get-lit
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have the PD with the XR-E Q5 and the Quark 123 Ti with the XP-G R5, and I don't feel that the XP-G R5 is a major step forward. Overall it is a slight improvement, but I prefer that light manufacturers reserve their resources for the next improvement in LEDs, unless of course that is expected to be a long way down the road.
I've made many comparisons over a week and here's my final thoughts. They both throw about the same distance, with the XP-G covering a larger area, roughly a 25% larger diameter. While the XPG is more of a flood, it still illuminates slightly better overall, but even so, while I'm using the XP-G, I miss the tight pattern of the XR-E. It just "feels" more powerful even though it's less powerful. That's one thing I like about the XR-E. The XP-G is more of a semi-flood light in your hand. For in the brush, the XP-G is a bit more useful, but not really enough to make it a leap ahead. Therefore, I consider this difference one of the least important aspects when choosing a light. Things like user interface and overall flashlight size is much more important to me.
Also, with a ceiling bounce test, the XP-G appears to light up the room about 15% more than the XR-E. Not a huge difference, but just at the point where it's noticeable.
The color between the two really is different. The XR-E has a slight violet tint, that casts a pastel-like color which is a much more appealing for skin tones and red woods and reddish paints. It's a very pleasing deep color for those types of objects. It also does great with blues and whites, but not as well with yellows and greens.
The XP-G is quite opposite. For the objects that the XR-E excels, the XP-G appears more contrasty and doesn't pull out the reds, blues, and whites as well, and I much prefer the XR-E. But for outdoor foliage and even orange/yellow indoor wood objects, the XP-G has much more of a natural color. It really brings out the deeper greens and makes foliage look very lush, while the CR-E appears more contrasty and brings out the branches and definitely has a tendency to highlight things within the brush rather than the brush itself.
I came across a deer and of course I had to test a bit on it. It was definitely more curious about the two lights than I was. It kept trying to come get a closer look so I had plenty time to see how they lit it up periodically. The XR-E made the deer stand out a bit more than the XP-G, and of course the XP-G made it seem more natural.
Also, the XR-E really makes white objects stand out and the XP-G sort of blends them in. Thus for a boating light, I would much prefer the XR-E. It would enhance the objects that I need to see better instead of the smooth blended color of the XP-G.
Even though it lacks the ability to bring out the lushness of foliage, overall I prefer the color of the XR-E, but this is subjective and other people may prefer the XP-G's color. I have not seen a dedicated "warm" light LED yet.
Again, I prefer that light manufacturers reserve their resources for the next improvement in LEDs.
If anyone is interested, I might put up some beam shot comparisons of various conditions.
EDIT: As pointed out, there's much potential with the XPG that could possibly make it an greater improvement than just this comparison.
I've made many comparisons over a week and here's my final thoughts. They both throw about the same distance, with the XP-G covering a larger area, roughly a 25% larger diameter. While the XPG is more of a flood, it still illuminates slightly better overall, but even so, while I'm using the XP-G, I miss the tight pattern of the XR-E. It just "feels" more powerful even though it's less powerful. That's one thing I like about the XR-E. The XP-G is more of a semi-flood light in your hand. For in the brush, the XP-G is a bit more useful, but not really enough to make it a leap ahead. Therefore, I consider this difference one of the least important aspects when choosing a light. Things like user interface and overall flashlight size is much more important to me.
Also, with a ceiling bounce test, the XP-G appears to light up the room about 15% more than the XR-E. Not a huge difference, but just at the point where it's noticeable.
The color between the two really is different. The XR-E has a slight violet tint, that casts a pastel-like color which is a much more appealing for skin tones and red woods and reddish paints. It's a very pleasing deep color for those types of objects. It also does great with blues and whites, but not as well with yellows and greens.
The XP-G is quite opposite. For the objects that the XR-E excels, the XP-G appears more contrasty and doesn't pull out the reds, blues, and whites as well, and I much prefer the XR-E. But for outdoor foliage and even orange/yellow indoor wood objects, the XP-G has much more of a natural color. It really brings out the deeper greens and makes foliage look very lush, while the CR-E appears more contrasty and brings out the branches and definitely has a tendency to highlight things within the brush rather than the brush itself.
I came across a deer and of course I had to test a bit on it. It was definitely more curious about the two lights than I was. It kept trying to come get a closer look so I had plenty time to see how they lit it up periodically. The XR-E made the deer stand out a bit more than the XP-G, and of course the XP-G made it seem more natural.
Also, the XR-E really makes white objects stand out and the XP-G sort of blends them in. Thus for a boating light, I would much prefer the XR-E. It would enhance the objects that I need to see better instead of the smooth blended color of the XP-G.
Even though it lacks the ability to bring out the lushness of foliage, overall I prefer the color of the XR-E, but this is subjective and other people may prefer the XP-G's color. I have not seen a dedicated "warm" light LED yet.
Again, I prefer that light manufacturers reserve their resources for the next improvement in LEDs.
If anyone is interested, I might put up some beam shot comparisons of various conditions.
EDIT: As pointed out, there's much potential with the XPG that could possibly make it an greater improvement than just this comparison.
Last edited:
