Quark X 123^2 using only rcr123

Grmnracing

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
193
Location
CT USA
I'm really stuck between the Quark X aa^2 and x 123^2.
I prefer the aa for cost and availability of battery's. Whats the actual runtime on 2 rcr123 batteries? I've been searching but can't find a definitive answer.
 

LightWalker

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
1,631
Location
USA
Runtime
1x 17670 1600mAh AW Protected
Maximum01:29 to 50%
High07:40 to 50%
Medium30:55 to 50%
Low~3 days
Moonlight~20 days
2x 16340 750mAh AW Protected
Maximum01:09 to 50%
High05:17 to 50%
Medium21:51 to 50%
Low~2.5 days
Moonlight~15 days
2x CR123 1500mAh e²
Maximum02:08 to 50%
High10:55 to 50%
Medium50:14 to 50%
Low~5 days
Moonlight~30 days

http://archive.light-reviews.com/4sevens_quark123_2/
 

Labrador72

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,851
Location
European Union

enomosiki

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,109
Get a Quark X AA2 head and a CR123A body and throw a CR123A or RCR123A in it. You'll get a whopping 400 lumens out of the sucker when it's running on turbo.
 

bfksc

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
186
Location
Canada
Get a Quark X AA2 head and a CR123A body and throw a CR123A or RCR123A in it. You'll get a whopping 400 lumens out of the sucker when it's running on turbo.
I'm beginning to wonder if my 123x2 XM-L NW is defective. According to Selfbuilt and other reviews the 123x2 produces about 500 using RCR123's, yet when comparing the Quark AA XP-G R5 with the AAx2 and 123x2 XM-L all side by side, outputs are roughly 100, 200, and 300 lumens respectively. And that's immediately after powering on, not after 3 mins for the XM-L. I bought the 123x2 expecting to get a lot more light out of it based on what people said about it, but I'm somewhat disappointed with its output. In fact, when I let it run for over 3 minutes, it doesn't drop output at all. I can see it gradually dim over those 3 minutes by about 10% which is noticeable if I turn it on/off/on quickly. But it defintely is not pushing anything close to the claims of others. I have the T5 neutral white emitter in mine, but that should only affect output level by about 10% lower than the T6 cool white, which seems correct when comparing moonlight, low, med settings to my other Quarks. But on Max it definitely is not pushing 400-500 lumens.
:duh2:
 

Grmnracing

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
193
Location
CT USA
I'm beginning to wonder if my 123x2 XM-L NW is defective. According to Selfbuilt and other reviews the 123x2 produces about 500 using RCR123's, yet when comparing the Quark AA XP-G R5 with the AAx2 and 123x2 XM-L all side by side, outputs are roughly 100, 200, and 300 lumens respectively. And that's immediately after powering on, not after 3 mins for the XM-L. I bought the 123x2 expecting to get a lot more light out of it based on what people said about it, but I'm somewhat disappointed with its output. In fact, when I let it run for over 3 minutes, it doesn't drop output at all. I can see it gradually dim over those 3 minutes by about 10% which is noticeable if I turn it on/off/on quickly. But it defintely is not pushing anything close to the claims of others. I have the T5 neutral white emitter in mine, but that should only affect output level by about 10% lower than the T6 cool white, which seems correct when comparing moonlight, low, med settings to my other Quarks. But on Max it definitely is not pushing 400-500 lumens.
:duh2:

Look over his review. I believe his method of measuring lumens or output was his own method. I believe he was giving comparisons. Also, I'm not sure how the lumens were measured. Lumens off the led and lumens OTF are a lot different. Who knows, I'm just a noob!
 

Grmnracing

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
193
Location
CT USA
Look over his review. I believe his method of measuring lumens or output was his own method. I believe he was giving comparisons. Also, I'm not sure how the lumens were measured. Lumens off the led and lumens OTF are a lot different. Who knows, I'm just a noob!

Here read this part.

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have recently devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info.
 

enomosiki

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Messages
1,109
I'm beginning to wonder if my 123x2 XM-L NW is defective. According to Selfbuilt and other reviews the 123x2 produces about 500 using RCR123's, yet when comparing the Quark AA XP-G R5 with the AAx2 and 123x2 XM-L all side by side, outputs are roughly 100, 200, and 300 lumens respectively. And that's immediately after powering on, not after 3 mins for the XM-L. I bought the 123x2 expecting to get a lot more light out of it based on what people said about it, but I'm somewhat disappointed with its output. In fact, when I let it run for over 3 minutes, it doesn't drop output at all. I can see it gradually dim over those 3 minutes by about 10% which is noticeable if I turn it on/off/on quickly. But it defintely is not pushing anything close to the claims of others. I have the T5 neutral white emitter in mine, but that should only affect output level by about 10% lower than the T6 cool white, which seems correct when comparing moonlight, low, med settings to my other Quarks. But on Max it definitely is not pushing 400-500 lumens.
:duh2:

I think you are confusing intensity (lux) with output (lumens).

Here are some things to consider;

- Physically, XM-L's die is twice as big as XP-G's
- At same drive current, XM-L T5 bin is 63% brighter than XP-G R5 bin

Those two facts result in XM-L version being 63% brighter than XP-G version, but XP-G's hot spot will be half the size of XM-L's. That means that, while XM-L's overall output will be higher, the hot spot of XP-G's will be more intense and, thus, it will appear as if XP-G is brighter.

The easiest and fastest way to neutralize the intensity differences and check for differences in overall output is to perform the ceiling bounce test. To perform the test, you will need to be in a room, preferably with white ceiling. For best results, turn off all interior lighting and block exterior lights coming in. Now, point both of your lights towards the ceiling and turn them on, one by one, and check the ambient illumination that is provided by the reflection of the light from the ceiling. Depending on the output of the lights, your surroundings will look brighter or dimmer. If everything went correctly, your XM-L Quark should provide more illumination than your XP-G Quark when both are running on turbo modes.

Try it out, and you'll notice that XM-L Quark will be brighter.
 

bfksc

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
186
Location
Canada
I think you are confusing intensity (lux) with output (lumens).
The easiest and fastest way to neutralize the intensity differences and check for differences in overall output is to perform the ceiling bounce test.
Actually I know the differences, and I always compare lights side by side with a ceiling bounce. My 123x2 is nowhere near 400 lumens...as I mentioned in my previous post there is no sudden drop in output after the 3 minute mark when I leave it on for 5 minutes. Output starts at about 330 lumens (based on output quotes from 4Sevens and my own observations) and drops slowly to about 300. It then stays there continuously without any drop in output. It doesn't act like I expect it should according to tests and reviews from other users.

I'm thinking it's defective and I was shipped a bad unit...
 
Top