Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Use this section to discuss "standard" Baader/Coronado/ Lunt SolarView/ Daystar, etc… filters, cameras and scopes. No mods, just questions/ answers and reviews.
Post Reply
jnclt
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by jnclt »

Hi everyone,
I'm very happy to find so much useful information on this forum!

I'm considering my first H-alpha setup and would appreciate some advice.
I have a 70/420 ED refractor and a 100/1000 achromat, both can ride simultaneously on my tracking mount (Vixen GP).
My focus is on visual observations (ideally with my baader maxbright binoviewer - max 25mm ~50deg eyepieces).

Would Quark Combo + 3x (for my f10 scope) & 5x (for the f6 scope) telextenders work better than the plain Quark (which includes x4.2 teleextender)?
(I mean these: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/pr ... risch.html)
Or would the setups be comparable and I don't need to spend extra?

I hope a 2" Baader H-alpha 35nm filter in front of the diagonal would be enough for both scopes. On the other hand, I'm concerned that the Quark will deteriorate over time - is this a problem?

Jan


User avatar
marktownley
Librarian
Librarian
Posts: 42120
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Brierley Hills, UK
Has thanked: 20229 times
Been thanked: 10111 times
Contact:

Re: Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by marktownley »

Hi Jan,

Welcome to the forum. I'm not personally familiar with the tele extenders you've linked, but in theory the 'maths' should work for the Quark Combo. The Baader 35nm Ha will work fine for an ERF, I use one for the same thing.

Mark


Image
http://brierleyhillsolar.blogspot.co.uk/
Solar images, a collection of all the most up to date live solar data on the web, imaging & processing tutorials - please take a look!
User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by krakatoa1883 »

Standard Quark includes a dedicated telecentric that works fine with most refractors although long focus objectives may require a 0.5x reducer to avoid excessive magnifications. Combo is more versatile than standard, has a much larger blocking filter and is better suited for long refractors. Both have their pros and cons.

The blocking filter of my Quark deteriorated over time, I suppose due to the use of a UV/IR-cut as diagonal ERF, which is probably not enough protective. Since I replaced it with a new one and the UV/IR with a 35nm Baader I had no more issues and the filter is still as new.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
jnclt
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by jnclt »

Thanks a lot for quick and informative responses!

I'm glad to hear 35nm Baader should work.

As for the blocking filter, I see on Daystar website for Combo:
"Integrated 25mm blocking filter, 21mm clear filter aperture"
and Standard:
"Integrated 12mm blocking filter, 21mm clear filter aperture"
I don't understand this, nor the implications. Would one have an advantage over the other when used with eyepieces with ~23mm field stop? And with ~28mm?

You say "Both have their pros and cons":
I'd appreciate as much details as you can possible give regarding this :)

In my very limited understanding now, I see
* speaking for Combo + 3x & 5x telecentrics:
- able to reach f30 with both my scopes, which is what Daystar claims optimal (how important is that?)
- slightly wider max FoV on my larger scope with 3x telecentric

* against:
- 3rd-party telecentrics may be suboptimal? Less stable nosepiece connection instead of screws, longer lever, more load on the focuser (should carry my binoviewer with 2 light-weight eyepieces at the end).
- added cost for the 3rd-party telecentrics
- slightly narrower max FoV on my smaller scope with 5x telecentric (I don't think 3x - reaching f18 - would do here?).


User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by krakatoa1883 »

The standard Quark has been designed for those small refractors that are so popular today. In focus they produce a small primary image of the Sun hence no need for a large BF. Combo is designed for longer FL telescopes as SC, Mak or long focus refractors, these may not need a strong amplifier to reach the f/30 condition. The cons are those you already pointed out, Combo needs a good telecentric to work best. However I actually noted that although not exactly a telecentric amplifier, a Powermate or a similar device delivers fine images on most of the FOV (provided Quark if of good quality, but this is a different matter).

The clear aperture of standard Quark BF is 10 mm.


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
jnclt
The Sun?
The Sun?
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by jnclt »

Raf,
I'm not very keen on experimenting with Combo and focal extenders, I think I will just go with the standard Quark.
I also haven't considered the reduced clear aperture of the 1,25" extenders I linked above, it might negate the Combo's advantage. 2" Powermates are costly.
I guess I'll just trust that since Daystar builds Quark with a custom focal extender, they designed it to work well with the filter.
At least they say so in this post: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5346 ... ?p=7177835

I understand that the quality of Quarks varies significantly. I really have zero experience with H-alpha observations and this quality fluctuation is making me nervous.
I'll order from a vendor that claims that they test each filter before shipping and that I have good experience with regarding returns.
Could you please point out what to focus on when evaluating a sample, so that I can tell if I got a lemon and send it back?


User avatar
krakatoa1883
Almost There...
Almost There...
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:41 am
Location: Mediolanum
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 496 times

Re: Quark Chromosphere Combo vs plain

Post by krakatoa1883 »

Good question with no easy answer. However let's separate the electronic from the optical part of the device. Suppose your device never reach tuning (green light) in any climate condition or different positions of the knob have no visibile effect on the image. In this case the device is clearly defective and should be repaired or replaced under warranty. This is just an example but in general is quite easy to tell if an electronic device is defective or not.

As far as the filtering part is concerned things are not so easy. For example the etalon may not be uniform over the FOV, best etalons are reserved for top line products, not for Quark which is the cheapest one. You may therefore be forced to accept a compromise and indeed some units are worse - sometimes MUCH worse - than others although this doesn't necessarily mean they shall be considered defective by the seller or the factory.

I would suggest you to spend some time searching in this forum for those topics (there are many of them) related to Quark quality, you'll find several examples and experiences about what one can expect from a good or a bad Quark and this will help you in evaluating your own unit.

ciao


Raf
My solar images and reports with articles on solar equipment
Post Reply