SolarChat!

Has anyone had experience using a Quark on a TS 115 APO - or equivalent scope ? I think that I've exhausted resolution with my Lunt 60 PTDS and am looking for HR options. Recently, I've heard of some less than complimentary issues with the Quark line. An alternative might be a mod of sorts but, I've not had any experience with this. Any and all suggestions would be welcomed.

Cheers,

Bill

I think the best performance with the Quarks is achieved with f7 scopes.

This is good to know Mark, thanks

Quark - I hate them buy a PST any day!

Alexandra

I used Quark Chromo for some time with a scope very similar to the 115 apo with decent results, but my experience is that the Combo version + a good external telecentric is better. Quality may vary, however, try two or three units if you can and choose the best one. Or follow Alexandra's recommendation.

I have a PST etalon (PST mod) that has a very pronounced hotspot. These etalons vary a lot in quality

Having recently found a few extra dollars, I'm reconsidering the purchase of a Daystar chromo for my TS 115mm APO triplet (fl = 800 mm; f/7).

http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/pro ... -1-11.html

I'm hoping for improved resolution in H1a over my Lunt 60 PTDS.

There seems to be some diversity of opinion over the Quark's recent quality and customer service:

www.scsastro.co.uk/userfiles/file/Quark%20NOT.pdf as well as Alexandra's comments above.

Though I've seen some superb images with the quark, should any repair/replacement issues arise, that becomes a major issue living in the Caribbean - usurious shipping charges, customs, etc. I need to be certain that Daystar's quality and customer service are sufficient to preclude these problems.

Thus, I'm seeking member's thoughts, advice and suggestions. Would you purchase a Daystar Quark for a refactor similar to mine ? I'm given to understand that an ERF is unnecessary for apertures less than 150mm - is that correct ? I'm also given to understand that an IR cut filter is needed in front of the diagonal - easy enough to do.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be very much appreciated before I invest US$1200.

Cheers,

Bill

Would you purchase a Daystar Quark for a refactor similar to mine ?
No, buy a SolarSpectrum instead.

Alexandra

Thanks, Alexandra.

The SolarSpectrum stuff is a little pricey. I'd go for a larger Lunt instead. I'm still interested in members opinions before I make a move.

Bill

You can't go wrong if you buy a Lunt solar scope

Hi Pedro;

I already have a Lunt60 PTDS but, want more resolution. With my TS115 APO triplet, I thought it would be a simple matter to add the Quark chromo but, had some concerns over reports of Quark quality/customer service. If cost were not a problem, I'd go for one of the the larger Lunts.

Still searching for user comments on the Daystar quark chromo.

Bill

The silence is incredible
Alexandra

Well said, Alexandra. Where are all the experts ? I placed a similar post on Facebook SolarActivity with comparable results - got 2 likes but no information. I'm not trying to dis Daystar; I've seen super results but, also have seen recent concerns regarding quality control. As noted, living in the Caribbean with shipping/customs issues, sending items back and forth for repair/replacement is a pain. May have to involve Sean himself.

Bill

I've never used a quark for imaging. I have used it for solar observation though

Based on all I've seen here and elsewhere I will not buy one

I am not an expert on the Quark. I tried imaging with mine when all I had was a DSLR, I did not get great results. That Quark was a
replacement for a dodgy one, but luckily Rupert at Astrograph was/is a star retailer.
The biggest problem from my point of view was the hassle of warming it up for use and changing temperatures - it was too slow for
my typical cloud dodging sessions. I swapped mine for a PGR G3 ( I could not afford both ) and have not looked back since.
I seem to remember there were issues with the heater in hot climates ? I will be sticking with my PST mod until I can afford a better
quality rear-end etalon ( if that ever happens ).
That said, there are some great images using Quarks displayed on this site.
Best wishes,
David

I am one of the fortunate Quark owners in that my Quark Chromosphere works like a dream! I use it with a Lunt Engineering 102mm ED f/7 refractor and 40mm,32mm,and 25mm Televue Plossl's. It makes me sad when I see others,especially in this forum,with so many respected solar observers,who have had bad experiences with the Quark.I echo Mark T. in the fact that (at least with the Quark I have ,and the only one I purchased,back in 2014),that it works EXCELLENT at f/7 with this refractor.I have tried MANY refractor configurations with my Quark,from 80-120mm f/5-f/8.3,and find the f/5-f/6 refractors visual image gives a somewhat "soft" image,and the f/8.3 scopes did not give me the "crisp" visual image i get with my f/7 Lunt Engineering f/7 scope.By the way,I am strictly a visual solar observer,doing this since about 2004. Just my 2 cents.
Bob

Many thanks to those who've offered their thoughts. Any more thoughts to come ? Am I correct in the notion that an ERF is not needed for scopes less than 150mm ? Just an IR/UV cut filter before the diagonal.

Bill

It is always safer to use an ERF. I use one with my LUNT152 although I do not need it

Hi,Bill-
You only need a QUALITY UV-IR cut filter to put on your diagonal. Daystar sells them. Also,one thing that Daystar owner Jen Winters told me is that for 100-150mm scopes,use a 2" diagonal,not a 1.25" diagonal,with the 2" UV-IR cut filter on the objective side(before the diagonal)of the diagonal. The use of the 2" diagonal,and the 2" UV-IR filter,from what Jen told me,has to do with the focused cone of light coming down the scope will have MORE surface area for the converging light to be able to reflect,or bounce,the harmful UV-IR coming down near the focuser,diagonal area.In my opinion,if you are a CASUAL observer,the diagonal UV-IR will be more than adequate.With that being said,a front mounted ERF is probably a little bit better ( less chances of tube currents,which I do not detect visually on my diagonal UV-IR setup) if you are into SERIOUS IMAGING,like many are on this site,and kudos to them,by the way,which I am not: strictly visual here.The front mounted ERF'S can be HUGELY expensive for casual,visual solar observing.
Hope this helps some more,
Bob

Bill,

After your serious success in a white light solar imaging with 8" telescope, the step to a 115mm aperture in H-a looks like not the best solution. It seems you are a fun of high resolution solar imaging rather than FD imaging.
Also, remember than the sun quickly approaches it's minimum and this will results too few interesting features in H-a to observe with small telescopes at lower resolution. While with a high resolution it is possible to find interesting events almost any day even at minimum sun activity.

If I will be on your place, I would go with 8" SCT, full size DERF and PST Mod-2. This is, of course exceeds your $1200 budget, but is a very efficient solution for a high res imaging. This is a cheapest way to go with high res H-a imaging.

Valery

Thanks everyone for the many responses. hey have been quite helpful and reveal the diversity of views.

Pedro: Agreed, and ERF is much safer but they are expensive at large diameters. I wonder if one cold get by covering the scope except for brief periods of framing and exposure.

Robert: Agree with the IR/UV cut filter in 2" size placed in front o the diagonal. Most of my work is in W/L with my 8" Solar Newtonian which almost satisfies my quest for resolution - am completing a 12" version for even more - thread available in Scope Modifications. I image on almost a daily basis at my Observatory and wanted to explore higher resolution with H1a. Given my RS 115mm APO triplet, I though he Quark would be the simplest solution. If cost were no object, I'd go for a much larger Lunt.

Valery: Interesting suggestion - much appreciated. Largest limitation is $$$$$$. I'd like to approach the results of Gabriel Corbin with his SW ED 120 and Quark chromo. His detail is quite striking. Refer: https://www.facebook.com/gabycorban

Again, thanks all and do keep the suggestions coming.

Bill;

Also what you have to remember is that not all Quark owners post on here.
There are some stunning Quark images out there that easily beat a Lunt or other solar scopes, you just have to find them.
I have seen 'complaints' about a lot of solar scopes costing mega money, you pays your money & makes your choice.

I have had mine for nearly 2 years without a single problem, not one, fingers crossed.
Started using mine with my AA 80EDT & like you wanted more res so opted for the Tecnosky 152mm, that scope is about £100 cheaper than the 8" SCT & delivers very good images.

I take it the 115mm isn't just for solar work as it's an APO & not required for solar ?
You can use internal IR filter & they work well but you can't beat having a front mounted ERF, just save up gradually maybe, keeps tube currents down & ensures no damage to any Ha filters you have/use.

Not sure how easy it would be to try before you buy with a Quark though especially from a retailer, just not practical.
Quarks can go from 0.3Å - 0.5Å so I have read, quite a variance & when I was looking at getting into solar imaging most of the filters in that range were out of my financial reach, the Quarks are a good affordable way of getting into solar & just seem to work.

I think this was AR2665 & rough processing but never uploaded as I got behind ;-)

Hi Ewan;

Agreed - there are some stunning images by Gabriel Corban on his Facebook page as well Facebook/SolarActivity.

My TS115 was for general purpose use although I added a Baader wedge for white light imaging. The quest for higher resolution led to my 8" Solar Newton.

Living in the Caribbean precludes Quark trials and, shipping to and fro is very expensive with UPS/FedEx.

Pleased to hear that you're satisfied with your Quark.

Cheers,

Bill

Bill,

I am in a very similar position as you are (import-export wise). And I tried to find a Quark sample which does not require Flat Field procedure (too much time loss, especially if we remember about good seeing time cost).

I have used five preliminary selected Quarks. No luck! Barely acceptable - too much postprocessing efforts, unreliable and very often a lot of frustrations. I use my Quarks about 5-10% of time vs my trusty PST and LS35 etalons with mods.

If you will not be good with a Quark and such a small telescope? Your next steps? Think about this now, not then when you will porbably fail.

Note, that some Quarks are quite acceptable visually but they fail when we use them for imaging. I know only two or three guys who have Quarks which are really suitable for high res imaging without flat fielding.

Later today I will post the latest images with PST mod and my best Quark (which is VERY good visually).

Valery

I LOVE my Quark and sleep with it.

It's been a great discussion with opinions strongly held on both sides of the issue. Still not sure which direction to move although, leaning towards the Quark for my TS115 mm APO triplet. The question is can I get away without the ERF.

Bill

You can get away without the ERF Bill but I find the image is a bit "softer" without ERF. I takes a few months to realise it, and the realisation kind of creeps up on you. Also without the ERF you can burn the paint inside the tube and catch the baffles, but only if you keep the scope misaligned for some time.

Oh yes, if you use a UVIR cut filter, use a 2" on the front of a diagonal, then it will be larger to better intercept the beam at lower intensity because further up the focus.

[whrudey] wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:01 pm I'd like to approach the results of Gabriel Corbin with his SW ED 120 and Quark chromo. His detail is quite striking. Refer: https://www.facebook.com/gabycorban

Again, thanks all and do keep the suggestions coming.

So, you like to create artificial images? Then you need Photo Shop and other related software rather than imaging telescope and filter.

Hmmmmm...

Bill

I agree with Valery there

Still not sure which direction I'll take. Leaning towards taking the plunge - the extra $$$ for the D-ERF is a negative factor. Many strongly held views. Even get variability as to what constitutes a "good" image. How about "in the eyes of the beholder" ?

Perhaps a little levity is appropriate:



Enjoy,

Bill

Ive used a Quark with an Altair 115mm triplet (the same as the TS one). I used a 2" Baader UV/IR with no problems.

I've replaced the 115mm with an Esprit 120. I intend to use a Baader 35Nm Ha filter as the ERF. Having said that, i've also been out today and used the UV filter.