# 4Sevens Quark 123 Comparison Review



## UnknownVT (Jul 4, 2009)

This is the single CR123 light in the new 4Sevens Quark series - again on loan by the kind courtesy of 4Sevens.

The packaging for this series is outstanding -
the boxes were in an almost mole-skin/suede like matte black material.







Please see 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review for more details of the packaging.

A couple of shots of the Quark Series -












Size -




The Quark 123 is slightly different from the rest of the series in that it comes in either clipped or clipless versions. The clipped version can have its clip removed - but it is somewhat less easy than the rest of the series.

Head -





Comparison on High/Max using primary CR123A -

Clipped vs. Clipless both Max primary CR123A -







these are (obviously) very comparable - since they are basically the same head/electronics/emitter except for the clip - any difference would be in the emitter sample variation (and any electronic component tolerance variation - normally almost negligible) - in this case the clipped version has a cooler tint.

vs. Fenix PD20 Turbo primary CR123A







seems close - but the Quark 123 beam is much wider.

vs. NiteCore EX10 Max primary CR123A







again close the Quark 123 looks a bit brighter to me (Note: this is a different sample of the NiteCore EX10 to the "over-achiever" I had been using - that had over-achieved itself and kind of burnt out....so it is _NOT_ always better to get the brightest sample - this sample looks more typical)

and out of interest compared with the Quark AA (using NiMH)

vs. 4Sevens Quark AA Max NiMH 
(note the Quark 123 is on the right)







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

I think I need to mention/emphasize - the beam quality of these Quarks - I have several samples on hand and have now shown beamshots of 5 separate samples - and all of these Quarks all have smooth beams - thanks to the self-centering design of the reflector to emitter.

Just compare the Quark beams to the already fine Fenix and NiteCores and one can see the difference in smoothness, and lack of artifacts.

Like many others I would still say that practically a less smooth beam is just as useful, and in real-life usage one just is not going to notice much difference.

BUT when a design comes along that more or less _GUARANTEES_ the emitter will be centered to the reflector - 
this should be praised like any worthwhile advance in flashlight design.

I personally think that 4Sevens is _hiding his light under a bushel!!!_ 

Alright - so what's the Quark 123 like on Minimum?
well, from 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review - the only flashlight I have that comes close to getting low was the NiteCore D10 and EX10

clipped Min vs. NiteCore EX10 Min primary CR123A







The Quark 123 manages a noticably lower Minimum than the NiteCore EX10.
Notice the shift in tint for the Quark 123 on low/minimum?
When on Max it was cooler than the NiteCore EX10 - but on minimum is it more yellow-green. I believe this is the difference in design - the NiteCore uses fast PWM which means the current delivered is the same at Max and Min - just pulsed - whereas the Quark uses current regulation - so Min uses a lower current than Max - which changes the tint.......

Just to confirm -
Clipless Min vs. NiteCore EX10 Min primary CR123A







this set of beamshots look similar to the set above other than the tint difference.

OK so we see the Quark 123 also reaches a noticably lower level on Min than the NiteCore EX10 -
Do both the Quark 123 go as low as each other?

Clipped vs. Clipless both Min primary CR123A







very comparable as one would expect.

and out of interest how does the Min/low compare to the Min on the Quark AA?

vs. 4Sevens Quark AA Min NiMH 
(note the Quark 123 is on the right)







interesting... the full exposure seems to show that the 123 is just a bit lower - one can only just make that out in the -2 Stops Underexposed shot - which normally is more revealing of differences in brightness levels. 
So perhaps it's easier to regulate current using a CR123 since it is 3Volts vs. the 1.5Volts of an AA battery?

Overall another winner in the Quark series - I am particularly taken with the clipless version using the finger loop.

and really love the smooth beam because of the self-centering emitter to reflector design -
_very WELL DONE_ 4Sevens!

*INDEX* to Follow-Up Parts -

Standardized Stairway beamshot comparison - Post #*4*

Current Draw at tailcap using primary CR123A - Post #*22*


----------



## strinq (Jul 4, 2009)

:thumbsup: Nice review!


----------



## Crenshaw (Jul 5, 2009)

Been waiting for this! thanks!


Crenshaw


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 5, 2009)

Standardized Stairway beamshot comparison -


----------



## DM51 (Jul 5, 2009)

Very useful review indeed - the comparisons are well chosen and give a good impression of the light. It is interesting that the emitter tints on Q123 #1 and #2 seem slightly different.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 6, 2009)

DM51 said:


> Very useful review indeed - the comparisons are well chosen and give a good impression of the light. It is interesting that the emitter tints on Q123 #1 and #2 seem slightly different.


 
Despite the variability this review encourages me to try one.


----------



## Gliderguy (Jul 6, 2009)

I have both a clipped and a clipless 123 quark and on my particular samples the clipped version was the one with the slightly warmer tint. The unclipped version has (so far) the closest to neutral white tint in my collection. The clipped one has just a touch of yellow green, mostly yellow (still a good tint, only noticed in comparision to the other Quark) The clipless one seems slightly brighter, but I have no meter to tell me that. I cannot decide which light of the two I actually like better. The unclipped one also has a slightly less stiff tailcap which makes it easier to use.

Absolutely the two best quality beams I have in my collection.

I like the metal PD "button" on the Nightcore series, too bad licensing that was not an option for this group of lights, but that would have come with the requisite parasitic current loss for the driver...

The only thing I can think of that might help 4sevens become more of a big-time player in the light market is getting the explosion-proof ratings on one or two of his light models. I suspect that certification is QUITE expensive though... would be one more thing to set him apart, of the "flashaholic" brands out there, I think Pelican is the only one doing it...

I remember in another thread where he mentioned the electronics were potted but not entirely encased, I wonder if that was an attempt to strike a balance between durability with maximum practical thermal efficiency in shedding heat? Makes me wonder if he would comment on anticipated G-shock or vibration load required to induce failure and if that was researched in comparison to other high end brands such as Surefire? (maybe in regards to an eventual weapons light being released) Not looking for trade secrets, but just wonder if this was one of the myriad things that was considered along with all the other goodies like the well thought out level spacing, square threads, ect...


----------



## strinq (Jul 7, 2009)

It seems that the PD20 is brighter than the Quark, and quite noticeable too. I was expecting vice-versa. Hmmm...


----------



## 4sevens (Jul 7, 2009)

strinq said:


> It seems that the PD20 is brighter than the Quark, and quite noticeable too. I was expecting vice-versa. Hmmm...


I just fired up my own lights to compare and I don't see a difference. Vince may have a over-performing pd20.

Five things to note. 

1) The R2 by specification will outperform the Q5 by spec. Both total output and runtime.

2) What you see at the hot-spot is LUX - surface intensity. But as far as Lumens (total light output), the Quark definitely puts out more light.

3) Note that the Quark has a wider angle - so more light is distributed elsewhere instead of the pd20. If you look at both lights, you'll observe that the pd20's reflector has a narrower opening diameter versus height. Therefore more light is projected in the spot rather than the flood - at the cost of your peripheral vision. (Stairway shots shows this more than the wall shots)

4) Observe that the Quark doesn't have any rings or halo's around the hotspot 

5) The Quark reflector design projects an nearly perfect and even circle for the hotspot. It's hard to explain because the pictures don't show this because the spot is oversaturated. If you take the exposure all the way down you will see that distinct circle versus a fuzzy fade-out for the entire spot in the pd20. Just a unique characteristic of the Quark reflector


----------



## Grumpy (Jul 7, 2009)

I also really like the beam pattern and color of my Quark 123.

Mine has a warmer color than any of the other led lights that I have owned. I did not order it this way, I just got lucky. It is also very bright. I am very impressed with this light so far.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 7, 2009)

strinq said:


> It seems that the PD20 is brighter than the Quark, and quite noticeable too. I was expecting vice-versa. Hmmm...


 
This is exactly why I do my review by side-by-side comparison beamshots - they are not absolute - everyone can make their own judgement call on which they think is brighter/better etc.

However in mitigation I still stand by my initial comment of:
" _seems close - but the Quark 123 beam is much wider._ "

This accounts for a lot - a wider beam means the light is spread out more
- so it may appear to be dimmer overall - but it covers a lot more area - 
that's why people have to use multi-thousands $$$ integrating spheres to get the real lumens output readings.

Having said that there is nothing that can beat using our own eyes - if something appears brighter to us - it really doesn't matter what any measurement(s) may say - it still appears brighter to us.

So far a side-by-side comparison beamshot is the closest I can present to actually seeing lights side-by-side with my limited resources.

Now according to specs 
4Sevens Quark 123 is supposed to give out 170 lumens 
and the Fenix PD20 180 lumens - 
why? when a R2 is inherently brighter thana Q5? - well, simple - different circuit designs - 
Fenix is probably driving their Q5 harder - 
whereas 4Sevens may have taken a more conservative approach to lessen the chance of LED burn out 
- LED burn out doesn't happen except for accidents? 
- not so, I mentioned I had an over-achieving NiteCore EX10? well it literally burnt out during this review and I had to get another sample from 4Sevens to complete this test. 
I also have a Fenix L1D-Q5 whose beam has gone very blue/violet, 
and I know I have not abused either of the lights......

Ultimately only you can be the judge.


----------



## strinq (Jul 7, 2009)

True.


----------



## StinkyButler (Jul 9, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Now according to specs
> 4Sevens Quark 123 is supposed to give out 170 lumens
> and the Fenix PD20 180 lumens -
> why? when a R2 is inherently brighter thana Q5? - well, simple - different circuit designs -
> ...



Is this actually the case, or is it an assumption? How can the runtime on Max for the PD20 be a full hour while the runtime on Max for the Quark is 0.8 hrs? Seems to me if the runtime on Max is shorter, the LED is being driven harder and consuming more juice from the battery. 

Runtimes:
Fenix Max - 1 hour (180 lumens)
Quark Max - 0.8 hours (170 lumens)

Fenix High - 2.6 hours (94 lumens)
Quark High - 2.7 hours (70 lumens)

On high, the Quark gets 0.1 hrs more runtime, but is putting out 26% less light (24 less lumens). Are these just conservative Quark numbers, or are they accurate and it's just a case of a more efficient circuit on the PD20?

UnknownVT, I REALLY respect the reviews that you do and I very much appreciate the work you put into all of this. I am not trying to argue, just determine if the Quark is something I want to add to my collection. If it's not any better than the PD20, then I'l probably pass. I really like the super-low low setting, but I have a Ra Twisty to cover that function when needed. And yes, I have carried both lights at the same time on occasion because I've got a pretty severe case of Flashaholism.


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 9, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *UnknownVT* 


_Now according to specs _
_4Sevens Quark 123 is supposed to give out 170 lumens _
_and the Fenix PD20 180 lumens - _
_why? when a R2 is inherently brighter thana Q5? - well, simple - different circuit designs - _
_Fenix is probably driving their Q5 harder - _
_whereas 4Sevens may have taken a more conservative approach to lessen the chance of LED burn out_




StinkyButler said:


> Is this actually the case, or is it an assumption? How can the runtime on Max for the PD20 be a full hour while the runtime on Max for the Quark is 0.8 hrs? Seems to me if the runtime on Max is shorter, the LED is being driven harder and consuming more juice from the battery.
> 
> Runtimes:
> Fenix Max - 1 hour (180 lumens)
> ...


 
What are you questioning as an "assumption"?

I quoted specs and then made a comment - 
is my comment the "assumption" you are objecting to? 
I did not make my comment as a statement of fact, 
and even made that clear by using "_*may have*_" 
- so what is your objection?

If you are merely questioning why the Quark seems to give out less light for shorter runtimes - 
why not just do it openly - 
instead of veiling your question using this review as a guise, 
and *assume* that I had tried to explain it? 
just to be clear, I have _*NOT*_.


----------



## StinkyButler (Jul 9, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> What are you questioning as an "assumption"?
> 
> I quoted specs and then made a comment -
> is my comment the "assumption" you are objecting to?
> ...



Huh??  I'm not objecting, veiling, hiding, or guising, and I'd appreciate it if you were to not assume that I was. I thought I was asking a fair, open, straightforward question as it seems the Fenix light is doing more (more lumens with comparable /more runtime) with less (Q5 vs R2). I don't really know how to be more open about it. I didn't mean to offend you by doing so, I was just looking for some expert opinion on it. I asked the "assuming" part because I didn't know if you had heard something from a credible source on that. Why is that not a fair question?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 9, 2009)

StinkyButler said:


> Huh??  I'm not objecting, veiling, hiding, or guising, and I'd appreciate it if you were to not assume that I was. I thought I was asking a fair, open, straightforward question as it seems the Fenix light is doing more (more lumens with comparable /more runtime) with less (Q5 vs R2). I don't really know how to be more open about it. I didn't mean to offend you by doing so, I was just looking for some expert opinion on it.


 
I don't know the answer - 
other than (obviously) the circuits probably are different.

As to any design philosophy - 
this is a question that should be addressed to 4Sevens and possibly the designers of the Quark series. 



StinkyButler said:


> I asked the "assuming" part because I didn't know if you had heard something from a credible source on that. Why is that not a fair question?


 
no, this is what you actually said:



StinkyButler said:


> Is this actually the case, or is it an assumption?


----------



## StinkyButler (Jul 9, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> no, this is what you actually said:



Dude, I'm truly not trying to argue, ok? I was just asking if you had heard that from a technical source, or if you were guessing/assuming. I still don't see the problem with asking that, but I'm sorry if I posed it in such a manner that was not pleasing to you. 

:grouphug:


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 9, 2009)

StinkyButler said:


> Dude, I'm truly not trying to argue, ok? I was just asking if you had heard that from a technical source, or if you were guessing/assuming. I still don't see the problem with asking that, but I'm sorry if I posed it in such a manner that was not pleasing to you.
> 
> :grouphug:


 
"one doth protest too much" (Shakespeare misquoted)

I am not arguing either....
but that was not what you originally asked -
guessing/assuming about what, please?

I certainly have not made any assumptions or even remarks about runtimes until addressing your question.

Once again - I do _NOT_ know - the question should be addressed to 4Sevens.


----------



## StinkyButler (Jul 9, 2009)

UnknownVT said:


> Fenix is probably driving their Q5 harder -
> whereas 4Sevens may have taken a more conservative approach to lessen the chance of LED burn out



This is the specific part I was asking about, not the specs. I was just curious if you had heard anything to that point or if you were surmising. Sorry if I wasn't clear originally.

If I protested too much, I apologize, I really didn't think I was.

Thanks!


----------



## Crenshaw (Jul 9, 2009)

StinkyButler said:


> This is the specific part I was asking about, not the specs. I was just curious if you had heard anything to that point or if you were surmising. Sorry if I wasn't clear originally.
> 
> If I protested too much, I apologize, I really didn't think I was.
> 
> Thanks!



logical conclusion 1
Brighter Q5 than R2? = R2 being run at a lower ma

Logical conclusion 2
Fenix rates emittor lumens.
4sevens is rating out the front
=Fenix lumens<4sevens lumens, meaning that the Quark could be putting out 190+lumens from the emittor, thus meaning higher draw from the battery, resulting in lower run time.

Crenshaw


----------



## StinkyButler (Jul 9, 2009)

I thought Fenix ratings were OTF. If not, then yes, that could explain it. Thanks!


----------



## UnknownVT (Jul 9, 2009)

Current Draw readings on Max at tailcap - using Primary CR123A

Quark 123 (Clipped) = 2.18A
Quark 123 (Clipless) = 2.02A
Fenix PD20 = 1.18A

*WHOA!!!! hold those horses* - the above were with the 4Sevens CR123A

Using an Energizer CR123A I have gotten very different readings -

Quark 123 (clipped) = 1.90A
Quark 123 (clipless) = 1.87A
Fenix PD20 = 2.02A


----------



## Biginboca (Jul 9, 2009)

I have seen in several places reports that the Quarks run better with 4 Sevens batteries than with other brands.

What kind of sneaky technology is that which allows the batteries to know when they are in a like branded product and then step up their output accordingly? 

Tongue in cheek of course, but strange all the same to me!


----------



## Biginboca (Jul 9, 2009)

Oops, I meant that I have seen in several places reports that the 4 Sevens batteries run better with quarks than these batteries do with other brands.


----------



## Sharpy_swe (Jul 11, 2009)

*UnknownVT* great review, thanks


----------



## run4jc (Sep 28, 2009)

My $.02...received a Quark 123 today - mailed to me on Thursday - arrived today (although they tried to deliver Saturday). I'm impressed with the packaging and the included accessories. I bought the light on an impulse - already own a Novatac 120E, Wolf Eyes Angel C and a Fenix L1D - but I like these small EDC lights and have been impressed with the reviews.
I'm pleased with the light! It is a bright but very warm light (especially compared to the NT) and is much brighter to the eye than the Fenix or Wolf Eyes (as it appears on my office wall).
I like the interface of the Novatac better - but for the money the Quark is great, and appears to have more overall programming options. Wish I'd have gotten in on one of the titanium models...


----------



## run4jc (Sep 29, 2009)

*Re: 4Sevens Quark 123T Comparison Review*

Okay - update. Took the Quark light out this morning for the 'dog walk in darkness.' I got the neutral white version. It is an amazing little light - smaller in form than the Novatac 120E - very comfortable to hold. I bought the flat tail switch but ended up liking the raised original switch.

The light is warm - almost seems amber compared to my SF LX2 and the Novatac, but it is a very pleasing light and has amazing throw on high. Although the LX2 outthrows it, considering you could buy almost 4 of the little Quarks for the price of the LX2, it's an amazing value and it really holds its own. I think I'm going to have to look into the other Quark lights.

My LX2 is still my favorite, but I am VERY impressed with this little Quark light. Great job, 4sevens! :twothumbs


----------



## UnknownVT (Sep 29, 2009)

*Re: 4Sevens Quark 123T Comparison Review*



run4jc said:


> I got the neutral white version. It is an amazing little light -
> I am VERY impressed with this little Quark light. Great job, 4sevens! :twothumbs



Glad you liked this little light.

Funny, when you first posted I wondered whether you'd seen the neutral white version....

Anyway both these reviews may be relevant - since the heads of the Quark 123, AA2 and AA are the same and interchangeable - so you need only get the spare bodies to have the other configurations -

Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA Comparison Review

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


----------



## run4jc (Sep 29, 2009)

run4jc said:


> I like the interface of the Novatac better -



I may have changed my mind about the interface. Once I took the time to learn it and begin programming it, I find that it has great flexibility and is fairly simple. I set mine up with level one brightness being just one step above "moonlight", then level 2 is set up as wide open. When I turn the light on, it is great for moving around the house at night without disturbing anyone - if I need bright light a slight twist gives me full blast. this little light is growing on me every day and I'm thinking it may replace my NT as EDC. Heck, it's in my pocket right now!


----------



## SFG2Lman (Sep 29, 2009)

i have had mine for over a month now and it gets clipped to my pocket before my wallet gets picked up, i have a fenix P1D but the twisting and the weird UI were blown away by the quark123, i have carried it and used it daily since i bought it, just replaced the first battery last week, AWESOME light, i can't wait to get my titanium 123x2


----------



## run4jc (Sep 29, 2009)

*Re: 4Sevens Quark 123T Comparison Review*



UnknownVT said:


> Glad you liked this little light
> 
> Anyway both these reviews may be relevant - since the heads of the Quark 123, AA2 and AA are the same and interchangeable - so you need only get the spare bodies to have the other configurations -
> 
> ...


Drat. the one I want is the 123 - 2 and according the 4Sevens site I can't mix it - can't handle two 123s of any variety. That's okay - I need to wait a while. I've been buying lights like a man possessed lately!!

Ooooo - flashlights.....


----------



## run4jc (Oct 2, 2009)

OK - 123-2 came today. Great little light. 4sevens has outdone themselves. Also got a cool little Fenix folding knife...

Thanks, 4sevens!!


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 2, 2009)

run4jc said:


> OK - 123-2 came today.



flashaholism is pretty addictive -
or is that additive? 

4Sevens doesn't help 
with their really _FAST_ service - 
that's less than 3 days to get to you.....


----------



## patriotgeek (Feb 23, 2012)

I carry the Quark 123in my pocket, the Quark 123 Tactical in the belt sheath and the Quark Mini.
I lost the Mini to my wife's keychain and had to get another...
The new Mini now rides on a chain with my neck knife.
Great Flashlights!


----------



## rcyo88 (May 11, 2012)

nice little light. i'm familiar more with the fenix PD20 and i don't know too much about the 4seven. thanks for the review. i didn't know the hotspot can be so defined.


----------

