Difference between X-ML and XPG-2 emitter?

stickydoorknob · Sep 30, 2012

I've planning on getting my first "higher" end light for a while, looking mainly at the Quark 2AA light, but couldn't decide between the X-ML and XPG-2 emitters. From what I gathered, the X-ML is brighter and floodier, but with less battery runtime, while XPG-2 emitter has much better runtime and throws a lot better. Is it just a matter of preference or is one emitter more reliable amd a bit more stable than the other?

Yoda4561 · Sep 30, 2012

Either LED is bound to last longer than the rest of the light's electronics. XML's are physically larger, tend to have more floodlike beams, can handle 2-3x the drive current, and are currently available in a wider range of tints. The XPG-2 is one of Cree's newest leds and uses some new tricks that make it almost as bright as an XML at similar drive current, it throws better than an XML in a similar reflector, but at current time is only easy to find in cool white tints. At the same drive current the runtime is the same, and output is so close it's splitting hairs until you push the XPG-2 past its limit where an XML takes over quickly.

PCC · Sep 30, 2012

They're very close in output for the same drive current up to about 1.5A. The XP-G2 is rated to 1.5A so output should drop off quickly above that drive current. The XM-L is rated to 3A so it can produce a lot more light if it is driven above 1.5A. The XP-G2 has a smaller die area so the resulting beam will be tighter, and, since they're pretty much putting out the same amount of light if driven below 1.5A the XP-G2 has a higher surface brightness resulting in the beam of the XP-G2 being more intense giving you more throw. The decision is yours based on what you want to use this light for. The XM-L would be better for closer work while the XP-G2 would be better for medium distances due to the tighter beam. I would choose the XP-G2 based on the fact that you can always diffuse a throwy beam, but, you cannot tighten a floody beam.

As far as the LEDs being more stable or reliable, if both LEDs were driven at 1.5A then the XP-G2 would probably last as long as the manufacturer's specs while the XM-L would probably surpass the manufacturer's specs. I highly doubt you'd care to own the light long enough to see an XP-G2 emitter fail due to usage as it'll take at least two decades from heavy usage to get there and neither of those lights are driven that hard, so, three decades? Four?

stickydoorknob · Sep 30, 2012

I think I am mainly concerned about the distance in which I can illuminate an area rather than the flood. When you say the XM-L can be driven above 1.5A and produce more lumens, does this mean using 14500 batteries instead of AA's? If I did drive the XM-L above 1.5A, would it still not illuminate as far as a XP-G2 simply by way of its construction?

stickydoorknob · Sep 30, 2012

PCC said:
They're very close in output for the same drive current up to about 1.5A. The XP-G2 is rated to 1.5A so output should drop off quickly above that drive current. The XM-L is rated to 3A so it can produce a lot more light if it is driven above 1.5A. The XP-G2 has a smaller die area so the resulting beam will be tighter, and, since they're pretty much putting out the same amount of light if driven below 1.5A the XP-G2 has a higher surface brightness resulting in the beam of the XP-G2 being more intense giving you more throw. The decision is yours based on what you want to use this light for. The XM-L would be better for closer work while the XP-G2 would be better for medium distances due to the tighter beam. I would choose the XP-G2 based on the fact that you can always diffuse a throwy beam, but, you cannot tighten a floody beam.

As far as the LEDs being more stable or reliable, if both LEDs were driven at 1.5A then the XP-G2 would probably last as long as the manufacturer's specs while the XM-L would probably surpass the manufacturer's specs. I highly doubt you'd care to own the light long enough to see an XP-G2 emitter fail due to usage as it'll take at least two decades from heavy usage to get there and neither of those lights are driven that hard, so, three decades? Four?

I think I am mainly concerned about the distance in which I can illuminate an area rather than the flood. When you say the XM-L can be driven above 1.5A and produce more lumens, does this mean using 14500 batteries instead of AA's? If I did drive the XM-L above 1.5A, would it still not illuminate as far as a XP-G2 simply by way of its construction?

reppans · Sep 30, 2012

I like my XML Quarks more than my XPGs for the floodier beam. Day to day, I find I need illumination for close task work and viewing within reasonable distances (< 50yrds). Throwy beams are of course better at greater distances, but I generally find viewing beyond 50yrds to be optional... nice to know, but really not necessary except for a specific purpose light.

The XML will max out at ~ 400 lms on 2xAA or 14500 while the G2 ~300 lms on the same batts (Selfbuilt has now tested both). I know 4/7s quotes longer runtimes with the XPG, but someone tested the XML with a 14500 in the runtime testimonial threads (4/7s sub-forum in CPF MP) and was getting the same runtimes as the XPG G1. He didn't test moonlight, but the XMLs moonlight is brighter and more useable IMHO.

The last thing to consider is that XML version really did fix the pre-flash and Li-ion reset time issues and from what I've read so far, the XP G2 does not seem to fully fix.

stickydoorknob · Sep 30, 2012

reppans said:
I like my XML Quarks more than my XPGs for the floodier beam. Day to day, I find I need illumination for close task work and viewing within reasonable distances (< 50yrds). Throwy beams are of course better at greater distances, but I generally find viewing beyond 50yrds to be optional... nice to know, but really not necessary except for a specific purpose light.

The XML will max out at ~ 400 lms on 2xAA or 14500 while the G2 ~300 lms on the same batts (Selfbuilt has now tested both). I know 4/7s quotes longer runtimes with the XPG, but someone tested the XML with a 14500 in the runtime testimonial threads (4/7s sub-forum in CPF MP) and was getting the same runtimes as the XPG G1. He didn't test moonlight, but the XMLs moonlight is brighter and more useable IMHO.

The last thing to consider is that XML version really did fix the pre-flash and Li-ion reset time issues and from what I've read so far, the XP G2 does not seem to fully fix.

Yes, I was a bit hesitant because there were quite a few people complaining about the issues they had pre-flash and the light not having consistent lighting.

kikoy · Dec 2, 2013

Where can we buy the XPG2 emitters?

Thank you!

BillSWPA · Dec 2, 2013

For those that like strobe (and I do not wish to derail this thread into a discussion over whether we should or not, let's just accept that some do, some don't), the Quarks with the XP-G2 emitter have a much better (14-15 Hz I believe) strobe rate than the ones with the XM-L2 emitter (10 Hz). This is a bit surprising given that Klarus and perhaps others seem to achieve higher (14+ Hz if I recall correctly) strobe rates with XM-L emitters.

Also, most of the Quarks with XM-L2 emitters have burst mode, which many here like, but for which the affect on battery life needs to be considered. If you use your light intermittently for short periods of time, it will always be operating in burst mode for most or all of the time, which will cut your battery life approximately in half.

Many people, including me, are quite happy with the Quark Tacticals with the XP-G2 emitters, finding that they have plenty of output. All of the FourSevens lights I own (including Mini and Preon lights) have XP-G or XP-G2 emitters, and I am quite happy with them.

Difference between X-ML and XPG-2 emitter?

stickydoorknob

Newly Enlightened

Yoda4561

Flashlight Enthusiast

PCC

Flashlight Enthusiast

stickydoorknob

Newly Enlightened

stickydoorknob

Newly Enlightened

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast

stickydoorknob

Newly Enlightened

kikoy

Newly Enlightened

BillSWPA

Enlightened

Similar threads

Latest posts