zebralight sc51 aa vs quark aa2

I was going to post this thread yesterday but my account was mysteriously unavailable.....hmmm Any way i am trying to figure this conundrum out, how is it that a single cell aa light can reach the same lumens and run times as most 2 cell aa lights? Does zebralight exagerate thier specs a little or are other manufacturers that far behind in technology? I ordered the quark aa2 a few nights ago but the sc51 is still in the back of my mind and its been naging at me lol. Does anyone have both and are they really pretty much the same light?

Both great lights. Better runtime on quark, and you will need to get eneloops to.get 200 lumens from zebra. It only runs for 5 mins with alkaline. The zebra drives it almost double the amps which is.why its the same brightness on one cell

They are not close to the same light. For me the length of the 2AA light makes it uncomfortable for an edc. The location of the switch increases the distance of them not being the same light. Since I don't think in the realm of not having access to batteries, run time isn't much of a concern. Having a fully charged eneloop near by is not much of a challenge.

I have a Quark Mini 123 and a ZL SC51. Both companies make lights that are truly impressive works of art and technology, but they reach that end in completely different ways. The way you interact with each light is different. I'd say either light is enough for a novice, but you need to use both before you know which one suits you best.

You might want to check out Selfbuilt's review of the SC51 in the Flashlight Reviews area. He was very impressed with the output.

I've got both, albeit an older version of the Quark AA2 (neutral XR-E emitter) and it's the tactical version.

My preferred EDC (even with a Quark AA body) is the Zebralight SC51w. I prefer ZL's usability and styling over the Quark (AA body). The preference for ZL is exacerbated even further when comparing it against the AA2 simply because the longer length of the AA2 if awkward for EDC.

Not sure where you get that the runtimes for the sc51 are pretty much the same as the quark aa2? I had a look and the sc51 is somewhere in the vicinity of half the runtime, depending on the level, give or take a bit. Definitely not pretty much the same anyway.

The UI on the zebralight might be considered by some/many people to be better than the quark but that depends on the individual.

You're comparing an AA to a 2xAA light? :thinking:
If you pit the SC51 against Quark AA regular, I'll say Zebralight win hands down. :bow:
Am I safe to say Zebralight is pretty much the run-time king at the moment?

The SC51 has a more efficient driver. It is made to work with one type of AA battery with a max voltage of 1.6v while the quarks working voltage is 0.9v - 4.2v. You get about 50 min of 200 lumen output with the Zebralight and you get about 80 min of 200 lumen output with the Quark 2AA. I would much rather carry the smaller Zebralight because of the size. You could carry and extra battery and have 100 min of run time of 2 AA cels compared to 80 min with the quark. Also, the tint of the emitter and user interface on the Zebralight is MUCH better. You also have your choice of 6 brightness levels with the Zebralight vs. 4 on the quark. Lastly, I can operathe the SC51 with one hand where I need two hands to operate the quark (twisting the head and clicking the switch).

I just got a new SC51w the other day and have been comparing it against my quark 2xAA R4 neutral white. The Quark 2xAA is noticeably brighter than the SC51w. Should it really be a noticeable difference, I thought they were meant to have about the same output?

It depends if the Quark is designed for throw. The Zebralight is a flood light which may not seem as bright, but try the ceiling bounce test to see if either will light up the room better. I have the Zebralight SC600 750 lumens & Jetbeam III M XML 450 lumens, and they both are very close in brightness on a white wall at 15 ft., but on ceiling bounce the Zebralight wins hands down.

bbb74 said:

I just got a new SC51w the other day and have been comparing it against my quark 2xAA R4 neutral white. The Quark 2xAA is noticeably brighter than the SC51w. Should it really be a noticeable difference, I thought they were meant to have about the same output?

Click to expand...

FlashKat said:

It depends if the Quark is designed for throw. The Zebralight is a flood light which may not seem as bright, but try the ceiling bounce test to see if either will light up the room better. I have the Zebralight SC600 750 lumens & Jetbeam III M XML 450 lumens, and they both are very close in brightness on a white wall at 15 ft., but on ceiling bounce the Zebralight wins hands down.

Click to expand...

Yes this is both with ceiling bounce and using it outside. The quark is brighter. I would have thought they'd be close enough I wouldn't be able to tell.

That's interesting...Maybe Zebralight is over rating the lumen output.

bbb74 said:

Yes this is both with ceiling bounce and using it outside. The quark is brighter. I would have thought they'd be close enough I wouldn't be able to tell.

Click to expand...

bbb74 said:

Yes this is both with ceiling bounce and using it outside. The quark is brighter. I would have thought they'd be close enough I wouldn't be able to tell.

Click to expand...

Are you running an Eneloop in the ZL? You'll need to for maximum output.

Hmm no, that was with either Imedion 2400 or Powerex 2700. I'll try an eneloop tonight and see if it makes a difference. I wouldn't have thought it would, its only a battery current of a touch over 2A isn't it which I would have though the above 2 cells would handle?

I don't have any of the the two brands you mention above, but I do have a few others that I've tried and the Eneloops are clearly the brightest on Max.

Ok I tried it with an eneloop and it was exactly the same. Its not like eneloops can magically make a regulated light brighter Most decent rechargeables could maintain 2 amps I'd say.

When using a light meter on my SLR, it picks up a 1/3rd of a stop (33%) difference between the two lights. This isn't terribly accurate in the sense that one could be just under the threshold and one just over the threshold, but it does indicate its not just my eyes. This was done with a ceiling bounce and then metering off the walls and a towel on the floor.

Interestingly, the moonlight mode on my zebralight is not quite as bright as that on the quark aa2 neutral white.

Double post, deleted. Forum really slow, post times out but is actually completed...

bbb74 said:

Hmm no, that was with either Imedion 2400 or Powerex 2700. I'll try an eneloop tonight and see if it makes a difference. I wouldn't have thought it would, its only a battery current of a touch over 2A isn't it which I would have though the above 2 cells would handle?

Click to expand...

All three are NiMHs, is that right?

Are the NiMHs brighter than alkalines? If so, by a lot?

I'm considering getting an SC51 but my batteries are all lions. Not eager to get NiMHs for one light.

Thanks.

hatman said:

All three are NiMHs, is that right?

Are the NiMHs brighter than alkalines? If so, by a lot?

I'm considering getting an SC51 but my batteries are all lions. Not eager to get NiMHs for one light.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yes they are NiMHs. NiMHs aren't magically brighter than alkalines unless the batteries are under too heavy a load and can't supply enough current/voltage. There are graphs of output and runtime with eneloops vs alkalines vs energizer L91's in this review: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...XP-E-Neutral)-1xAA-Reviews-RUNTIMES-BEAMSHOTS