4Sevens Quark AA-Warm Comparison Review

[UnknownVT]

They do help out a lot, especially the ones showing the warm white Quark LED to an incandescent light.

Yeah, it didn't occur to me until I posted the review that the more useful comparison beamshots would be the ones that compared with the real incandescent - my comparison with the SureFire 9P wasn't quite a mere afterthought - but wasn't exactly high on my priority.... (confessions of a doofus reviewer).

So to make up for my lack of true foresight -

Here are side-by-side comparisons with more well known real incandescents which hopefully many can related to - or even own......

4Sevens Quark AA-Warm vs. Streamlight Scorpion - Xenon 2x CR123

quick word about this comparison beamshot - although I deliberately chose a level on the Quark Warm to be as close to the incandescent compared to - I wasn't looking to compare brightness levels - but whatever I felt was the best level to compare the color/tints -
thus although the next level up 4 - High (85 lumens) would have been more appropriate for comparing brightness - the Quark Warm has a much narrower side-spill and therefore much more concentrated - ie: brighter, that the comparison of tints/color would not have been as good as at level 3 - Medium which is only rated at about 22 lumens, and we all know the incand Scorpion is rated much closer to real OTF 60 lumens - as the -2 stops underexposed shot shows the Scorpion is much brighter.

Having said all that - it is still somewhat hard to compare the tints - simply because of the really wide side-spill of the Scorpion - look carefully at the full exposure beamshot and one can see its side-spill actually encompasses and overlaps the entire hotspot of the Quark AA-Warm - so the area to concentrate on to compare the tints is actually quite small - where there is obviously no overlap of beams - that is toward the bottom left where the beam side-spills intersect to form like an X - look at the 9 and 3 o'clock quadrants to compare the side-spill of the Quark AA-Warm and that of the Scorpion respectively.....
Hope that was clear enough .....
don't make me have to draw it out for you....
ah, well -

hope I don't have to explain what the X1 and X2 means? (just messing with you....)

So after all that the tint of the Warm White is very close to the Xenon -
but there is the same caveat - the camera does not show everything my eyes can see - to my eyes the Scorpion Xenon seems a more pale straw yellow with a hint of green - whereas the Quark AA-Warm has more pink in its beam.

How about more down to earth incandescent flashlights?

Vs. 2AA MiniMag (Krypton on alkaline)

again pretty close in color tint -
this time the camera may be seeing a bit closer to my eyes
more red in the beam of the Krypton MinMag -
and this time in comparison the Warm White LED seems more pale straw yellow and may be even a hint of green!
- remember my eyes are not absolute measuring instruments I see differences and contrasts in comparisons.

Note: I deliberately used Alkaline AA in the 2AA MiniMag because there may be a disadvantage if NiMH are used due to their inherent lower voltage levels - and incandescent are very voltage dependent on their output.

Note2: the levels seem about the same - the level 2 - Low rating on the Quark AA is about 4 lumens - and the 2AA MiniMag has been guessti-rated at about 5.6 lumens(?)

How about the classic(-ally) maligned
vs. Mag Solitaire 1AAA

Moonlight mode would have been way too low for a meaningful comparison and even the next level up 2 - Low seems too much - but here it is anyway......

 

[ODatsBright]

I, too, have ordered a warm quark 123² based on the "hype" of the warms. Seeing the beam shots my first impression is "What have I done? " I'm not a fan of yellow light but I can attest to the "flatness" of a high kelvin LED by playing with my lights outside vs. my 2D Mag WA(I forget the number, something like 1217). I think it's rated about 500lm and compared to my Dereelight DBS MC-E the color temp make a big difference with perception, especially after a rain. The water drops on the grass and trees really scatters the light and creates what I can only describe as interference. It's not so much when using the incan.

Bottom line tho, I hope I made a good choice.

 

[UnknownVT]

It would be helpful if someone could please take the Quark Warm white lights outside where they will really shine. The beam patterns on a wall indoors are helpful and thank you for posting them, but please also show them in the environment that they were designed for, the great outdoors.

Having given my caveat about outdoor beamshots -

Originally Posted by UnknownVT
Photos cannot show this well - because to get a reasonably exposed photo mean that the illumination level has to be relatively high - and looking at the Kruithof curve one can see then our eyes would favor cooler daylight like temperatures.

nevertheless here are some - as requested - FWIW -

first thing to notice is that the Warm version seems to have a wider hotpsot even if it's not as intense and its side-spill is relatively speaking brighter. The Neutral White version seems to have a more concentrated hot spot and relatively less bright side-spill so in the beamshot is showing less overall. I took a daylight control shot earlier in the day (obviously in daylight) to compare.

The R5 Cool white to my eyes has always seem too cool/blue'ish and this beamshot seems to confirm it - and even though details are nice and sharp, when compared to the Warm or even Neutral white it seems paler/washed out and less vibrant in color - the Warm kind of looks too warm to me, and the Neutral white is a nice compromise.

BUT our eyes do not see like a camera with fixed daylight white balance,
and in real life it'd be a toss up whether I'd choose the Warm or Neutral White.

 

[Linger]

OK, perfect choice taking an outdoor beamshot of a tree. Excellent. But for comparison, please do a pic with two or more lights on the tree at the same time.
Two beams just separated, or if you can manage 3 in a triangular orientation.

 

[ky70]

Vincent, thanks for posting this great thread. This is just a wonderful tour of the quark warm lights and more importantly, an excellent introduction to the appeal of warm lights. I've never considered warm lights but after reading this thread, I'm excited about getting myself one. Thanks again for the detailed review!!

 

[was.lost.but.now.found]

nevertheless here are some - as requested - FWIW -

For what it's worth? Are you kidding me?

1000 words.
$1 Million.
4Sevens - priceless

Fantastic pictures, thank you many times over. I know you say it does not show it as well as it should, but it does a very good job nonetheless. I want one so bad, I just wish so bad I could get one with the standard .9-4.2V circuit. I cannot believe that is not available in any form. I'd be willing to buy an extra tube to get the battery type I want, just give me that circuit:mecry:

 

[geek1]

For what it's worth? Are you kidding me?

1000 words.
$1 Million.
4Sevens - priceless

Fantastic pictures, thank you many times over. I know you say it does not show it as well as it should, but it does a very good job nonetheless. I want one so bad, I just wish so bad I could get one with the standard .9-3.0V circuit. I cannot believe that is not available in any form. I'd be willing to buy an extra tube to get the battery type I want, just give me that circuit:mecry:

Hmm, http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_310&products_id=2287

"Voltage range: 0.9V ~ 4.2V"

Ps: Very, very interesting article about that Kruithofcurve, well done!

 

[was.lost.but.now.found]

Hmm, http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_310&products_id=2287

That is the tactical curcuit, I said I wanted the standard curcuit. There are zero standard circuit warm Quarks, let alone a specific voltage of 0.9-4.2 vs. 3.0-9.0.

 

[UnknownVT]

I just wish so bad I could get one with the standard .9-3.0V circuit. I cannot believe that is not available in any form. I'd be willing to buy an extra tube to get the battery type I want, just give me that circuit:mecry:

If you mean the regular multi-mode circuit (as opposed to the "Tactical") then I'd agree with you - it would have made my life so much easier when taking comparison beamshots not to have to program the light to get the right level when trying to match the lower incandescents....
"that seems the best match...
but which level was it?...
darn! program it again and count this time...
oh, missed that's now too high...
so it was the one below -
program it again...."

I like the tactical switch - but I'd rather have the regular (non-tactical) multi-mode circuit
(who voted for this?
they ought get several tens of thousand volts )

But if you just mean 0.9-3V circuit - that is what I tested came as a Quark AA2 Warm - but Tactical circuit.... (with rant above)
and BTW it's 0.9-4.2V, and a real 4.2V max at that - as it is a Buck-Boost current regulating circuit.

 

[UnknownVT]

But for comparison, please do a pic with two or more lights on the tree at the same time.
Two beams just separated, or if you can manage 3 in a triangular orientation.

I can try -
but the main objection I have
other than extra work
and I have to wait until dark again
is that the beams will be on different parts of the tree -
Plus I have to use a wider angle perspective so the details one sees will be smaller and possibly less meaningful
(... can you tell I've done this before?)

Whereas the "matrix" I displayed shows the beams on the same part of the tree, with good detail, so one can compare directly -
other than not actually being on the same photo
- what's the objection?

Now this is different from the side-by-side comparison beamshots I do -
since that is on a sheet of plain white paper
so the each beam is showing the "same" reflective surface
and not different parts of the tree
which may well have different features.

 

[geek1]

That is the tactical curcuit, I said I wanted the standard curcuit. There are zero standard circuit warm Quarks, let alone a specific voltage of 0.9-4.2 vs. 3.0-9.0.

So what you actually wanted to say was "regular UI with 0.9V-4.2V circuit...

If i'm not too lazy (which i usually am) i'm going to make some outdoor beamshots of my warm quarks compared to my other flashlights (neutral, cool and incandescent). I wonder if it's possible to get better quality beamshots by using HDR? Anyone ever tried?

 

[was.lost.but.now.found]

and BTW it's 0.9-4.2V, and a real 4.2V max at that - as it is a Buck-Boost current regulating circuit.

Yep, I corrected my original post - thank you.

 

[Linger]

is that the beams will be on different parts of the tree -

Yes, true. But if it's possible to use the same tree as in the previous round of pics, we'll have enough of a baseline to know what it looked like with single torch illumination.
Yes, your time, totally true. I try to ask nicely:candle::wave:
Otherwise distances and angles can stay the same. It's not to compose a well balanced shot, just putting the two colours into the same image is wonderful.
I do believe that others may find it an informative example.

 

[UnknownVT]

Yes, true. But if it's possible to use the same tree as in the previous round of pics, we'll have enough of a baseline to know what it looked like with single torch illumination.

Otherwise distances and angles can stay the same. It's not to compose a well balanced shot, just putting the two colours into the same image is wonderful.
I do believe that others may find it an informative example.

You mean to say the matrix is not useful to anyone?
bearing in mind I used Fixed Daylight Balance for all the shots - I was careful to do that since we are comparing tints/colors -
so one cannot compare separate photos
even if they are right next to each other?

Distance and angle canNOT possibly be the same
as I have to cover a much wider area -
nevertheless after it gets dark I can try again -
it also may not be the same tree -
as the area I used may not be able to accommodate all three beams.

- like I said I've done this before -
perhaps you ought to try it yourself -
to see my objections are not mere excuses ?

 

[fugleebeast]

I'm confused by the difference in beam profiles, as I noted in the Marketplace.

Since they are all XPGs in the same type of head, shouldn't they have the same beam profiles? Is it linked to the Cool, Neutral, Warm difference somehow?

 

[bodhran]

Now that I've seen a ww in person, I think your tree photos are very good. Thanks for taking the time to provide those.

 

[Locoboy5150]

nevertheless here are some - as requested - FWIW -

Those are great - thanks for posting them! Those photos definitely show the advantages of warm white LEDs compared to cool white LEDs. At least...that's how my eyes see them. When it comes to this stuff, everyone's eyes are different.

 

[Linger]

VT, I've only written you with respect. Just like the rest of the posters here, I was the first to say thanx.
No negative vibes here: I've offered compliments and kudos, appreciating your forethought in composition, dedication in consistency, and your donation of time effort and talent.
I happen to find a particular shot quite illustrative, that's the only reason I mentioned it. From pouring over countless beamshots and taking hundreds of my own, one subject (tree) illuminated with several of the independent variables (different emitter quarks) can produce a very informative image.

 

[UnknownVT]

As promised here are three lights on one tree - as discussed.

To show my willingness I had actually scouted two trees during the daylight hours took daylight reference shots of those, then waited til dark to take the triple beamshots. FWIW - here they are:

Version 1:

Note the leaves that the Neutral white is on are quite a bit closer than the others and there are fewer leaves in that area too.

This is merely one of the problems trees are NOT FLAT and therefore there will be some leaves closer etc. ie: inconsistencies.

Version 2:

the daylight reference shot may seem to show a more "consistent tree"...
that is until I shone the flashlights on it - then the gaps became more apparent - again the neutral white had few leaves to reflect and shone through gaps.

It is true these triple beamshots are still useful as a comparison
but they have problems - unfortunately there is no way I can find an ideal tree....

This is the reason I much prefer the separate shots where at least I can control the area used and all the flashlights are shone on the same area - making it easier to compare the beams.

Here's another set of leaves beamshots - this time showing more of the underside of leaves:

Do tell me please, why this matrix or the one posted in #23 (link) are any less useful than the triple beamshots?

In fact I will go as far to say the matrix is far more useful because we are looking at the same area, illuminated by the different flashlights, so can validly compare directly -
whereas the triple beamshots have different parts of the tree, and for example (and I did not do this deliberately) - it is kind of hard to differentiate and see the difference between the Neutral white and the Warm white in one of the triple beamshots.

 

[kaichu dento]

That is really incredible seeing all three at the same time - thanks for all the trouble you've gone through taking these shots for us! :twothumbs