Solar telescope or Quark? This is the " complicated" question..

[pluton]

Hello,
I have a small 80mm refractor, including an ED80 model.
And I'm thinking introduce in solar observation in H-alpha.
I have observed with foil Astro Solar baader.
I would like to recommend me on his own experience, that could be better in my case, if a solar telescope such as a 35 Lunt, Lunt 50..o so .; or have heard of the eyepiece Quark, apparently there is to observe prominences and / or chromosphere .. ??
What I have heard say this Quark, is that this eypiece not show the full picture of the sun if the telescope has more than 400mm focal length (mine has 555mm) and I think this could be a negative for the Quark ..
Well, very grateful for your comments and advice, I know it's not easy to choose and each observation system will have its pros and cons ..
Regards
Paul

[Luke]

Hi Paul,

Hope this gives some ideas which way is best for you.

Some Quark Cons:

- Quark has an integrated 4.3x Barlow. This means you need to use long focal length eyepieces for visual (Daystar recommend 25, 32 and 40mm Tele Vue Plossls). In scopes with a focal length of about 450mm upwards, you probably won't be able to see the full disc. I'm okay about that as I use a small frac as my grab and go so see full disc then. At home I can't see full disc with my ED100 but the detail is really sweet so I am not that bothered about not seeing the full disc, a bit like if you had a 14 inch SCT you're not really looking to view the moon at full disc.

- Quark has less contrast than a double-stacked scope. If I had say a Lunt 50 instead of Quark I'd be keen to double stack it because that is really nice at the eyepiece and it would make me feel it has an edge there over the Quark.

- Quark needs a power supply and about 10 mins to warm up. Also, when you change the tuning, it takes some minutes to change. I don't find these to be that much of an issue in practice. I use a rechargeable power pack and long cable and I tend to put the Quark on 10 mins before I want to use it. Or if I am using my HEQ5 mount, then I put it on as I start to set up and it is good to go by the time I have set the other stuff up. The tuning I don't find a big problem either, once I have found a decent setting I just use the same again and again. Also you can carry on observing while the tuning changes, it is very gradual and I can't tell at the eyepiece that anything is changing in real time.

- For imaging (I know does not apply to you, but will add here in case it helps anyone else...), the 4.3x Barlow means you can't image at a really short focal length. You can however use a 0.5x reducer to help pull the focal length back down (though if you have a large chip camera you might need to shorten the reduction to about 0.7x or so - I get strong vignetting with my ZWO ASI174 at 0.5x but 0.7x-ish is okay - a slight but easily removed vignette if I take a flat). So for example, with my SolarMax 60 I can get a whole disc in one tile using my 1/1.8 camera. With my Quark and 60mm scope, I need four tiles. So the SM60 could be better choice for full disc imaging if that's your thing but it depends on camera etc.

Some PRO's for the Quark:

- Far cheaper in the larger apertures, my ED100 and Quark costs far less than a 0.5A (double stacked) Lunt 100. A 100mm scope will show you  finer detail than a 50 or 60mm scope, so this is a big attraction for me of the Quark.

- Can be handy for grab and go if you want to take one scope and do h-alpha and also white light, or regular astro at night. I use a 60mm as my grab and go.

- Can use a quality scope. The Lunt 50 or even the 60 witb the default Crayford and the SolarMax 60 don't have the best focusers, though they do work. Not a big issue really, it's just nice to use a quality frac and focuser if you have one.

- No obvious sweet spot. With my SolarMax 60 the proms don't look as good towards the edge of the field of view in the eyepiece, so I tend to move them more central to get a really good look. With the Quark the proms still look good at the edge.

I am very happy with the Quark, best thing I've ever bought for astro considering the price. In terms of Quark, if you are not sure, get Chromosphere, you can also see proms (the "flames" that stick out over the edge). My images below are with Quark Chromosphere. Proms are very visible at eyepiece. With the Prominence version, there will be less contrast of detail on the disc, but the proms will be even better. Only get Prominence if you very much favour proms.

Hope that helps.

Luke

A few of my Quark images with ED120 in case anyone is considering imaging, please note things do look different at the eyepiece. Must sort out the big hotspot on the last one, that was my bad processing, not the Quark.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I think the limit for a full disk in a Quark is 450mm. I know the 70ED F/6 scopes used by some allow full disk viewing. An ST80 can work very well with a Quark. The big advantage of a Quark is that you get a lot of aperture. The only downside is that it has a warm-up time, which is what caused me to go for a second-hand Coronado SolarMax-II 60. Of course, I also want a Quark, but that can wait (for now).

[pluton]

Thanks for the responses.

The Lunt solar telescope can  to put a more magnification, for example, for part of the sun disc or details? contrast?

And , which is best for more wide angle of views, a Quark or a Lunt dedicate solar scope?

I don´t know if the Lunt solar telescope is good for high magnification..?? more of 30X-50X..?

regards

paul

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The dedicated solar scopes give wider views. Regarding magnification: I used my LS35 up to about 47x, but more usually at about 35x. My SM-II 60mm routinely gets me 53x, and can go up to 80x in good seeing.

[Pig]

A dedicated 80mm solar scope costs a fair wad of cash and in your situation that is what you would be getting for the cost of a Quark. I loved my Lunt 60mm and there is no doubt it served me very well indeed, it is a wonderful instrument.

Whichever way you decide to go you will be chuffed to bits as solar observing is very rewarding and very addictive

What would I recommend to you if I was in your position, especially as you already have the 80mm ED ? the answer is fairly simple, the Quark

In fact you could buy another refractor with a shorter focal length and achieve a full size disc and then you have the choice of close ups, and you would still have mucho change from the cost of a double stack set up.

[spaceboy]

Not so long ago I'm sure most of us would have been happy to afford any kind of Ha scope but with the recent release of the Quark and LS50 last year adding to a growing choice of "affordable" solar scopes, Ha observing has in my opinion at least become a case of spoilt for choice with buyers unsure whether to bet on red or black.

It seems to me to be the same across the hobby as a whole. With so many astronomy scopes available each having its advantages and disadvantages. A simply eye watering amount of eyepieces to choose from in varying FOV's and quality. Fans of Refractor, fans of Newtonian, SCT's or MAK's.

I think the dedicated solar scopes and now Ha eyepieces again reflect the same pro's and con's as we see when we turn our scopes to the night sky. That is that no single scope seems to be able offer all the pro's all of the time. As a result most of us own more than one scope to try and tackle all of our needs.

This is obviously not so practical when it comes to solar observing due to the cost's involved. At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what you most want to get out of solar observing. You also have to be realistic in your expectations just as you do under the night sky. Be it day or night we are still at the mercy of mother nature. It is also worth noting your not going to get the same high magnification views of the sun that you can say of the moon or planets. Some member seem to cope with seeing better than others but the trend seems to be around x40 - X90 depending on scope etc.

If it helps? This is the thought process I went through when I was asking the same question as you Paul http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/234741-my-solar-setup-complete/

I went with the LS60 amongst other reasons because I was aware that they can be modded in a similar way to PST stage 1 &2 mods but in truth I think the easier option would be to save my pennies and one day either add a quark or double stack to my solar set up. Again it appears there isn't a silver bullet to solar in much the same way as night sky observing and I'm sure the day you think you have found one they will go and bring something else out and we will all be back to the drawing board

[Moonshane]

I have never regretted my pst stage 2 mod. I routinely use 80-100x and detail is astonishing in good seeing.

[Qualia]

I cannot add anything to the excellent advice offered by Luke, Michael, Shaun and Spaceboy. I guess the dedicated scopes will give cracking views of the full disc and you will be able to see filaments, active regions and proms in some detail and I imgine the Quark in an 80mm frac will give equally cracking views and the possibility of transfering the filter-eyepiece over to smaller or larger scopes.

Like Spaceboy, I went for a (secondhand) Lunt 60mm which worked out the same price as a Quark. My own reasoning was mainly based on feelings of the heart, rather than any logical process. I think at the end of the day, I just really wanted to own another frac in the form of a Lunt

It's probably one of the grand dilemmas on the forum at the moment but one that you shouldn't allow to 'do your head in' too much Seriously, both types will have their pros and cons and I'm sure whatever you decide to go for, be it a Lunt 50mm, 60mm or Quark, you're going to be super content  .

[Luke]

Thanks for the responses.

The Lunt solar telescope can  to put a more magnification, for example, for part of the sun disc or details? contrast?

And , which is best for more wide angle of views, a Quark or a Lunt dedicate solar scope?

I don´t know if the Lunt solar telescope is good for high magnification..?? more of 30X-50X..?

regards

paul

I did a visual shootout between Quark in a Tele Vue 60, versus a dedicated solar h-alpha scope, SolarMax 60.

At 60mm it was quite close, not a huge difference.

When the SolarMax 60 was in single stack mode, I slightly preferred the view with the Quark as it had no obvious sweet spot (detail at edge of view just as good as at centre).

When the SolarMax 60 was double stacked with a double stacking unit (adds a lot to the cost, but it is worth it to improve contrast if funds allow), I thought the quality of view was about even. The SolarMax 60 had a sweet spot still, so the Quark wins there for me, but the contrast with the double stacked SolarMax 60 was better. Very nice. I did not have a strong preference either way, one with better edge, one with better contrast. A draw for me.

Both the Quark Chromosphere and a dedicated h-alpha scope will give good views of the Chromosphere (the detail on the disc) and prominences (the bits that stick out past the edge of the disc).

The Quark in 80mm should show finer detail at higher mag than a 50/60mm scope. I much prefer the view with the Quark in my Tele Vue 85 than in the SolarMax 60 for the extra resolution. However, I don't think I can see full disc with the Tele Vue 85 (I don't think I have tried, but as it's way past 450mm focal length I would think it will not give full disc inc. space for proms...).

For me best Quark solution is two scopes. One smaller scope for full disc/grab and go (and if you are imaging, as a drop down from the larger scope if the seeing conditions are poor, or for full disc imaging with fewer tiles), and one scope 100mm or higher for greater detail. I use my 60mm for grab and go and see plenty of full disc then (360mm focal length - easy full disc with Tele Vue 32mm Plossl). At home, I love using the 100mm, that is my favourite for visual, nicer to use on giro mount than my 120, so much detail and I find it still copes well for visual in poorer seeing (imaging I find to be more demanding of good conditions, I do sometimes have to use a smaller scope for imaging but for visual I always use the 100mm in preference over the 60 or 85 at home). Proms have more detail and "character" in the bigger scopes, active regions are easier to see closer up. Extra aperture lets you see finer detail. Of course, you could always start with an 80 and if you get aperture fever later, look for a 100mm or higher scope (Skywatcher ED100's or similar are a very good buy second hand and are great for white light and regular astro too).

If you mainly like low power full disc views and don't care so much for close-ups then dedicated h-alpha scope may be the best option, as you then don't have the Quark cons of a little time to power up, needing a cable, etc.

If you like detail and higher mag, Quark is best in a larger scope. For detail, the Quark wins in my 85mm scope comfortably or SolarMax 60. Quark in 100mm shows far superior detail to SolarMax 60.

Of course, detail is not everything. Grab and go/small is important too depending on needs. For me Quark is best for value if you can use a larger scope.

Both are great options, good luck deciding!

For the imagers, a few pics from Quark with 60mm and 85mm scopes (want to reprocess the last one and make it a bit softer, it was one of my first Quark images)

Quark Chromosphere and Tele Vue 60 (click for larger)

Quark Chromosphere and Tele Vue 85 (bit "hard", was one of my first Quark efforts)

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

In my case I often carry the SM-II 60mm by bike to work and I can instantly get off the bike, set the scope up in seconds, and grab fleeting moments of sunshine. The downside is much lower resolution thanks with a Quark in my 80mm scope, let alone a 150mm I hope to get for solar one day.

[Pig]

Paul,

The magnification betwixt a 500mm focal length for both the Quark and  dedicated solar scope is not huge.

EG

Lunt 60mm = 500 / 9 = 55 x Mag

(Barlow and a 9mm eyepiece)

Lunt 60mm with Quark = 500 x 4.3 = 2,150 / 32 = 67 x Mag  

(4.3 = Barlow built into the quark and a 32mm eyepiece)

[pluton]

Hello again,

In your opinion, ( other complicated question!!) which is best , the Quark cromosphere or the Prominences model..???

 Which is more similar to Lunt image, or Lunt feeling ?? (a question slighty  rare, may be?)

Regards

Paul

[Pig]

Paul,

I honestly do not know. However, general consensus indicates the chromosphere model performs equally well on both surface detail and prominences.

My experiences with the chromosphere model are excellent as was the Lunt !

Your call I'm afraid  

[Zakalwe]

Threads like this are doing my bank balance no blooming good, especially seeing the detail that Luke pulls out!

It's a good job that Quarks are sold out everywhere at the moment!

[Freddie]

Widescreen had some arriving today !!!

[Blazar]

Has the price gone up? Altair had some for £799.00....

[pluton]

Is best the PT or the tilt manual tunner? Why?

[Al.Grant]

Threads like this are doing my bank balance no blooming good, especially seeing the detail that Luke pulls out!

It's a good job that Quarks are sold out everywhere at the moment!

Snap .....  Bank balance has taken another hit!

These images are impressive.

I have a Quark chromosphere on order ....  should sit nicely on your old Equinox 80 Pro.

Having asked a few suppliers it seems the advanced orders they're getting are eating into their expected Quark allocation

[Zakalwe]

Snap .....  Bank balance has taken another hit!

These images are impressive.

I have a Quark chromosphere on order ....  should sit nicely on your old Equinox 80 Pro.

Having asked a few suppliers it seems the advanced orders they're getting are eating into their expected Quark allocation

I keep getting stirrings in my loins when I think about a Quark on my Altair 115mm triplet. f7 should wok nicely.

Do you have my old Equinox? If so I hope that you are pleased with it. Cracking little scope!

[Pinpoint]

Hi,

I have a WO Megrez ED110 (F5.95) and am thinking about buying a Quark Chromosphere, but a little unsure about whether to use a UV/IR cut at the diagonal or an ERF in front of the main objective. Any thoughts, opinions, experience muchly appreciated.

Pete

[Zakalwe]

Hi,

I have a WO Megrez ED110 (F5.95) and am thinking about buying a Quark Chromosphere, but a little unsure about whether to use a UV/IR cut at the diagonal or an ERF in front of the main objective. Any thoughts, opinions, experience muchly appreciated.

Pete

I use a 115mm triplet (f7, I think) and use a UV/IR in front of the Quark. I mount the filter at the very front of the extension tubes (130mm total length) to keep it as far up the light cone as possible. A far bit of heat gets passed through, as I once found out when I forgot to remove a plastic endcap off the front of the Quark :eek: It's certainly hot enough to prevent me holding my hand at the focal point for more than a second!

There's an interesting thread over on Solarchat about this subject : http://solarchat.natca.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16698

A front Etalon will be VERY pricey..a 110mm ERF is in the region of €500

[Moonshane]

Personally, if that much heat is getting through I'd be putting an ERF in the system even if it's not full aperture (i.e. further down toward the focuser).

[Pinpoint]

Thanks for the link to that Solar chat thread some good info there particularly the post by Astrograph about 8th down.

Pete

[Pinpoint]

Btw forgot to ask earlier, if the ERF, UV/IR, etc is within the scopes light path, is there any damage to the main objective, from turning it to the sun? I mean nothing has perfect transmission so some energy must be absorbed by the objective?