4sevens Quark X AA-2 Review

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
Hey everyone, I've got a production model of the new Quark X AA-2. This is an XM-L version of the very popular Quark series of lights. The X models have the new Cree XM-L emitters installed. This light is the Tactical UI version, and this particular light was sent to me by 4sevens for review purposes.


Click on the small thumbnail below to see the full size image of the Quark X AA-2 operators manual. Within the manual you will find all the specs for this light, including how to operate this light:






This sample was sent to me without any accessories, packaging, etc. I would expect those items to be the same as the items that usually come with the Quark XP-G models, but I can't say for sure because they weren't included for my review.

Externally the Quark X is nearly identical to the regular Quark series, with very subtle changes to the body/battery tube. The size of the engraving of the brand name (4sevens) and model name are slightly smaller on the Quark X model, and there are some minor machining differences at the point where the body/battery tube is reduced in size from the head end and tail cap end. They are very minor, aesthetic differences, and do not affect the function of the light.



These lights do have square cut threads just like all other Quark models before it, so you can mix and match parts (I've already tried and the threading is the same:)):

DSC01840.jpg


DSC01840crop.jpg






Here are some images of the Quark X compared to the Quark XP-G model:

DSC01816.jpg


DSC01818.jpg


DSC01815.jpg


DSC01828.jpg





Of course if you look at the business end of the Quark X, the emitter difference is apparent :D:

DSC01823.jpg


DSC01820.jpg








Now for the dyno testing ;).




For those of you who aren't aware, I have my own calibrated homemade integrating sphere (I have two, actually) for measuring lumen output of different lights. My sphere's have been calibrated using lights that were measured in a professional lab sphere, so my lumen results are very accurate. However, due to common variables such as temperature differences, battery charge state differences, and even differences within the components used within each and every light, you should only use my results as an example of what one sample outputs in OTF lumens. If you purchase one of these lights I'm sure the output would be similar, provided all variables are similar, but your light may not produce exactly the same output as this sample. The output could be less, the output could be more, it just depends.

Okay, now that I've got that out of the way, here are my OTF lumen results:

2x Duracell Coppertop Alkaline AA’s:
QuarkXAA-2DuracellCoppertopOTFLumenRuntimeGraph.png


Corresponding thermal graph:
QuarkXAA-2DuracellCoppertopThermalGraph.png


2x Energizer Lithium Ultimate AA’s:
QuarkXAA-2EnergizerLithiumUltimateOTFLumenRuntimeGraph.png


Corresponding thermal graph:
QuarkXAA-2EnergizerLithiumUltimateThermalGraph.png


Both battery run times compared:
QuarkXAA-2AlkalinevsLithiumPrimaryOTFLumenGraph.png


Corresponding thermal graph:
QuarkXAA-2AlkalinevsLithiumPrimaryRuntimeThermalGraph.png











Beam Shots:

These were taken against my garage door with manual settings. The white balance was set to auto, but all other settings remained the same for each comparison shot.


4ft from light to garage door, long exposure:

4ft-LE-Quark-X-AA-2-vs-Quark-AA-2-XP-G-R5.gif




4ft from light to garage door, short exposure:

4ft-SE-Quark-X-AA-2-vs-Quark-AA-2-XP-G-R5.gif







8ft from light to garage door, long exposure:

8ft-LE-Quark-X-AA-2-vs-Quark-AA-2-XP-G-R5.gif





8ft from light to garage door, short exposure:

8ft-SE-Quark-X-AA-2-vs-Quark-AA-2-XP-G-R5.gif



I hope you enjoyed reading my review, and thanks for looking.
 

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
nice review! did you test it for pre-flash?

Thanks! Yes I checked for pre-flash and it doesn't exist on my sample. There is a slight skip, but it's definitely not pre-flash. I compared the skip to actual pre-flash on my 123-2 XP-G S2 Quark and the results were nothing alike.
 

jerrysimons

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
72
ti-force,
After your reply in the 123^2 X review I did some fiddling with my Reg UI 123^2 S2 and found that it will pre-flash if i turn it on in max, loosen the bezel and then turn it on in moonlight. However, this seems to be the only way to it does it. Furthermore, if I wait like ten seconds to turn on the light again in moonlight the intensity of the flash is significantly reduced to what sounds more like the skip you mention here on the new X models. Is this describing the pre-flash most as refer to it?
 

Lightingman

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
91
ti-force,
After your reply in the 123^2 X review I did some fiddling with my Reg UI 123^2 S2 and found that it will pre-flash if i turn it on in max, loosen the bezel and then turn it on in moonlight. However, this seems to be the only way to it does it. Furthermore, if I wait like ten seconds to turn on the light again in moonlight the intensity of the flash is significantly reduced to what sounds more like the skip you mention here on the new X models. Is this describing the pre-flash most as refer to it?



The OP says skip, I say anything brighter than the moonlight mode itself is a pre-flash and not a skip. That being said, others have stated that the pre-flash is a turbo mode pre-flash.........I would say "no" to that as well, it is not even close to a 280LM pre-flash. Though I am just eyeballing it, my eyeballs feel just fine from the pre-flash.
 

HarveyRich

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
434
Is there a reason why you didn't do runtimes and thermal output for NiMH batteries, say Eneloops? :thinking:
 

neverGUP

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 28, 2010
Messages
24
Nice review thank you!
I think not worth to replace the Quark AA-2 XP-G.
 

tre

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
1,222
Location
Northern IL USA
I got my Quark X AA2 last week. Mine does NOT have any pre-flash. It has more output than any other 2AA light I own. The nearest competitor is the Thrunite Neutron and the Quark X has more output. Amazingly, throw is not sacrificed compared to the XPG version. The beam is really nice and build quality seems good.

It is well worth it to upgrade from the XPG Quark AA2 to the XML Quark AA2 IMO. The difference in output is big and the XML beam shape is much nicer. Perhaps I won the tint lottery but I think the tint is better than the cool XPG Quarks. Of course I like the tint on my neutral XPG R4 quarks better but neutral always is better than cool.
 

j2k

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
59
The nearest competitor is the Thrunite Neutron and the Quark X has more output.

How do the beams compare? Does the Quark throw noticeably further than the Neutron?
 

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
ti-force, After your reply in the 123^2 X review I did some fiddling with my Reg UI 123^2 S2 and found that it will pre-flash if i turn it on in max, loosen the bezel and then turn it on in moonlight. However, this seems to be the only way to it does it. Furthermore, if I wait like ten seconds to turn on the light again in moonlight the intensity of the flash is significantly reduced to what sounds more like the skip you mention here on the new X models. Is this describing the pre-flash most as refer to it?

The OP says skip, I say anything brighter than the moonlight mode itself is a pre-flash and not a skip.

Lightingman hit it spot on. The Quark X samples that I have tested don't pre-flash. When the light is activated in moonlight mode, the output is never higher than it is when moonlight mode is in use.

Is there a reason why you didn't do runtimes and thermal output for NiMH batteries, say Eneloops? :thinking:

I no longer use NiMH chemistry. I only use lithium type primary and secondary batteries now, with the occasional alkaline. So I no longer have any batteries of this chemistry or a charger to charge them.



Nice review thank you!
I think not worth to replace the Quark AA-2 XP-G.

Thanks! You're welcome :).

I got my Quark X AA2 last week. Mine does NOT have any pre-flash. It has more output than any other 2AA light I own. The nearest competitor is the Thrunite Neutron and the Quark X has more output. Amazingly, throw is not sacrificed compared to the XPG version. The beam is really nice and build quality seems good.

It is well worth it to upgrade from the XPG Quark AA2 to the XML Quark AA2 IMO. The difference in output is big and the XML beam shape is much nicer. Perhaps I won the tint lottery but I think the tint is better than the cool XPG Quarks. Of course I like the tint on my neutral XPG R4 quarks better but neutral always is better than cool.

Thanks for sharing :thumbsup:.
 
Last edited:

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
Nice review. Can you comment on the thermal graph. Where did you measure?

Thanks! I take thermal measurements at the hottest point on the light, which so far has been the emitter end of the light where all the heat is created.
 

kreisler

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
439
Location
Deutscheland
wow, great thread, thanks so much!
anyone care to exchange the 2x AA body with a 1x AA body, insert a 14500 and see/measure how the XML head performs?

Bright? (and runtimes?)
 

Nonprophet

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
55
I've got a 1AA body with the 2AA xm-l head on it and I'm waiting for my 14500's to come in the mail--should have them by the end of the week. I've got eneloops in it now and while the high mode is noticeably brighter than high mode on the xp-g heads, one 1.2v eneloop won't power the xm-l head to max mode.

I think this setup (1AA body w/xm-l head) is probably the best edc combo out there right now.....


NP
 

kreisler

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
439
Location
Deutscheland
Should beat the Xeno E03 for sure as EDC!

Anyone can take photos with the Xeno E03 and the Quark AA-1?
 
Last edited:

kreisler

Banned
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
439
Location
Deutscheland
i finally have my hands on the Quark X AA2 (it's a tactical head for that matter) and i exchanged the AA²-body with a spare AA-body and a regular tail cap. a §$%&! friend of mine got it off the Black Friday Blitz Weekend Sale and i am allowed to use it for as long as i want ha! practically it's mine now haha!!
 
Last edited:

vegasmarine

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
19
Hello,

Are those pictures labeled correctly? The quark looks noticeably brighter as I view them with a much larger and more filled-out spill to it. I was under the impression that the "X" was not only brighter, but had the much fuller and brighter spill....

Also, any feedback yet on this head with a single AA body and a 14500?

Marine
 

vegasmarine

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
19
Thank you,,,, Still wondering about those pictures though, the "Quark" XP-G looks brighter and fuller in every picture to me vs. the one listed as the "X" model....
 

LEDninja

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
4,896
Location
Hamilton Canada
This sample was sent to me without any accessories, packaging, etc. I would expect those items to be the same as the items that usually come with the Quark XP-G models, but I can't say for sure because they weren't included for my review.
I ordered the neutral white Quark X Tactical AA2.
It came in the 4sevens 'green' zip lock bag. Inside are flashlight, holster, handgrip, 2 O-rings in a mini zip lock, and 2 individually shrink wrapped Duracell copper tops.
 
Top