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 They long ago switched to higher output XP-G emitters, so the output levels and runtimes here are somewhat out of date.
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
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?
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).
For your testing do you position the sensor @ 1M or do you go father out and then multiply?
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).
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.
It's obvious you put a lot of work into these reviews. Thanks for an outstanding review.
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.
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.
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!
The Quark 123 has a much better beam and is easier to hold as well. Have you looked at the XML versions?
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. - John 12:46
Gotta love them Quarks!
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!!