WOOHOO!!! NEW QUARKS ARE HERE!!!

[get-lit]

As is stands, ANSI ratings are flawed because they are battery, temperature, and 'use' dependent. Change any one of these and the ANSI rating would be very much different.

Battery:
Even if the best battery is used, next year there will be higher density battery and the light's rating would no longer be valid, and the higher ANSI ratings of two lights could be reversed. By using ANSI with batteries, the playing field is biased toward the lower amp lights of the same battery. ie. 4sevens and Dereelight.

Use:
I know that if I hold a Mini 123 in my hand, the heat transefers to my fingers and the light stays cool. When standing alone, it gets really hot. So one light can have a higher ANSI when holding it, while another light can have a higher ANSI when not holding it. I hardly ever use the brightest mode on a light for more than a minute at a time anyhow, so ANSI tells me very little about expected output for my use.

Temperature:
And one light can have a higher ANSI when its cold out, while another light can have a higher ANSI when its hot out.

I feel that OTF is more applicable than ANSI. At least OTF should be provided along with ANSI. Otherwise you'd have to have whole slew of ANSI data: holding ANSI, standalone ANSI, Winter ANSI, Summer ANSI, good battery ANSI, next year's battery ANSI, initial ANSI, prolonged ANSI, and on and on. Take for instance the Mini 123 and the Turbo, two lights with similar lumen output - but according to ANSI they are 50% different in output under the specific condition which they were measured.

 

[get-lit]

I have one Quark 123 Ti which shifts a little to blueish/purplish (remember, it is still white light...) and that's much more pleasing to my eyes, it's a fresher light and it even looks brighter (perhaps it is?).

I give Mini 123's for birthdays and holidays, and I've seen some variation in tint. Somehow, I magically happen to have the best tint among them. It's a color just as you've described. I really like the fresh look of the blueish/purplish tint over the more typical greenish tint.

 

[defloyd77]

As is stands, ANSI ratings are flawed because they are battery, temperature, and 'use' dependent. Change any one of these and the ANSI rating would be very much different.

Battery:
Even if the best battery is used, next year there will be higher density battery and the light's rating would no longer be valid, and the higher ANSI ratings of two lights could be reversed. By using ANSI with batteries, the playing field is biased toward the lower amp lights of the same battery. ie. 4sevens and Dereelight.

Use:
I know that if I hold a Mini 123 in my hand, the heat transefers to my fingers and the light stays cool. When standing alone, it gets really hot. So one light can have a higher ANSI when holding it, while another light can have a higher ANSI when not holding it. I hardly ever use the brightest mode on a light for more than a minute at a time anyhow, so ANSI tells me very little about expected output for my use.

Temperature:
And one light can have a higher ANSI when its cold out, while another light can have a higher ANSI when its hot out.

I feel that OTF is more applicable than ANSI. At least OTF should be provided along with ANSI. Otherwise you'd have to have whole slew of ANSI data: holding ANSI, standalone ANSI, Winter ANSI, Summer ANSI, good battery ANSI, next year's battery ANSI, initial ANSI, prolonged ANSI, and on and on. Take for instance the Mini 123 and the Turbo, two lights with similar lumen output - but according to ANSI they are 50% different in output under the specific condition which they were measured.

If you think about it, ALL light ratings are flawed. OTF is flawed because nobody uses their light for 1 second and turns it off. You mention different temperatures being a flaw for ANSI, OTF is even more flawed as it uses ideal temperature, something that's not going to realistically recreated in the real world. Face it ANSI is to OTF like OTF is to emitter lumens.

 

[mon90ey]

I'd suggest at least waiting until Selfbuilt, or some of the other better reviewers get their hands on one: QUOTE]

Well said Sir. I think that's the best advice I've heard on this one. Even if all of us were able to get past this ratings thing, there would still be disagreement on which one was brighter ("I bought one of these and I'm so disappointed at the bin tint", or "my yadda yadda light is an R XYZ and it's just so much brighter" or "it throws so much better than this s2"), or some such rigamarole. I think that just to wait and see what the reviewers say, hear some first hand reports, and see some beam shots is gonna be the best thing to do, for me anyway. That's what I'm gonna do. I may miss out on a good thing, but then I'll still have my money, won't I? But then, if we all took that advice, we would all probably be considerably richer and have far less lights, but there would be nothing to talk about, now would there...........................lovecpf

 

[jorn]

As is stands, ANSI ratings are flawed because they are battery, temperature, and 'use' dependent. Change any one of these and the ANSI rating would be very much different..

The same goes with otf lumens.
battery:
Lots of lights preform better on imr. If surch a light was messured otf with imr, and i dont own a imr, ill get less lumens with my lesser battery. Different battery may give different readings, both in otf and ansi ratings for different reasons.

use: If i need a 200 lumen light and had two choises. One chunky brass light, and one 100% plastic with no heatsink at all. The otf reading might trick me to buy the plastic one, even if it will drop to 50 lumens in 3 min and melt some plastic. With the ansi reading you will be able to find the quality (best heatsinked) one. The ansi rating would tell me that the plastic one is not build to handle 200 lumens.

Temprature: The same thing. I can take a light outdoors in the cold artic winter. I'll bet I will have a better otf reading here at home in -20C than in a +30C tropical place.

 

[Connor]

I think the proper solution for the "lumens testing problem" is to provide a little graphic chart (at least for max mode) with every new flashlight that shows lumens over time. If the reviewers on CPF can do this, 4Sevens and other manufacturers should be able to do it, too.

 

[Brownbear696969]

Can't wait to get one

 

[get-lit]

I think the proper solution for the "lumens testing problem" is to provide a little graphic chart (at least for max mode) with every new flashlight that shows lumens over time. If the reviewers on CPF can do this, 4Sevens and other manufacturers should be able to do it, too.

Perfecto! I was going to mention it, but it's not likely going to happen as a standard. It would be just too good.

 

[psychbeat]

wow-
anyone know if these S2 emitters are going to be made
available to the public soon? Be kool when the major
drop-in builders have S2 modules...

I might have to get another mini123 now...

 

[Henk_Lu]

wow-
anyone know if these S2 emitters are going to be made
available to the public soon? Be kool when the major
drop-in builders have S2 modules...

I might have to get another mini123 now...

Technology moves on...

What is cutting edge today will be common in 6 months and outdated by next christmas.

It would be interesting to know up to which bin the XP-G can go, if S2 is the maximum or if we will see some brighter before a new emitter eventually appears.

 

[Burgess]

Technology moves on...

What is cutting edge today will be common in 6 months and outdated by next christmas.

While this has proven to be quite true,

keep in mind the XP-G R5 emitters came out ONE YEAR ago.

(i received my 47s Quark 2AA Titanium XP-G R5 on 10/30/2009)


Now, here we are, one full year later . . . .

And the S2 bin has JUST begun trickling out.


Maybe the "6 months" statement isn't applicable here ? ? ?


Still, it's a Great Time to be a Flashaholic !

lovecpf
_

 

[sfca]

You know what we need is a newer, smaller-sized emitter.

I wonder to myself sometimes, what's going to happen with the E2DL and LX2 when there are no more XR-Es left?
Or if there are, are they going to keep making the same light with no revisions until Cree kills the XR-E? Sigh...

 

[HarveyRich]

Originally Posted by Conner:

I think the proper solution for the "lumens testing problem" is to provide a little graphic chart (at least for max mode) with every new flashlight that shows lumens over time. If the reviewers on CPF can do this, 4Sevens and other manufacturers should be able to do it, too.

+2. Degree of regulation of the flashlight is clearly another important variable in the lumens equation. Only a graph of lumens v. time would give you that information.

 

[recDNA]

It is weird that 4Sevens has started this ANSI rating. A fresh startup of OTF lumens was fine enough for me. Now we have measurements popping out as to how much ANSI is vs OTF.

Once this ANSI setup is in use doesn't that make OTF lumens obsolete? If your light looses lumens after it is on for 3 minutes, then the lights OTF lumens aren't really valid. I'm sure that stands for most lights. Both of the sphere stickies in this LED forum show what would be the ANSI rating for a lot of lights.

ANSI has hijacked this thread.

I still think that any upgrade to any light is good. Go Quark go!!!

It depends. Believe it or not I seldom leave a light on max mode for over 3 minutes so OTF means more to me than ANSI. That said, when comparing two similar lights, if they have about the same OTF value but one has a higher ANSI value that is a consideration for me.

I'll always prefer the lumens/time graphs that some of our dedicated reviewers and sphere owners publish. ANSI doesn't tell us if a light has a curve with a steady downward slope (bad) or one that drops at first (like virtually all LED driven lights) then runs regulated for some extended period before dropping again (good!)

 

[recDNA]

You know what we need is a newer, smaller-sized emitter.

I wonder to myself sometimes, what's going to happen with the E2DL and LX2 when there are no more XR-Es left?
Or if there are, are they going to keep making the same light with no revisions until Cree kills the XR-E? Sigh...

Agreed!

 

[DM51]

This thread needs to decide whether it is about the new Quarks or about ANSI lumens (whatever the #$&!% they may be).

The OP confused the issue himself by mentioning ANSI in post #1. Perhaps he would like to decide what the topic of this thread should be? Otherwise I shall close it.

 

[caall99]

About to buy either the Quark mini 123 S2 or the Quark mini AA S2 as my FIRST modern light. SUPER EXCITED!

Can someone shed some light on comparative performance between the two lights if both are run with 3.7V lipo. Are the drivers completely identical between the two lights? do we have any charting of different driver amperage outputs vs voltage inputs? is the mini 123 brighter with rcr123s than the mini aa with 14500 (3.7v)?? how about run times?

on a side note, would a regular quark be brighter than a mini given the same 3.7 volt lithium cell in the same battery configuration (asking because i heard the regular quarks are amperage regulated). for instance a quark mini 123 and a quark 123 both running rcr123s (3.7v).

 

[get-lit]

Everyone has their preference, but since I'm the first to respond, you can hear mine. The 123 is brighter due to the battery and has better throw due to the reflector. It's already so small that I lose it all the time - even when it's right in my pocket.

 

[caall99]

Well I am speaking directly regarding the comparative performance when run on 3.7 v rechargeables

 

[woodentsick]

This thread needs to decide whether it is about the new Quarks or about ANSI lumens (whatever the #$&!% they may be).

The OP confused the issue himself by mentioning ANSI in post #1. Perhaps he would like to decide what the topic of this thread should be? Otherwise I shall close it.

I intended to discuss the new Quarks. Since the only new thing about them is the new LEDs, and being measured according the ANSI specifications, I thought natural to discuss how they work, to help understand the new Quarks even more.

Woodentsick.