Maxpedition - Bags and Packs
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

  1. #1

    Default FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Hi all, trying to decide between the quark pro QP2A (with second generation XP-G) and the QP2AX (has the XM-L emitter) (both 2xAA lights). Any suggestions that would point to one over the other? Thanks for your help!

  2. #2
    Flashaholic jonnyfgroove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    368

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by MU22 View Post
    Hi all, trying to decide between the quark pro QP2A (with second generation XP-G) and the QP2AX (has the XM-L emitter) (both 2xAA lights). Any suggestions that would point to one over the other? Thanks for your help!
    The XP-G2 version should throw a bit better than the XM-L.
    "Push back the night" - Bob Weir

  3. #3
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    pacific northwest
    Posts
    395

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    flood (xm-l) vs throw (xp-g). take your pick

  4. #4

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Would the XP-G still provide a good amount of spill outside of the central hotspot?

  5. #5

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    xm-l version throws about as well as the xp-g version simply cos it puts out double the lumens

    xp-g2 throws better than both

    i have all 3 so i know

  6. #6

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    haha very nice! Is the xp-g2 significantly brighter than the regular xp-g?

  7. #7

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by MU22 View Post
    haha very nice! Is the xp-g2 significantly brighter than the regular xp-g?



    pretty good improvement in throw i.e. readily apparent

    minor improvement in overall brightness

  8. #8

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by Overclocker View Post

    pretty good improvement in throw i.e. readily apparent

    minor improvement in overall brightness
    Thanks for the beamshots, they are a huge help!

  9. #9
    Flashaholic* LightWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,296

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by Overclocker View Post


    pretty good improvement in throw i.e. readily apparent

    minor improvement in overall brightness
    Were these beamshots taken from same size reflectors?
    I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. Jesus Christ - John 12:46

  10. #10

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by LightWalker View Post
    Were these beamshots taken from same size reflectors?

    yes

  11. #11

    Default FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by MU22 View Post
    Would the XP-G still provide a good amount of spill outside of the central hotspot?
    One thing you find on a thrower, is that the spill tends to get a little washed out by the more intense brightness of the hotspot.

    Question to those that have both XP-G2 and XML versions, do find any difference with pre-flash and reset times on a Li-ion? The XML seems to have resolved these and was wondering if this latest emitter does too.

  12. #12

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    I have a thread asking some close to this. do you think you could put a beam shot of the XM-L vs the S2. thats what Im trying to decide between...thanks

  13. #13

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by redline8k View Post
    I have a thread asking some close to this. do you think you could put a beam shot of the XM-L vs the S2. thats what Im trying to decide between...thanks
    too bad i don't have the s2

  14. #14

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by Overclocker View Post
    too bad i don't have the s2
    I think redline8k is referring to the xpg2 vs the XML (which I am curious to see as well)

  15. #15

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Question!

    Looking at the two lights, the XP-G2 version seems much more efficient according to 4seven's numbers.

    Example (and taking into account 4sevens line that to convert from their XP-G numbers to the XP-G2, one should up the lumens by 20%):

    Lumens - Runtime:

    XP-G2

    • .24 - 30 days
    • 4.8 - 5 days
    • 26 - 24 hours
    • 102 - 5 hours
    • 246 - 1.3 hours


    XM-L

    • .3 - 15 days
    • 2.7 - 3 days
    • 24 - 20 hours
    • 115 - 2.5 hours
    • 280 - .8 hours


    What's going on with the (seemingly) lower efficiency of the XM-L QP2A-X?

  16. #16

    Default FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    I wouldn't worry about it, I've tested my lights with a light meter and randomly with a stopwatch. For example, my XPG (an S2) ran on moonlight for twice the time as my XML (using 1x LR61/AAAA, about 100 hrs vs 50 hrs). However the XPG meters at 0.17 lms while the XML meters at 0.33 lumens, so twice the time/half the lumens... similar with other modes... I found the specs on the XML to be more "conservative" explaining most of the efficiency differences you see in the spec sheets. I consider them more or less to be equally efficient on a lumen-hr basis. BTW, Selfbuilt's test indicates the G2 emitter to be closer to ~6%? brighter than the G1, 20% is a theoretical number.

    I prefer the floodier beam of the XMLs.

  17. #17

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Quote Originally Posted by mmace1 View Post
    Question!

    Looking at the two lights, the XP-G2 version seems much more efficient according to 4seven's numbers.

    Example (and taking into account 4sevens line that to convert from their XP-G numbers to the XP-G2, one should up the lumens by 20%):

    Lumens - Runtime:

    XP-G2

    • .24 - 30 days
    • 4.8 - 5 days
    • 26 - 24 hours
    • 102 - 5 hours
    • 246 - 1.3 hours


    XM-L

    • .3 - 15 days
    • 2.7 - 3 days
    • 24 - 20 hours
    • 115 - 2.5 hours
    • 280 - .8 hours


    What's going on with the (seemingly) lower efficiency of the XM-L QP2A-X?
    Well, due to the higher output of the XML would require more resources, therefore the XML's will have a decreased runtime compared to XPG's, but with the introduction of the XPG2's the gap between the XPG2 and the XML has decreased, however there are newer and more powerful XML's coming out so the gap widens yet again.

    I hope that answers your question.

    So basically its like this, if you want excellent runtime and almost the same output as the XML, get an XPG2-based flashlight from Foursevens.

  18. #18

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Does anyone have any comparison beam shots between a Quark with the XM-L2 and the XP-G2 ?

    I have a QP2A-X with the XM-L2 LED, and am looking to get a QPA with the XP-G2 LED. I really like the floody light from the XM-L2, but I want it in a single AA size, but that's only available in a XPG format. So, I figure I'll buy a QPA and then swap heads with the QP2A-X.

    However, will the beam from the XP-G2 be almost as good as the XM-L2? I understand the hot spot is a bit brighter and the flood a bit less bright, but 4sevens lists the spot angle and flood angle as exactly the same for both the XML and XPG versions. Is that really the case? Is the spot exactly the same size in both versions?

    I don't mind if the flood is a bit dimmer, as long as the spot is just as big. Anyone have both versions they could compare? Thanks for any help!

  19. #19

    Default FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    If you want to run it using only 1 AA you should buy the AA tube. There's no need to buy the whole light unless you want to try out the xpg led. Later on, you can put in a 14500 as well for a pocket rocket.

  20. #20

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    I'd like to buy the whole QPA flashlight, rather than just the tube for 2 reasons:
    (1) Who can't use another flashlight!
    (2) I can't buy just a tube in Canada, and ordering outside the country is usually expensive and lengthy. For example, ordering from 4sevens it costs more in shipping than the price of the body, and then I'll be hit again with brokerage fees which will likely be more than the body again. By that time, it's actually cheaper to buy the whole flashlight. So, it's just not worth ordering from the U.S. unless it's an expensive item.
    Last edited by Etsu; 08-06-2013 at 04:51 AM.

  21. #21

    Default FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    The XPG emitter is going to have a bit narrower, higher lux hotspot than the XML. Spill brightness should be about the same if on the same lumen mode (as spill is just straight emitter illumination) but will appear dimmer in contrast to the more intense hotspot. The XPG will throw further, but will not be as nice at close ranges.

    I believe the specs need updating. Someone pointed the same beam angle thing to them before - perhaps between the Turbos and Regular Quarks... Call them to confirm.

  22. #22

    Default Re: FourSevens Quark Pro QP2A vs QP2AX

    Okay, I was hoping that someone who might have both versions has done a side-by-side comparison to see how much narrower the XPG is.

    I wouldn't mind it a bit narrower (as once I swap bodies I'll probably use the XPG version mainly outside), but I tend to hate throwers so I don't want it much different. At least 95% of its use will be for lighting up a trail right in front of me. Or lighting up woods 10'-20' away.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •