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!

MU22 said:

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!

Click to expand...

The XP-G2 version should throw a bit better than the XM-L.

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

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

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

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

MU22 said:

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

Click to expand...

pretty good improvement in throw i.e. readily apparent

minor improvement in overall brightness

Overclocker said:

pretty good improvement in throw i.e. readily apparent

minor improvement in overall brightness

Click to expand...

Thanks for the beamshots, they are a huge help!

Overclocker said:

pretty good improvement in throw i.e. readily apparent

minor improvement in overall brightness

Click to expand...

Were these beamshots taken from same size reflectors?

LightWalker said:

Were these beamshots taken from same size reflectors?

Click to expand...

yes

MU22 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

redline8k said:

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

Click to expand...

too bad i don't have the s2

Overclocker said:

too bad i don't have the s2

Click to expand...

I think redline8k is referring to the xpg2 vs the XML (which I am curious to see as well)

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?

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.

mmace1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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!

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.

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.