FourSevens        
Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

  1. #1

    Question Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    What are the benefit of the newer (more expensive) XP-G S2 emitter is over the older CREE XP-G R5 in the Quarks?

    I noticed the newer emmiters are not as bright (230 down to 200 lumens) with a SHORTER lifetime! What make them better?
    I can see the light at the end of the tunnel! Aussies' have more fun shopping online...

  2. #2
    Flashaholic* csshih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    3,933

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    The S2 actually does have a higher flux bin than R5 - so it is brighter at the same drive current.

    But, the newest quarks have been tested in an independent laboratory under the ANSI/NEMA FL 1 standard. Quite an expensive test.

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* AnAppleSnail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South Hill, VA
    Posts
    4,200

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by john2 View Post
    I noticed the newer emmiters are not as bright (230 down to 200 lumens) with a SHORTER lifetime!
    The Quarks you are talking about were measured with a different standard. The change is like "How fast can you run when you're running a mile" rather than "How fast can you run when you're running for a few seconds." And the runtime change may be due to a difference in the Vf.
    My biggest light-hog is my camera.

  4. #4
    Flashaholic* jasonck08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,516

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    XP-G R5 is rated at (139-148lm @ 350mA)
    XP-G S2 is rated at (148-156lm @ 350mA)

    Increase in brightness from R5 to S2 = ~5.6% if you average the max and minimum ratings.

    Also, I believe under the ANSI specs, the brightness readings are taken after 3 minutes, and LED lights usually dim after a minute or two due to the heat generated.

  5. #5
    Flashaholic* LEDninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Hamilton Canada
    Posts
    4,896

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Do not have the numbers for the big Quarks but here is Ti-force's test results for the Quark MiNi AA² .
    Energizer L91 (E2)
    187.9 1 sec - this is the old style test point
    147.9 30 sec - this is the ANSI test point
    145.5 1 min
    144.2 2 min
    143.0 3 min
    Note there is a 40 lumen difference between the old way of measuring things and the ANSI way.
    So 180 lumen claim (old way) will become 140 lumen (ANSI way) for the Quark MiNi AA² .

    Scaling for a Quark 123² R5 230*147.9/187.9=180 ANSI lumens. This is 20 ANSI lumens less than the Quark 123² S2.

  6. #6
    Flashaholic Lucciola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    196

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    I think about buying an extra R5 head to lego with my NW Quark, so obviously the idea to wait for the S2 came up.

    I'll stick to the R5 because my personal preference would have been to use the higher efficiency of the S2 for longer runtimes instead of higher output.

    I don't like the idea of moonmode becoming brighter, but that's personal taste. For me it would have been perfect to keep the brightness of the lower levels and increase the runtime of them while just increasing the brightness of the high and maximum level.

    However I know that a light to my taste would not only require the more expensive LED but also a whole new circuit designed for it which probably would have pushed the price to a level customers would not be prepared to pay - probably including myself.

    Lucciola

  7. #7
    Flashaholic* Jash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,625

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucciola View Post
    ... my personal preference would have been to use the higher efficiency of the S2 for longer runtimes instead of higher output.
    Agreed. Why are they so obsessed with higher output. Give me longer runtimes and I'm in. I'd really love to see a Quark with 120otf lumens and 3+ hours off two ni-mh.
    There can never be too much honey to lick off your fingers.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* LEDninja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Hamilton Canada
    Posts
    4,896

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    I once figured if a blackout occurred one bus ride from home I need 3 hours on max. I was afraid I will be so frazzled by the emergency I would start up on high and forget to switch to low then be without light before I got home.
    No luck finding a stock torch then either. Finally got Elektrolumens to custom build me an aluminum Lucidus XR-1 (the production ones are XR-2/1 alumina-bronze). Its built like a tank and despite the lighter aluminum still weighs like a tank.
    I guess I can always get a Quark AA² Tactical S2 Edition and program it for
    Head loose: 19 lumens for 24 hours (50ma)
    Head tight: 83 lumens for 5 hours (250ma)
    Or get a Fenix E05 27 lumens 3 hours.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    We've discussed this over in the 4Sevens subforum already and this is what David told us:
    Moonlight is the same, it's the same driver as before, so you won't notice a difference in brightness.
    The runtime will stay basically the same, Vf of the LED is slightly diffrrent, but chances are you won't notice a difference, because it's the SAME driver, so tue brightness should theoretically increase 7% for each mode.

    Why would David snag up the brand new S2 LEDs and use them to get a tiny increase in runtime? I'll take a 7% increase in brightness before a slight increase in runtime due to efficiency. If you want longer runtimes use a 17670 or 18650.

  10. #10
    Flashaholic* DimeRazorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,994

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Will your eyes even notice the 7% increase?

    No.

    So why not greater runtimes and the same brightness?
    Last edited by DimeRazorback; 11-01-2010 at 03:00 AM.

    ^^Click for my beamshots!!^^ My Flashlights

  11. #11

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    I think about buying an extra R5 head to lego
    Can you get R5 heads on thier own?

    The ones on 4sevens webshop are R2.
    Fenix TA30, Quark 1232 Ti, Quark AA2, Quark 1232 Turbo, MiNi AA NW, MiNi CR2, ITP A3 EOS, MG PLI, MG L-Mini II, Romisen RC-N3 II, Romisen RC-A4 II, Akoray K-106 (x2), Akoray K-109.

  12. #12
    Flashaholic Lucciola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    196

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by amigafan2003 View Post
    Can you get R5 heads on thier own?

    The ones on 4sevens webshop are R2.
    Nope, they are R5. Here it says: "These spare heads currently have XP-G R5 emitters".

    Lucciola

  13. #13
    Flashaholic* Beamhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    gone "Squatchin" :p
    Posts
    4,103

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Will the tint be better in the Ti Mini?
    Quando Omni Flunkis Moritati

  14. #14
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Between East and West Coasts..
    Posts
    298

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by DimeRazorback View Post
    Will your eyes even notice the 7% increase?

    No.

    So why not greater runtimes and the same brightness?
    I see this statement a lot on CPF. And from a technical standpoint, it's accurate. However, from a business standpoint, people that make this statement are being relatively short-sighted.

    One:

    Why not greater runtimes? I think you know the answer. Cost. R&D, ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) and manufacturing. It's much quicker, simpler to drop in a new LED from the same family and go. Especially when you know that the S2 runs are going to be in very short supply. Why go through all of the additional work for something that's not available for the medium term?

    I for one, Thank 4sevens for doing what he can, without spending a lot of time/effort in manufacturing. The slight change in cost, looks to me to be almost completely due to the LED cost itself, you can't get much better than that.

    Two:

    If everyone had the same attitude re: cutting edge LEDs, Cree (and other manufacturers) would not have incentive to improve the efficiency. Yes 7% is maybe not noticable from a human eye standpoint. 7% efficiency gain from a physics standpoint is Huuuuuuge. Period. I always will buy the latest (within reason) LEDs just so that the manufacturers know what I value. This is a long term road. 7% every couple of years is what adds up, not the short-term thinking that (us) Americans are (rightly) always accused of having.

  15. #15
    Flashaholic* DimeRazorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,994

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    So your happy to pay more, for marketing that the light is brighter even though you wont notice the difference?

    It comes down to marketing and money making. 4sevens don't upgrade the emitter for the customer. They do it to stay ahead in terms of latest and greatest, to sell more lights and make more money.
    If there are no noticeable or usable advantage to the user, what is the point of the upgrade apart from the intrinsic comfort of it being the "latest and greatest"?

    To me it screams that they aren't confident in selling products that are a few months "out of date" as people will not want them as much as the newer "7% brighter" model...

    If the new S2 emitter lights had longer runtime, or noticeable difference in output then fair enough. But to "upgrade" something, where there isn't any actual difference that the user can perceive is pointless and merely marketing.

    "Why not greater runtimes? I think you know the answer. Cost. R&D, ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) and manufacturing. It's much quicker, simpler to drop in a new LED from the same family and go. Especially when you know that the S2 runs are going to be in very short supply. Why go through all of the additional work for something that's not available for the medium term?"

    SO pay more for nothing apart from a number... Why?

    "I for one, Thank 4sevens for doing what he can, without spending a lot of time/effort in manufacturing. The slight change in cost, looks to me to be almost completely due to the LED cost itself, you can't get much better than that."

    I prefer manufacturers that take the time and effort to make things work effectively when and how they are supposed to, and not rush things for a new chip that will be outdated next week... oh but it's "7% brighter!"
    Once again, he does it for his business, not you.
    And again, you are happy to pay more, for something that will perceivably work exactly the same as the different numbered emitter... that's fine, but I wouldn't.



    I too am all for improvements, hence why I don't buy every single new emitter light that is released... I wait for significant upgrades. For instance the transition from XR-E to XP-G.

    Anyway, brighter is not always better. I recently bought a 100 lumen Hi CRI Ra Clicky... Am I crazy or what! How outdated!
    Last edited by DimeRazorback; 11-01-2010 at 07:44 PM.

    ^^Click for my beamshots!!^^ My Flashlights

  16. #16
    A&Q Moderator
    Woods Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New England woods.
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Why all the fuss over a higher bin emitter? If looking to get a Quark I don't see any issue with someone paying more cash for the highest bin going if that makes them happy.

  17. #17
    Flashaholic* ti-force's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.
    Posts
    1,266

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    I just want the opportunity to purchase some bare S2 flux bin XP-G emitters so I can install them into a couple of my XP-G R5 Quarks .
    Last edited by ti-force; 11-01-2010 at 08:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Flashaholic* DimeRazorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,994

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    No fuss here, I'm just addressing questions/statements regarding my original statement.

    ^^Click for my beamshots!!^^ My Flashlights

  19. #19

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by DimeRazorback View Post
    Will your eyes even notice the 7% increase?

    No.

    So why not greater runtimes and the same brightness?
    And if that's what the industry always followed we never would have moved past 50 lumens because you'll "never notice the small difference in output" with the brighter emitters. Is the 7% a huge difference? No. But after a couple 7% increases and new bins you've hit a noticeable difference.
    Baby steps...

  20. #20
    Flashaholic* DimeRazorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,994

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Double post!
    Last edited by DimeRazorback; 11-01-2010 at 08:25 PM.

    ^^Click for my beamshots!!^^ My Flashlights

  21. #21
    Flashaholic* DimeRazorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,994

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by abladeafficionado View Post
    And if that's what the industry always followed we never would have moved past 50 lumens because you'll "never notice the small difference in output" with the brighter emitters. Is the 7% a huge difference? No. But after a couple 7% increases and new bins you've hit a noticeable difference.
    Baby steps...
    LED's are used in more than just flashlights. Maybe other applications need that extra 7% more so than flashlights. I am not questioning the credibility of a 7% increase in an LED, just the so called "upgraded" flashlights due to such an increase.
    I personally don't see the point. Get it... "see"

    I know, lame pun...

    ^^Click for my beamshots!!^^ My Flashlights

  22. #22
    A&Q Moderator
    Woods Walker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New England woods.
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by DimeRazorback View Post
    No fuss here, I'm just addressing questions/statements regarding my original statement.
    My comment wasn't really directed at one person. This is the second thread I read and can't work out all the drama. Maybe it's the new lumen rating system? Darn if I know. In any case I totally agree with you that there is more to any gear item than just one aspect, in this case max lumen output. Heck I still like my TK20 and it has a Q2 XR-E.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic* DimeRazorback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,994

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by Woods Walker View Post
    My comment wasn't really directed at one person. This is the second thread I read and can't work out all the drama. Maybe it's the new lumen rating system? Darn if I know. In any case I totally agree with you that there is more to any gear item than just one aspect, in this case max lumen output. Heck I still like my TK20 and it has a Q2 XR-E.
    All good

    I just like addressing anything that I feel is directed at me to avoid frustration or annoyance by being ignored

    ^^Click for my beamshots!!^^ My Flashlights

  24. #24
    Flashaholic* Toohotruk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Highway to Hell
    Posts
    2,643

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    I agree that brightness isn't everything. I used to look for the brightest new LEDs in lights...then I noticed that I hardly ever run my multi-level lights at the brightest level. And older emitters are still plenty useful, hell, my most used light is an ROV 3W 2AA Highbeam, (with a Lux III fer Chrissake!) and it gets the job done, and does it well. But that's me. I can also understand those that chase lumens, and there's nothing wrong with that.

    And if you do look at the upgraded Quarks from a business standpoint, as hard as it is to believe, these lights aren't necessarily targeted at Flashaholics. He's looking at Joe Blow surfing the Home Depot website, looking for a new flashlight...to this guy, brighter is better, so why not get the light that has the newest, brightest LED? If you look at it from that standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

    I'm very happy with my R5 Ti Quarks, and even happier with the tint and ability to throw that my first generation R2 Quarks possess. One of these days, I may get brave enough to try to transplant emitters, the R2 to the Ti Q123...but in the meantime, I'm pretty happy with them the way they are right now. Brightness isn't everything, besides, even first gen. R2 Quarks are plenty bright.
    Last edited by Toohotruk; 11-02-2010 at 12:54 AM.

  25. #25
    Enlightened
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    32

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    There are 5 (I think) levels on a Quark if you need longer run times. I am glad that 4sevens is on the leading edge of tech and seems to push innovation.

  26. #26
    Enlightened
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    I think it's great that 4Sevens offers people options like these. They are giving their customers a choice of either: the new S2, neutral white, warm white, R5, and R2 LEDs on a lot of different flashlights. I'm assuming quite a few people will be willing to pay the premium to get the first of the newest, most efficient LEDs in their choice of about 20 different flashlights.

  27. #27
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Darwin, Australia
    Posts
    187

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by DimeRazorback View Post
    I personally don't see the point. Get it... "see"

    I know, lame pun...


    I work retail and all the average customer wants is the latest and greatest, however us enlightened folk (get it... "enlightened") are able to see the real benefits (no matter how miniscule); each to their own.

    p.s gotta love lame pun's

  28. #28
    Enlightened CSSA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Between Denver and Colorado Springs
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    If you want a longer run time, Quark offers an 18650 body for the 123^2.

  29. #29
    *Flashaholic* Nicrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    6,011

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by DimeRazorback View Post
    So your happy to pay more, for marketing that the light is brighter even though you wont notice the difference?

    It comes down to marketing and money making. 4sevens don't upgrade the emitter for the customer. They do it to stay ahead in terms of latest and greatest, to sell more lights and make more money.
    If there are no noticeable or usable advantage to the user, what is the point of the upgrade apart from the intrinsic comfort of it being the "latest and greatest"?

    To me it screams that they aren't confident in selling products that are a few months "out of date" as people will not want them as much as the newer "7% brighter" model...

    If the new S2 emitter lights had longer runtime, or noticeable difference in output then fair enough. But to "upgrade" something, where there isn't any actual difference that the user can perceive is pointless and merely marketing.

    "Why not greater runtimes? I think you know the answer. Cost. R&D, ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) and manufacturing. It's much quicker, simpler to drop in a new LED from the same family and go. Especially when you know that the S2 runs are going to be in very short supply. Why go through all of the additional work for something that's not available for the medium term?"

    SO pay more for nothing apart from a number... Why?

    "I for one, Thank 4sevens for doing what he can, without spending a lot of time/effort in manufacturing. The slight change in cost, looks to me to be almost completely due to the LED cost itself, you can't get much better than that."

    I prefer manufacturers that take the time and effort to make things work effectively when and how they are supposed to, and not rush things for a new chip that will be outdated next week... oh but it's "7% brighter!"
    Once again, he does it for his business, not you.
    And again, you are happy to pay more, for something that will perceivably work exactly the same as the different numbered emitter... that's fine, but I wouldn't.



    I too am all for improvements, hence why I don't buy every single new emitter light that is released... I wait for significant upgrades. For instance the transition from XR-E to XP-G.

    Anyway, brighter is not always better. I recently bought a 100 lumen Hi CRI Ra Clicky... Am I crazy or what! How outdated!
    When you are ready........I will Take your Patina BOSS 35 :

  30. #30
    *Flashaholic* Nicrod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    6,011

    Default Re: Quark's CREE XP-G R5 vs XP-G S2 emitter

    Quote Originally Posted by DimeRazorback View Post
    So your happy to pay more, for marketing that the light is brighter even though you wont notice the difference?
    I know this is an old thread but I just read it and I particularly liked this response, and it helped me make a
    Decision on which led to get. Thank you very insightful.
    It comes down to marketing and money making. 4sevens don't upgrade the emitter for the customer. They do it to stay ahead in terms of latest and greatest, to sell more lights and make more money.
    If there are no noticeable or usable advantage to the user, what is the point of the upgrade apart from the intrinsic comfort of it being the "latest and greatest"?

    To me it screams that they aren't confident in selling products that are a few months "out of date" as people will not want them as much as the newer "7% brighter" model...

    If the new S2 emitter lights had longer runtime, or noticeable difference in output then fair enough. But to "upgrade" something, where there isn't any actual difference that the user can perceive is pointless and merely marketing.

    "Why not greater runtimes? I think you know the answer. Cost. R&D, ECN's (Engineering Change Notices) and manufacturing. It's much quicker, simpler to drop in a new LED from the same family and go. Especially when you know that the S2 runs are going to be in very short supply. Why go through all of the additional work for something that's not available for the medium term?"

    SO pay more for nothing apart from a number... Why?

    "I for one, Thank 4sevens for doing what he can, without spending a lot of time/effort in manufacturing. The slight change in cost, looks to me to be almost completely due to the LED cost itself, you can't get much better than that."

    I prefer manufacturers that take the time and effort to make things work effectively when and how they are supposed to, and not rush things for a new chip that will be outdated next week... oh but it's "7% brighter!"
    Once again, he does it for his business, not you.
    And again, you are happy to pay more, for something that will perceivably work exactly the same as the different numbered emitter... that's fine, but I wouldn't.



    I too am all for improvements, hence why I don't buy every single new emitter light that is released... I wait for significant upgrades. For instance the transition from XR-E to XP-G.

    Anyway, brighter is not always better. I recently bought a 100 lumen Hi CRI Ra Clicky... Am I crazy or what! How outdated!
    When you are ready........I will Take your Patina BOSS 35 :

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •