4Sevens Quark AA-Warm Comparison Review

[UnknownVT]

Hot off the press - courtesy of 4Sevens I have in my hot little hands a Limited Run Quark AA-Warm white.

To be clear this is a Warm tinted LED a Cree XP-G Q5 - 7A3 or 7B4 bin tint,
as opposed to the previous run of Neutral whites.
Binning sheet for the Cree XP series -


these Warm whites are in the color temperature of about 3100K (green outline)-
most people (including me) probably won't tell any difference between the two bins -
especially in any typical flashlight usage.

At about 3100K this is close to imitating a good incandescent halogen xenon light (max possible color temp = 3200K before it burns out).
(Note: the Neutral white used previously were about 4100K, bin: Q3-5A - in blue-gray circle)

This Quark AA Warm Tactical was actually an AA2 head that I moved onto a single AA body to make up a "Quark AA-Warm".

Size -


Head -

This time the yellow/brown tint of the phosphor in the emitter is more obvious - whereas the tint of the Neutral white emitter phosphor is just barely different from the cool white.

What about this fuss over the Green packaging?

well, I really like this in a reusable heavy duty zip-lock bag - that's really good thinking - far more useful than boxes that cluster up space.

So OK what is the Warm emitter like?

vs. Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA both Max and NiMH

yes, the Warm is "warmer" more yellow than the Neutral white and it is indeed brighter - as one would expect being a Q5 flux vs. the Q3 flux of the neutral white.

vs. 4Sevens Quark AA-R5 Cool White both Max and NiMH

well, not bad at all seems close in brightness - and the Warm does look like an incandescent.

Talking about incandescent - let's compare the Quark AA Warm to a real incandescent - the now legendary and one time considered a brightness monster the SureFire 9P - mine is the real original original 9P it is a Xenon powered by 3x CR123A and rated at 105 lumens......

vs. SureFire 9P (Xenon 3x CR123A) -

I would say these were pretty comparable -
the SureFire 9P has a more intense hotspot - but that stands to reason because of the much bigger deeper reflector - but the tints in these comparison beamshots look very similar
(but note in real-life the SF 9P seems a bit paler yellow and may have a hint of green when compared side-by-side to the eye)

So for incandescent flashaholics this is close to ideal -
the color temperature of a good incandescent xenon light
but with the efficiency/runtime of LED
and now higher output and multiple levels.......

Life for flashaholics just keeps getting better.

INDEX to Follow Up Parts -

Comparison of 3.7V Li-Ion 14500, and 3V power (Quark AA2 and Quark 123 configurations) to incandescent SureFire 9P (xenon 3x CR123) - Post #6

Attempt at use of RAW to try to show difference seen by eye that photo did not show - Post #8
(please also see post #341 by Canuke over at 4Sevens' CPF MarketPlace: XP-G Warm White Pre-orders! w/ GREEN Packaging! explaining why even RAW would not capture some of the tint differences I saw between warm white emitters and real incandescents )

Explanation of how different tints appear to eye and photograph - Post #16

Comparisons with more incandescent - Streamlight Scorpion (xenon 2x CR123), 2AA MiniMag and 1AAA Mag Solitaire - Post #21

Outdoor beamshots of leaves comparing Warm, Neutral and Cool White Quarks plus incandescent - Post #23

Three beams on one tree (Warm, Neutral and Cool White) and more outdoor leaves comparisons - Post #39

Flesh tone comparison of hand palm - Post #45

Explanation of wider hotspot of Warm XP-G than Cool White XP-G - Post #53

[BlueMarble]

Great comparison. Thank you so much!

[LightWalker]

The warm LEDs look just like incandescents in photos.

[choaticwhisper]

The warm LEDs look just like incandescents in photos.

+1
Why not throw a pic of Neutral-White vs Cool White? I think you already have pic, Dont you?

Looks great. Seems like the quark warmwhite isn't that far off from the 105 SF lumens.

[UnknownVT]

Why not throw a pic of Neutral-White vs Cool White? I think you already have pic, Dont you?

ha-ha! why not just click on the link I gave of: Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA just above the comparison with the Neutral White?

But your wish is my.....
just for you I've thrown them in here
- so you don't even have to click on the link
Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA vs. 4Sevens Quark AA Cool White both Max NiMH

[UnknownVT]

My guess the main attraction of the Warm White LEDs is that they imitate/mimic an incandescent - but with all the advantages of LED - in terms of output and efficiency, plus the ability to to have multi-modes and levels.

So I did a bit more comparisons with incandescent.

First I dropped in a 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 -

3.7V Li-Ion 14500 vs. SureFire 9P (Xenon 3x CR123)

Now it's pretty obvious that on Li-Ion 14500 the Quark AA-Warm is brighter than the SureFire 9P - but SF 9P still has a more intense hotspot -

The Quark heads are versatile/interchangeable with other bodies to 4.2V max -

Quark AA2-Warm (2x AA NiMH) vs. SureFire 9P

this pair looks very similar to the pair of beamshots above using 14500.

The reason the 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 isn't any brighter is because of the current regulating circuit.

4Sevens Quark series have Buck-Boost regulating circuits which bucks the voltages above Vf (forward voltage) down to the spec'd safe levels - and for voltages below Vf as in 2x AA (~3V) it Boosts the voltage to the Vf. So at the LED emitter -
a 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 which is likely to be above gets Bucked to the Vf
and the 2x AA NiMH (~2.4V nominal) which is below gets boosted to Vf -
therefore the output is the same as in both cases only Vf is presented.

The Quark Warm head will also work on a single 123 body making it a
Quark 123 Warm vs. SureFire 9P

so it should come as no surprise that this set of beamshots look almost identical to the two sets above.....

Notice: the color/tint look very similar in all the photos.
However by eye I see the SF 9P as a paler straw yellow with hint of green in comparison the Warm LED has some pink-ishness.

So I'm a bit surprised that my camera did not capture the difference I see by eye - I am careful to use fixed daylight white balance - and since the beams are on the same photo - they get exactly the same treatment by both the camera and any processing - so if the camera can capture the difference it should have been shown -
BUT as I said my eyes see a difference that these beamshots do not show.

I was concerned enough that I wondered if using camera RAW could show this difference - so I took some side-by-side comparison beamshots using my dSLR shooting in RAW - as well as more comparisons with known incandescents - AA MiniMag, 1AAA Mag Solitaire, and a Streamlight Scorpion (Xenon 2x CR123) - I'll post the results later.

[PhantomPhoton]

Thanks for the initial pictures. Darn that neutral white is nice.

[UnknownVT]

So I'm a bit surprised that my camera did not capture the difference I see by eye - I am careful to use fixed daylight white balance - and since the beams are on the same photo - they get exactly the same treatment by both the camera and any processing - so if the camera can capture the difference it should have been shown -
BUT as I said my eyes see a difference that these beamshots do not show.

I was concerned enough that I wondered if using camera RAW could show this difference - so I took some side-by-side comparison beamshots using my dSLR shooting in RAW

So for those who think that regular JPG photos even with fixed daylight white balance may be the cause of the limitation of being able to capture the differences I see by eye in the tints of the WW Quark and the incandescent SF 9P (despite the fact my beamshots are side-by-side on the same photo - so the beams receive exactly the same treatment by the camera and any processing).

I took careful side-by-side beamshots in RAW with my dSLR - Pentax K-x which gets very good to excellent color accuracy ratings in reviews.

Then processed the RAW/DNG files with two different processors - Adobe Camera RAW 5.6 (latest version that supports my camera, via PS Elements 7.0) and Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4.11 (again latest version - based on SilkyPix). I used manul white balance by selecting color temperatures of 5000K (sunlight) and 6500K (CIE/international daylight - note the Pentax DCU did not have 6500K - so I used its nearest 6250K) I present the results in a matrix below -
(all the EXIF metadata should be still attached - caveat PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)



the -2 stops underexposed versions



So here's proof positive that even with RAW and careful manual white balancing using known color temperatures my camera cannot differentiate the tints that I easily saw with my eyes
(before people make too big a deal out of this - the tint variance is noticeable if one looks for it - but overall the two tints are close -
in other words the Warm White emitter does do a very good job of mimicking a real incandescent -
as (ha-ha!) the photos show, albeit the photos do have limitations!
how's that for circular logic?)

[Yavox]

Great comparison, thanks. I will have to order warm Preon I think.

[TONY M]

Very cool! Thanks for this comparison.

[signal 13]

I never really paid much attention to the Quark line, but I think this would be a good time to try a warm tinted LED light...

[FroggyTaco]

Thanks for the photo's. I think I am neutral guy from now on.

Was there a stated CRI improvement from neutral to warm?

[Flying Turtle]

Thanks, again, for all your hard work, Vincent. That QMini AA with warm emitter has been calling me. Your pics really give me a good idea what to expect.

Geoff

[readyme]

Let me start by asking forgiveness for my ignorance. Why is there such "love" for incandescent lights? or.....why is this "warm" light so great?
The pictures make it almost seem that the WARM LED would make everything yellow whereas the COOL LED would be more natural/neutral/white.
Just wondering...I "need" an AA Quark Tactical but I am not sure which LED to get (as an EDC).

[was.lost.but.now.found]

Fantastic comparisons!! I don't suppose you have any outdoor beamshot comparisons?

[UnknownVT]

Let me start by asking forgiveness for my ignorance. Why is there such "love" for incandescent lights? or.....why is this "warm" light so great?

Our eye/brain combination "see" differently to a camera - especially one that is using daylight white balance (eg: daylight color slide film or digital camera using Fixed Daylight White Balance) - that is like trying to view/compare under sunny noon-daylight.

Our eyes/brain adapt to lighting conditions and empirically (ie: reproducible by controlled experiments) follows the Kruithof curve (link - please read article)

There have been serious experiments to determine -
The Color of White
paper published by the WAAC - Western Association for Art Conservation -
specifically on illumination for displaying art/paintings (again please read) -
their findings fit well in the Kruithof curve.

So put it simply when the light level is lower our eyes tend to "see" light with more yellow/amber as "white" - it could be culture/conditioning/even evolution - but that's the way it is.

That's why so many consider normal tungsten household lighting "white" until one actually compares it with daylight - then the yellowness is shown in comparison - but under normal circumstances the light will persist in looking "white" - in the absence of any reference comparison.

It should be noted that at night if the main lighting is tungsten for example and a smaller weaker light of daylight temperature like 6500K is shown it would look distinctly blue'ish to most people.

So for a flashlight which is used mainly for outdoors and shone at distance objects (where then illumination intesity would be low) a daylight-like color temperature would make the scene look gray'ish and lacking in depth. Hence the many complaints about LED flashlights used outdoors.

Whereas old fashioned tungsten flashlight would seem more realistic and fuller in color almost looking 3-D in comparison.

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.

My comparison beamshots are set to Fixed Daylight White Balance - but I compare flashlights side-by-side in the same photo - so that differences hopefully can be shown/seen.

And the beamshots show that the Warm White emitter is very close to a good incandescent light.

So if one is an incandescent enthusiast - now a very similar color temperature/tint is available in LED - with all the inherent advantages of LED like long runtimes, higher brightness and multiple mode/levels are now available.

Hope that made some sense.

[kaichu dento]

Very nice post, that!

[Locoboy5150]

Let me start by asking forgiveness for my ignorance. Why is there such "love" for incandescent lights? or.....why is this "warm" light so great?

If you get the chance, take or borrow an incandescent light, warm LED light and a cool white LED light outside in the woods like on a night hike. Then turn them all on and compare them to each other in the wilderness. It's hard to describe in words but once you're out in the wild, notice how everything just "comes alive" when looking at it while lit up with the incandescent and warm LED lights. Cool white LED lights make everything look "flat" by washing out the colors and thus the details. Incandescent and warm white LEDs make the colors come alive outdoors. Even neutral white LEDs are much better than cool white LEDs outdoors in the woods.

Like I said, it's hard to describe, but once you get these very different types of lights outside where they belong, then you'll see the difference. The results might surprise you if you're used to looking at things like lumen output, brightness of light, etcetera. They sure surprised me!

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.

[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 then you for posting them, but please also show them in the environment that they were designed for, the great outdoors.

I raise you this:

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.

....yes, I have the gift of foresight... er-hum

The only true way, is to do what you suggested of actually using one's eyes in the environment that the Warm White or incandescent "shine" (sorry about the pun.....)

[Locoboy5150]

The only true way, is to do what you suggested of actually using one's eyes in the environment that the Warm White or incandescent "shine" (sorry about the pun.....)

Oh, I see. I've never tried taking photos of beamshots before so now I can understand what you're talking about. Well, thanks for your indoor shots though. They do help out a lot, especially the ones showing the warm white Quark LED to an incandescent light.

[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

[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

Hmm, http://www.4sevens.com/product_info....oducts_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....oducts_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

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.