Alma

I have to say I agree with this. People go on about Telrads like they’re the best thing since sliced bread, but open it up and there’s nothing inside that ugly box - just a bit of cheap looking wiring. I bought one some time ago and it failed after about 2 years. So, stupidly, I bought another one. That lasted about 8 months. Same thing. Now I’m not rough with my equipment by any means and I looked after them pretty well but for the money these things cost one should expect much higher quality. So, what I really want is that great Telrad reticle pattern in a new, better made, smarter looking, housing. The Celestron StarPointer could have filled that role but is even cheaper than the Telrad.

In case (excuse the pun) anyone’s struggling to find a suitable storage solution for the AZ100, I found that an old Peli 1510 I had knocking around and which I was about to advertise fitted the mount perfectly. My AZ100 is fitted with all the bells and whistles (DV saddles on both sides plus the altitude adjuster on one) and it all fits very snuggly in the Peli. Plus, there’s room at the top for the Nexus DSC, shelf and encoder cables with the flexi slow motion cables and pan handle sitting on top (not shown). Pelis are by no means cheap and this one retails new for about £195 here in the UK but personally I think it’s worth it to provide maximum protection for what is by no means a cheap mount. Alan

Posted by mistake.

My AZ100 didn’t quite have enough wiggle room to allow for comfortable dual scope mounting - azimuth was fine but alt was just sufficiently out of sync to be annoying. The adjuster plate fixed that perfectly and I recommend it as I do Rowan’s own saddles. I know it adds to the cost but it’s worth it in the end. I personally won’t bother with the motors; it defeats the object of having an alt-az push-to mount in the first place. I stick to an equatorial mount for tracking and go-to.

Sorry to open this topic again, but from my own experience if you buy a new Quark I would strongly suggest testing It as soon as you can after receiving it. Daystar’s quality control appears to be non existent and the one I received (a chromosphere version from a well known and usually reputable UK dealer) was dreadful - only about one third of the field of view had any clarity at all (and was actually quite good) and the rest complete mush. Problem appears to be something seriously wrong with the internal etalon. The Quark has now disappeared into their warranty claim system and in the meantime I’ve acquired a double stacked Lunt LS50THa which is a delight to use.

The problems with Quarks appear to be a lack of consistency in QC. Mine (the chromosphere version bought new from a reputable UK dealer) was a dud and pretty much unusable. Sent it back under warranty and now it seems to be languishing in a long, protracted claim system. Eventually replaced it with a Lunt LS50 Tha which I’m very happy with.

Yes they can and with the formal creation of the “Space Force“ this year as a new branch of the U.S. military, they can do so with the full protection, commercial and military, of the U.S. Government.

I bought an ADM Takahashi QR bracket some 2 years ago and unfortunately mine wasn’t so well machined and had a distinct wobble which I managed to fix with a plastic shim stuck to the base. Not typical of ADM products in my experience but in this case wish I’d spent the extra on the FQR-1.

Just reviving this thread in case anyone's considering buying a Starpointer Pro. Mine lasted precisely two gentle outings before the tiny mask which produces the 2 ring reticle pattern fell off and disappeared. Now I'm left with a nasty red blob which fills most of the screen and is of no use to man or beast. The design concept is OK but the "astronomers" who allegedly designed this thing must have torn their hair out when they saw how cheaply it was being manufactured. Made to an unacceptably low price point i.m.h.o. which just goes to prove that you only get what you pay for in this hobby. Total waste of money.