Nitecore D10 brighter than Quark AA...

Hi guys,
First time poster :wave:, been a lurker for quite a while. First off, thanks to everyone for their thoughts, inputs, opinions, photos and beam shots, it helps a lot! I have a number of older LED lights (low output, multi LED) from a few years ago, but got a Fenix TK40 last year that I am VERY pleased with. Last month i purchased a 4Sevens Quark AA regular version, great light, but I would like to get away from the disco modes, yet keep more than the two modes that the mil version offers, and have it a bit brighter. After many searches and comparisons on the forum, I am leaning to the Nitecore D10. I have looked at a few comparison beam shots, but to your eyes, is the D10 brighter than the Quark AA? By a lot?
Thanks for any input,
Joe B.

By looking at beamshots, you're comparing lux, the concentration of light, not lumens, the total output.

A laser appearsbrighter than many flashlights. But it doesn't produce more light (lumens), it creates a very tight, concentrated beam (high lux).

So while an older, lower output XR-E based light may seem brighter than a newer, XP-G based light, the XP-G based lightis producing more light.

IIRC, the Quark AA brings 90 Lumen on Turbo on an AA (1,5V) cell. You may feed it with a 14500 (3,7V) and it will crank out over 200 Lumen.

The D10 however, depending on the version, brings 130-145 Lumen on an AA, not much more on a 14500. There have been discussions how much more it brings, in my direct comparisons it was barely noticeable.

This said, it is quite clear and right that on an AA cell, the D10 looks brighter, because it is brighter. It is true as well however, that the XP-G has a floodier beam than the XP-E and a much floodier beam than the XR-E. So, if you have 3 lights with exactly the same total output (Lumen), the XP-G will look least brightest, than the XP-E and the XR-E brightest, because that one has the most throwy beam and thus the highest Lux reading. There are (or were) D10 with both XR-E (older models) and XP-E (newer models).

I guess, as a not-electronician, that if you design a circuit for both AA and li-ion, you can either make it very bright on a high voltage and loose on lower voltages or make it bright on both voltages, but don't get the maximum anywhere. There are lights today which run exclusively on AA with 1,5V (L91 allowed with 1,7V) which bring up to 200 Lumen on a single cell (Zebralight SC51, XP-G). That's the result of a driver designed for a small voltage range I guess.

Henk_Lu said:

IIRC, the Quark AA brings 90 Lumen on Turbo on an AA (1,5V) cell. You may feed it with a 14500 (3,7V) and it will crank out over 200 Lumen.

Click to expand...

Guys,
Thanks for the info. Henk, I was not aware thast you could use a 14500 in the Quark, I was under the impression that the Quark had a buck/boost circuit to regulate the voltage, so a higher battery voltage would not make a brighter light. This is definitely something I will look into. Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:

Joe B.

I use mine all with 14500, the AA is the best Quark in my eyes as you have this possibility for brightness and it eats the cells of your remote in case of emergency.

The size is optimal for me, the 123 is a little small, the 123-2 is a little long and the AA is just in between... :wave:

watchman09 said:

Guys,
Thanks for the info. Henk, I was not aware thast you could use a 14500 in the Quark, I was under the impression that the Quark had a buck/boost circuit to regulate the voltage, so a higher battery voltage would not make a brighter light. This is definitely something I will look into. Thanks a lot! :thumbsup:

Joe B.

Click to expand...

The Quark AA on a 14500 is a mighty little light, especially the newer XPG versions. I have a neutral white XPG head that I use both with an AA body and an 18650 body depending on my needs. When set up with the AA body and a 14500 it's my second favorite EDC light after my ZL SC50w+.

I have both and if you use a 14500, the quark is a good bit brighter

my Quark AA w/ a 14500 is one of my favorites also. I too agree with Henk that it is a good balance of power (using a Li-ion) and convenience (that it will also run on AA).

Bear in mind also that the Quark mini AA will not run on Li-ion, that one only accepts AAs.

Sparkss said:

Bear in mind also that the Quark mini AA will not run on Li-ion, that one only accepts AAs.

Click to expand...

I run my Quark AA mini on a 14500 all the time. It's incredibly bright with a beautiful floody beam that lights up a room.

Sparkss said:

Bear in mind also that the Quark mini AA will not run on Li-ion, that one only accepts AAs.

Click to expand...

Actually the mini AA will run on Li-ion (I use Li-ion in both my alu and ti AA minis) but on high it will get very, repeat very warm in a short time span-do not tailstand on high! This must be why 4-sevens does not endorse li-ion usage.

As far as the D-10/Quark AA debate goes: it is evening here in Stockholm and the sun is down but it is not dark yet. I white walled both my D-10 (first generation in a Ti body) and my Ti Quark AA. The Ti Quark was a bit brighter.Then I shined my D-10 on a reflective road sign about 15m. from my window followed by the Quark and the Quark was at least double so bright (a super real brightness difference). Summa summarium: White wall testing/usage testing: go for usage testing!

The Quark on NiMH AA is noticeably dimmer than the D10 on 14500 or NiMH (same output for the D10 regardless of cell)

On 14500, the XPG quark is WAY brighter than the D10, and has about a 50 minute runtime.

Here's my time lapse videos comparing 14500 to NiMH in both lights.

Quark AA 14500 vs NiMH

NiteCore D10 14500 vs NiMH

Here is a video with the D10 and Quark AA2. Unfotunately I haven't made a side by side of the D10 and Quark AA yet, but the AA2 is identical in brightness to the AA running 14500, with half again longer runtime.