4Sevens Quark 123 Comparison Review

UnknownVT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
3,671
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.

QuarkSeriesPk.jpg


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

A couple of shots of the Quark Series -

QuarkSeries.jpg


QuarkSeriesScn.jpg



Size -
Quark123sz.jpg

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 -
Quark123hd.jpg


Comparison on High/Max using primary CR123A -

Clipped vs. Clipless both Max primary CR123A -
Quark123_clipless.jpg
Quark123_clipless2U.jpg

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
Quark123_PD20.jpg
Quark123_PD20U2.jpg

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

vs. NiteCore EX10 Max primary CR123A
Quark123_EX10.jpg
Quark123_EX10U2.jpg

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)
QuarkAA_123.jpg
QuarkAA_123U2.jpg

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!!! :eek:

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
Quark123_EX10Min.jpg
Quark123_EX10Min2U.jpg

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
Quark123_2_EX10Min.jpg
Quark123_2_EX10Min2U.jpg

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
Quark123_cliplessMin.jpg
Quark123_cliplessMin2U.jpg

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)
QuarkAA1_123Min.jpg
QuarkAA1_123Min2U.jpg

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
 
Last edited:

DM51

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
13,338
Location
Borg cube #51
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

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
8,761
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

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
75
Location
Prescott, AZ
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...
 

4sevens

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
2,876
Location
Atlanta, GA
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 :)

Quark123_PD20.jpg
Quark123_PD20U2.jpg


StairQuark123.jpg
StairPD20.jpg
 

Grumpy

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
393
Location
Virginia
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

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
3,671
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.
 

StinkyButler

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Lake Villa, IL
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

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

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
3,671
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


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. :)

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.
 
Last edited:

StinkyButler

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Lake Villa, IL
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.

Huh?? :confused: 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

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
3,671
Huh?? :confused: 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.

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:

Is this actually the case, or is it an assumption?
 
Last edited:

StinkyButler

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Lake Villa, IL
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

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
3,671
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

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
80
Location
Lake Villa, IL
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

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,308
Location
Singapore
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
 
Top