the tint on your light?



I'm wishing you the best in any potential inclement weather! About my Quark XML's tint, another CPF friend contacted me about it, and I shared that it might have a hint of green in the hot spot's corona, but that's all the green I can see. If it wasn't for the CPF feedback I read about the green tint, I never would have noticed the hint of it in mine. Of course, it's a gamble, but considering how nice a deal this is from GG, and the stellar service that GG and Marshall provide, I personally would not be concerned about the tint if I ordered another clearance Quark, regardless of the outcome. Please let me know what you decide.


----------



## Woods Walker (Oct 27, 2012)

Shawn.

I just got my 2AA X today. Just in time for "Frankenstorm". Nice flashlight with centered LED and no chips off the anodizing etc. Yup the center of the beam does have a hint of green but the rest is white. Almost like the hot spot and spill are from two different lights. The net effect is I didn't win the tint lottery but not unhappy either. I liked the sub one lumen low and the brightness compared to my older L2D-Q5 is a big increase.


----------



## biglights (Oct 27, 2012)

Nice light, with lots of usable levels. A steal at the price they are going for now.


----------



## Mr. Shawn (Oct 27, 2012)

Woods Walker said:


> Shawn.
> 
> I just got my 2AA X today. Just in time for "Frankenstorm". Nice flashlight with centered LED and no chips off the anodizing etc. Yup the center of the beam does have a hint of green but the rest is white. Almost like the hot spot and spill are from two different lights. The net effect is I didn't win the tint lottery but not unhappy either. I liked the sub one lumen low and the brightness compared to my older L2D-Q5 is a big increase.



Woods Walker, thank you for the update. For my EDC purposes (walking around home with all lights off, taking the trash out, lighting up houses across the street , etc.), the green tint is not an issue since I only notice it when hunting those ever-elusive white walls. Enjoy your new tool/toy!


----------



## Jason96 (Nov 5, 2012)

I just ordered a quark x aa2 based on this review!
Thanks.


----------



## SuLyMaN (Nov 16, 2012)

You will not regret it my friend. Great purchase. 
Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ponkan (Nov 17, 2012)

[/IMG]


Foursevens quark "X" 123-2 is quite a beauty. Here is a comparison with my other edc (ish for the fenix e-50) flashlights 


Your images are too large and have been replaced with links Please resize and repost.
See Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels. - Thanks Norm


----------



## trailblazer295 (Mar 6, 2013)

I bought a Quark X AA-2 Regular last year for use at work and have been looking for a slightly smaller EDC light I can put in my pocket. I've been looking at the x 123-2 regular and reading your reviews is very informative. If 47s made a smaller keychain light I'd be ordering both but so far the Fenix LD01 seems to fit the bill. I didn't notice a full review on your site. Do you have any experience with the LD01?


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 7, 2013)

trailblazer295 said:


> If 47s made a smaller keychain light I'd be ordering both but so far the Fenix LD01 seems to fit the bill. I didn't notice a full review on your site. Do you have any experience with the LD01?


Foursevens has made a number of keychain lights - the Preon P1, Preon ReVo and Preon P0 (see my main flashlight list in my signature for links to reviews of each model). Only the Preon P1 and Preon P0 are still available for sale.


----------



## trailblazer295 (Mar 7, 2013)

Do they have a place for a split key ring? The site doesn't mention it nor does the picture indicate. I've looked at them several times but couldn't determine if they could be attached to keychains. Appeared to be a small shirt pocket light.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 7, 2013)

trailblazer295 said:


> Do they have a place for a split key ring? The site doesn't mention it nor does the picture indicate. I've looked at them several times but couldn't determine if they could be attached to keychains. Appeared to be a small shirt pocket light.


Yes, the P0 has a split ring included, and the P1 comes with both a pocket clip and a split-ring attachment (you can swap between them).


----------



## Force 10 (Mar 19, 2013)

Thanks Selfbuilt for a great review. From you review I ended picking up a Quark Pro QP2A, I think that this the successor to the AA2. I love my light. It really meets my needs and fits into my home standardization with AA batteries.


----------



## texasPI (Mar 21, 2013)

Force 10 said:


> Thanks Selfbuilt for a great review. From you review I ended picking up a Quark Pro QP2A, I think that this the successor to the AA2. I love my light. It really meets my needs and fits into my home standardization with AA batteries.



I'm looking to buy my first light and I'm considering a Quark. What are the differences between the QP2A-X and QT2A-X? Just the tail cap switch?


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 21, 2013)

texasPI said:


> I'm looking to buy my first light and I'm considering a Quark. What are the differences between the QP2A-X and QT2A-X? Just the tail cap switch?


Note, the interface is different too. The QPA2 uses the regular ("pro") interface of having all modes available in each head state (starting at the lowest, without memory), while the QTA2 has the tactical interface, where you program the light to one mode for each state (from all the options available). The Foursevens website should explain it in some detail somewhere.


----------



## reppans (Mar 22, 2013)

Mr. Shawn said:


> I've been eager to try out the moonlight mode after hearing all its awesome feedback here. However, moonlight mode is not as low as I was expecting. My lowest-level light is a NiteCore EX10 GDP, rated at ~ 3 lumens, and the Quark's moonlight mode at .3 lumens is only slightly dimmer. I'm not sure if the only-slight difference is due to the logarithmic scale of how our eyes process light, or that my Quark's moonlight is as low as it should be, or something else.





selfbuilt said:


> .....My Quark AA-2-X estimate is just under 0.1 lumens. Taking into account the normal variability from one sample to the next...



I just came across these posts. 

I too find the Quark X's 0.3 moonlight mode to be one of the brightest sub-lumen modes out there (and I'm a sub-lumen collector), however, in my case, it's actually become my all time favorite mode level. With the floody XML beam and night-adapted eyes, for me, it strikes just the right balance between crazy long runtimes (~200hrs/AA?), and enough illumination for comfortable reading and close task work so I don't need to kick it up a level. Saves my night vision and batteries for off-grid camping.

So my question is this... Selfbuilt, you have also estimated the ZL SC52's brightest moonlight level at 0.10 lumens (spec'd at 0.34, about the same as the QAA2-X), do you consider these two moonlight levels to be equal with your samples?


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 22, 2013)

reppans said:


> So my question is this... Selfbuilt, you have also estimated the ZL SC52's brightest moonlight level at 0.10 lumens (spec'd at 0.34, about the same as the QAA2-X), do you consider these two moonlight levels to be equal with your samples?


They are close - subjectively, I find my QAA2-X moonlight to be slightly brighter thant my SC52's 0.1 lumen mode (although tint differences may be playing a role there). Either one is a certainly a good choice for dark-adapted eyes.


----------



## reppans (Mar 22, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> They are close - subjectively, I find my QAA2-X moonlight to be slightly brighter thant my SC52's 0.1 lumen mode (although tint differences may be playing a role there). Either one is a certainly a good choice for dark-adapted eyes.



Hmmm, interesting - there's big difference to my eyes, but I guess it just must be sample variation, or perhaps my SC52 is defective.

Here's a pix of some of my 1xAA sub-lumen lights, top half on moonlight (bottom is something around 100-120 lms):







From left to right, I've measured them to be:

0.33 - QAAX 
0.17 - QAA S2 
0.11 - TN T10
<0.10? - SC52 (0.10 is as low as I can meter)
0.33 - QAAX NW
0.33 - ET D25A X-NW
0.25 - H51w

My meter, a DSLR, was calibrated from the D25 at 122 lms, and measurements taken from ambient bounced light. All of the hotspots, except the SC52, are overexposed, so just focus on the spill which is straight emitter illumination. If I stop it down further to better expose the other hotspots, the spill on the SC52 disappears.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 22, 2013)

reppans said:


> Hmmm, interesting - there's big difference to my eyes, but I guess it just must be sample variation, or perhaps my SC52 is defective.


Thanks for the pics - I agree there a big difference there. But it is likely just sample-to-sample variation (both ways, potentially) in comparison to mine. When I've had multiple samples of the same light in the past, I've noticed considerable difference between individual moonlights levels.


----------



## texasPI (Mar 24, 2013)

Thanks. I finally found the info. in their FAQs.



selfbuilt said:


> Note, the interface is different too. The QPA2 uses the regular ("pro") interface of having all modes available in each head state (starting at the lowest, without memory), while the QTA2 has the tactical interface, where you program the light to one mode for each state (from all the options available). The Foursevens website should explain it in some detail somewhere.


----------



## vianocka (Mar 29, 2013)

Well, this is test and pics are surprisingly kicking the ***. I only read few reviews in my coutry websites, but they did not come out as well as this one. Anyway, thanks for the review. And ofc the pics!!


----------



## Spypro (Apr 3, 2013)

I finally received my QP2A-X XML2 today. I played with it a little tonight and here is what I like and dislike: 
BRIGHT, on turbo it is the brightest 2xAA I own, not too long for edc (my opinion), it feels solid, emitter centred, there is a tiny pre-flash when turning the flashlight on moon mode, switch is a little stiff but I can live with that, the tint is perfect, creamy white.. I was afraid of getting something greenish, tail standing is perfect, I don't like disco modes standing in the way but I had a Fenix P3D for some years so I can make compromises. That's all for the moment !


----------



## LuxClark (Apr 6, 2013)

Selfbuilt.. first.. Great reviews! They are enormously informative.

I am curious about your reference to this light in you Recommendations page on your site. You have this under 18650 operating flashlights but this doesn't really take them (Though I thought I read somewhere they've had limited release of ones using 18650's). Is that reference and error or am I misunderstanding something? :duh2:


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 6, 2013)

LuxClark said:


> You have this under 18650 operating flashlights but this doesn't really take them (Though I thought I read somewhere they've had limited release of ones using 18650's). Is that reference and error or am I misunderstanding something? :duh2:


Yes, that's true - the Q123-2-X (now QPL2-X) does not take 18650. I included it in that general category (which I think of more as 1x18650 and 2xCR123A/RCR), but you are indeed limited to 17670 in the 1x Li-ion form.


----------

