Quark Vs Solarscope
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34721
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17970 times
- Been thanked: 8900 times
Quark Vs Solarscope
Everyone has been asking this, so this morning as it was sunny again (a miracle I know!) I did a shoot out. Seeing was absolutely dreadful so the resolution in the images isn't that great.
Well I started off first with the Quark, exposure times around 41ms and 23 frames per second, the Solarscope was 22ms on 2x Barlow 26fps, on ROI it was 40fps.
Honestly the Solarscope was like a breath of fresh air after the Quark, very bright, full disc and glorious luxurious contrast. The biggest difference was seen with the prominences but then it is a Quark 'Chromosphere'. All the Solarscope falls over flat is resolution and the difference between 100mm and 135mm is a lot. I think it is a bit like driving my MX5 compared to a Ferrari, I love my MX5 to bits and it is fabulous, but a Ferrari is much nicer to drive (I don't own one by the way, the Ferrari I mean).
I can't do this with my Quark, I dread to think how many millions of panels it would be remember to click the magnifier top left twice
2015-08-16 full disc by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
2015-08-16 full disc f colour by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
I have lots of prom comparisons but here is one Quark first, then Solarscope + 1.6x Barlow
160815_082726 Quark by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
160815_084749 Solarscope by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
You do get what you pay for
However, resolution is a killer, Quark first, Solarscope + 2x Barlow second.
160815_082209 Quark by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
160815_094757 Solarscope by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
Even though the Solarscope is 0.5A and the Quark 0.3A the base of the transmission curve really lets the Quark down losing a lot of contrast and features.
I'll process more during the week.
I also took my first proper image of the Milky Way last night it was so clear it was unbelievable from my garden. I know it isn't as good as the experts and it is a bit cobbled together but I am proud I achieved it at last https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexandra ... ed-public/
Alexandra
Well I started off first with the Quark, exposure times around 41ms and 23 frames per second, the Solarscope was 22ms on 2x Barlow 26fps, on ROI it was 40fps.
Honestly the Solarscope was like a breath of fresh air after the Quark, very bright, full disc and glorious luxurious contrast. The biggest difference was seen with the prominences but then it is a Quark 'Chromosphere'. All the Solarscope falls over flat is resolution and the difference between 100mm and 135mm is a lot. I think it is a bit like driving my MX5 compared to a Ferrari, I love my MX5 to bits and it is fabulous, but a Ferrari is much nicer to drive (I don't own one by the way, the Ferrari I mean).
I can't do this with my Quark, I dread to think how many millions of panels it would be remember to click the magnifier top left twice
2015-08-16 full disc by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
2015-08-16 full disc f colour by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
I have lots of prom comparisons but here is one Quark first, then Solarscope + 1.6x Barlow
160815_082726 Quark by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
160815_084749 Solarscope by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
You do get what you pay for
However, resolution is a killer, Quark first, Solarscope + 2x Barlow second.
160815_082209 Quark by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
160815_094757 Solarscope by Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
Even though the Solarscope is 0.5A and the Quark 0.3A the base of the transmission curve really lets the Quark down losing a lot of contrast and features.
I'll process more during the week.
I also took my first proper image of the Milky Way last night it was so clear it was unbelievable from my garden. I know it isn't as good as the experts and it is a bit cobbled together but I am proud I achieved it at last https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexandra ... ed-public/
Alexandra
- pedro
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 12318
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 8:26 pm
- Location: Portugal
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 6688 times
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Very nice comparison images Alexandra. Very informative
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for sharing
Pedro Re'
https://pedroreastrophotography.com/
https://pedroreastrophotography.com/
- Gordon Ewen
- Almost There...
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:15 am
- Location: Moggerhanger, UK
- Been thanked: 257 times
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Hello Alexandra, that is an interesting comparison of the Quark and solarscope. Did you use flats? I assume you did as the images are very even. The resolution on the Quark set up is excellent.
I am getting happier with my Quark; yesterday I confirmed that -3 setting for the temperature control is best for the surface detail. I am limited to 80mm for my testing but I hope to borrow a 120mm scope in the next week or so to do some further tests. With only 80mm my exposure times are significant and it is a challenge to beat the seeing conditions. The uneven field illumination seems to have gone altogether now; it's as if the Quark had a 'running in 'period!
Gordon
I am getting happier with my Quark; yesterday I confirmed that -3 setting for the temperature control is best for the surface detail. I am limited to 80mm for my testing but I hope to borrow a 120mm scope in the next week or so to do some further tests. With only 80mm my exposure times are significant and it is a challenge to beat the seeing conditions. The uneven field illumination seems to have gone altogether now; it's as if the Quark had a 'running in 'period!
Gordon
Lunt 152 DSII Ha scope, Orion Optics 12" ODK, C9.25
Skywatcher EQ8 x 2
Lunt 1 1/4" Herschel Wedge, 2x,3x Barlow, 5x Powermate, Baader Ca filter and solar film.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/74614447@N02/
Skywatcher EQ8 x 2
Lunt 1 1/4" Herschel Wedge, 2x,3x Barlow, 5x Powermate, Baader Ca filter and solar film.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/74614447@N02/
- sullij1
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:29 am
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Good work Alexandra. I see the question asked all the time about how the Quark compares. Truly, it is an excellent HiRes device but fails miserably at the full disc. I saw Bill post on another forum mentioning how most Quark users have other dedicated Ha scopes they use for full disc imaging. I totally agree. The Quark has its place in anyone's kit but is definitely not the best all round device.
You do indeed get what you pay for. The Solarscopes images are beyond compare in many respects.
The Quark did pretty good when you look at it from the perspective that this is a comparison between a 15 to 30,000 USD device and a 1000 USD device.
http://www.optcorp.com/sm-sf100-sf-100- ... ilter.html
I am surprised the Quark didn't fare better on the proms.
You do indeed get what you pay for. The Solarscopes images are beyond compare in many respects.
The Quark did pretty good when you look at it from the perspective that this is a comparison between a 15 to 30,000 USD device and a 1000 USD device.
http://www.optcorp.com/sm-sf100-sf-100- ... ilter.html
I am surprised the Quark didn't fare better on the proms.
Look Up!
- Bob Yoesle
- Almost There...
- Posts: 996
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:24 pm
- Has thanked: 541 times
- Been thanked: 811 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
An excellent comparison -- again bandpass means almost nothing, transmission profile is just about everything -- e.g. finesse. It may take both numbers to more completely describe filter performance, but mostly the latter...
For the money the Quark appears to be a good deal -- so I'm considering the Questar version, perhaps stacked with a 1.5 A Beloptik H alpha filter (despite the controversy described in a round-about way in the similarly named thread http://solarchat.natca.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17095 -- as it likely is less susceptible to field angle issue.) This - if implemented properly - might further suppress the continuum leaking through the filter transmission tails for a "pseudo" DS image (see Christian Valadrich experiment using an Omega 4 A filter at the bottom of this page: http://www.astrosurf.com/viladrich/astr ... ntrast.htm ). The best location for such a filter would be after the Quark telecentric lens, or in the eyepiece holder. Hopefully the Questar Quark telecentric is designed to reduce field angle magnification introduced by the Questar secondary mirror (as is the problem with any Cassegrain system - it acts like a simple barlow.) It might also be advantageous to introduce a field lens near the focus to accomplish this... Might have to consult with or suggest this to DayStar...
For the money the Quark appears to be a good deal -- so I'm considering the Questar version, perhaps stacked with a 1.5 A Beloptik H alpha filter (despite the controversy described in a round-about way in the similarly named thread http://solarchat.natca.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17095 -- as it likely is less susceptible to field angle issue.) This - if implemented properly - might further suppress the continuum leaking through the filter transmission tails for a "pseudo" DS image (see Christian Valadrich experiment using an Omega 4 A filter at the bottom of this page: http://www.astrosurf.com/viladrich/astr ... ntrast.htm ). The best location for such a filter would be after the Quark telecentric lens, or in the eyepiece holder. Hopefully the Questar Quark telecentric is designed to reduce field angle magnification introduced by the Questar secondary mirror (as is the problem with any Cassegrain system - it acts like a simple barlow.) It might also be advantageous to introduce a field lens near the focus to accomplish this... Might have to consult with or suggest this to DayStar...
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe.
Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.
Dark-Sky Defenders
Goldendale Observatory
Curiosity is the father of knowledge; uncertainty is the mother of wisdom.
Dark-Sky Defenders
Goldendale Observatory
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 12900
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:02 am
- Been thanked: 171 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Thanks Alexandra the Quark is good value for money and you can imagine the results from there professional grade filters which would be more in line with the Solarscope.I think for quick setups the pressure and tilt tuned filters required less mucking around especially the single stack units.With the fickle UK weather these are a bonus.
on a seperate note well done with the Milky Way shot .
Cheers Derek
on a seperate note well done with the Milky Way shot .
Cheers Derek
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34721
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17970 times
- Been thanked: 8900 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Thanks everyone it is exactly what I expected, the Quark is fantastic value for money and excels at getting the most resolution out of your scope, but it can never compete with a Solarscope. If you pay more it is still worth it for the versatility, contrast and just plain stunning views I don't think the tilt tuned etalon will go out the window yet I am very lucky to have the best of both worlds.
Alexandra
Alexandra
- michael.h.f.wilkinson
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:36 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Very interesting comparison. I just did a back of the envelope calculations which suggests a "mere" 80 to 90 panes would be needed for a full disk mosaic using a TEC140 and Quark (or Solar Spectrum filter like I use) with an ASI174MM like I have. Should be doable. Crazy, but doable
Solar kit: GP-C8 with Thousand Oaks Solar filter, APM 80mm F/6, Lunt Herschel Wedge, Solar Spectrum 0.3Å H-alpha filter, Beloptic Tri-Band ERF (80mm free aperture), Thousand Oaks 90mm ERF, Coronado SolarMax II 60mm with Double Stack Unit. Lunt straight B1800 Ca-K module.
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34721
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17970 times
- Been thanked: 8900 times
- michael.h.f.wilkinson
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:36 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Montana wrote: I have a husband to look after!
Well-trained husbands are perfectly capable of looking after themselves
I once took and 88 paner, only took me 30 minutes or so to gather the data
Solar kit: GP-C8 with Thousand Oaks Solar filter, APM 80mm F/6, Lunt Herschel Wedge, Solar Spectrum 0.3Å H-alpha filter, Beloptic Tri-Band ERF (80mm free aperture), Thousand Oaks 90mm ERF, Coronado SolarMax II 60mm with Double Stack Unit. Lunt straight B1800 Ca-K module.
- Carbon60
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 14304
- Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:33 pm
- Location: Lancashire, UK
- Has thanked: 8543 times
- Been thanked: 8268 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Great comparison, Alexandra.
Stu.
Stu.
H-alpha, WL and Ca II K imaging kit for various image scales.
Fluxgate Magnetometers (1s and 150s Cadence).
Radio meteor detector.
More images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/solarcarbon60/
Fluxgate Magnetometers (1s and 150s Cadence).
Radio meteor detector.
More images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/solarcarbon60/
- Valery
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 4059
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 893 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Hi Alexandra!
Very nice, as always.
However, I believe you forgot to note, that SF100 scope has been used in a double stack mode - this
becomes clear when I take a look at the prominence image.
In such, heh, Quark has no chances vs DS scope, except resolution wise.
Looking for your next home work! It is always a pleasure to read such informative reports.
Thanks for such a job and for sharing the results with us.
Valery
Very nice, as always.
However, I believe you forgot to note, that SF100 scope has been used in a double stack mode - this
becomes clear when I take a look at the prominence image.
In such, heh, Quark has no chances vs DS scope, except resolution wise.
Looking for your next home work! It is always a pleasure to read such informative reports.
Thanks for such a job and for sharing the results with us.
Valery
Last edited by Valery on Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.
Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34721
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17970 times
- Been thanked: 8900 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Thanks guys
Yes Valery, the Solarscope is 0.5A and the Quark is 0.3A
Alexandra
Yes Valery, the Solarscope is 0.5A and the Quark is 0.3A
Alexandra
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Hi Alexandra,
congratulations for you excellent solar and milky way pictures!
It seems that you have a fairly good night sky from home, that's a good luck! I can barely see the milky way just few night per year if conditions are perfect..
I agree about the comparision: I also have the Quark but never stopped to use my Lunt 60mm DS, either for visual and for imaging.
And never stopped dreaming about a 100mm etalon too...
cheers
Marcello
congratulations for you excellent solar and milky way pictures!
It seems that you have a fairly good night sky from home, that's a good luck! I can barely see the milky way just few night per year if conditions are perfect..
I agree about the comparision: I also have the Quark but never stopped to use my Lunt 60mm DS, either for visual and for imaging.
And never stopped dreaming about a 100mm etalon too...
cheers
Marcello
Play in the sunshine, we're gonna get over !!
-
- Almost There...
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:41 am
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
A good informative post Alexandra on what each individual set up can achieve, I have to look at the images as separate tests though as they are both unequally matched.
The Solarscope, I think at native, is 0.7A & the Quark should be 0.5A but each Q can behave differently & is adjustable up / down.
The Solarscope at 100mm loses out by 35mm against your Quark set up.
Your Quark being a Chromosphere version whereas the Prominence version @ 0.6A+ would show proms better, hardly anyone will buy one though as the Chromo version does a very good at capturing proms as well, if the tuner setting is adjusted, in your case to +0.5A
Your 'Tuner Test' on your Quark you posted, http://solarchat.natca.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17240, is clearly a better example of what the 'MX5' is capable of.
Don't get me wrong the Solarscope, from what I have seen, is an amazing instrument but it should be for the £'s it costs.
What I would be interested in seeing is comparison using the same size objective & the same bandwidth.
Also a Chromo Q V's a Prom Q would be good.
The Solarscope, I think at native, is 0.7A & the Quark should be 0.5A but each Q can behave differently & is adjustable up / down.
The Solarscope at 100mm loses out by 35mm against your Quark set up.
Your Quark being a Chromosphere version whereas the Prominence version @ 0.6A+ would show proms better, hardly anyone will buy one though as the Chromo version does a very good at capturing proms as well, if the tuner setting is adjusted, in your case to +0.5A
Your 'Tuner Test' on your Quark you posted, http://solarchat.natca.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17240, is clearly a better example of what the 'MX5' is capable of.
Don't get me wrong the Solarscope, from what I have seen, is an amazing instrument but it should be for the £'s it costs.
What I would be interested in seeing is comparison using the same size objective & the same bandwidth.
Also a Chromo Q V's a Prom Q would be good.
- Valery
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 4059
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:13 pm
- Has thanked: 156 times
- Been thanked: 893 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
I believe that Prom will loos in such a comparison, if they both are same uniform.Ewan wrote:
Also a Chromo Q V's a Prom Q would be good.
But normally, the narrower the bandpass the more impact from the bandwide non-uniformity.
This is true not only for Quarks, but also for any other Lyot type filters. I saw only one or two
narrow enough (about 0,3A) Lyot type filters (based on a natural mica plate spacer) which are good for
CCD imaging without using a flat field for their non-uniformity correction.
Valery
"Solar H alpha activity is the most dynamic and compelling thing you can see in a telescope, so spend accordingly." (c) Bob Yoesle.
Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
Largest full size 185 - 356mm Dielectric Energy Rejection Filters (D-ERF) by ARIES Instruments.
- michael.h.f.wilkinson
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2559
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:36 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
My Solar Spectrum filter (0.3Å), which I gather is also Lyot type, certainly needs flats. Having said that the image is way beyond anything either the SM-II 60mm or the LS35 produced in terms of clarity. I had expected the image to be darker overall at the same exit pupil, due to the narrower passband (0.3Å vs 0.7Å), but nothing of the kind. This is not just visual appearance: the exposure time needed for a good histogram fill in the ASI174MM is roughly the same for the SM-II 60 at F/20 as for the Solar Spectrum operating at F/25.6. Simple bandwidth specs say little, indeed.
Solar kit: GP-C8 with Thousand Oaks Solar filter, APM 80mm F/6, Lunt Herschel Wedge, Solar Spectrum 0.3Å H-alpha filter, Beloptic Tri-Band ERF (80mm free aperture), Thousand Oaks 90mm ERF, Coronado SolarMax II 60mm with Double Stack Unit. Lunt straight B1800 Ca-K module.
- DJD
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 1455
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:27 am
- Location: Rochdale, UK
- Has thanked: 42 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
I sometimes wonder if you would get decent images even if you just waved a potato on a stick at the sun :-)
That said, it is just plain informative and provokes interesting insights from other experts. More power to your elbow.
Best wishes,
David
That said, it is just plain informative and provokes interesting insights from other experts. More power to your elbow.
Best wishes,
David
Making the possible difficult and the difficult impossible.
Photos : https://www.flickr.com/photos/daviddench/albums/
Photos : https://www.flickr.com/photos/daviddench/albums/
- GuillermoBarrancos
- Im an EXPERT!
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:45 am
- Location: Oslo, Norway
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Nice comparison shots.
Regarding the Prominence shot. I think you tried to focus on getting as much surface detail as possible and as result you lose contrast on the prominence.
As I have noticed this with my quark, you either focus on the prominence (bit higher exposure and high gamma) or you focus on surface detail (bit lower exposure and almost zero gamma).
At least this is the case with my camera. Tho I have seen this with others and why some that do full composed images with Quark stitch/overlap two separate images (one surface detail image and one prominence image), to get best results.
I haven´t tried this approach myself, as I simply haven´t mastered this technique yet (mostly due to lack of time). So I just make separate surface detail focused images and prominence images.
Regarding the Prominence shot. I think you tried to focus on getting as much surface detail as possible and as result you lose contrast on the prominence.
As I have noticed this with my quark, you either focus on the prominence (bit higher exposure and high gamma) or you focus on surface detail (bit lower exposure and almost zero gamma).
At least this is the case with my camera. Tho I have seen this with others and why some that do full composed images with Quark stitch/overlap two separate images (one surface detail image and one prominence image), to get best results.
I haven´t tried this approach myself, as I simply haven´t mastered this technique yet (mostly due to lack of time). So I just make separate surface detail focused images and prominence images.
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Hi Alexandra!
Thanks for the comparison. It seems to me that the Quark gets a high regarding value for money. But I must say, I never get tired of examining your FD images. I tend to like the B/W ones the best, the color one is more for an overview, but for study of details nothing beats the B/Ws.
Oivind Tangen
60N 10E
Thanks for the comparison. It seems to me that the Quark gets a high regarding value for money. But I must say, I never get tired of examining your FD images. I tend to like the B/W ones the best, the color one is more for an overview, but for study of details nothing beats the B/Ws.
Oivind Tangen
60N 10E
- marktownley
- Librarian
- Posts: 42515
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:27 pm
- Location: Brierley Hills, UK
- Has thanked: 20767 times
- Been thanked: 10453 times
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Top shots Alexandra, i'm on 'catch up' on the forum.
Like Bob says, bandwidth is immaterial in the scheme of things, finesse (curve shape) is king. The DS100 shows itself to be a killer combination in the low / mid scale images, but the quark is the way to go in high res closeups for the extra resolution in provides in your setup.
Like Bob says, bandwidth is immaterial in the scheme of things, finesse (curve shape) is king. The DS100 shows itself to be a killer combination in the low / mid scale images, but the quark is the way to go in high res closeups for the extra resolution in provides in your setup.
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!
- astroshot
- Almost There...
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:24 pm
- Location: Kildare, Ireland
- Has thanked: 335 times
- Been thanked: 251 times
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Nice review Alexandra.
They are two different animals with a different purpose.
FWIW, I have a Coronado 90mm filter and a Daystar 0.6A T-Scanner with 135mm D-ERF.
Different instruments entirely.
They are two different animals with a different purpose.
FWIW, I have a Coronado 90mm filter and a Daystar 0.6A T-Scanner with 135mm D-ERF.
Different instruments entirely.
Michael in Kildare, Ireland.
TEC140
Coronado Solarmax 90
Daystar 0.6A T-Scanner
Baader Cool-Ceramic Safety Herschel Wedge
TEC140
Coronado Solarmax 90
Daystar 0.6A T-Scanner
Baader Cool-Ceramic Safety Herschel Wedge
-
- Ohhhhhh My!
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:25 pm
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Very nice comparison, Alexandra. Hopefully it will help those with 70,80,90,100 scopes get an idea what the Quark may bring to the table. I was a bit unsure what to say when someone with a Lunt 80 asked if it was worth getting a Quark.
I do like the Quark concept that it can easily be switched around scopes. Like with my Herschel wedge, I use Quark in four different scopes. It can do my grab and go or fairly easy full disc imaging with my 60mm scope (four tiles with my camera), closer up shots with my 120mm, on windy/poorer seeing days I might use my 85mm. I love using my 100mm scope on a giro mount for lazy observing, so that's my preference at home for Quark visual.
I feel really lucky that the Quark has enabled me to try h-alpha with a larger scope, I was going to stay at 60mm because of the cost of the larger aperture options until the Quark arrived on the scene. It is not a perfect device, but it is better than I dared hope for the money, and for me its competition was nothing, as there was nothing in budget at that aperture. It won
I remember when I was about to take my first view with it in my 60mm scope, I was wondering, "is it going to look like budget h-alpha?" Then I was relieved when it just looked like h-alpha!
I have no idea what budget h-alpha would look like
We are lucky to have Ferraris and MX's
I do like the Quark concept that it can easily be switched around scopes. Like with my Herschel wedge, I use Quark in four different scopes. It can do my grab and go or fairly easy full disc imaging with my 60mm scope (four tiles with my camera), closer up shots with my 120mm, on windy/poorer seeing days I might use my 85mm. I love using my 100mm scope on a giro mount for lazy observing, so that's my preference at home for Quark visual.
I feel really lucky that the Quark has enabled me to try h-alpha with a larger scope, I was going to stay at 60mm because of the cost of the larger aperture options until the Quark arrived on the scene. It is not a perfect device, but it is better than I dared hope for the money, and for me its competition was nothing, as there was nothing in budget at that aperture. It won
I remember when I was about to take my first view with it in my 60mm scope, I was wondering, "is it going to look like budget h-alpha?" Then I was relieved when it just looked like h-alpha!
I have no idea what budget h-alpha would look like
We are lucky to have Ferraris and MX's
-
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 2410
- Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 12:12 am
- Location: Woodbridge, Ontario, Canada
- Been thanked: 1735 times
- Contact:
- jp-brahic
- Almost There...
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:08 pm
- Location: uzès ( France)
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 131 times
- Contact:
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
interesting comparison Alexandra The problem with Daystar it is because the quality of filters is unpredictable according to the production
it can have big quality differences between two quarks !!!
JP
it can have big quality differences between two quarks !!!
JP
Last edited by jp-brahic on Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Réfractor Spécial H-Alpha (Istar optical ) 230mm F/D 9
Solar Télescope Cassegrain CFF 350mm F/D 20 Clearceram + ERF-D Tri Band 312mm ARIES Instruments.
TN 450mm F/D 4 Zerodur
Web Site : http://jp-brahic.chez-alice.fr/
Astrobin : https://www.astrobin.com/users/jp-brahic/
Solar Télescope Cassegrain CFF 350mm F/D 20 Clearceram + ERF-D Tri Band 312mm ARIES Instruments.
TN 450mm F/D 4 Zerodur
Web Site : http://jp-brahic.chez-alice.fr/
Astrobin : https://www.astrobin.com/users/jp-brahic/
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34721
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17970 times
- Been thanked: 8900 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Ghostfire, what do you mean by two blocking filters? I used the blocking filter which comes with the Solarscope for that, the Quark has its own blocking filter built into the unit.
Alexandra
Alexandra
- eroel
- Way More Fun to Share It!!
- Posts: 9438
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:45 pm
- Location: México D.F.
- Been thanked: 4971 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Alexandra:
Super FD´s and a very interesting comparo and information.
Thanks for sharing it.
Best regards,
Eric.
Super FD´s and a very interesting comparo and information.
Thanks for sharing it.
Best regards,
Eric.
- Montana
- Librarian
- Posts: 34721
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:25 pm
- Location: Cheshire, UK
- Has thanked: 17970 times
- Been thanked: 8900 times
Re: Quark Vs Solarscope
Oh I see, yes, the Solarscope double-stack filter set comes with two blocking filters. One for use with the single stack etalon (darker) and one for use with the double stack etalon, this one lets more light through. So the same amount of light comes through the double stack as through the single stack. This is great for imaging and viewing as there is no loss of light between using a single or a double stack. The view is magnificent. I have however used the double stack blocking filter (lighter) with the single stack unit and this lets buckets of light through to image faint proms but I guess I would never use this visually.
Alexandra
Alexandra