EOS vs. Quad

Hi Curt,

If you’ll forgive me an armchair comparison, the Eos has a very bright pencil-style beam with little “spill” to ease reading or in-camp chores. The Quad (which I’ve not seen in person) will offer a flood-type beam, more helpful in camp use and less helpful for technical nighttime travel (but likely good enough for clear trails, etc.).

Both are regulated and immersible–big plusses in my book. The Quad does add a battery meter, another plus.

The Eos is my favorite all-around light, and I’m looking forward to testing the Quad and the new, higher output Tikkas.

I have both the new PT Quad (for about 3 weeks now) and the EOS. I’ve also spend a good bit of time hiking at night with both headlamps and have come to prefer the Quad for most purposes. I should also note that I’ve been using mostly lithium AAA’s in both lights.

It really becomes apparent just how narrow the EOS beam is once you do an A-to-B comparison with the Quad. I have even tried widening the beam on the EOS by installing a new 17mm IMS reflector in place of the stock lens (a modification that’s discussed frequently on candlepowerforums.com and among cavers). The new reflector helped the side-spill a little, but the center hot spot is still very tight.

The more diffused beam of the Quad is a lot easier on the eyes (at least mine) under most conditions, since there’s not so much contrast between illuminated and non-illuminated areas of the ground. Especially when the trail is rocky, where you tend to direct your attention closer-in, the Quad’s focused-flood beam works particularly well. I think maybe because being able to see more lighted ground allows putting the space directly under your feet into better context relative to nearby areas. It also eliminates a lot of the “head bobbing” that’s necessary with the EOS in order to see different parts of the trail as you walk.

The amount of illumination required for night hiking depends, of course, on a lot of factors such as the reflectivity and roughness of the trail, whether the trail is wet, dry or snow covered, fog, moonlight, and so on. I’ve found that even on saturated, dark-colored trails with no moonlight, the medium setting on the Quad offers plenty of light for safe and comfortable night hiking. The four new ultra-bright LED’s generate an amazing amount of light and the overall output is significantly higher than the EOS on all power settings (the numbers are available at flashlightreviews.com). Even the low power setting, which is much brighter than the EOS low setting, works fine for night hiking if the trail is reasonably reflective. And it’s downright luxurious for in-camp chores and reading.

The only thing the Quad is missing, IMO, is a long-range spotting capability. The EOS beam on high offers quite a bit more throw than the Quad (almost as much as the Tikka XP on “boost”), and is useful when you want to blast a beam 150 feet up the trail to check out that large animal crashing through the woods. So until the next generation headlamps in this weight-class appear, I’ll use the Quad as a primary light and the EOS as a backup. I now carry the EOS in my pocket for distance spotting and for throwing extra light on the trail at a lower, arm’s length level to create better shadows and texture on rough trails. Where weight is an issue, I’d probably leave the EOS at home and use a micro-LED lamp as a backup to the Quad.

Anyone have further input / experience with the quad?

Rick and James – thanks for the replies. I checked them out side-by-side and went with the Quad. Both were pretty impessive, though. I’m looking for a general purpose bp’ing light, so the Quad seemed an easy choice, actually. For climbing, though, the EOS looks like a perfect fit. Come June/July and volcano season, I might be adding to my collection again….

-Curt

Curt and others. I’m a headlamp collector, pure and simple. I do a lot of after dark and before dawn hiking. I have both the Eos and the Quad, both very fine headlamps for what they are intended to do.

Here’s, the only point that I would like to add to what already has been said. When you’re comparing headlamps, particularly headlamps that are designed with totally different primary purposes (Eos = spot/distance; Quad = flood lighting), try to compare them under the conditions of actual use. Here’s what I mean…

Caving? Try them in a large room or basement.

Trails and outdoors? try them outdoors.

Inside a large open basement, both the Eos and Quad will illuminate everything quite clearly and the Quad may appear superior in certain respects. Now, if you go outside in the dark and try them, a different story will be told. If you are in an area with vegetation, and more particularly if that vegetation (trees and bushes) is somewhat sparse, you are NOT going to be getting a lot of perceivable light being reflected back to the eye. In this case, the Eos will reveal things that the Quad will not. The Eos will prove to be quite superior to the Quad under these conditions.

In my basement, the Quad will pick out everything up to 40′ away, but take it out in the woods or on trail, and you’d be surprised how much less you see as only a small percentage of the light that is emitted is reflected back to the eye by objects close enough for that reflected light to be perceived. There’s simply more wide open space for the light to go and go and go before striking something and then it’s reflected level is too low to be precieved by the eye. Think inverse-square principle of radiating energy here.

Now, let me clarify further. If all you want to do is to look down at the trail/ground up to 15′ in front of you, the Quad will do quite nicely. If you want to pick out low-contrast, faded blazes on trees and rocks from a further distance, let’s say an arbitrary 30′, then the Quad may not perform well enough. The Eos will easily pick them out at 30′ or more (med or hi setting), but the Quad (med or hi setting) will have some trouble, in my experience – you will need to be a lot closer to see them since the light is not as concentrated, but is a flood pattern. This is not a criticism of the Quad, per se, but of all 5mm LED flood/proximity lighting headlamps.

Now, if you’re younger, don’t smoke, and have average or better low light vision, then you will do better than an old geezer like me, with age degraded low light vision. So, YMMV.

I haven’t tried the Quad but I do have an EOS and a Aurora. At first I preferred the Aurora because of the spill of the light pattern. But now I prefer the EOS due to the brighter more focused beam for more effective light at distance and better contrast up close. I have grown accustomed to setting the EOS housing so that it places the beam 5-10 feet in front of me. Even though there is no spill between me and the closest portion of the outside diameter of the beam, I remember what I just “scanned” with the light, thus eliminating the need for spill. Also, personally, the white light of the EOS produces better contrast and depth of shadows than the bluish light of the Aurora. Again, I haven’t used the Quad, I’m just trying to give you some reference.

The lowest setting on the EOS is more than enough light for me personally (20/20) for night hiking without any ambient light, even in 10-15 degree F temps. I’ve been impressed with the battery life as well.

Well Paul, I just read your review on the Tikka XP and my EOS has just found it’s self on Ebay. If only the EOS had a diffuser…

Justin –

If you’re interested in an EOS diffuser, you might want to check this out.

Jim Wood.

Thanks Jim, good idea, I may give that a shot.