# 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-2, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS, etc



## selfbuilt

_*Reviewer's Note: *This is a round-up review of all of the initial Quark lights - Regular version Quark AA, AA-2, 123, 123-2. Quark lights were supplied by 4Sevens of 4Sevens.com_. For those of you also in Canada, these are now available locally through 4Sevens.ca. 

_*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* My original Q123-2 appeared to be defective on 2xRCR (i.e. abnormally high output and short runtime). 4Sevens has sent me a replacement head unit for testing, and the results are in keeping with expected performance. Review has been updated accordingly._

*Warning: Even more pic heavy than usual!* 











The Quark lights are the first offering designed in-house by the well-known CPF dealer 4Sevens. Since the interface is common to all members of the Quark Regular series, I am reviewing them all in one massive round-up review thread. :sweat: 

Time to check under the hood and see how these Quark lights are built, and how they perform relative to the competition. 





(from left to right: 4Sevens CR123A, Duracell AA, Q123, QAA, Q123-3, QAA-2)

*Common specs, taken from product insert:*
Cree XP-E R2 LED, guaranteed to be perfectly centered
Modes: Regular has 8 output modes (2 with tightened bezel, 6 with loosened bezel). Tactical will also come in 8 possible output levels, but in a single programmable mode for each bezel state.
Regular has a reverse clicky switch, recessed to allow tailstanding. Tactical versions with have a protruding forward clicky
Regular comes on Moonlight (bezel loosened) or Turbo (bezel tightened) with no mode memory. 
Circuits are digitally regulated by a microprocessor.
Specially coated lens to reduce reflective losses, orange-peel aluminium reflector for smooth beam.
Generous knurling to enhance grip.
Integrated clip that is reversible and removable (except for Q123 where it is permanently mounted, although you have the option to buy one without it).
Watertight to IPX-8 waterproof standard.
Aircraft aluminum, grade 6061, hard-coat anodized
Square-cut threads to ensure consistent use over lifetime
*Battery configurations are as follows:*
*Quark 123:* Uses 1 x CR123A / RCR123A battery (0.9V~4.2V)
*Quark AA:* Uses 1 x AA alkaline / NiMH rechargeable / 3.7V 14500 battery (0.9V~4.2V)
*Quark 123-2:* Uses 2 x CR123A/RCR123A batteries / 1 x 17670 battery (3.0~9.0V)
*Quark AA-2:* Uses 2 x AA alkaline / NiMH Rechargeable batteries (0.9V~4.2V)

*Reported OTF (out-the-front) lumen outputs for constant output modes:*
Moonlight: 0.2 lm
Lo: 3.5 lm
Med: 18 lm
High: 70 lm
Turbo: 170 lm (with exceptions: 190 lm for Q123-2, 90 lm for QAA on 1xAlkaline/NiMH)

*Weight/dimensions:* (actually measured by moi :kiss
Q123: Weight 39.9g, Length 82.5mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
QAA: Weight 46.5g, Length 95.8mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
Q123-2: Weight 47.2g, Length 113.2mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
QAA-2: Weight 60.7g, Length 147.0mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm






Shown above is the packaging for the Quark 123-2, but the others are similar (except for a simpler finger-grip on the single-cell lights). Included with all lights is a good quality wrist lanyard, extra o-rings, good quality belt holster, finger/hand-grip, primary battery (Duracell alkaline or 4Sevens CR123A) and manual. 

Here’s a close-up view of the main accessories:





All in all, a very nice package with a lot of goodies.  

Here’s how the Q123-2 looks disassembled:






Note that the heads, tailcaps and body tubes are physically interchangeable among the four models. The Q123-2 uses a different circuit from the rest, but the Q123/QAA/QAA-2 versions use the same circuit (i.e. you could switch tubes between those models for different battery performance).

On the Q123-2/QAA/QAA-2 lights, there is a removable single-direction clip attached to either the tail or head region of the battery tube, depending on the model. *One unusual twist here – the head and tailcaps are reversible on the battery tube of each individual light.* oo: This is the first time I’ve seen this. It means you can “reverse” the direction of the clip by simply exchanging the head and tail regions. Here’s what I mean:










Note that I haven’t moved the clip in the pics above – just exchanged the head and tail. The light works properly in both orientations. This is an interesting (and novel) solution to problem of providing a bi-directional clip. It also explains why the tailcap threads are not anodized on the body to allow tailcap lockout (a feature I personally value) - this would prevent the ability to swap tail/head pieces. 

The clip is secured in place by its own cover/grip ring, just like on the new Olight Infinitum lights (i.e. unscrew the ring to remove the clip, screw back down to cover the gap where the clip attaches). 

Overall, I quite like this approach, as it allows you the freedom to position the clip as you prefer, and also allows easy removal of the clip without leaving a gap.  The exception is the single-cell Q123 model:






The Q123 differs in that the clip is permanently embedded inside the head (shown above). You can request a clip-less version when you check-out on the 4Sevens site. Personally, I find the clip gets in the way when changing batteries on the Q123, but YMMV. :shrug:






All lights use a standard reverse clicky, with a slightly stiffer feel than typical (note the embossed 4-7 logo on the button cover ). The lights can tailstand on these Regular series Quarks - the soon to be released Tactical versions will have a protruding forward clicky.






Note the similarity of the circuit board in the head to the current Fenix lights (i.e. you can see the reverse polarity detector). I believe 4Sevens is using the same circuit designer as Fenix, but don’t have any specific details. Note the overall dimensional similarity to Fenix and Olight.










The reflectors are what I would describe as medium orange peel, and are identical for all four models. 4Sevens uses a proprietary process to insure the LED is perfectly centered each time. :thumbsup:

*Beamshots are provided with the individual light comparisons (below), to show you how the Quarks compare to other members of their respective classes.* 

As you will see when you scroll down, the most obvious beam characteristic is that the Quarks have a very broad beam compared to other lights. The maximum spillbeam width is one of the largest I’ve seen – at least as wide as the Lumapower Incendio/Connexion/Encore series lights. oo:

But for all that you still get very good throw with no rings and few artifacts. This seems to be the new norm for XP-E lights - you get a fairly narrow but still well-defined hotspot, with a smooth transition through the corona to the wide spillbeam (i.e. sort of a hybrid between a typical Cree XR-E and a SSC emitter). Clearly a good job on the Quark reflectors.

*Build Quality*

Overall build quality is very high – I would rate these lights right up there with Fenix, Olight, JetBeam and EagleTac. I realize individual members will have their personal preferences among those makers, but there are elements of all of the above in the Quark lights. I will discuss this in more detail in my preliminary conclusions at the end of the review. The only thing really missing is a tailcap lock-out.

Anodizing is type III (hard anodized), and lettering is fairly sharp and clear. Overall fit and finish is very good on all samples, although I did notice some fine cylindical scratches at the base of the QAA head and on the tailcap of the Q123 upon arrival. I suspect these were caused during assembly (i.e. as you screw the head/tail on, it rubs the clip against the smooth portion of the other end).

Battery tubes are wide enough to accommodate protected cells, although the Q123-2 can just barely take my protected AW 17670 cell (18650 won’t fit).

*Features and User Interface*

The Quark interface on the Regular series lights will seem very familiar to users of Fenix Lx/PxD and LDx0/PDx0 series lights. It’s basically exactly the same, with the addition of an extra “Moonlight” low output and beacon flash in the bezel loosened state.

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, measured at a “tactical” (and nauseating :green 12.5Hz in my testing. 

If you turn the light off-on within ~3 secs, you will advance to the next mode (i.e. acts as a soft-press). Otherwise, 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. The exception is if you switch from one bezel state to the other without turning off the light - there is short-term memory to that retain what mode you were in if you switch back to the first bezel state (erased if you turn off the light),

*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.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1 meter from the lens, using a light meter.

*4Sevens CR123A Batteries:*

Included with each light is an appropriate primary battery. For CR123A lights, 4Sevens has included their own branded CR123A. They have just begun selling these through their online store (made in China cells, to 4Sevens’ specifications).

In my battery testing, I have found that Duracell, Surefire and Panasonic have identical performance, which is just slightly higher than other made-in-the-USA brands such as Energizer, Rayovac, and Battery Station. Titanium Innovations (made-in-China) typically do as well (and sometimes better) than the USA brands in term of capcity. Tenergy (made-in-China) do noticeably worse.






Not too shabby for these new 4Sevens cells … remarkably similar performance to the Duracells. 

_*UPDATE June 26, 2009:* I have done a little more testing on the 4Sevens CR123A batteries in other flashlights, and the results are interesting. I've posted this analysis in its own mini-review in the batteries sub-forum: CR123A Comparison Review: 4Sevens, Titanium Innovations, Tenergy, Surefire, Duracell ._

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

To allow you to better compare to the competition, I have decided to give detailed Throw/Output Summary Charts for each light individually (see individual comparisons below). 

But to tide you over , here’s a chart showing the common output levels as measured by my lightbox. There are a couple of exceptions to the Turbo mode output (i.e. Q123-2 and QAA), and these are identified on the right with specific batteries listed. Otherwise, all lights have the same relative output levels shown on the left-side the chart below.






A very nice relative spacing of levels, IMO. :thumbsup: And I quite like the consistency across models. 

--------------------------------------

*Quark 123 Comparison*





From left to right, 4Sevens CR123A, Quark 123, Fenix P2D, Olight T10, Nitecore EX10, LiteFlux LF3XT, Novatac 120P 






















*Beamshot Comparison*

All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 1xRCR AW Protected.

*Exp 1/25 sec, f2.7*





*Exp 1/100 sec, f2.7*





*Exp 1/800 sec, f2.7*





*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*










*Output/Runtime Comparison:*























--------------------------------------

*Quark AA Comparison*





From left to right, Duracell AA, Quark AA, Fenix LD10, Olight I15, NiteCore Defender Infinity, NiteCore D10, LiteFlux LF5XT






















*Beamshot Comparison*

All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 1xEneloop NiMH.
















*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*










*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

































--------------------------------------

*Quark 123-2 Comparison*





From left to right, 4Sevens CR123A, AW Protected 18650, Quark 123-2, Olight I20, JetBeam Jet-III PRO ST, Lumapower Encore, JetBeam Jet-III M, Olight M20


























*Beamshot Comparison*

All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 1x17670/18650 AW Protected.



























*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*










_*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* Note the 2xRCR results have been revised, due to a replacement sample that was received for further testing. Scroll down to the runtime charts for more updated info._

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

Note that the Quark 123-2 runs are on 17670, compared to 14670 on the Olight I20 and T20, and 18650 on the rest of the competition.
























_*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* The replacement Q123-2 head now shows the expected performance on 2xRCR - the Max output graphs above have been adjusted with the new data for RCR, 17670, and primary CR123A. Below is a graph comparing the original Q123-2 with the replacement:_






--------------------------------------

*Quark AA-2 Comparison*





From left to right, Duracell AA, Quark AA-2, Fenix L2D, Olight I25, NiteCore D20, EagleTac P100A2, Lumapower X2 2AA.






















*Beamshot Comparison*

All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 2xEneloop.

*Exp 1/25 sec, f2.7*









*Exp 1/100 sec, f2.7*








*Exp 1/800 sec, f2.7*








*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






*Output/Runtime Comparison:*




















----------------------------------

*Output/Runtime Pattern*

Obviously, there is a lot of data to sort through up there. :sweat: But to give you the short version, the performance of these Quark lights is generally excellent across outputs and models (in keeping with their Fenix “circuit heritage”). I have noticed a few general trends:


My various samples appear to perform the best when run on 1x3.7V Li-ion configurations (i.e. 1xRCR, 1x14500, 1x17670). The various samples consistently matched or outperformed their competitors on this input source, especially on the lower output levels. :thumbsup:
I haven’t done Lo or Moonlight runtimes because of the length of time they would take, but I would expect similar class-leading performance.
Performance on 2xAA (NiMH or alkaline) seems a little lower than I would have expected (especially on higher outputs). I don’t think this is a one-off issue of my QAA-2, as I tested the QAA head on the 2xAA body and got similar performance. Of course, no one recommends you run alkalines on Max on heavily-driven modern lights … but if you really want to, you may be better off sticking with actual Fenix lights. 
My original Q123-2 sample was defective on 2xRCR (i.e. output was higher than expected, unit got hot very quickly, and the batteries drained way too rapidly at a >3C discharge rate). The replacement head received from 4Sevens (shown above) has the expected performance on all batteries. 
The 4Sevens-branded cells typically did as well as my Duracell or Titanium Innovations CR123 cells on Max output.

*Potential Issues*

Tail screw threads are not anodized, so tailcap lock-out is not possible.

All my samples had a noticeable odor emanating from the o-ring area when unscrewing the head/tailcaps. I suspect this is an interaction of the lube and o-rings (reminds me of the smell caused by the outgassing of plasticizers in sealed inexpensive plastic packaging). Should be harmless, and the o-rings don’t seem to be any the worse for wear so far.

Like the early Q5 Fenix circuits, my Quark samples all suffer from a brief "pre-flash" of momentary higher brightness when activating in the Moonlight mode. It is less severe than the earlier Fenixes, but may still be annoying for some.

_*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* My original Q123-2 was defective on 2xRCR, with abnormally high output and short runtime on this battery source only. The replacement sample performs as expected on all batteries. _

*Preliminary Observations*

The Quarks are a first-rate example of the principle that Dr. Frankestein would have done well to heed – always do your homework on what parts to include before you stitch everything together. 

In large measure, the Quarks really do show the successful combination of the most popular features of a wide range of lights. Take the excellent output/runtime efficiency and popular user interface of the Fenix, add a few extra modes including an ultra-low like that found on LiteFlux, go for the mix-and-match body part lego of Fenix/Olight, add generous EagleTac knurling, a removable clip a la Olight, and JetBeam’s square-cut screw threads, and presto: out pops the Quark. [insert missing :magicwand: tag] 

But the Quarks are not merely the sum of other people’s parts – there are a few innovations here too. Nice touches include the perfectly centered LEDs (finally!) and the additional rubber finger/hand grips. But most interesting is the reversible battery tube, allowing you to effectively point the clip in either direction, as you prefer. This is quite an elegant solution to problem of building a good bi-directional clip. 

But there is a flip-side – no tailcap lock-out, since body screw thread anodizing would interfere with the bezel twist UI. However, a layer of anodizing on the screw threads in the tailcap could work to restore this feature. While not as full-proof as dual anodizing of both the body and tailcap screw threads, this would be better than nothing. 

A very impressive first offering - I am sure these will be very competitive here at CPF. I haven't seen the Tactical versions yet, but with just a few minor tweaks to the current build, I think these have the potential to be outstanding lights. 

I don’t generally discuss value-for-money in my reviews, since I think that is a very personal decision best left to the individual and his/her wallet. But I have to say that the Quarks make a very compelling argument at their price point. 

Looking forward to seeing what they come up with next. 

P.S.: I will be adding the Quark testing results to my various Round-up Reviews over the next few days.


----------



## AbnInfantry

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Excellent review; thank you very much. :thumbsup: I'm trying to decide between getting a Quark AA and a Jetbeam Jet-I v3 and have been waiting to read your reviews of these lights.


----------



## LED_Thrift

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

What amazingly complete, outstanding reviews you do Selfbuilt! CPF wouldn't be nearly as good without you. Your work is superb.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Amazing review! 

The 2AA model is pretty tempting!


----------



## qip

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

 very nice , i wonder if 2aa in medium rated for 24hrs could get 60+


----------



## Toohotruk

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

WOW!






Great review(s)!!! :thumbsup:


I know how I feel about my Quark, but it's good to get confirmation from the best reviewer around! :twothumbs


----------



## AFAustin

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks again, selfbuilt, for your always superb work. :bow:

While I know you have the format of your reviews down to a well-organized science, that is still a lot of lights and a lot of work......:thanks:


----------



## Burgess

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Wow ! ! !



Such an *Awesome collection of data*, SelfBuilt !



Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and dedication.


:goodjob::kewlpics::thanks:

_


----------



## Toohotruk

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

As incredibly awesome as your review is, I did find one error upon rereading it...the Quarks have "short-term" memory, rather than none at all, as you stated. Switch one on in general mode (head loosened), then click to a higher level than Moonlight (say, high, or even Beacon), then twist the head to Max. Now twist it back to general mode, _without _turning the light off and see what happens.


----------



## LA OZ

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks again selfbuilt
. One question - do you eat and sleep? I am sure half of your bed room is stuffed with flashlights and its accessories.


----------



## nanotech17

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

you've got the patience & you've got the time - plenty of oil you have burned during night time


----------



## defloyd77

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks for your reviews! I'm really suprised by the 2AA's performance when especially when compared to the P100A2.


----------



## jgraham15

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks for another awesome review selfbuilt!!!! :twothumbs

I can't wait for you to get the tactical Quarks to review! :naughty:


----------



## Palor

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Wow,

what a nice review! :thumbsup:
I have ordered the Quark 2AA version before I read this review.
From your conclusion I think I did the right thing to order the lamp.

Nevertheless I am quite new to this forum and so I am not familiar with all the measurements.
Throw Max is clear for me. 
Lightbox min and Lightbox max are a little bit unclear. :thinking:
And what is the ceiling bounce good for? :sigh:

Thanks,

Palor


----------



## choaticwhisper

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks Selfbuilt, Now this is the review I've been waiting for.
The runtime for the Q123x2 on 2xRCR123 is really kinda disapionting, but expected.
But from the looks of the Q123x2 head runs pretty good on a single 17670 battery? I thought the 1x123 head would have been better suited? Any chance you tested the 1x123 head on the 2x123 body with the 17670 battery?
Since the 17670 is rated at 1600mah running it in a 1xbattery head, You think the runtime would be roughly double the runtime of the light you tested on the 14500 rated at 750mah?


----------



## DM51

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

A very important and eagerly awaited review - many thanks!

It really does look as if a lot of thought has gone into these, and there has been intense interest in a number of threads here and in the MP. The result seems excellent, and the range covers most people's tastes in power supply vs. size. 

Given the choice between reversible clip and lock-out tailcap, I (personally) would prefer the lock-out tailcap every time, but YMMV. Perhaps the thread anodisation that would be needed for this is something 4sevens will consider as an option for future runs.

Moving to the Reviews section.


----------



## wild68fury

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Did you have any problems with the RCR's fitting in the 123x2?


----------



## Julian Holtz

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Wonderful review, thanks!

I can hardly wait to get my neutral versions. :duh2:


----------



## frosty

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Another great review. 

The part that caught my attention was the 123-2 running on 2 *RCR123's. A 17 minute runtime!!!!!!!

And yet it's nearly 2 hours on CR123's.


----------



## dudu84

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

I've been eagerly waiting for your excellent reviews before making a decision on the quark (I don't think I'll ever again buy any newly released lights without reading your reviews first), Thanks very much for your work, Selfbuilt :twothumbs

I agree with Chaoticwhisper, assuming 123^2 has the same brightness as 123 head on Hi, Med, Lo and Moonlight mode, for me the best combination would be a 123 head on a 123^2 body and run with 17670. That way I can have a flat regulation on turbo, the 20 lumens difference between these 2 circuits will be less after the first 45' or so. At the same time, we can achieve ~ twice the runtime with 17670 compared to 1xcr123a. 

IMO, a AA Quark with an additional 123^2 body will be a pretty perfect light as both rechargeable (without sacrificing runtime as with 16340) or primaries (AA size) options are available.


----------



## BigBluefish

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks for another great review, selfbuilt!

I've got a Tactical warm-tint 1 x CR123a on pre-order, and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. Perhaps, with the forward clicky of the Tactical, 4Sevens will see fit to anodize at least one end of the body tube, to allow tailcap lockout. On a reverse clicky, I don't see it as such a big deal. On a forward clicky, lockout would be greatly desired.


----------



## Badbeams3

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

I`ll add another heap of praise. Great job Selfbuilt!

I`ll have to reread a few more times to get the full picture but as you pointed out these seem optimized more toward LI-ion batts 

They don`t really stand out in any one area (well, maybe in the quality of the beam itself...wide spill, tight hot spot for throw, tint on the warmer side)...but they do perform well in all. 

Good value...bang for the buck light.


----------



## selfbuilt

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

Thanks for the support everyone - sorry I can't respond to you all individually, but I appreciated the :grouphug:



AFAustin said:


> While I know you have the format of your reviews down to a well-organized science, that is still a lot of lights and a lot of work......





LA OZ said:


> One question - do you eat and sleep? I am sure half of your bed room is stuffed with flashlights and its accessories.





nanotech17 said:


> you've got the patience & you've got the time - plenty of oil you have burned during night time


What can I say, the lightbox has been smokin' on this one - I've had some sort of Quark in there continuously for the last 6 days! And I think I've also set a record for my longest review length yet.  

This did indeed require a lot of burning of the midnight oil - it only works because my wife needs an extra 2 hours sleep a night. :kiss: As some members know, my runtimes are mainly automated during the day, but I do all the number crunching and writing in the evenings after my wide nods off (thank goodness for laptops ).



Toohotruk said:


> the Quarks have "short-term" memory, rather than none at all, as you stated. Switch one on in general mode (head loosened), then click to a higher level than Moonlight (say, high, or even Beacon), then twist the head to Max. Now twist it back to general mode, _without _turning the light off and see what happens.


Yes, you are quite right - I had noticed that during testing, but thought the review length was getting to be a bit much. Still, it is worth a mention, so I will slip in a reference up above.



defloyd77 said:


> Thanks for your reviews! I'm really suprised by the 2AA's performance when especially when compared to the P100A2.


Yes, I was originally bit disappointed too - but to be fair, the P100A2 is a dedicated 2AA light, with a custom circuit optimized for 2AA performance (and only two levels to boot). The Quark QAA, QAA-2, and Q123 all use the same multi-power and multi-level circuit, so it's not surprising it has to give up the gain to a dedicated one like the P100A2. 



Palor said:


> Lightbox min and Lightbox max are a little bit unclear. :thinking: And what is the ceiling bounce good for? :sigh:


"Lightbox Max" refers to the relative output reading captured in my lightbox on the light's max setting. My lightbox is based on similar principles as Doug (Quickbeam) developed for his outstanding flashlightreviews.com (lightbox instructions now available here: FR lightbox/overall output). Basically, this is a a very simple and easy way to capture the overall output of a light. Note that each lighbox is unique, so the output numbers are completely relative (i.e. why no lux/lumen estimate is given). But you can compare across lights tested in the same box. "Lightbox Min" is simply the lowest output the light can do.

"Ceiling Bounce" refers to another simple way to measure output (again on Max, in my case). These are done with the flashlight in candle-mode on the floor next to a lux light-meter (both pointing up toward the ceiling), in a small room with no windows, such as a closet or small bathroom. The measurement you get is the result of the diffuse light hitting the sensor after bouncing off the ceiling (and four walls) of the room. Again, every room is different, so you can't compare one person's ceiling bounce numbers to another - but they do give you another simple way to compare outputs across lights for a given room/light meter. 

I present both results so you can decide for yourself which you prefer to go by. Personally, I tend to trust the lightbox for low output lights like most of the lights reviewed here (the scale is a lot more sensitive at the low end). It is also far more consistent - if I do another run tomorrow, I know the results typically won't vary by more than 1-2% in output readings (whereas I could easily see up to 10-15% variation in ceiling bounce tests from day to day do to exact placement, etc.). Where the ceiling bounce has the most value for me is for really high-powered lights (like the MC-E/P7 lights, or heavy throwers). I know the lightbox tends to underestimate those, since it is too small to really integrate the beams much.



frosty said:


> The part that caught my attention was the 123-2 running on 2 *RCR123's. A 17 minute runtime!!!!!!!





choaticwhisper said:


> The runtime for the Q123x2 on 2xRCR123 is really kinda disapionting, but expected. But from the looks of the Q123x2 head runs pretty good on a single 17670 battery? I thought the 1x123 head would have been better suited? Any chance you tested the 1x123 head on the 2x123 body with the 17670 battery?
> Since the 17670 is rated at 1600mah running it in a 1xbattery head, You think the runtime would be roughly double the runtime of the light you tested on the 14500 rated at 750mah?





dudu84 said:


> I agree with Chaoticwhisper, assuming 123^2 has the same brightness as 123 head on Hi, Med, Lo and Moonlight mode, for me the best combination would be a 123 head on a 123^2 body and run with 17670.


This is an interesting idea - my only concern is that I wouldn't want someone to accidentally stick 2xCR123A/RCR into the Q123-2 body with a QAA/Q123 head and  the circuit. But you are right, this would be a good way to get the longer runtime of 1x17670 battery on the standard QAA/Q123 head. I'll try a runtime and see how it compares to Q123-2 on 17670.

Incidentally, I have confirmed that there is nothing wrong with my RCR batteries - I tried them again the Olight M20, and got over an hour of runtime before I stopped the run (still reading above 3.7V). Recharged and put back into the Q123-2, I got 17.5 mins before the protection circuits were tripped. :huh:



wild68fury said:


> Did you have any problems with the RCR's fitting in the 123x2?


They fit fine .. RCR is actually 16340 size, and even my thicker AW protected 17670 fits (although it is tight). That same 17670 wouldn't fit in my Fenix P3D, Solarforce T7, or Olight T20 or I20 (all of which take RCR fine).



DM51 said:


> Given the choice between reversible clip and lock-out tailcap, I (personally) would prefer the lock-out tailcap every time, but YMMV. Perhaps the thread anodisation that would be needed for this is something 4sevens will consider as an option for future runs.


From your lips to the other David's ear.  I agree with you - I personally store all my lights locked-out.


----------



## nanotech17

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*

i just got mine,very small for an AA cell light,very nice warm tint,very nice moon mode even on 14500


----------



## frosty

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Sharpy_swe

Wonderful review, thanks selfbuilt :twothumbs


----------



## AardvarkSagus

Excellent review here! Fantastic collection of data. I love reading all your takes on these things and you do a fantastic job with your output testing and beamshot comparisons.

I'm still working on the writeup of my samples but look for them soon.


----------



## Xak

Are the QAA with 14500 and Q123 with RCR123 the same brightness and runtimes? You did say they have the same circuit and if those batteries have the same voltage they should be the same brightness, right?


----------



## Grateful Ned

Thanks selfbuilt, superb job! A thorough and objective review with pros and cons, esp great runtime data. These lights aren't perfect but they do have some selling points.

:goodjob:

... and the 17 min 'trip' time is odd with the 123x2... I'll probably grab a 123x1 as a new EDC but it looks like I may want to wait for the next version of the 123x2 before replacing my ol' P3D.


----------



## JWP_EE

4Sevens list a 6 hour runtime for the Quark AA and 24 hours for the 2AA on medium. That is 4X longer which I had a hard time believing. The 12+ hours you got for the AA on medium sounds a lot better. 

As everyone else I thank you for all your hard work.


----------



## LightWalker

Great review!

Do you think you will be getting any of the Q3 5A warm versions to compare runtime and output with these?


----------



## ninjaboigt

Thank you so much for the review selfbuild!

you must have spent alot of hrs doing this review!

i got a question though you said this: "Performance on 2xAA (NiMH or alkaline) seems a little lower than I would have expected (especially on higher outputs). I don’t think this is a one-off issue of my QAA-2, as I tested the QAA head on the 2xAA body and got similar performance. Of course, no one recommends you run alkalines on Max on heavily-driven modern lights … but if you really want to, you may be better off sticking with actual Fenix lights. "

I plan on buying a QAA-2 tactical..and i plan to use eneloops in them...is eneloops not recommneded for this flashlight? or is it just that the output on max isnt as good as it is with 1 cr123a?

and i notice you have a TK20...is there a chance you can take a picture of the tk20 side by sides standing up on end next to the QAA-2? thank you!


----------



## wapkil

Thank you for all the information and data - excellent review. 

I took the numbers from the review to make some comparison between the Quarks. I thought it may be interesting also for others to look at it gathered if a few tables - I hope it would be ok to put them here:

EDIT: tables removed until the decision what to do with them

There was quite a lot of numbers to copy so there may be some errors here. 

(images can be clicked for the full size)



It looks like the Quarks have generally best efficiency on med (18lm) followed by hi (70lm). There are some runtimes lower than in the specification but, as discussed earlier, some of the runtimes are almost 2 times (!) higher than specified (18lm for QAA NiMH and 70lm for Q123-2 CR123).

I'm not sure how to interpret the measured output values. Is there a linear dependence between the "lightbox max" figure and the lumen output? 

It doesn't seem to work for me. When I tried to compare the "lightbox max" to the specification e.g. the Quark AA should have 170lm and 90lm for Li-Ion and NiMH (~1.9x difference) but with "lightbox max" the difference is only ~1.4x (75 and 54) :shrug:


----------



## AardvarkSagus

ninjaboigt said:


> I plan on buying a QAA-2 tactical..and i plan to use eneloops in them...is eneloops not recommneded for this flashlight? or is it just that the output on max isnt as good as it is with 1 cr123a?


I believe that what he was saying there is that strictly Alkaline Primaries are not quite the best idea to run full tilt on Max with. Eneloop LSD Ni-MH cells should be pretty good still, just a little lower output apparently.


----------



## csshih

interesting.. my runtime graphs were not as flat. how often do you take readings?

all in all.. nice review!


----------



## ninjaboigt

AardvarkSagus said:


> I believe that what he was saying there is that strictly Alkaline Primaries are not quite the best idea to run full tilt on Max with. Eneloop LSD Ni-MH cells should be pretty good still, just a little lower output apparently.


 
Thanks, thats what i was thinking also!


----------



## Woods Walker

No lock tail cap lock out is a no go for me. I lock out my lights when not used and 100% of the time in my pack as learned the hard way things tend to get turned on in my backpack. For EDC I don't lock out a light so for this I guess it is a non issue. Maybe if 4sevens makes a lock out anodized tail cap version with warm tint it would be more appealing to me. But everyone has different needs.

Great review.


----------



## lightsandknives

Excellent review Selfbuilt! Did you notice the flash of somewhat brighter light when changing modes? I though I read that there was a slight pre-flash, but not as bad as some of the older Fenix lights.


----------



## LightWalker

Woods Walker said:


> No lock tail cap lock out is a no go for me. I lock out my lights when not used and 100% of the time in my pack as learned the hard way things tend to get turned on in my backpack. For EDC I don't lock out a light so for this I guess it is a non issue. Maybe if 4sevens makes a lock out anodized tail cap version with warm tint it would be more appealing to me. But everyone has different needs.
> 
> Great review.


 The reverse clickie is pretty stiff, I think it would be ok in a backpack. Just keep the head loosend and it won't much matter if it does get turned on, for about 30 days anyway.


----------



## Sgt. LED

I'm with you, a reverse clicky that is shrouded for tailstanding probably won't come on very often in a pocket.


----------



## ninjaboigt

LightWalker said:


> The reverse clickie is pretty stiff, I think it would be ok in a backpack. Just keep the head loosend and it won't much matter if it does get turned on, for about 30 days anyway.


 
LOL good point good point.

i barely lock out my flashlights, i don thave that that many..

i do however take out the batt from my incan flashlights, i dont wanna burn anything down...

lock out isnt too important to me..


----------



## f22shift

lightsandknives said:


> Excellent review Selfbuilt! Did you notice the flash of somewhat brighter light when changing modes? I though I read that there was a slight pre-flash, but not as bad as some of the older Fenix lights.


 
it's there. there are some videos you can watch that show it. i noticed it in the youtube review of the tactical. i have a old l2d with the preflash and it never bugged me. it's something for the user to decide. 
i think it only preflashes also if previously on high or something to that effect. so if you use low alot you probably wouldnt even see it.
david did mention they knew about it and can't be designed out based on the circuit. i'll take the tradeoff for the well designed ui and good efficiency.


----------



## f22shift

regarding the non lockout. i think they wanted to retain their design of their reversible clip if i understand the design correctly. so that the head could work on either ends.
someone did suggest you could anodize the tailcap but i suppose that would eventually wear out and become a design flaw. and that's assuming if there is still a current contact at the end of the cap rather than the threads.
there is an advantage in that you can back out the tailcap a little and it'll still have a current. i guess for the ppl who have longer cells (some li ions).

solutions would be to remove the battery for travel or use a hardcase which i usually use for bookbag carry anyway.

maybe they didn't want to get sued by surefire for the patented lockout. i keed i keed.
but again the info is out for a consumer to decide. for myself it's not a deal killer even for the tactical if it's the same.


----------



## choaticwhisper

LightWalker said:


> The reverse clickie is pretty stiff, I think it would be ok in a backpack. Just keep the head loosened and it won't much matter if it does get turned on, for about 30 days anyway.


Its stiff right now, 4sevens said sometime in the future new, Easier to press button covers will be available.


----------



## selfbuilt

Xak said:


> Are the QAA with 14500 and Q123 with RCR123 the same brightness and runtimes? You did say they have the same circuit and if those batteries have the same voltage they should be the same brightness, right?


More or less - there is always some variability from sample to sample (due to accepted variances in circuit, LED output bin, Vf, etc). And protected 14500s typically have slightly higher capacity than protected RCR, despite being rated the same (typically ~10-30% more in my testing).

At special request, I have now done the 17670 runtime on the QAA head (using the 123-2 battery tube). The result is interesting:







As you can see, you get much longer runtime than RCR or 14500, as expected. But the buck/boost QAA circuit doesn't outperform the buck-only Q123-2 on 17670. 

The reason for this appears to be in the regulation - the Q123/QAA head is fully regulated on 1x3.7V Li-ion, but the Q123-2 drops out of regulation and into something approaching direct drive after ~40 mins in the 17670 run. Direct drive is always more efficient that flat-line regulation, so it's not surprising to me that the Q123-2 wins out on 17670.



ninjaboigt said:


> I plan on buying a QAA-2 tactical..and i plan to use eneloops in them...is eneloops not recommneded for this flashlight? or is it just that the output on max isnt as good as it is with 1 cr123a? and ...is there a chance you can take a picture of the tk20 side by sides standing up on end next to the QAA-2? thank you!


Sorry, I realize I wasn't clear - as others pointed out, I was thinking mainly of the use of alkalines in the lights. The QAA-2 is a very good performer on standard 2xAA ... it's just that relatively speaking, it's not as stellar a performer as it is on 1x3.7V Li-ion. Certainly no qualms about its overall 2xaA performance.



wapkil said:


> I took the numbers from the review to make some comparison between the Quarks. I thought it may be interesting also for others to look at it gathered if a few tables - I hope it would be ok to put them here: ... I'm not sure how to interpret the measured output values. Is there a linear dependence between the "lightbox max" figure and the lumen output?


No, I'm afraid the lightbox is not really linear. I appreciate that you've put a lot of work in to build your tables, but I don't believe it's possible to justify those efficiency conclusions based on my simple milk carton lightbox.

I don't have have a calibrated integrating sphere to compare, but my experience with Novatac leads me to suspect a simple power relationship fits the relative output data better than a linear one. But again, I believe the box is overly influenced by too many factors to allow you to make absolute efficiency calculations. I thiink it's best to simply accept the runtime data for what it is, and not try to directly compare the lightbox outputs (except as rough visual guides).



csshih said:


> interesting.. my runtime graphs were not as flat. how often do you take readings?


Every 30 secs. But more than that, my light sensor is also exquisitively sensitive to even minor fluctuations (i.e. up to 4 sig figs can be reliably obtained). That level of precision contributes to the specficity of the graphs. 

In fact, if you check out my Rogue review, you'll see how well it can discriminate even slight fluctations in the steps (1sec is my the maximum sampling rate of my data-logger). Any deviation from "perfect flat" is very noticeable on the sensor. 



lightsandknives said:


> Did you notice the flash of somewhat brighter light when changing modes? I though I read that there was a slight pre-flash, but not as bad as some of the older Fenix lights.


Doh, forgot to mention that. 

Yes, the pre-flash is there on my samples, as others have reported for theirs. I quickly got used to it, so forgot to mention it (it's also somewhat variable - sometimes it's more noticeable than others). On the whole, it consistently seems to be less noticeable than in my earlier Fenix lights that were susceptible to it.



LightWalker said:


> Do you think you will be getting any of the Q3 5A warm versions to compare runtime and output with these?


Dunno ...


----------



## Federal LG

Thanks for your time and review, mr. Eric.

I´m amazed with 4Sevens CR123 batteries performance over american made batteries.

Definitely a "preconception buster" example! 

Congratulations mr. David Chow.


----------



## selfbuilt

Federal LG said:


> I´m amazed with 4Sevens CR123 batteries performance over american made batteries.
> Definitely a "preconception buster" example!


I wondered why no one was commenting on that. 

FYI, I've tested the 4Sevens cells in my T10 test-bed, and got lower performance than the USA-made brands (basically intermediate between Tenergy and the USA-brands). So overall performance may be linked to the specific circuit in question.

I'm currently testing all the batteries in my LF3XT to compare further, and will report back my results.


----------



## Toohotruk

I just want to thank you again for going to all this effort...hell, even your reply posts are a fair amount of work! 


You are the literal embodiment of a true flashaolic...you must be, if not, you wouldn't spend the kind of time it takes to do reviews with the attention to detail you do, and provide the depth of information you do, on so many lights...and without getting paid, mind you. 

Amazing!!! :bow::bow::bow:


----------



## DHart

Wonderful work.... such time and attention to the work - as usual! Thanks for the effort and for sharing it!


----------



## Mostly

Awesome review, as always! Thank you!

I was leaning toward getting the 2AA because of the stated runtimes, but now I'm leaning back to the single AA--I like that Eneloop runtime on Medium! At the moment, I don't think I should do the traditional CPF thing, get a spare 2AA tube and have _both_... just the single light is hard enough to justify when we need a new A/C... sigh.  2AAs are getting to be a bit of a yawn for me... maybe I'll put the future $20 2AA tube price toward a 14500 and charger instead.


----------



## wapkil

selfbuilt said:


> No, I'm afraid the lightbox is not really linear. I appreciate that you've put a lot of work in to build your tables, but I don't believe it's possible to justify those efficiency conclusions based on my simple milk carton lightbox.



Thank you for the answer. I didn't use your lightbox output results in the efficiency analysis. I couldn't because I didn't know how to interpret them  From your test I took only the runtimes and the information whether the regulation is flat. The output was taken from the lights specification. I included efficacy numbers only in the situations where I thought that the total lumen output is relatively well approximated by the constant output till the end of the runtime.

The efficacy results depend on the accuracy of the lights specification but David wrote that it is based on commercial IS tests so I expect them to be correct. I also compared some of the values in the specification to the current consumption and the result looked good to me.

In my intention the tables serve two purposes - one is to have all the runtimes in one place, the second is to compare the lights behavior on different batteries and in different modes. I believe that they should serve these purposes well but if you think that the results are invalid I will, of course, remove them (or correct them if a correction is needed).


----------



## Phaserburn

Selfbuilt, as always: simply, en fuego!

:twothumbs

On beam quality - how would you compare the beam to an Eagletac P100 series? I really like how that light's hotspot is less defined than typical, with the brightest point gradually fading into the spill. The hotspot is still there, but I find a less defined hotspot beneficial when walking at a decent clip. Your eyes don't constantly stayed glued to the bobbing hotspot all the time, and I think overall vision is better.

I am in constant search for lights with this beam pattern, or simply a wider hotspot.


----------



## selfbuilt

ninjaboigt said:


> and i notice you have a TK20...is there a chance you can take a picture of the tk20 side by sides standing up on end next to the QAA-2? thank you!


Sorry, gave the TK20 away to my daughter. But you can get an idea by looking at my 2xAA Round-up thread and comparing the heights to the other lights common to both pictures. 



wapkil said:


> Thank you for the answer. I didn't use your lightbox output results in the efficiency analysis. I couldn't because I didn't know how to interpret them  From your test I took only the runtimes and the information whether the regulation is flat.


Ah, I understand now. I think it's fair to summarize all my runtimes in one place, as long as it is clear it is only my sample runtimes being summarized (since they are done under standardized conditions with batteries that I continually verify for consistent performance).

But I'm not so sure you should go by the rated lumen estimates for efficiency calculations. Although David has said these are based on calibrated IS results, he has also made it clear in several posts that he intends to under-report Quark stats, and over-provide with the finished product. That tells me that his lumen numbers are likely rounded down to absolute minimum values with some margin of safety (somewhat like what Surefire does). Individual lights would thus be expected to be somewhat higher, to varying degrees - all of which would affect their runtime (along with Vf, etc.). 

Ultimately, with no way to calibrate my outputs, I think using my runtime data in combination with manufacturer specs would be rather misleading. 



Phaserburn said:


> On beam quality - how would you compare the beam to an Eagletac P100 series? I really like how that light's hotspot is less defined than typical, with the brightest point gradually fading into the spill. The hotspot is still there, but I find a less defined hotspot beneficial when walking at a decent clip. Your eyes don't constantly stayed glued to the bobbing hotspot all the time, and I think overall vision is better.


The Quarks still have a relatively well-defined hotspot, so the "follow-the-bouncing-ball" problem of walking at night still persists (although it is not as bad on the Quarks as most other Cree light). Honestly, the only Cree lights I know that aren't like this are on the ones with really deep reflectors (e.g. like LiteFlux LF3XT) - but these also produce a much narrower spillbeam. :shrug:

The Golden Dragon Plus LEDs (on some NiteCore models) have a very nice beam pattern for walking (heavy corona, so smooth hotpot-spill transition). But they also have color variation across their beam.

Personally, I've become rather fond of my LF3XT for EDC, including walks. Although the spillbeam is rather narrow, the spill itself is bright enough so that you can actually see more at moderate distances (it's just up-close where a wider spillbeam is really useful).


----------



## dudu84

selfbuilt said:


> At special request, I have now done the 17670 runtime on the QAA head (using the 123-2 battery tube). The result is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, you get much longer runtime than RCR or 14500, as expected. But the buck/boost QAA circuit doesn't outperform the buck-only Q123-2 on 17670.
> 
> The reason for this appears to be in the regulation - the Q123/QAA head is fully regulated on 1x3.7V Li-ion, but the Q123-2 drops out of regulation and into something approaching direct drive after ~40 mins in the 17670 run. Direct drive is always more efficient that flat-line regulation, so it's not surprising to me that the Q123-2 wins out on 17670.



Thanks for your extra efforts, Selfbuilt; very interesting results indeed :thumbsup:.


----------



## wapkil

selfbuilt said:


> Ah, I understand now. I think it's fair to summarize all my runtimes in one place, as long as it is clear it is only my sample runtimes being summarized (since they are done under standardized conditions with batteries that I continually verify for consistent performance).
> 
> But I'm not so sure you should go by the rated lumen estimates for efficiency calculations. Although David has said these are based on calibrated IS results, he has also made it clear in several posts that he intends to under-report Quark stats, and over-provide with the finished product. That tells me that his lumen numbers are likely rounded down to absolute minimum values with some margin of safety (somewhat like what Surefire does). Individual lights would thus be expected to be somewhat higher, to varying degrees - all of which would affect their runtime (along with Vf, etc.).
> 
> Ultimately, with no way to calibrate my outputs, I think using my runtime data in combination with manufacturer specs would be rather misleading.



David wrote that:


> We've quoted these ratings as "typical" and "actual measured." What we've done is take a dozen, measure them in an IS and take the lowest output.



It means, I believe, that there is actually not much Surefire type safety margin. I think that the LEDs with extremely high Vf are quite rare so with a dozen lights measured, the minimum could be not far from the population average (and it was the measurements intention, as I understood). One of the reasons that I think my results should be close to accurate is a comparison that I made to another light. As was expected, the Quarks had similar efficacy, except the points where the driver either hits the sweet spot (18lm mode) and the efficacy substantially rises or the points where the driver becomes inefficient and the efficacy substantially drops (moon mode and RCR for 123-2).

I thought that I made it clear that these are your samples by calling them "Selfbuilt's [battery type]"  I made these tables to verify a few things and the results were interesting enough that I thought I would share them. They show how extremely different the circuit efficiency can be in different modes and for different chemistries. This has a direct practical meaning for flashlight purchase and usage decisions. 

Since the tables are predominantly based on your work I didn't want to take the results out of your thread and post them somewhere else - that's why I've put them here.

I understand now that it may be not a good idea to mix the independent review results with the manufacturer specification. I removed the tables and will wait for your decision what should be done with them. I could change the real efficacy numbers (lm/W) to some artificial scale but I still would need a way to compare the flashlights output for it. I can also remove the efficacy numbers, leaving the tables only with your runtimes, although in this case an important part of the information is lost.

I'm sorry for the trouble, please let me know what do you think should be done. Of course we can discuss it via PM if you prefer.


----------



## Sharpy_swe

Would the Q123² head work with the AA² body and 2x14500?

And what runtimes could you expect then?


----------



## AardvarkSagus

Sharpy_swe said:


> Would the Q123² head work with the AA² body and 2x14500?
> 
> And what runtimes could you expect then?


From everything I read, it should and you should expect about 20% more runtime than 2x RCR123. The problem is that seems to have some issues causing abysmal runtimes in that config.


----------



## I came to the light...

Thanks for the roundup :thumbsup:

Why does the AA perform 1.5x as well on a 14500 as the CR123A does on a 16340, when they have the same electronics and the batteries have the same capacity?


----------



## DHart

All other factors being equal, the 14500s tend to have higher capacity/longer runtimes (due to larger cell volume) than the 16340s, even if both are labeled as the same 750 mAh.


----------



## hiker123

Great job *Selfbuilt*! Thanks for taking the time to do the review.


----------



## GarageBoy

I've been waiting for this. I REALLY wish it was more efficient than the Fenix, but pretty darn close


----------



## selfbuilt

wapkil said:


> I think that the LEDs with extremely high Vf are quite rare so with a dozen lights measured, the minimum could be not far from the population average (and it was the measurements intention, as I understood). One of the reasons that I think my results should be close to accurate is a comparison that I made to another light. As was expected, the Quarks had similar efficacy, except the points where the driver either hits the sweet spot (18lm mode) and the efficacy substantially rises or the points where the driver becomes inefficient and the efficacy substantially drops (moon mode and RCR for 123-2).
> 
> I thought that I made it clear that these are your samples by calling them "Selfbuilt's [battery type]"  I made these tables to verify a few things and the results were interesting enough that I thought I would share them. They show how extremely different the circuit efficiency can be in different modes and for different chemistries. This has a direct practical meaning for flashlight purchase and usage decisions.
> 
> Since the tables are predominantly based on your work I didn't want to take the results out of your thread and post them somewhere else - that's why I've put them here.


I'm sympathetic to your goals, and think there is value is your approach. The problem is we don't know how variable the Quarks are in their output (only David could estimate), but we should expect runtimes to be quite variable (based on all the combined factors that influence runtime, including even small changes in Vf). I really think you would need a much larger sampling of runtimes from different specimens to have full confidence in the final computed efficiency estimates. 

That being said, I think the broad strokes description you gave above is quite likely true (i.e. 18 lm sweet spot, decreased efficiency at extremes). I agree it is very useful for people to understand these differences when making their choices. I am just concerned that the actual computed efficacy numbers may be magnifying so many sources of uncertainty as to be unwarranted to anything above 1-2 significant figures. I would prefer to let people draw their own conclusions from the individual output/runtime curves (where it's clear that it's just n=1 sample per condition).

FYI, I do appreciate you posting them first in this thread so we can discuss it . Please feel free to use my results (ideally in combination with other posted runtime data) as you continue to refine your methods and analysis. I would just prefer not to be directly cited as the data source in the title, as others may incorrectly infer that I performed or validated the calculation. I think something like "Wapkil's Quark efficacy computation based on CPF posted runtimes" would be a better heading than "Selbuilt's xxxx" .  



I came to the light... said:


> Why does the AA perform 1.5x as well on a 14500 as the CR123A does on a 16340, when they have the same electronics and the batteries have the same capacity?


In my testing of various AW RCR and 14500s over the years, I find 14500 typically has 25-30% greater capacity even though they are rated the same. This is in testing the cells with the same head in lights have multiple battery tubes.

But of course, that is just an average. I've seen a fair amount of variability within each type. If you are familiar with standard deviation, I can tell you the typical SD is about 15% of the mean value for the 6-8 cells of each type I have tested. I try to use batteries as close to the mean as possible, but it's not exact.

So when you factor in the variance introduced by testing different sample Quarks in the above test (noticing also that the Q123 is producing slightly higher output than the QAA), the ~50% increase with 14500 is within expected variability.


----------



## wapkil

selfbuilt said:


> I'm sympathetic to your goals, and think there is value is your approach. The problem is we don't know how variable the Quarks are in their output (only David could estimate), but we should expect runtimes to be quite variable (based on all the combined factors that influence runtime, including even small changes in Vf). I really think you would need a much larger sampling of runtimes from different specimens to have full confidence in the final computed efficiency estimates.
> 
> That being said, I think the broad strokes description you gave above is quite likely true (i.e. 18 lm sweet spot, decreased efficiency at extremes). I agree it is very useful for people to understand these differences when making their choices. I am just concerned that the actual computed efficacy numbers may be magnifying so many sources of uncertainty as to be unwarranted to anything above 1-2 significant figures. I would prefer to let people draw their own conclusions from the individual output/runtime curves (where it's clear that it's just n=1 sample per condition).
> 
> FYI, I do appreciate you posting them first in this thread so we can discuss it . Please feel free to use my results (ideally in combination with other posted runtime data) as you continue to refine your methods and analysis. I would just prefer not to be directly cited as the data source in the title, as others may incorrectly infer that I performed or validated the calculation. I think something like "Wapkil's Quark efficacy computation based on CPF posted runtimes" would be a better heading than "Selbuilt's xxxx" .



I must say that I find your response disturbing. It is a rare occasion on a discussion forum when I have to agree with almost everything that my interlocutor writes 

The tables were only another form of gathering and presenting data. Obviously, based on results of a single measurement they cannot have a defined statistical significance. My approach, I think, is similar to yours when you present detailed results of a single experiment, without determining how representative it is. I believe that for most of the reviewers here this is the only practically possible way. It is not scientifically sound but nevertheless quite informative when complemented with attempts to remove errors caused by faulty or radically underperforming samples.

The efficacy results depend on the battery capacity, the LED Vf and the driver efficiency, each being an independent variable. I thought about a way of introducing samples variability into the tables but I don't know how variable the components really are so I didn't know how to do it. Dependant on many factors, the efficacy cannot be used to precisely determine what to expect from a light but with more that sevenfold difference between the lowest and the highest it clearly shows some patterns. I hope that with an explanation how it should be interpreted, it may be valuable to some people.

I was focused on making it clear that these tables are not a result of my own research but merely a compilation of other people's work. You are probably right that the effect may have suggested that also the responsibility for the results lies with others. Of course this was not my intention. 

Like you, I also expected the runtimes to be quite variable. Comparing the specification, your runtimes and csshih's test for QAA and Q123 I was surprised to see that they turned out to be so close to each other (QAA spec: 72min, QAA csshih's: 73min, QAA Selfbuilt's: 72min; Q123 spec: 48min, Q123 csshih's: 43 min, Q123 Selfbuilt's: 41 min).

The way the data was presented was a result of my laziness and the lack of time. I just took them as they were in the spreadsheet set to 2 decimal places cell format, without trying to make them more readable. When I find time, I will re-introduce the tables with the changes you suggested and an explanation how the results can be interpreted.


----------



## Blacksidesniper

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review: Q123, QAA, Q123-22, QAA-2 - RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS,*



Toohotruk said:


> WOW!
> 
> 
> It's good to get confirmation from the best reviewer around! :twothumbs




This best reviewer indeed!


----------



## selfbuilt

I've done a little more testing on the 4Sevens CR123A batteries, and the results are interesting. I've posted this analysis in its own mini-review in the batteries sub-forum:

CR123A Comparison Review: 4Sevens, Titanium Innovations, Tenergy, Surefire, Duracell 







Enjoy! :wave:



wapkil said:


> I must say that I find your response disturbing. It is a rare occasion on a discussion forum when I have to agree with almost everything that my interlocutor writes


Glad we are on the same page  - I look forward to seeing your revised tables. It is interesting that other reviewers are getting such consistent numbers ...


----------



## Black Rose

selfbuilt said:


> The Q123 differs in that the clip is permanently embedded inside the head (shown above). You can request a clip-less version when you check-out on the 4Sevens site. Personally, I find the clip gets in the way when changing batteries on the Q123, but YMMV. :shrug:


I had the opportunity to meet with Eric from 4Sevens.ca Friday evening and demo these lights. Very well designed and built lights. 

I have to agree with you regarding the clip on the Q123 - it definitely gets in the way when changing the battery. 

If it wasn't for the fact that the Q123 has such solid threads, I think it would be easy to cross thread the tailcap.


----------



## HoopleHead

Thanks for a stellar review, as usual. Much appreciated.


----------



## Crenshaw

im glad i pre-ordered a warm tactical now...

Crenshaw


----------



## buraianto

Am I reading the numbers wrong, or are the numbers in the key on the graph "2xAA Lo-Med Comparison: Sanyo Eneloop" not matching up with the graph? For example, Quark AA-2 (R2) Hi is labeled as 4hr 53 minutes, which is 293 minutes, but the graph looks like it's around 600 minutes.


----------



## selfbuilt

buraianto said:


> Am I reading the numbers wrong, or are the numbers in the key on the graph "2xAA Lo-Med Comparison: Sanyo Eneloop" not matching up with the graph? For example, Quark AA-2 (R2) Hi is labeled as 4hr 53 minutes, which is 293 minutes, but the graph looks like it's around 600 minutes.


Sorry, just fixed that. Excel sometimes deletes my x-axis scale reference when I'm customizing the graphs for individual lights, reverting to the sampling frequency. You will see the correct axis labels now if you hit your browser re-load button.


----------



## buraianto

Thanks for the update. Thank you for such a great amount of work you gave to us, Selfbuilt.


----------



## selfbuilt

FYI, I've just updated my CR123A battery shoot-out thread with "Med-Hi" runtimes on the EX10.

As you'll see, the 4Sevens cells hold up as well in that light as they do in the Quarks. Not sure why capacity is bit lower on my Olight T10 and LiteFlux LF3XT ...


----------



## Gliderguy

To revisit a subtopic introduced earlier in this thread, about the lack of lockout, I have two ideas:

Manufacture a compatible tailcap made of a non-conductive shell. The lockring and "guts" of the tailcap, of course, would be conductive so that fully tightened you would have a connection possible. I am looking at the thickness of the existing tailcap and wonder if any of the new polymers would hold up with that fine a thread without having to be really clunky to work? 

And on review, an even better idea:

I guess a total internal redesign of the tailcap could allow the shell to still be aluminum if the lockring was MOSTLY non conductive except for a specifically designed contact for the battery tube that was isolated from the shell (just like the head works when you loosen/tighen the bezel. Actually, it could probably be a variation of the same circuit board blank even.)


----------



## chadvone

another great review, Ordered one. has anyone asked if they would lego with the fenix's ?


----------



## Burgess

Certainly *won't* mate with Fenix lights.


Didn't you read the posts about "Square Threads" ?




_


----------



## chadvone

Thanks Burgess, I am sure I read that post.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

Gee thanks self built.

I've been saying I don't need a Quark JUST to get a moon mode.

Then I see the pics! Looks ever so much nicer and grippier than my beloved Fenix P2 or L1.

Problem is I can not buy one just as I can not buy an EZAA.

What I really mean to say is YOU DA MAN!


----------



## selfbuilt

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Then I see the pics! Looks ever so much nicer and grippier than my beloved Fenix P2 or L1.


Sorry if the review is making you feel like you have to upgrade.  But on the plus side, the performance of your P2D-Q5 would be pretty close on standard batts (except for moonlight mode, of course). 

FYI, I have just updated the review with a couple of traces from a second QAA that I purchased for a gift. 










(hit your browser re-load if you don't see the new QAA #2 traces in light purple).

As expected, there is a bit of variability in max output and runtime, but this is well within normal tolerances for all the components.


----------



## recDNA

Thanks for the great review. It's nice to actually SEE the numbers. Now I KNOW I want the 123X2!


----------



## Ctrain

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere... Surfing the net on a blackberry isn't the easiest  just wondering what the UI is like on the tactical versions? I like UI's where you can hide the strobe ond sos... Just curious!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

:sigh:


----------



## dts71

How many sizes of holsters are there? My prime concern is if the AA and 123 holster are the same size.


----------



## Toohotruk

........


----------



## DHart

The 123 is the cutest and most easily pocketable...

The AA is the most flexible and versatile for powering options...

The 123x2 is the stud... potent, great capacity (17650), nice size for the hand.

I'm really happy to have all three.  (No desire for a AA-2.)


----------



## Moonshadow

Ctrain:

The description of the Tactical UI is on the 4Sevens thread here:

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=196499

Essentially, you can program each of two settings (head tight, head loose) independently to any of the available levels or modes. And yes, you can hide the strobes if you want.


----------



## selfbuilt

dts71 said:


> How many sizes of holsters are there? My prime concern is if the AA and 123 holster are the same size.


Yes, the Q123 and QAA use the same holster. Because there is a fair amount of soft velcro on the inside of the closing the flap, it is able to accommodate the longer QAA and still close.



Moonshadow said:


> The description of the Tactical UI is on the 4Sevens thread here:
> http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=196499


Thanks for providing the link Moonshadow. I don't know yet if David plans to send me any tactical versions to compare, but I would expect output levels and runtimes to be the same for the regular and tactical versions (i.e. differ in their UI and forward/reverse clicky).


----------



## AFAustin

I have been enjoying my Quark AA Tactical. Very nice light with impressive output.

My memory often fails me, but it seems that most if not all multi-level AA lights I've experienced have had very different output figures, through all levels, depending on whether they were fed NiMH or 14500 cells. The Quark, OTH, has the same output through all levels, except for the markedly different figures on max.

Is this an unusual attribute or are there many other multi-level AA lights that also have it?


----------



## selfbuilt

AFAustin said:


> My memory often fails me, but it seems that most if not all multi-level AA lights I've experienced have had very different output figures, through all levels, depending on whether they were fed NiMH or 14500 cells. The Quark, OTH, has the same output through all levels, except for the markedly different figures on max. Is this an unusual attribute or are there many other multi-level AA lights that also have it?


That's a good point Andrew.

Truth is, there are currently relatively few multi-level 1xAA lights (i.e. 3+ modes) - most are either 2-stage or continuously variable. And of those that are, fewer still accept both 14500 and AA. At the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are the Fenix LD10/L1D, Olight T15, Lumapower Connexion X2, and Zebralight H50. The Fenix lights are mainly direct-drive on 14500, so that's out. The other 3 all have slightly higher outputs on 14500 than standard batteries, on all levels.

Of course, it's not an issue for the continuously-variable crowd - you can simply adjust down to an equivalent output level to suit your needs. But the Quarks are the only defined output lights that I can think of that keep all output levels but max regulated to specific outputs on all cells.


----------



## AFAustin

selfbuilt said:


> That's a good point Andrew.
> 
> Truth is, there are currently relatively few multi-level 1xAA lights (i.e. 3+ modes) - most are either 2-stage or continuously variable. And of those that are, fewer still accept both 14500 and AA. At the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are the Fenix LD10/L1D, Olight T15, Lumapower Connexion X2, and Zebralight H50. The Fenix lights are mainly direct-drive on 14500, so that's out. The other 3 all have slightly higher outputs on 14500 than standard batteries, on all levels.
> 
> Of course, it's not an issue for the continuously-variable crowd - you can simply adjust down to an equivalent output level to suit your needs. But the Quarks are the only defined output lights that I can think of that keep all output levels but max regulated to specific outputs on all cells.



selfbuilt, thanks for your reply. I no longer own them, but I used to have a couple of JETBeam AA lights---Jet-I Pro, and I think it was the MKII(?). IIRC, they both had lower outputs on NiMH vs. li-ion through all levels.

On another point, one thing that was bothering me with my otherwise excellent Quark AA tactical, was the difficulty in twisting the head one-handed. Last night I finally got around to looking into it a bit, and found that a too-thick o-ring was the cause. I sanded it down a tad, and my head is now a bona fide "easy twister".


----------



## selfbuilt

*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* 

My original Q123-2 results were very unusual on 2xRCR - abnormally high output, unit getting very hot very quickly, and extremely short runtime (>3C discharge rate - only 17 mins to shut-down on 2xAW Protected RCR). 1xLi-ion and 2xCR123A results appeared normal in comparison.

4Sevens has just sent me a replacement head for testing, and the preliminary results make a lot more sense. Below is a graph showing the original (dotted line) and replacement head (solid line) on AW protected RCR and 17670.







As you can see, output and runtime on 2xRCR is now in keeping with what you would expect for this light and this battery source. :twothumbs

As for 17670 on this head, and total capacity/runtime seems comparable (although there is a small dip occurring around the time it previously dropped out of regulation). Note that like before, the light eventually drops out of regulation on 1xLi-ion, so the built-in battery protection circuit doesn't get tripped automatically (common for direct-drive lights).

These results are lot more reassuring - there must have some sort of fault for the >8V input source on my original Q123-2 head. Good to see the output and runtime being exactly where they should be. The full runtimes in the review have been updated.


----------



## 4sevens

Selfbuilt - thanks for running the graph again. We've found these to be a small group of them. One of the components were lower spec than what we ordered. The parts supplier snuck in some other parts than what we ordered.
Needless to say, we won't be sourcing from them again.

About the Q123-2's unless you use rcr123's they will work fine with primary cr123a's. If you use rcr123's and are concerned, we can exchange the head for you at no charge. Theres not a way to test or determine this from the serial number. If you just use two cr123a's, you shouldn't be affected at all


----------



## selfbuilt

4sevens said:


> Selfbuilt - thanks for running the graph again. We've found these to be a small group of them. One of the components were lower spec than what we ordered. The parts supplier snuck in some other parts than what we ordered.
> Needless to say, we won't be sourcing from them again.
> 
> About the Q123-2's unless you use rcr123's they will work fine with primary cr123a's. If you use rcr123's and are concerned, we can exchange the head for you at no charge. Theres not a way to test or determine this from the serial number. If you just use two cr123a's, you shouldn't be affected at all


Thanks for stopping by David - I'm sure everyone appreciates the update.

FYI, I can certainly confirm that performance on 1x17670 and 2xCR123A were completely normal on my "2xRCR-defective" head. The issue appears to be specific for 2xRCR on those specimens. And you would notice right away - the ~1hr lower runtime on the defective head is very clear.


----------



## DHart

Thanks for the heads up on this, selfbuilt & David. I am presently testing my 123-2 on two RCR123s on turbo to see if I have one of the defective ones... so far at about 1 hr. on turbo and going strong... looks like my sample "dodged the bullet".  I sure do love the Q123-2! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lobo

Been away for a while but it's nice to see that you still are keeping up the great work, Selfbuilt.
EXCELLENT review!

And am I the only one who's surprised that the Quark AA seems to be the new king of the hill of AA throwers?


----------



## DHart

Lobo said:


> Been away for a while but it's nice to see that you still are keeping up the great work, Selfbuilt.
> EXCELLENT review!
> 
> And am I the only one who's surprised that the Quark AA seems to be the new king of the hill of AA throwers?



The Jet I Pro v3 with SMO reflector is a slightly better thrower than the Quark AA. But the Quark has a much wider and more useable spill as well as a ring-free beam. The Quark is still a very competent thrower, however. :thumbsup:


----------



## Unforgiven

I'm partial to Constant current regulation and I'll admit that I'm not a fan of multi-flashy mode lights (beacon, SOS, etc) but the Quark tactical versions seems to fit the bill nicely. 

I'm still waiting for a production constant current regulated light that I can program new drive levels or delete unwanted modes... 4-7


----------



## Lobo

DHart said:


> The Jet I Pro v3 with SMO reflector is a slightly better thrower than the Quark AA. But the Quark has a much wider and more useable spill as well as a ring-free beam. The Quark is still a very competent thrower, however. :thumbsup:



As I said in the other thread, it was just that the numbers surprised me. Could totally see that the real life performance could be different.


----------



## ImGeo

As always, love your review threads! Definitely more info than I could take in, but still very useful. Detailed and sharp pictures.... pure awesome


----------



## HighLumens

Hi, thanks for another great review!
Just a quick question (I'm quite sure it's a stupid question, but I'll ask it the same):
Would I burn something if I used the 123-2 head (9v) with the 2 AA body tube and 2 14500 cells:devil:??


----------



## DHart

HighLumens said:


> Hi, thanks for another great review!
> Just a quick question (I'm quite sure it's a stupid question, but I'll ask it the same):
> Would I burn something if I used the 123-2 head (9v) with the 2 AA body tube and 2 14500 cells:devil:??



Two 14500's will provide at most 8.4v to the 9v head. YOu should have no issues running the 9v head with two 14500's - as long as they will fit in the AA-2 tube.


----------



## flasherByNight

Thanks for the review, pushed me over the edge...just got mine in the mail  Awesome!

Love the low low, and the high high! The fit IS smaller than I was expecting (123), but I have small hands so...works for me 
Don't mind the difficulty of the clicky, but the head is DEFINITELY not possible to be turned one handed. Once I get some lube it may be another story though


----------



## handy

Does anyone know how the Quark123 compares to the EagleTac P10C in terms of throw? I've searched but haven't found conclusive answers. I'd love to see outdoor beamshots of these two lights together to compare throw.


----------



## GarageBoy

So if you had to pick one, which one would you go for, Selfbuilt?


----------



## selfbuilt

handy said:


> Does anyone know how the Quark123 compares to the EagleTac P10C in terms of throw? I've searched but haven't found conclusive answers. I'd love to see outdoor beamshots of these two lights together to compare throw.


By the numbers, they are pretty similar in terms of lux @1m. I no longer have my P10C to test, but my subjective impression of the beam profiles and reflectors lead me to suspect the P10C would have a small advantage at a distance. And sorry, but I'm limiting my outdoor beamshots (I've already had one neighbor complain of my back yard escapades )



flasherByNight said:


> The fit IS smaller than I was expecting (123), but I have small hands so...works for me





GarageBoy said:


> So if you had to pick one, which one would you go for, Selfbuilt?


Haha, I usually try to avoid answering that question (just too many lights and configs out there ). But as some may have already guessed, I have long been a fan of lights that run on 1xAA and 2xAA. I also have fairly large hands, so small 1xCR123A lights can be a bit awkward (although I currently EDC a LiteFlux LF3XT, it is about the length of a small 1xAA light). I would say my preferred Quark would probably be a 1xAA with the optional 2xAA body tube for extra output/runtime.


----------



## Splunk_Au

Interesting how there was no beamshot comparison against the EagleTacs


----------



## CaNo

This review had helped me pick which Quark Titanium I should pre-order! Thank you so much selfbuilt! You are the Bomb.Com! :goodjob:


----------



## selfbuilt

Splunk_Au said:


> Interesting how there was no beamshot comparison against the EagleTacs


If you mean in comparison to the Q123-2, that may be because all my 2xCR123A Eagletac's arrived after this review.  

The QAA beamshots do show the older Eagletac P10A. For beamshot comparisons to the P10C (1xCR123A) and P10A2 and P100A2 (2xAA), see my Round-up Reviews (links in my sig). 



CaNo said:


> You are the Bomb.Com!


----------



## Splunk_Au

That's interesting, since you already have the T100C2. Not to mentioned these are all using XP-E's.

Let's face it, the T100C2 beats the Quark 123² hands down


----------



## selfbuilt

Splunk_Au said:


> That's interesting, since you already have the T100C2. Not to mentioned these are all using XP-E's. Let's face it, the T100C2 beats the Quark 123² hands down


I just received the T100C2 MKII three weeks ago - its review is here.

I don't know if it's a hands-down winner :thinking: - it is certainly as efficient on its two-modes (but the Quark has additional modes, is smaller, etc.). Of course, the Quark 123-2 doesn't take 18650 (only 17670 fits), which is why total runtime is less on single Li-ion. :shrug:


----------



## DHart

Splunk_Au said:


> Let's face it, the T100C2 beats the Quark 123² hands down



Actually, I think the Q123-2 beats the T100C2 hands down as a general purpose light. Given the choice, I would pick the Q123-2 in a heartbeat. THe Quark has many more output options, is much more compact and convenient to carry/handle, has an amazingly low moon mode, and a huge range of lego-options for body tubes: head voltage ranges, tactical vs regular modes, warm and cool emitter choices, tactical and regular tailcap options, 10 year warranty.

So really, the two lights are not at all comparable; they're very different and each meet very different objectives. The T100C2 can throw a bit farther and can take an 18650, but the Quark trounces it in all other regards - and the 17670 is a nice second to an 18650. So each might be considered superior to the other, depending on what you want from a light.


----------



## Federal LG

I have a regular Quark AA.

What´s happen if I put a tactical tailcap on it ?
(That one with the big button...)

Just the tailcap, without changing the head...


----------



## DHart

Federal LG said:


> I have a regular Quark AA.
> 
> What´s happen if I put a tactical tailcap on it ?
> (That one with the big button...)
> 
> Just the tailcap, without changing the head...



You'll get a momentary function and must use momentary to select your desired level before clicking on. Once the light is on, you will have to click it off before you can change output levels. You also lose tailstanding ability. Neither tailcap can "do it all". Nice to have both and choose as needs dictate. What one tailcap offers the other takes away, and vice versa.


----------



## LightWalker

DHart said:


> Actually, I think the Q123-2 beats the T100C2 hands down. Given the choice, I would pick the Q123-2 in a heartbeat. THe Quark has many more output options, is much more compact and convenient to carry/handle, has an amazingly low moon mode, and a huge range of lego-options for body tubes: head voltage ranges, tactical vs regular modes, warm and cool emitter choices, tactical and regular tailcap options, 10 year warranty.
> 
> So really, the two lights are not at all comparable; they're very different and each meet very different objectives. Each is superior to the other, depending on what you want from a light.


 
I have both lights and I agree. The T100C2 will outthrow the Quark but is much bigger and has a narrower hotspot.


----------



## Egsise

Here's runtime graph of Quark AA neutral white, low and moon mode are in progress and when its finished I will replace this graph with full test results.

Test setup is homemade lightbox and a webcam.
Measuring started at 30sec with 1minute interval.


----------



## Rod911

*lock-out feature*

Just a quick FYI.

For those concerned about a LOTC, after receiving a Neutral White Quark AA² Tactical today, I found out that it has a LOTC.


----------



## selfbuilt

*Re: lock-out feature*



Rod911 said:


> For those concerned about a LOTC, after receiving a Neutral White Quark AA² Tactical today, I found out that it has a LOTC.


Thanks for the info .... but to clarify, I'm guessing it is just the tailcap threads that are anodized? I believe David was planning to make this change, to enable tailcap lock-out. The body screw threads can't be anodized, or it would prevent the ability to reverse the battery tube/clip.


----------



## Rod911

*Re: lock-out feature*



selfbuilt said:


> Thanks for the info .... but to clarify, I'm guessing it is just the tailcap threads that are anodized? I believe David was planning to make this change, to enable tailcap lock-out. The body screw threads can't be anodized, or it would prevent the ability to reverse the battery tube/clip.


Correct. Only the tail-cap itself is anodized, whereas the threads on the body are not.

I'm not aware whether the feature is available on the currently shipping regular tail-caps.


----------



## Egsise

The charger that I used is a Sanyo MQH02 at 1090mA, charge completeness is around 85%.
These are the runtimes of my Quark AA neutral white.
During the moon mode test I turned the Quark off after 274h runtime, waited 10sec and turned it back on.


----------



## selfbuilt

Egsise said:


>


Wow, thanks for your dedication Egsise. Looks the posted specs for the Quark AA are fairly good (i.e. rated as 2 days and 10 days for Lo/Moonlight respectively). You have more patience than I do to actually complete the runs at those levels. :thumbsup:


----------



## Egsise

selfbuilt said:


> Wow, thanks for your dedication Egsise. Looks the posted specs for the Quark AA are fairly good (i.e. rated as 2 days and 10 days for Lo/Moonlight respectively). You have more patience than I do to actually complete the runs at those levels. :thumbsup:


Someone had to do it... 
The moon mode test was bad, 2 weeks of pain i say!


----------



## Burgess

to Egsise --


:wow::goodjob::thanks:

_


----------



## Wiggle

Anyone else notice how much the 14500 beats the Eneloop by in regards to runtime on high? I did the test here at home too and got 1h20mins on Eneloop and almost 3 hours on 14500. Unlike in max, they both are regulated to the same level so I'm not sure why 14500 is running twice as long since it should have comparable energy. Not that I'm complaining, it's almost making me consider reprogramming my Tactical to Low/High instead of Med/Max since I use 14500 most of the time.


----------



## 4sevens

Wiggle said:


> Anyone else notice how much the 14500 beats the Eneloop by in regards to runtime on high? I did the test here at home too and got 1h20mins on Eneloop and almost 3 hours on 14500. Unlike in max, they both are regulated to the same level so I'm not sure why 14500 is running twice as long since it should have comparable energy. Not that I'm complaining, it's almost making me consider reprogramming my Tactical to Low/High instead of Med/Max since I use 14500 most of the time.


The lower voltage configuration actually has a buck and a boost circuit - two separate circuits that kick in as needed. Buck is much more efficient than boost in general. In this case, 1.5v makes the boost circuit work much harder thus less efficient. The quarks are designed to use li-ions and be fully regulated - fairly rare in lights these days - most are just running direct drive, wasting lots of energy at the very beginning of a run.


----------



## Wiggle

I'll keep using my 14500s  And 100-ish lumens OTF on a single AA for 90 mins is still very respectable but 3 hours on 14500 is really impressive.


----------



## GarageBoy

So 4sevens, do you recommend the high V or Low V head for single Li Ion operation?


----------



## TLLM

This review was helpful, but I would have appreciated a comment on the preflash when changing from a bright memorized mode to a low memorized mode. I did not come across this comment until after my recent purchase of the light and now I am almost sorry I purchased it because for my needs the preflash defeats the purpose of having two memorized modes.


----------



## RTTR

Can it be confirmed if the 123-2 is in fact brighter with a pair of AW RCR cells in it? I've looked at the graphs and it appears it is, but by the naked eye with my testing it isn't really any different.


----------



## selfbuilt

TLLM said:


> This review was helpful, but I would have appreciated a comment on the preflash when changing from a bright memorized mode to a low memorized mode. I did not come across this comment until after my recent purchase of the light and now I am almost sorry I purchased it because for my needs the preflash defeats the purpose of having two memorized modes.


I believe you are referring to the Tactical version? Sorry, but I was never sent one of those for review, hence why there is no comment. Preflash can exists on virtually all Fenix and 4Sevens lights, but I gather from comments here that the issue is indeed more noticeable in the two-memorized mode tactical setup. But I have no direct knowledge, not having tested the tactical version.



RTTR said:


> Can it be confirmed if the 123-2 is in fact brighter with a pair of AW RCR cells in it? I've looked at the graphs and it appears it is, but by the naked eye with my testing it isn't really any different.


No, it isn't any brighter. The first sample I was sent was defective, and produced unusually high output and short runtime. The replacement sample (shown in the graphs and tables of the review) shows virtually no difference between 1x17670 and 2xRCR (i.e. 1-2%, which is well within measurement error).


----------



## amigafan2003

> I am almost sorry I purchased it because for my needs the preflash defeats the purpose



I still have to hear of or see a scenario where the pre-flash renders a Quark unusable.


----------



## Chevy-SS

Thanks for the great review! Ordered a 123-3 Tactical the other day. It should be here tomorrow. Can't wait.

Is it possible to widen the flood? I don't care about throw.

Again, many hanks.

-


----------



## amigafan2003

> Is it possible to widen the flood? I don't care about throw.



The fenix AD-401 diffuser fits.


----------



## carrot

Quick way to eliminate preflash - turn it off in the low (loosened) mode.


----------



## Egsise

selfbuilt said:


> Preflash can exists on virtually all Fenix and 4Sevens lights, but I gather from comments here that the issue is indeed more noticeable in the two-memorized mode tactical setup. But I have no direct knowledge, not having tested the tactical version.


I haven't seen the preflash in any of the LD10, LD20 or PD20 models that I have tested.


----------



## Wiggle

My L2D doesn't preflash but my Quark AA-T does. However, even the worst one of shutting off in turbo, switch to moonlight is not a problem for me. It's certainly noticeable but I think some people overestimate how quickly night vision is lost, one flash for an instant doesn't disrupt it very much for me at all.


----------



## Charles L.

I'm still pretty new to this realm, and I wouldn't pretend to know whether the pre-flash from my Quark AA renders it unusable at any time. The pre-flash is a bit annoying, however -- that tends to make it unused, if not unusable. Thanks to Carrot for the tip on how to minimize the issue. I'm already learning to appreciate "low" lows, and the Quark definitely goes lower than my other EDC's.


----------



## selfbuilt

Egsise said:


> I haven't seen the preflash in any of the LD10, LD20 or PD20 models that I have tested.


The preflash issue first came to light around the time of the introduction of the Q5 emitter into the LxD, PxD series Fenix lights. By the time of the LDx0 and PDx0 refresh, the effect had been considerably reduced (although I'm not sure if it was totally eliminated). 

From what I have gathered through discussions here, the pre-flash is a circuit issue that can only be minimized, not completely removed (i.e. likely still there on the Fenix models, but reduced to no longer being commonly perceptible). 

Those with more understanding of the circuitry can chime in, but I've noticed it tends to re-surface when there is a particularly wide range between max and min modes (i.e. the Quark series moonlight is much lower than the current Fenix low). But its appearance is still quite variable for sample-to-sample and condition-to-condition. I can't say I noticed it in my regular Quark samples (but I am rather used to it, so may not have noticed a mild case). I gather it is worse on the tactical versions, but have no first-hand knowledge.

As Carrot pointed out, one option is to switch to low before turning off. You can also try blocking the head with you hand when first illuminating, if you are worried about preserving night vision.


----------



## Chevy-SS

Just got my Quark 123*2 Tactical yesterday. It's a fabulous little light. Everyone I've shown it to is absolutely amazed. I have primary setting (head tight) set to _strobe _and it kicks azz. Secondary setting (head loose) is _medium _steady-on.

I have noticed the 'pre-flash', but I don't care at all about that. 

This thing is so small and lightweight, it just disappears in my pocket. It is a wonderful light for EDC.

$69 well spent. Good job Quark! 

-


----------



## LightWalker

Chevy-SS said:


> Just got my Quark 123*2 Tactical yesterday. It's a fabulous little light. Everyone I've shown it to is absolutely amazed. I have primary setting (head tight) set to _strobe _and it kicks azz. Secondary setting (head loose) is _medium _steady-on.
> 
> I have noticed the 'pre-flash', but I don't care at all about that.
> 
> This thing is so small and lightweight, it just disappears in my pocket. It is a wonderful light for EDC.
> 
> $69 well spent. Good job Quark!
> 
> -


 
Next time try discount code CPF8. What batteries are you running in it?


----------



## BlueMarble

Great review! Thank you so much for the excellent information.


----------



## john2

A very interesting read (5 pages 

I'm considering the Quark AA with a AW 14500 battery. Apparently the brightness is similar to the AAx2 (which is what I want), but now I want to know what the battery life is in comparison to the AAx2?


----------



## john2

john2 said:


> A very interesting read (5 pages
> 
> I'm considering the Quark AA with a AW 14500 battery. Apparently the brightness is similar to the AAx2 (which is what I want), but now I want to know what the battery life is in comparison to the AAx2?



I found the answer here: http://www.light-reviews.com/reviews.html

My next question is, which option is the best & most price effective (with rechargeables of whatever is in them)?


123^2,
123, or
AA.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz

_ but now I want to know what the battery life is in comparison to the AAx2?_ 

If you mean how long you will get light for on each battery charge, on the first page of this thread if you go to the heading *Quark AA-comparison* you'll see that he has a graph for the torch with 14500 battery and if you then go to the heading *Quark AA2-comparison* you'll see he has two graphs, one of 2x eneloop AA and one of 2 x Alkaline AA.

The bottom axis on each of those three graphs is a time scale and you can see the perfomance of those batteries in the torches and make the comparison you need.


----------



## brightnorm

Quark states that 2x123 in max/turbo mode is 190L for 1.8hrs. But this graph shows constant output dropping after only about 1hr20 minutes. This is such a very large and disappointing discrepancy that I'm tempted to go back to my Fenix 2x123's whose constant 90 minute runtime in max/turbo has been confirmed in past tests.

Unless I have somehow misinterpreted this it is very disappointing.

Brightnorm


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz

brightnorm said:


> Quark states that 2x123 in max/turbo mode is 190L for 1.8hrs. But this graph shows constant output dropping after only about 1hr20 minutes. This is such a very large and disappointing discrepancy that I'm tempted to go back to my Fenix 2x123's whose constant 90 minute runtime in max/turbo has been confirmed in past tests.
> 
> Unless I have somehow misinterpreted this it is very disappointing.
> 
> Brightnorm


Typically the runtimes are timed from start until the output reaches 50% of the original brightness. The graph above states 1 hour 53 minutes on 4sevens own battery brand for the 123x2 torch. That's 1.88 hrs as I work it out so 4 sevens have actually understated their runtimes slightly.

If you already have both the torches you mention wouldn't you already know which one suits your needs better without feeling disappointment just from looking at a graph?


----------



## selfbuilt

brightnorm said:


> Quark states that 2x123 in max/turbo mode is 190L for 1.8hrs. But this graph shows constant output dropping after only about 1hr20 minutes. This is such a very large and disappointing discrepancy that I'm tempted to go back to my Fenix 2x123's whose constant 90 minute runtime in max/turbo has been confirmed in past tests.


Hmmm, well, as JaquarDave points out, time to 50% is indeed consistent with 4Sevens spec.

But there may be another issue here - my original Q123-2 was defective on RCR (but not on 17670). I have checked over my records, and I see I never re-tested the primary CR123A runs on the replacement Q123-2. 

I am currently in the middle of another runtime test (as usual ), but will try to re-do the 2xCR123A max run on the replacement head soon. I don't expect there to be a huge difference (i.e. the original 2xCR123A results are in keeping with other lights of this class). But I'll let you know if anything significant pops out.

:wave:


----------



## selfbuilt

Looks like the replacement Q123-2 does a bit better on primary CR123A.






Q123-2 #1 refers to the original sample (and runtimes). #2 refers to the replacement sample 4sevens sent me. I presume the replacement trace is more in keeping with typical, but I have left both up there for now.

I fortunately had a couple of 4sevens batteries left over from the same batch as the earlier runtimes, so the results are directly comparable. Frankly, I'm amazed at how little difference there is in output between the samples ...

Hope that helps!
:wave:


----------



## brightnorm

I've never been happy with the "50%" runtime because it doesn't tell you the duration of regulation. Since most good lights are now regulated, runtime might be better divided into two specs: regulation duration plus the time to 50% after regulation. This might not work with LiOns but would be informative for cr123's/AA primaries, etc.

Since Fenix quotes the runtime in regulation I expected Quark to do no less. For example, Fenix states 1.5 hrs for the PD3/Q5. Here is Chevrofreak's graph:






This more than tallies with Fenix's figures. A more informative spec would be "1.5hrs regulated plus 35 min to 50%"

As to why this is important to me since I have both lights, they are both excellent lights but I was counting on the Quark to quote regulated runtime, as Fenix does. Also, I have never run either light to shut-off.

Brightnorm


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz

Interesting that the runtimes "regulated" between your fenix example torch and the Q123-2 in Selfbuilt's last Duracell graph are almost identical. 

I must admit that I too tend to disregard the "50%" thing as it gives me no real picture of how a torch performs during that run. It could drop on a steady decline from the moment it's first switched on or run fully bright then drop suddenly at the end yet they could both still have the same "50%" figures. Mind you, it's just a number. The graphs themselves show how it looks thorughout runtime so to me they are streets ahead in value than the simple "50%" figure.


----------



## RepProdigious

Wow, great review! Lots of info, very informative!

On a sidenote; Below the first picture in you 'Quark 123-2 Comparison' section you forgot to mention the AW18650 cell


----------



## selfbuilt

JaguarDave-in-Oz said:


> Mind you, it's just a number. The graphs themselves show how it looks thorughout runtime so to me they are streets ahead in value than the simple "50%" figure.


Yes, exactly. This is why I provide the detailed runtime graphs (on the same output scale), so users can directly compare. I only quote time to 50% so people can see how my results compare to others (who may not provide graphs).



brightnorm said:


> This more than tallies with Fenix's figures. A more informative spec would be "1.5hrs regulated plus 35 min to 50%"


Although I agree it would be good if "time to end of regulation" were also commonly reported, this isn't always feasible. A lot of multi-power lights run in direct-drive modes from early in their run, and this isn't the same as the rapid drop-off in fully regulated lights once they are out of regulation.

At the end of the day, you are always best off looking at the actual graphs.


----------



## 4sevens

Also, if I may add - end of regulation specs will vary greatly. Not only are there forward voltage variations (affecting efficiency) but all electronic components have a specified range so just because you have one clinical result doesn't mean it's representative of or even falls within a sample set.

ALSO, the battery type and brand used makes a big difference. Not only the capacity is important, the impedance (internal resistance) will affect how long the circuit can sustain regulation.

One more thing since brightnorm is complaining about p3d vs quark 123-2. P3D's circuit drives it at 750-800ma. The Quark 123-2 drives it at 950ma. If you're going to compare, compare apples to apples.

My two cents


----------



## brightnorm

Thanks for the clarification. Do not equate my critical questioning with real "complaining". The fact that I own more than a half-dozen Quarks shows how I feel about these products. 

Brightnorm


----------



## Mikellen

Hello all,

I'm having a hard time deciding between the AA2 and the 2 CR123A versions. My decision will be based on runtime.
I don't understand these runtimes. 4Sevens states the following:

AA2

High mode 85 lumens, 5 hrs.
Med mode 22 lumens, 24 hrs.

2 Cr123A 

High mode 85 lumens, 4.5 hrs.
Med mode 22 lumens, 20 hrs.

How can the 2 Cr123A version Quark get less runtime than the 2 AA version?

Now on light-reviews the runtime for the AA2 is somewhat similar but the 
2 CR123A runtime for the high mode is 10.55 hrs. and on medium mode its 50.14 hrs. That's quite a bit of difference from 4Sevens statistics.
Selfbuilt's runtime was 7.52 hrs. on high mode for the 2 Cr123A Quark.

So does anyone know which runtime figures are accurate for the 2 CR123A Quark? 

Thanks.


----------



## selfbuilt

Mikellen said:


> Selfbuilt's runtime was 7.52 hrs. on high mode for the 2 Cr123A Quark.


My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two.

Note that Med-Hi runtimes on CR123A are highly dependent on the brand of CR123A used.


----------



## Mikellen

selfbuilt said:


> My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two.
> 
> Note that Med-Hi runtimes on CR123A are highly dependent on the brand of CR123A used.


 
"I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two."

Well then that would be closer to light reviews runtime measurement.
So is it just an error on 4Sevens part where they state 4.5 hrs for the runtime on high? If so then medium mode seems to be in error also; 20 hrs. (4Sevens) 50.14 (light reviews). :thinking:


----------



## selfbuilt

Mikellen said:


> So is it just an error on 4Sevens part where they state 4.5 hrs for the runtime on high?


4sevens is highly conservative in their runtime estimates. Think of them more as minimum specs.

Also, keep in mind that runtimes can be highly variable between individual samples, especially at lower output.


----------



## Lobo

Can anybody tell me how the new Quarks with the XP-G emitter are compared to the old ones with the XP-E in regards to throw? I was going to buy a Quark(mainly cause it seemed to have some decent throw in tiny size) when I saw that they changed the emitter. And XP-G are not good at all for throw?
And I can't find any reviews or lux reading for the new Quark versions either, so would appreciate if anybody could chime in.


----------



## NoFair

Lobo said:


> Can anybody tell me how the new Quarks with the XP-G emitter are compared to the old ones with the XP-E in regards to throw? I was going to buy a Quark(mainly cause it seemed to have some decent throw in tiny size) when I saw that they changed the emitter. And XP-G are not good at all for throw?
> And I can't find any reviews or lux reading for the new Quark versions either, so would appreciate if anybody could chime in.



With mine the xp-e had better throw than the xp-g. The xp-g is brighter though so it still throws well.


----------



## Lobo

Thanks for the info. I suspected that. Managed to get some comparable lux readings in another thread between the Quark R5 and R2, and seems like the throw differs a whole lot.


----------



## Toohotruk

Yep, if you want throw, go for the R2...they tend to have a better tint as well.


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz

I have quarks in R2 and R5 and I'm assuming this question isn't in regards to the Turbo models so I'll leave comment on them out.

I use my torches mostly outdoors and for distance seeing my R2 quarks are quite a way ahead of the R5 ones. The situation is not helped by the sad green tint on my R5's (the tint difference between my R2 and R5 quarks is very noticeable when I've used them in comparison situations).

For close up work the R5 is much better as it has a wider hotspot and smoother transition from hotspot to spill whereas the r2 version has a much more defined, concentrated and smaller hotspot.


----------



## brightnorm

I bought a Quark "Turbo" and was impressed with it's more focused R5 beam. In the end, for EDC I decided to stick with the Quark 123x2 R2 (alternating with the Fenix PD30 which tends to have a slightly warmer color). In terms of general use I preferred the "old" Fenix PD3 Q5 for its greater beam spread, but the throw of the Quark and the PD30 have seduced me away from that light.

Brightnorm


----------



## JaguarDave-in-Oz

brightnorm said:


> I bought a Quark "Turbo" and was impressed with it's more focused R5 beam.


indeed the spot on the Turbo's is more focussed and on my Turbo's the spill area is quite a bit smaller and brighter than the R5 "regulars" too. For anything other than close quarters work I find the Turbo to be a much more useful torch than the R5 regular. Just a bit harder to hide in the pocket though.


----------



## Deal4

Sorry for the "noob" comment but I sure wish they still had the XP-E instead of switching all of the Quark line to the XP-G! Wish I hadn't been so slow on the draw! Anyone know if it is even possible to get an older XP-E anywhere? I have been looking for sometime for a Quark AA2 XP-E and no joy so far!


----------



## Toohotruk

Keep an eye on the Marketplace...


Oh, and :welcome:


----------



## nutcracker

*thread up again*

Hi,

I'd like to buy a Quark flashlight as EDC that fits into my trousers pocket.
I think that a clip is not necessary then.

I'm still not sure about what size is the best.

Does a quark 123-2 with 11cm length still fit into the pocket without making sitting uncomfortable? (it has 3x more runtime on max than the single 123 version ) 

Or should I take the single 123 version to be on the safe saide.

I also did look at the Preon Revos, but I don't like twisties that much.
Quark Mini is no option for me too.


----------



## carrot

I think that the 2x123 is a fine size for EDC. It is small enough to pocket and big enough to be comfortable in your hands.


----------



## Toohotruk

Ans its bright as hell when you need it! oo:


----------



## emzimmerman

Nutcracker - never carried a 123 or 123x2 Quark, but have a AAx2 and carried a Surefire E2 for years. Never use a pocketclip either. Here's my thoughts - 

- Better have something to prop up the light in the pocket. My E2 always fell over sideways in the bottom of my pocket. Looked terrible on the outside and difficult to dig out from a user standpoint. I guess if you wear tighter pants than I it might be a problem, but...

- AAx2 will fall over, but it's long enough to just lean, not wedge itself into the bottom of the pocket. In my current situation, a cell phone sideways at the bottom of the pocket will provide enough support to keep it vertical most of the time. And again, when it's not, it will typically just lean over. Sitting with an AAx2 in my pocket is more comfortable than the 123x2.

- single cell versions might work for you as well, but in my thoughts (again, never tried one) they will just end up being at the bottom of the pocket with whatever else you have in there.

Good luck!

Eric


----------



## nutcracker

So, you'd suggest me to take a clip-version?
Or to take a AA-2?

I want a 123-version, no AA.

I tried to put my jackknife into my pocket. It is 10.5cm if folded. And it comes horizontal very easy.

Why do you think a AA-2 is more comfortable than a 123-2? I think it is longer. Ok, but thinner I guess.


----------



## carrot

The 123-2 has a pocket clip.


----------



## nutcracker

Ok.

Now I'm only worried that a 123-2 is too big to be comfortably in my pocket all day long.

When thinking about a Preon Revo I have no doubt that it is comfortable, because it is small. But then I would mount it with a keychain ring to my belt loop.

I'm totally convinced that the 123-2 will be nice EDC with clicky and enough light output for finding my way home in the darkness.

Only size does matter 

PS:I prefer neutral white


----------



## carrot

I EDC mine with no troubles.


----------



## nutcracker

Thank you all.
Just ordered:
2 x AW's R17670 (2x123 size) 1600mah
1 x Neutral-white Quark 123² Tactical Green Packaging


----------



## selfbuilt

Post reserved in case additional cache data found.


----------



## selfbuilt

> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *4sevens* on 04-20-2010 10:58 AM GMT
> 
> Also, if I may add - end of regulation specs will vary greatly. Not only are there forward voltage variations (affecting efficiency) but all electronic components have a specified range so just because you have one clinical result doesn't mean it's representative of or even falls within a sample set.
> 
> ALSO, the battery type and brand used makes a big difference. Not only the capacity is important, the impedance (internal resistance) will affect how long the circuit can sustain regulation.
> 
> One more thing since brightnorm is complaining about p3d vs quark 123-2. P3D's circuit drives it at 750-800ma. The Quark 123-2 drives it at 950ma. If you're going to compare, compare apples to apples.
> 
> My two cents





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *brightnorm* on 04-21-2010 06:54 AM GMT
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Do not equate my critical questioning with real "complaining". The fact that I own more than a half-dozen Quarks shows how I feel about these products.
> 
> Brightnorm





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Mikellen* on 04-25-2010 02:53 PM GMT
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm having a hard time deciding between the AA2 and the 2 CR123A versions. My decision will be based on runtime.
> 
> I don't understand these runtimes. 4Sevens states the following:
> 
> AA2
> 
> High mode 85 lumens, 5 hrs.
> 
> Med mode 22 lumens, 24 hrs.
> 
> 2 Cr123A
> 
> High mode 85 lumens, 4.5 hrs.
> 
> Med mode 22 lumens, 20 hrs.
> 
> How can the 2 Cr123A version Quark get less runtime than the 2 AA version?
> 
> Now on light-reviews the runtime for the AA2 is somewhat similar but the
> 
> 2 CR123A runtime for the high mode is 10.55 hrs. and on medium mode its 50.14 hrs. That's quite a bit of difference from 4Sevens statistics.
> 
> Selfbuilt's runtime was 7.52 hrs. on high mode for the 2 Cr123A Quark.
> 
> So does anyone know which runtime figures are accurate for the 2 CR123A Quark?
> 
> Thanks.


*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
Written by *selfbuilt* on 04-25-2010 04:19 PM GMT



Mikellen said:


> Selfbuilt's runtime was 7.52 hrs. on high mode for the 2 Cr123A Quark.


My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two. My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two.

Note that Med-Hi runtimes on CR123A are highly dependent on the brand of CR123A used.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Mikellen* on 04-25-2010 04:54 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> selfbuilt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My runtime may be on the lower side. My original 123-2 was defective on RCR, and the replacement sample had better runtime on RCR and CR123A (on Turbo). I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two.
> 
> Note that Med-Hi runtimes on CR123A are highly dependent on the brand of CR123A used.
> 
> 
> 
> "I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two." "I never re-tested the Hi mode on 2xCR123A, but it's possible you might see an extra hour or two."
> 
> Well then that would be closer to light reviews runtime measurement.
> 
> So is it just an error on 4Sevens part where they state 4.5 hrs for the runtime on high? If so then medium mode seems to be in error also; 20 hrs. (4Sevens) 50.14 (light reviews). :thinking:
Click to expand...

*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
Written by *selfbuilt* on 04-25-2010 06:36 PM GMT



Mikellen said:


> So is it just an error on 4Sevens part where they state 4.5 hrs for the runtime on high?


4sevens is highly conservative in their runtime estimates. Think of them more as minimum specs.

Also, keep in mind that runtimes can be highly variable between individual samples, especially at lower output.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Lobo* on 04-26-2010 11:52 AM GMT
> 
> Can anybody tell me how the new Quarks with the XP-G emitter are compared to the old ones with the XP-E in regards to throw? I was going to buy aQuark(mainly cause it seemed to have some decent throw in tiny size) when I saw that they changed the emitter. And XP-G are not good at all for throw?
> 
> And I can't find any reviews or lux reading for the new Quark versions either, so would appreciate if anybody could chime in.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *NoFair* on 04-27-2010 03:22 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> Lobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anybody tell me how the new Quarks with the XP-G emitter are compared to the old ones with the XP-E in regards to throw? I was going to buy a Quark(mainly cause it seemed to have some decent throw in tiny size) when I saw that they changed the emitter. And XP-G are not good at all for throw?
> 
> And I can't find any reviews or lux reading for the new Quark versions either, so would appreciate if anybody could chime in.
> 
> 
> 
> With mine the xp-e had better throw than the xp-g. The xp-g is brighter though so it still throws well. With mine the xp-e had better throw than the xp-g. The xp-g is brighter though so it still throws well.
Click to expand...




> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Lobo* on 04-27-2010 09:27 PM GMT
> 
> Thanks for the info. I suspected that. Managed to get some comparable lux readings in another thread between theQuark R5 and R2, and seems like the throw differs a whole lot.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Toohotruk* on 04-27-2010 10:49 PM GMT
> 
> Yep, if you want throw, go for the R2...they tend to have a better tint as well.
> 
> 
> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *JaguarDave-in-Oz* on 04-27-2010 11:29 PM GMT
> 
> I have quarks in R2 and R5 and I'm assuming this question isn't in regards to the Turbo models so I'll leave comment on them out.
> 
> I use my torches mostly outdoors and for distance seeing my R2 quarks are quite a way ahead of the R5 ones. The situation is not helped by the sad green tint on my R5's (the tint difference between my R2 and R5 quarks is very noticeable when I've used them in comparison situations).
> 
> For close up work the R5 is much better as it has a wider hotspot and smoother transition from hotspot to spill whereas the r2 version has a much more defined, concentrated and smaller hotspot.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *brightnorm* on 04-28-2010 02:15 AM GMT
> 
> I bought aQuark "Turbo" and was impressed with it's more focused R5 beam. In the end, for EDC I decided to stick with the Quark 123x2 R2 (alternating with the Fenix PD30 which tends to have a slightly warmer color). In terms of general use I preferred the "old" Fenix PD3 Q5 for its greater beam spread, but the throw of the Quark and the PD30 have seduced me away from that light.
> 
> Brightnorm


----------



## selfbuilt

> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *JaguarDave-in-Oz* on 04-28-2010 02:26 AM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> brightnorm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bought a Quark "Turbo" and was impressed with it's more focused R5 beam.
> 
> 
> 
> indeed the spot on the Turbo's is more focussed and on my Turbo's the spill area is quite a bit smaller and brighter than the R5 "regulars" too. For anything other than close quarters work I find the Turbo to be a much more useful torch than the R5 regular. Just a bit harder to hide in the pocket though. indeed the spot on the Turbo's is more focussed and on my Turbo's the spill area is quite a bit smaller and brighter than the R5 "regulars" too. For anything other than close quarters work I find the Turbo to be a much more useful torch than the R5 regular. Just a bit harder to hide in the pocket though.
Click to expand...




> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Deal4* on 09-23-2010 09:19 AM GMT
> 
> Sorry for the "noob" comment but I sure wish they still had the XP-E instead of switching all of theQuark line to the XP-G! Wish I hadn't been so slow on the draw! Anyone know if it is even possible to get an older XP-E anywhere? I have been looking for sometime for a Quark AA2 XP-E and no joy so far!
> 
> 
> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Toohotruk* on 09-23-2010 07:19 PM GMT
> 
> Keep an eye on the Marketplace...
> 
> Oh, and :welcome:





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *nutcracker* on 10-23-2010 01:27 PM GMT
> 
> *thread up again*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to buy a Quark flashlight as EDC that fits into my trousers pocket.
> 
> I think that a clip is not necessary then.
> 
> I'm still not sure about what size is the best.
> 
> Does a quark 123-2 with 11cm length still fit into the pocket without making sitting uncomfortable? (it has 3x more runtime on max than the single 123 version )
> 
> Or should I take the single 123 version to be on the safe saide.
> 
> I also did look at the Preon Revos, but I don't like twisties that much.
> Quark Mini is no option for me too.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *carrot* on 10-23-2010 01:33 PM GMT
> 
> I think that the 2x123 is a fine size for EDC. It is small enough to pocket and big enough to be comfortable in your hands.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Toohotruk* on 10-23-2010 04:31 PM GMT
> 
> Ans its bright as hell when you need it! oo:





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *emzimmerman* on 10-24-2010 11:13 PM GMT
> 
> Nutcracker - never carried a 123 or 123x2Quark, but have a AAx2 and carried a Surefire E2 for years. Never use a pocketclip either. Here's my thoughts -
> 
> - Better have something to prop up the light in the pocket. My E2 always fell over sideways in the bottom of my pocket. Looked terrible on the outside and difficult to dig out from a user standpoint. I guess if you wear tighter pants than I it might be a problem, but...
> 
> - AAx2 will fall over, but it's long enough to just lean, not wedge itself into the bottom of the pocket. In my current situation, a cell phone sideways at the bottom of the pocket will provide enough support to keep it vertical most of the time. And again, when it's not, it will typically just lean over. Sitting with an AAx2 in my pocket is more comfortable than the 123x2.
> 
> - single cell versions might work for you as well, but in my thoughts (again, never tried one) they will just end up being at the bottom of the pocket with whatever else you have in there.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> Eric






> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *nutcracker* on 10-25-2010 04:32 AM GMT
> 
> So, you'd suggest me to take a clip-version?
> 
> Or to take a AA-2?
> 
> I want a 123-version, no AA.
> 
> I tried to put my jackknife into my pocket. It is 10.5cm if folded. And it comes horizontal very easy.
> 
> Why do you think a AA-2 is more comfortable than a 123-2? I think it is longer. Ok, but thinner I guess.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *carrot* on 10-25-2010 11:44 AM GMT
> 
> The 123-2 has a pocket clip.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *nutcracker* on 10-25-2010 12:15 PM GMT
> 
> Ok.
> 
> Now I'm only worried that a 123-2 is too big to be comfortably in my pocket all day long.
> 
> When thinking about a Preon Revo I have no doubt that it is comfortable, because it is small. But then I would mount it with a keychain ring to my belt loop.
> 
> I'm totally convinced that the 123-2 will be nice EDC with clicky and enough light output for finding my way home in the darkness.
> 
> Only size does matter
> 
> PS:I prefer neutral white





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *carrot* on 10-25-2010 10:37 PM GMT
> 
> I EDC mine with no troubles.
> 
> 
> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *nutcracker* on 10-26-2010 04:44 AM GMT
> 
> Thank you all.
> 
> Just ordered:
> 
> 2 x AW's R17670 (2x123 size) 1600mah
> 
> 1 x Neutral-white Quark 123² Tactical Green Packaging





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *cloudforce* on 11-13-2010 01:31 PM GMT
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> i´m in the progress of buying a torch and i´m a little bit undecided wether i should buy a quark mini aa @14500 or if a should go with the big mama quark [email protected]
> 
> if i should go with the tactical, which head should i use for high output and long duration? 3-9V or 0.9-4.2V?
> 
> is that combination been tested before?
> 
> kind regards
> 
> Daniel





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *Igor Porto* on 11-14-2010 11:02 AM GMT
> 
> My Quarks arrived yesterday and I liked them a lot. My favorites are theQ123-2 and Turbo 123-2. The MiNi is awesome and really small and bright. The Q123 is OK but it has a different reflector than the Q123-2 and it's way floodier which I have to get adapted to.
> 
> I ordered a 18650 tube but didn't like it. It has a lot of connections, the finish is not as good as the flashlights, it's too long and when I tested in the Turbo I could only activate the second mode even with the head fully tightened. Maybe it's defective or I did something wrong?
> 
> I'm using AW 17670 in the Turbo and it's great. But it's a tight fit, I had to remove the label to insert it.
> 
> I have a couple of issues which I'll comment in an appropriate thread.


*Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
Written by *selfbuilt* on 11-14-2010 11:42 AM GMT



Igor Porto said:


> I ordered a 18650 tube but didn't like it. It has a lot of connections, the finish is not as good as the flashlights, it's too long and when I tested in the Turbo I could only activate the second mode even with the head fully tightened. Maybe it's defective or I did something wrong?


I think the issue may be that there have been changes in how the lights have been manufactured over time. The I think the issue may be that there have been changes in how the lights have been manufactured over time. The review samples reported here are from the first batch. There came sometime be issues with extension tubes from one generation not working on others (true of all manufacturers, not just 4Sevens).



cloudforce said:


> if i should go with the tactical, which head should i use for high output and long duration? 3-9V or 0.9-4.2V?


Typically, I would go with whatever matches the battery configuration you want to use. Just remeber that 2xRCR/14500 won't work on the 0.9-4.2V head, and 1xNiMH/alkaline won't work on the 3-9V head (the later wouldn't activate, and the first would go Typically, I would go with whatever matches the battery configuration you want to use. Just remeber that 2xRCR/14500 won't work on the 0.9-4.2V head, and 1xNiMH/alkaline won't work on the 3-9V head (the later wouldn't activate, and the first would go .





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *DHart* on 11-14-2010 12:32 PM GMT
> 
> 
> 
> cloudforce said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> i´m in the progress of buying a torch and i´m a little bit undecided wether i should buy a quark mini aa @14500 or if a should go with the big mama quark [email protected]
> 
> if i should go with the tactical, which head should i use for high output and long duration? 3-9V or 0.9-4.2V?
> 
> is that combination been tested before?
> 
> kind regards
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, while the minis are small and handy, they are a far cry from the regular Quarks in functionality and versatility. I would pass on the mini and go directly to a Daniel, while the minis are small and handy, they are a far cry from the regular Quarks in functionality and versatility. I would pass on the mini and go directly to a Quark AA with an extra body (123). Run them with li-ion. Also add a 123x2. You will then have both head voltage ranges and the three best bodies (in my view). Make the AA a regular neutral and make the 123x2 a tactical neutral. Pick up AW 16340s, 14500s, and 17670s to run them. Mix and match heads and bodies as desired!
> 
> The two heads and three bodies will give you an amazing set of wonderful options to choose from depending on the circumstances at hand. And you will have both tailcap types as well! In situations where power is difficult to get, the AA body will RULE. For small and handy, the 123 will rule. In situations when runtime is key, the 123x2 will rule. And depending on whether you have access to AA cells of any kind, 123 primary cells, RCR123 cells, 14500 or 17670 li-ion, you are in LIGHT.
Click to expand...




> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *DavidH* on 11-14-2010 03:05 PM GMT
> 
> It will be interesting to see how the newQuark S2 models compare to the R2 and R2 ones.





> *Re: 4Sevens Quark Round-up Review : Q123 , QAA , Q123 -2, QAA -2 - RUNTIMES , COMPARISONS ,*
> Written by *ProjeKtWEREWOLF* on 11-26-2010 04:04 PM GMT
> 
> I'm pretty new to all this; my current EDC is a Fenix P1D which Is ok but I really dislike the UI. Basically it needs replacing as my flashlight gets daily use at work (psychiatric nurse) and want something more ergonomic and easier to operate.
> 
> I'm seriously putting some money down on a Quark 123(2) but I'm having a real problem figuring out the difference between the TURBO and the TACTICAL. I've already discounted the Regular Quark due to the moonlight mode being too low to use as a dual stage light. The programmability of the other lights appeals.
> 
> I hope someone can point out the differences between the models. Thanks.


----------



## selfbuilt

The thread discussions for the last few months have been *partially restored* from the search engine cache data (thank you tandem!). I was able to capture the rest of the p.6 discussions, but couldn't find any original p.7 cache data. If anyone has any, please let me know.

Please carry on!


----------



## riccardo

Does anyone if 4Sevens will produce any new batch in neutral or warm tint of the Quark series?
I'd really like to see in them some of the new high CRI xp-g...!

Cool tint for me is too cool, my eyes cry any time I'm watching a cool white led flashlight!
I really hope we will not wait too much!


----------



## recDNA

Cree has announced a neutral xm-l.....just thinkin

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanHatfield

selfbuilt said:


> More or less - there is always some variability from sample to sample (due to accepted variances in circuit, LED output bin, Vf, etc). And protected 14500s typically have slightly higher capacity than protected RCR, despite being rated the same (typically ~10-30% more in my testing).
> 
> At special request, I have now done the 17670 runtime on the QAA head (using the 123-2 battery tube). The result is interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, you get much longer runtime than RCR or 14500, as expected. But the buck/boost QAA circuit doesn't outperform the buck-only Q123-2 on 17670.
> 
> The reason for this appears to be in the regulation - the Q123/QAA head is fully regulated on 1x3.7V Li-ion, but the Q123-2 drops out of regulation and into something approaching direct drive after ~40 mins in the 17670 run. Direct drive is always more efficient that flat-line regulation, so it's not surprising to me that the Q123-2 wins out on 17670.



When the 123^2 goes into direct drive (from too low voltage), will the different modes still work? Or would you lose everything except high, like when a Fenix PD20 goes to direct-drive on 16340 from too high voltage?


----------



## selfbuilt

SeanHatfield said:


> When the 123^2 goes into direct drive (from too low voltage), will the different modes still work? Or would you lose everything except high, like when a Fenix PD20 goes to direct-drive on 16340 from too high voltage?


No, you should still have the lower modes running fine (and regulated). The direct-drive pattern is common on multi-mode lights driven at their highest level - the circuitry just can't maintain perfectly flat regulation at that level. It is only once the battery is nearly exhausted that you would loose distinct output levels - although that would mean the light producing low output not high at all levels.

FYI, this is a rather old review, based on the original XP-E R2 quarks. They long ago switched to higher output XP-G emitters, so the output levels and runtimes here are somewhat out of date.


----------



## SeanHatfield

Wow thanks for the fast response! In that case, i might consider buying a 123^2 head some time...
I didn't look at the actual runtimes, but only at the fact that the 123^2 head ran longer than the low voltage head, and i guess the circuits didn't change enough to reverse those results.
Now all i need is another NW Tactical run


----------



## recDNA

I'm hoping for an xm-l u2 run!

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## vestureofblood

Hi selfbuilt,

Thanks for doing this review.

In your charts where is say Max Throw and gives the lux reading for ex. 75 (5700 lux) What is the number just to the left of the parenthesis? Is that yards or something?


----------



## selfbuilt

vestureofblood said:


> In your charts where is say Max Throw and gives the lux reading for ex. 75 (5700 lux) What is the number just to the left of the parenthesis? Is that yards or something?


In my older reviews (before ANSI FL-1 was established), the "throw" number on the left is the beam distance (in meters) to 1 lux.

I used this measure as it was simple to calculate (i.e. it just the square root of the lux @1m). With ANSI FL-1, beam distance was set as distance to 0.25 lux (i.e. multiply the lux @1m by four, and take the square root). Either method is fine - both are basically a way to linearize the throw/beam distance - you just need to compare within the same chart (i.e. using the same method).


----------



## vestureofblood

Thanks.

For your testing do you position the sensor @ 1M or do you go father out and then multiply?


----------



## selfbuilt

Since ANSI FL-1 has been established, I use a comparable method - in this case, 5 meters distance and calculate back to 1m. I also report the peak brighteness reading (which may not be absolute centre).

In my older reviews, I typically used hotspot centre, and measured at 1m or 5m, depending on the light. So for regular pocket lights (i.e. 1xAA, 1xCR123A), I typically measured at 1m. For thrower lights (2xCR123A), I typically measured at 5m and calculated back. Unless specified in the table or the text, you can reasonably assume the measurements were actually done at 1m (in older reviews, pre ANSI FL-1).


----------



## Nonprophet

Hey Selfbuilt,

Just wondering if you were going to release any test results for the new xm-l emitters? I'm especially interested in knowing how the Quark AA with a xm-l head using 14500 batteries specs out.

Thanks!


NP


----------



## proud2pak

It's obvious you put a lot of work into these reviews. Thanks for an outstanding review. :thumbsup:


----------



## dealer

I have two mini 123s. One broke after about a year and the other broke after a few months. I do not think the electronics are very good. I prefer the form factor, but need something more reliable.


----------



## kreisler

dealer said:


> I have two mini 123s. One broke after about a year and the other broke after a few months. I do not think the electronics are very good. I prefer the form factor, but need something more reliable.


did you get FREE replacements (10 yrs warranty)?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

Based quite a bit on this thread I have a 123 R5 with no clip on the way. I hope it's not violently green.

Some other reading in this thread made me mess around with my Jetbeam MKII and my Regal EDC. Both run ok on NimH but REALLY perk up with 14500!

Trying to see which among my 5 or 6 14500 are good enough. Don't have anything but Ultrafire in that size.

That is also why I got a 123 instead of AA on the way.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe

My Clipless 123 arrived today. I do not notice any green tint. Maybe even a bit blue in the lowest mode.

It has a bigger smooth edged hotspot than my P2D. And even Low is lower than P2D low. Moonlight is LOW!!!!!!!

And it clobbers P2D turbo to turbo.

I am a happy camper!


----------



## LightWalker

The Quark 123 has a much better beam and is easier to hold as well. Have you looked at the XML versions?


----------



## Toohotruk

Gotta love them Quarks! :thumbsup:


----------



## shelm

i have the feeling that the rebranded Quarks have a different, improved build quality. look at the wall thickness, the tailcap and overall appearance. would be easy to find out if someone with the new Quark could measure the exact weight. 



nice build quality!!


----------



## BigDak19

selfbuilt said:


> _*Reviewer's Note: *This is a round-up review of all of the initial Quark lights - Regular version Quark AA, AA-2, 123, 123-2. Quark lights were supplied by 4Sevens of 4Sevens.com_. For those of you also in Canada, these are now available locally through 4Sevens.ca.
> 
> _*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* My original Q123-2 appeared to be defective on 2xRCR (i.e. abnormally high output and short runtime). 4Sevens has sent me a replacement head unit for testing, and the results are in keeping with expected performance. Review has been updated accordingly._
> 
> *Warning: Even more pic heavy than usual!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Quark lights are the first offering designed in-house by the well-known CPF dealer 4Sevens. Since the interface is common to all members of the Quark Regular series, I am reviewing them all in one massive round-up review thread. :sweat:
> 
> Time to check under the hood and see how these Quark lights are built, and how they perform relative to the competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (from left to right: 4Sevens CR123A, Duracell AA, Q123, QAA, Q123-3, QAA-2)
> 
> *Common specs, taken from product insert:*
> 
> Cree XP-E R2 LED, guaranteed to be perfectly centered
> Modes: Regular has 8 output modes (2 with tightened bezel, 6 with loosened bezel). Tactical will also come in 8 possible output levels, but in a single programmable mode for each bezel state.
> Regular has a reverse clicky switch, recessed to allow tailstanding. Tactical versions with have a protruding forward clicky
> Regular comes on Moonlight (bezel loosened) or Turbo (bezel tightened) with no mode memory.
> Circuits are digitally regulated by a microprocessor.
> Specially coated lens to reduce reflective losses, orange-peel aluminium reflector for smooth beam.
> Generous knurling to enhance grip.
> Integrated clip that is reversible and removable (except for Q123 where it is permanently mounted, although you have the option to buy one without it).
> Watertight to IPX-8 waterproof standard.
> Aircraft aluminum, grade 6061, hard-coat anodized
> Square-cut threads to ensure consistent use over lifetime
> *Battery configurations are as follows:*
> *Quark 123:* Uses 1 x CR123A / RCR123A battery (0.9V~4.2V)
> *Quark AA:* Uses 1 x AA alkaline / NiMH rechargeable / 3.7V 14500 battery (0.9V~4.2V)
> *Quark 123-2:* Uses 2 x CR123A/RCR123A batteries / 1 x 17670 battery (3.0~9.0V)
> *Quark AA-2:* Uses 2 x AA alkaline / NiMH Rechargeable batteries (0.9V~4.2V)
> 
> *Reported OTF (out-the-front) lumen outputs for constant output modes:*
> Moonlight: 0.2 lm
> Lo: 3.5 lm
> Med: 18 lm
> High: 70 lm
> Turbo: 170 lm (with exceptions: 190 lm for Q123-2, 90 lm for QAA on 1xAlkaline/NiMH)
> 
> *Weight/dimensions:* (actually measured by moi :kiss
> Q123: Weight 39.9g, Length 82.5mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
> QAA: Weight 46.5g, Length 95.8mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
> Q123-2: Weight 47.2g, Length 113.2mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
> QAA-2: Weight 60.7g, Length 147.0mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shown above is the packaging for the Quark 123-2, but the others are similar (except for a simpler finger-grip on the single-cell lights). Included with all lights is a good quality wrist lanyard, extra o-rings, good quality belt holster, finger/hand-grip, primary battery (Duracell alkaline or 4Sevens CR123A) and manual.
> 
> Here’s a close-up view of the main accessories:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All in all, a very nice package with a lot of goodies.
> 
> Here’s how the Q123-2 looks disassembled:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that the heads, tailcaps and body tubes are physically interchangeable among the four models. The Q123-2 uses a different circuit from the rest, but the Q123/QAA/QAA-2 versions use the same circuit (i.e. you could switch tubes between those models for different battery performance).
> 
> On the Q123-2/QAA/QAA-2 lights, there is a removable single-direction clip attached to either the tail or head region of the battery tube, depending on the model. *One unusual twist here – the head and tailcaps are reversible on the battery tube of each individual light.* oo: This is the first time I’ve seen this. It means you can “reverse” the direction of the clip by simply exchanging the head and tail regions. Here’s what I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I haven’t moved the clip in the pics above – just exchanged the head and tail. The light works properly in both orientations. This is an interesting (and novel) solution to problem of providing a bi-directional clip. It also explains why the tailcap threads are not anodized on the body to allow tailcap lockout (a feature I personally value) - this would prevent the ability to swap tail/head pieces.
> 
> The clip is secured in place by its own cover/grip ring, just like on the new Olight Infinitum lights (i.e. unscrew the ring to remove the clip, screw back down to cover the gap where the clip attaches).
> 
> Overall, I quite like this approach, as it allows you the freedom to position the clip as you prefer, and also allows easy removal of the clip without leaving a gap.  The exception is the single-cell Q123 model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Q123 differs in that the clip is permanently embedded inside the head (shown above). You can request a clip-less version when you check-out on the 4Sevens site. Personally, I find the clip gets in the way when changing batteries on the Q123, but YMMV. :shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All lights use a standard reverse clicky, with a slightly stiffer feel than typical (note the embossed 4-7 logo on the button cover ). The lights can tailstand on these Regular series Quarks - the soon to be released Tactical versions will have a protruding forward clicky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the similarity of the circuit board in the head to the current Fenix lights (i.e. you can see the reverse polarity detector). I believe 4Sevens is using the same circuit designer as Fenix, but don’t have any specific details. Note the overall dimensional similarity to Fenix and Olight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reflectors are what I would describe as medium orange peel, and are identical for all four models. 4Sevens uses a proprietary process to insure the LED is perfectly centered each time. :thumbsup:
> 
> *Beamshots are provided with the individual light comparisons (below), to show you how the Quarks compare to other members of their respective classes.*
> 
> As you will see when you scroll down, the most obvious beam characteristic is that the Quarks have a very broad beam compared to other lights. The maximum spillbeam width is one of the largest I’ve seen – at least as wide as the Lumapower Incendio/Connexion/Encore series lights. oo:
> 
> But for all that you still get very good throw with no rings and few artifacts. This seems to be the new norm for XP-E lights - you get a fairly narrow but still well-defined hotspot, with a smooth transition through the corona to the wide spillbeam (i.e. sort of a hybrid between a typical Cree XR-E and a SSC emitter). Clearly a good job on the Quark reflectors.
> 
> *Build Quality*
> 
> Overall build quality is very high – I would rate these lights right up there with Fenix, Olight, JetBeam and EagleTac. I realize individual members will have their personal preferences among those makers, but there are elements of all of the above in the Quark lights. I will discuss this in more detail in my preliminary conclusions at the end of the review. The only thing really missing is a tailcap lock-out.
> 
> Anodizing is type III (hard anodized), and lettering is fairly sharp and clear. Overall fit and finish is very good on all samples, although I did notice some fine cylindical scratches at the base of the QAA head and on the tailcap of the Q123 upon arrival. I suspect these were caused during assembly (i.e. as you screw the head/tail on, it rubs the clip against the smooth portion of the other end).
> 
> Battery tubes are wide enough to accommodate protected cells, although the Q123-2 can just barely take my protected AW 17670 cell (18650 won’t fit).
> 
> *Features and User Interface*
> 
> The Quark interface on the Regular series lights will seem very familiar to users of Fenix Lx/PxD and LDx0/PDx0 series lights. It’s basically exactly the same, with the addition of an extra “Moonlight” low output and beacon flash in the bezel loosened state.
> 
> 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, measured at a “tactical” (and nauseating :green 12.5Hz in my testing.
> 
> If you turn the light off-on within ~3 secs, you will advance to the next mode (i.e. acts as a soft-press). Otherwise, 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. The exception is if you switch from one bezel state to the other without turning off the light - there is short-term memory to that retain what mode you were in if you switch back to the first bezel state (erased if you turn off the light),
> 
> *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.
> 
> Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1 meter from the lens, using a light meter.
> 
> *4Sevens CR123A Batteries:*
> 
> Included with each light is an appropriate primary battery. For CR123A lights, 4Sevens has included their own branded CR123A. They have just begun selling these through their online store (made in China cells, to 4Sevens’ specifications).
> 
> In my battery testing, I have found that Duracell, Surefire and Panasonic have identical performance, which is just slightly higher than other made-in-the-USA brands such as Energizer, Rayovac, and Battery Station. Titanium Innovations (made-in-China) typically do as well (and sometimes better) than the USA brands in term of capcity. Tenergy (made-in-China) do noticeably worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too shabby for these new 4Sevens cells … remarkably similar performance to the Duracells.
> 
> _*UPDATE June 26, 2009:* I have done a little more testing on the 4Sevens CR123A batteries in other flashlights, and the results are interesting. I've posted this analysis in its own mini-review in the batteries sub-forum: CR123A Comparison Review: 4Sevens, Titanium Innovations, Tenergy, Surefire, Duracell ._
> 
> *Throw/Output Summary Chart:*
> 
> To allow you to better compare to the competition, I have decided to give detailed Throw/Output Summary Charts for each light individually (see individual comparisons below).
> 
> But to tide you over , here’s a chart showing the common output levels as measured by my lightbox. There are a couple of exceptions to the Turbo mode output (i.e. Q123-2 and QAA), and these are identified on the right with specific batteries listed. Otherwise, all lights have the same relative output levels shown on the left-side the chart below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very nice relative spacing of levels, IMO. :thumbsup: And I quite like the consistency across models.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> *Quark 123 Comparison*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From left to right, 4Sevens CR123A, Quark 123, Fenix P2D, Olight T10, Nitecore EX10, LiteFlux LF3XT, Novatac 120P
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Beamshot Comparison*
> 
> All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 1xRCR AW Protected.
> 
> *Exp 1/25 sec, f2.7*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exp 1/100 sec, f2.7*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exp 1/800 sec, f2.7*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Throw/Output Summary Chart:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Output/Runtime Comparison:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> *Quark AA Comparison*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From left to right, Duracell AA, Quark AA, Fenix LD10, Olight I15, NiteCore Defender Infinity, NiteCore D10, LiteFlux LF5XT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Beamshot Comparison*
> 
> All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 1xEneloop NiMH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Throw/Output Summary Chart:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Output/Runtime Comparison:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> *Quark 123-2 Comparison*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From left to right, 4Sevens CR123A, AW Protected 18650, Quark 123-2, Olight I20, JetBeam Jet-III PRO ST, Lumapower Encore, JetBeam Jet-III M, Olight M20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Beamshot Comparison*
> 
> All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 1x17670/18650 AW Protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Throw/Output Summary Chart:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* Note the 2xRCR results have been revised, due to a replacement sample that was received for further testing. Scroll down to the runtime charts for more updated info._
> 
> *Output/Runtime Comparison:*
> 
> Note that the Quark 123-2 runs are on 17670, compared to 14670 on the Olight I20 and T20, and 18650 on the rest of the competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* The replacement Q123-2 head now shows the expected performance on 2xRCR - the Max output graphs above have been adjusted with the new data for RCR, 17670, and primary CR123A. Below is a graph comparing the original Q123-2 with the replacement:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 
> *Quark AA-2 Comparison*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From left to right, Duracell AA, Quark AA-2, Fenix L2D, Olight I25, NiteCore D20, EagleTac P100A2, Lumapower X2 2AA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Beamshot Comparison*
> 
> All lights ~0.5 m from a white wall, on 2xEneloop.
> 
> *Exp 1/25 sec, f2.7*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exp 1/100 sec, f2.7*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Exp 1/800 sec, f2.7*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Throw/Output Summary Chart:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Output/Runtime Comparison:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> *Output/Runtime Pattern*
> 
> Obviously, there is a lot of data to sort through up there. :sweat: But to give you the short version, the performance of these Quark lights is generally excellent across outputs and models (in keeping with their Fenix “circuit heritage”). I have noticed a few general trends:
> 
> 
> My various samples appear to perform the best when run on 1x3.7V Li-ion configurations (i.e. 1xRCR, 1x14500, 1x17670). The various samples consistently matched or outperformed their competitors on this input source, especially on the lower output levels. :thumbsup:
> I haven’t done Lo or Moonlight runtimes because of the length of time they would take, but I would expect similar class-leading performance.
> Performance on 2xAA (NiMH or alkaline) seems a little lower than I would have expected (especially on higher outputs). I don’t think this is a one-off issue of my QAA-2, as I tested the QAA head on the 2xAA body and got similar performance. Of course, no one recommends you run alkalines on Max on heavily-driven modern lights … but if you really want to, you may be better off sticking with actual Fenix lights.
> My original Q123-2 sample was defective on 2xRCR (i.e. output was higher than expected, unit got hot very quickly, and the batteries drained way too rapidly at a >3C discharge rate). The replacement head received from 4Sevens (shown above) has the expected performance on all batteries.
> The 4Sevens-branded cells typically did as well as my Duracell or Titanium Innovations CR123 cells on Max output.
> 
> *Potential Issues*
> 
> Tail screw threads are not anodized, so tailcap lock-out is not possible.
> 
> All my samples had a noticeable odor emanating from the o-ring area when unscrewing the head/tailcaps. I suspect this is an interaction of the lube and o-rings (reminds me of the smell caused by the outgassing of plasticizers in sealed inexpensive plastic packaging). Should be harmless, and the o-rings don’t seem to be any the worse for wear so far.
> 
> Like the early Q5 Fenix circuits, my Quark samples all suffer from a brief "pre-flash" of momentary higher brightness when activating in the Moonlight mode. It is less severe than the earlier Fenixes, but may still be annoying for some.
> 
> _*UPDATE July 23, 2009:* My original Q123-2 was defective on 2xRCR, with abnormally high output and short runtime on this battery source only. The replacement sample performs as expected on all batteries. _
> 
> *Preliminary Observations*
> 
> The Quarks are a first-rate example of the principle that Dr. Frankestein would have done well to heed – always do your homework on what parts to include before you stitch everything together.
> 
> In large measure, the Quarks really do show the successful combination of the most popular features of a wide range of lights. Take the excellent output/runtime efficiency and popular user interface of the Fenix, add a few extra modes including an ultra-low like that found on LiteFlux, go for the mix-and-match body part lego of Fenix/Olight, add generous EagleTac knurling, a removable clip a la Olight, and JetBeam’s square-cut screw threads, and presto: out pops the Quark. [insert missing :magicwand: tag]
> 
> But the Quarks are not merely the sum of other people’s parts – there are a few innovations here too. Nice touches include the perfectly centered LEDs (finally!) and the additional rubber finger/hand grips. But most interesting is the reversible battery tube, allowing you to effectively point the clip in either direction, as you prefer. This is quite an elegant solution to problem of building a good bi-directional clip.
> 
> But there is a flip-side – no tailcap lock-out, since body screw thread anodizing would interfere with the bezel twist UI. However, a layer of anodizing on the screw threads in the tailcap could work to restore this feature. While not as full-proof as dual anodizing of both the body and tailcap screw threads, this would be better than nothing.
> 
> A very impressive first offering - I am sure these will be very competitive here at CPF. I haven't seen the Tactical versions yet, but with just a few minor tweaks to the current build, I think these have the potential to be outstanding lights.
> 
> I don’t generally discuss value-for-money in my reviews, since I think that is a very personal decision best left to the individual and his/her wallet. But I have to say that the Quarks make a very compelling argument at their price point.
> 
> Looking forward to seeing what they come up with next.
> 
> P.S.: I will be adding the Quark testing results to my various Round-up Reviews over the next few days.



This may be the most impressive write up I have ever seen! I have been searching far and wide on the internet, looking for information on some of the older 4 Sevens lights that I just purchased off of eBay. Unfortunately there isn't much out there, and when 4 Sevens was 4 Sevens and not FourSevens, YouTube hadn't exploded with flashlight reviews yet. I purchased a Gen 1 Quark 123 as well as a 123^2 body, an QP2L-X head, a Quark Pro tail cap and a QB2L-X Turbo head. I was told these will all lego together and from what I've gather in the forums, that is correct. I'm just curious on what lumens I can come to expect as well as candela. I like little throwers for EDC. Unfortunately, in my browser (Google Chrome) none of your photos are coming through.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner

[email protected]@K here for some 4Sevens and Foursevens videos..... and some great pictures. -#946 

~ Chance


----------



## Toohotruk

Thanks for reviving this old thread. I'm still carrying my first gen Q123 with a special edition warm LED head I bought when they first came out...it's beat to hell, but it still works like the day I bought it. I was just thinking the other day about how much lights have changed since then and was wondering what the specs were for the original Quarks. I don't care how many lumens, or how many fancy features lights have now days, it's tough to beat the first edition Quarks...they're tough as hell, and throw out a great beam. Personally, I think Mr. Chow hit a homerun right out of the box with these lights...after all these years, I can look back at them after owning many, many, many different lights, some of them I got in the last few months, and I can say they are truly great little lights.


----------

