Another Quark AA Review

[lunchboxtheman]

Here goes my first review. Be nice to me! Sorry this has so much text and so few pictures. My camera was pretty much dead.

Well, I finally got my first 'real' light, the Quark AA R5 regular UI. I've used a Mag 2D incan since I was a wee little cub scout. My initial impressions were very good. The packaging was very nice, almost like suede. The beam profile is absolutely beautiful in my opinion, and the tint was very creamy. I was happy I lucked out and didn't get a green tint as some have mentioned. I was also impressed at the knurling. It's smooth enough to not be noticable when I'm holding it gently, but it really bites when I need it to.

After using the light for some time, however, I'm afraid to announce my good initial impressions were severely misplaced. I actually sent the first one I received in for a replacement. The switch was faulty and the light failed to turn on, flickered, failed to switch modes, etc. All of the issues I'm about to discuss added to my thinking the light was defective or a refurb. Other than the switch being faulty, I was wrong... the repacement light has all of the same issues.

Keep in mind that everything I'm about to talk about applies to both the first light I received, and the replacement.

The O ring makes too tight a fit. It's so tight in fact that it's beginning to shred away when I twist the head. The O ring also gets squashed and pops out of place when screwing the tailcap or head down. Twisting to change modes with one hand is not possible unless you are the Hulk.

I was also disappointed in the quality of the threads, they're much rougher than they should be for this quality of light. They are visibly rough and even scratched in places. There are some splotches of anno on the threads, but that's to be expected I think and it doesn't affect the light's operation at all. The cheapo $1 China surplus light I bought on that one auction site starting with E and ending in Bay came with pre-greased threads. For $52 (after discount) I don't even get lubed threads?

The piece of metal on the inside of the head where the positive 'nipple' of the battery touches the PCB seems to be chipped. It appears as if it was copper coated, but some of the coating has chipped off around the edges. It hasn't affected the operation of the light, but it makes me wonder about the rest of the electronics. I'm not too sure about how those boards are designed so I can't speak too much on this subject. This may be by design, hopefully someone can comment on this.

The light output between high and turbo is completely indistinguishable using anything but a fully-charged cell or 14500. The fresh Duracell alkalines I used were all measured at 1.55V +/- .005. After the voltage dropped below around 1.46V there was no difference whatsoever between high and turbo. On fully charged NiMH cells there was no difference. No matter how discharged the 14500's were there was always a visible difference. I know that the difference is only 24 lumens (109 - 85) and that isn't a whole lot. But, like I said, there is a difference, but only on fresh batts or when the voltage is above a certain point.

Two last small details. Numero uno is that the tailcaps were not flush so they were wobbly when tail-standing. After playing with them for a few hours they settled in and are fine now. Numero dos is that the 0.2 lumen moonlight mode is just as bright as my friend's Jet-III M's 2 lumen low. :shrug:

I'm keeping the second light despite it's shortcomings because I'm in need of a good light with a low low. I am extremely disapointed in the QC though. My friend's LD20 and Jet-III M (granted a more expensive light) had overall better quality.

I really didn't want my first review on CPF to be negative, and I really tried hard to love this light. I just can't however, and I won't be purchasing any more 4sevens lights any time soon

What does CPF think? Has anyone else had similar experience with 4Sevens or do I just have extremely bad luck?

Thanks all,
Lunchboxtheman


Obligatory photo (sorry for crummy color/quality) of both lights. You can kinda see how the switchboot is semi-convex and not flush.

 

[carrot]

I think I am sorry to hear that you have had all these problems. My Quarks do not exhibit any of these problems that you mention, except for the high/turbo which does not apply to me since I use only the 123 powered versions.

Sometimes problems happen. I would rate you severely unlucky, since 4sevens and Quark would not be so popular if everyone experienced the issues you have.

 

[jimmy1970]

Don't apologise for telling it how it is. We need more accurate and honest opinions of newly received lights! Nice review too.

I agree about the hit & miss quality of Quark lights. The ones I have come across have been fine but many people here have had issues to contend with.

I wish that more focus was placed on build quality rather than the obsession of getting the latest and greatest emitter to market.

James.....

 

[Colorblinded]

I've noticed the same issue with squashed orings on a recently acquired neutral white Quark AA2. To be honest while my Quarks are nice I'm not overly impressed with their quality. They're not bad, but aside from my Mini AA the AA2 lights feel like they should cost slightly less. They certainly have nothing on my Fenix LD20 aside from a newer emitter with a smoother beam and fewer artifacts (which in practice I haven't found to matter much) and a lower low. The LD20 just feels better and operates more predictably (never preflashes)... I just wish a neutral white LD20 or LD10 was available, I'd probably buy one.

I'd love to see them stop releasing new lights and new emitters for six months and focus on tightening up the design, manufacture quality and eliminate quirks like the preflash.

 

[Wiggle]

Ah, too bad about those issues. I agree that a poor review is not at all out of line with that experience. I will say however my Quark AA Tactical R5 that I've had almost 8 months now has had no issues whatsoever and I use it several times per day and it goes everywhere with me. I also have a Quark AA2 Neutral Tactical and it has the tight o-rings that you note though.

 

[wantsusa]

One thing I saw you say is that when you put 14500's in it, you noticed the difference in brightness...maybe because it was actually running at 206 lumens? Doesn't the 0.9V-4.2V heads go to 206 lumens on max when placed with either 2AA, 123, or rechargeable LiIon batteries? Yeah I am sure the 24 lumens difference from 85 to 106 probably wouldn't change much.

I have been looking at this light and AA² tactical...and wanting to use them with a 14500/18650 heh mainly though for runtime. I would hate to have a light the flickers though or wrecks the o-rings/bad threads:thumbsdow. My preon flickered a bit when I first got it, I found that part of the clickie was a slight bit loose and the cap wasn't fitted just right to work the best, so working it a little fixed it right up :twothumbs

 

[red02]

I'm glad to see an objective review with fair and honest constructive criticism. A overly good review that glosses over things like this contributes nothing, and actually hurts the brand it reviews by getting people's hopes up.

Can you test the brightnesses in a dark room using ceiling bounce? Usually my eyes have a tough time measuring the brightness of a spot, especially up close.

 

[lunchboxtheman]

One thing I saw you say is that when you put 14500's in it, you noticed the difference in brightness...maybe because it was actually running at 206 lumens? Doesn't the 0.9V-4.2V heads go to 206 lumens on max when placed with either 2AA, 123, or rechargeable LiIon batteries? Yeah I am sure the 24 lumens difference from 85 to 106 probably wouldn't change much.

Right. I can never find posts when I want to, but there is a thread called 'actual lumen readings in a 10.5 inch sphere' that has a bunch of lumen readings on various batteries. I found the post, but it must be an old version or something because it doesn't have the Quark AA on it. Maybe someone has the updated version bookmarked somewhere and can post it.

On a 14500 the output on turbo actually went up to about 230 lumens iirc. That would make for a 145 lumen difference between high and turbo which is (and was in my experience) definitely noticeable.

Me nor none of my friends could see any difference between high and turbo on standard cells that weren't absolutely fully-charged.

Can you test the brightnesses in a dark room using ceiling bounce? Usually my eyes have a tough time measuring the brightness of a spot, especially up close.

Sure thing. I'll attempt to take some pics if I can get my camera working properly.

EDIT: My camera is just not working. It won't focus for anything, sorry

 

[PeaceOfMind]

I've noticed that my more recent Quarks (ex. my R4 NW) also have some minor o-ring fit issues. I find my older ones (R2, Q3 NW, R5 Ti) have much nicer o-ring fit.

 

[red02]

... My camera is just not working. It won't focus for anything, sorry

Better than my camera that doesn't understand the difference between 10lm and 100lm.

Can you still not tell the difference between high and max with this method?

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

Yes, your comments were negative, but they weren't unreasonably negative. You explained yourself well and presented legitimate reasons for your criticism, so it wasn't just a gripe fest. A few comments.

The light output between high and turbo is completely indistinguishable using anything but a fully-charged cell or 14500. The fresh Duracell alkalines I used were all measured at 1.55V +/- .005. After the voltage dropped below around 1.46V there was no difference whatsoever between high and turbo.

That's fairly typical behavior for AA batteries I think, particularly alkaline. Energizer Lithiums will give you much better performance in that regard.

Two last small details. Numero uno is that the tailcaps were not flush so they were wobbly when tail-standing. After playing with them for a few hours they settled in and are fine now.

That's because air gets trapped inside the body and pushes the boot cover out. Give it a couple hours and enough air will eventually leak out for the boots to be completely flat.

Numero dos is that the 0.2 lumen moonlight mode is just as bright as my friend's Jet-III M's 2 lumen low. :shrug:

4Sevens measures their lumens out-the-front. I suspect Jetbeam doesn't. This would account for the discrepancy.

But it does sound like 4Sevens quality has slipped a little on their lights. Their first run was very good with only a couple of more-or-less widespread issues (the switches being the primary one), but it seems the problems are getting worse, not better, and that's troubling.

 

[lunchboxtheman]

Better than my camera that doesn't understand the difference between 10lm and 100lm.

Can you still not tell the difference between high and max with this method?

When I first noticed that I couldn't see the difference I tried a ceiling bounce test because, as you said, it's hard to tell the difference when you're looking at a giant spot of bright light. I couldn't tell any difference though, nor could my friends.

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

I'd love to see them stop releasing new lights and new emitters for six months and focus on tightening up the design, manufacture quality and eliminate quirks like the preflash.

I think one of the problems with outsourcing manufacturing -- especially overseas -- is that it's a lot harder to keep a handle on quality control.

 

[wantsusa]

could a lot of the o-ring issues be maybe that there is a large batch of bad (oversized) o-rings that the manufacturer got and is using? Has anyone bought the extra o-rings and boot gaskets and seen if they might be a slightly smaller size or compared them to the old R2 versions or before and seen if they used a smaller o-ring?

This could be the major problem maybe? Maybe they tried to get it more watertight and decided to use a slightly larger size...without really testing it in daily use to see if it would cause problems?

 

[jhc37013]

Good honest review, I have never had any serious problems with my Quarks but i have not ordered a new one since the first run of the XPG R5 models. The only things I have not liked that you also mentioned is ruff and sharp threads and the ano wears off a little to easy.

I've always thought Fenix quality was just a little better especially the threads and ano.

 

[Colorblinded]

I've always thought Fenix quality was just a little better especially the threads and ano.

I think the same about the two. The Fenix lights just seem that much better put together to me.

 

[defloyd77]

Good review. The truth is, you're not going to notice the difference between turbo and high on cells that aren't freshly charged. With my neutral XP-E AA, I can barely notice the change in output between the 2 modes, but once I use the light for, I don't know, 5 minutes, turbo's output drops and it's impossible to tell the difference.

It's very unfortunate to hear that their QC has gone downhill since when I bought my QAA, I just ordered a warm white 2AA tactical yesterday.

 

[candle lamp]

The O ring makes too tight a fit. It's so tight in fact that it's beginning to shred away when I twist the head. The O ring also gets squashed and pops out of place when screwing the tailcap or head down. Twisting to change modes with one hand is not possible unless you are the Hulk.

I was also disappointed in the quality of the threads, they're much rougher than they should be for this quality of light. They are visibly rough and even scratched in places. There are some splotches of anno on the threads, but that's to be expected I think and it doesn't affect the light's operation at all.

I recently got Quark AA R5 regular & AA2 R4 regular too. I have same problems on screw threads and o-rings of the battery tube.
I wiped off the mess on the threads and replaced the original o-rings with the smaller & thinner o-rings. It became somewhat better now.

In my view, quark AA & AA2's o-ring size is large & thick, and the screw threads are not so good.

 

[shark_za]

The switch was faulty and the light failed to turn on, flickered, failed to switch modes, etc.

You have screwed the clip retaining ring all the way and eliminated all common switch problems?

The piece of metal on the inside of the head where the positive 'nipple' of the battery touches the PCB seems to be chipped.

Out of 3x Quarks I have there is one with this ugly contact that seems to have peeled or only been coated on portions of the metal.
A definate gripe, they could have done better on that.


Apart from a head that absolutely runs wild with anything over 3v I am happy with my Quarks. I'm on another continent so I'm weary to ship back and forth for customer care so accept its a 1xAA light now.

 

[Quension]

The O ring makes too tight a fit. It's so tight in fact that it's beginning to shred away when I twist the head. The O ring also gets squashed and pops out of place when screwing the tailcap or head down. Twisting to change modes with one hand is not possible unless you are the Hulk.

On the 123² R2 I have (older stock, great quality), twisting is still a two-handed operation for me, but I have heard similar complaints about the O-rings on more recent samples.

For $52 (after discount) I don't even get lubed threads?

Hmm, there should definitely be some lube on them already. It actually caused problems with mine when new -- the lube tended to migrate onto the front ring of the body, and since it's electrically conductive it screwed up the mode switching. The light would stay on Max longer than it should while loosening, and flicker while doing it, because of the excess lube. I've also heard similar reports where it would fail to turn on or disable mode switching entirely once too much migrated into the head. It was easily cleaned with a cotton swab and some isopropyl alcohol though.

The piece of metal on the inside of the head where the positive 'nipple' of the battery touches the PCB seems to be chipped. It appears as if it was copper coated, but some of the coating has chipped off around the edges. It hasn't affected the operation of the light, but it makes me wonder about the rest of the electronics. I'm not too sure about how those boards are designed so I can't speak too much on this subject. This may be by design, hopefully someone can comment on this.

The R2 I have is solid plated and looks great. The MiNi AA I purchased a bit later, from the older NW run, has a rough edge but looks like only the center was plated deliberately. My most recent purchase, a NW MiNi CR2, is just plain sloppy and obviously chipped. It seems like this is going downhill across all the models :sigh:

The light output between high and turbo is completely indistinguishable using anything but a fully-charged cell or 14500.

Others have commented on this, but by way of explanation: Max mode on these lights basically sets the current regulation at such a high level that the output is dependent on how much power the battery can supply. Higher-voltage batteries keep the boost circuitry from pulling quite so much current from them, and so hold up better.

Two last small details. Numero uno is that the tailcaps were not flush so they were wobbly when tail-standing. After playing with them for a few hours they settled in and are fine now.

Good to hear that they settled, but this doesn't seem normal either. My R2 was fine from day one, but again it was older stock so it had time to sit on its own...

Numero dos is that the 0.2 lumen moonlight mode is just as bright as my friend's Jet-III M's 2 lumen low. :shrug:

Difference between OTF and emitter ratings, perhaps?

I really didn't want my first review on CPF to be negative, and I really tried hard to love this light. I just can't however, and I won't be purchasing any more 4sevens lights any time soon

I echo the others in that posting this was a good idea. You gave fair explanations, without needless bashing or fanboy-like praise.