Quark First Impressions - Joy and Dismay

[Joves]

Excellent post, Luke.

I too got to try out the Quark in my 110mm frac and am pleased to hear that yours sounds almost the exact same experience in your ED120. The fov was narrower for me, but not quite as much as for you, as mine is a relatively quick f6 with only 660mm FL. I'd say that I was still getting approx. half disk views.

Details were definitely sharper, but not mindbogglingly so for me either. I think I expected it would be an even more dramatic difference. Still, it was most impressive. Particularly, as you say, so far as proms were concerned. The fine detail to be seen in even the smallest of these was mesmerising, as were the spicules and large AR teasing it's way around the ende of the limb into view.

All in all, I'd say the Quark is keeping up quite nicely?

Just as a side question, would you say that you have noticed any sweet spit at all in the Quark? Mine appears not to have so much of a sweet spot as it does a not-so-sweet spot in one edge of the FOV.

[Pig]

Great review Luke, it sounds as if the Quark is a worthwhile venture when you consider the price difference with very similar views

Great news

[Luke]

That's great you got some good viewing in, Aaron, with the 110 I only had a few minutes with the 120, all too brief, and I hardly knew what to look at first. I can't wait for another crack. I did find that little looping prom wonderful to look at, I could have spent ten minutes on that alone, so I get the feeling that in the larger scopes, little proms will really come alive, a bit like galaxies in Leo with a larger dob.

As far as I could tell so far, the image looked pretty sweet all over, but I will try to check the corners closely next time.

When I do my full Quark review when I have enough experience and some images, I will try to list the pros and cons compared to a regular H-a scope, for the folks that are thinking of one or the other. I think which is best is going to come down to personal circumstances and preferences. The Quark's big strength of course is getting it into the bigger scopes. But right now, I think I will use the Quark and TV-60 as my regular grab and go scope, provided my early images with it work out okay. The choice is close for me, but what sways it the Quark's way in my case is that I prefer the focuser on the Tele Vue (it's also a helical, but it has no backlash and turns a touch more smoothly), it gives a really sweet view of the spicules at that aperture, and I like only having to cart one scope around - and a very light one, at that - to cover both H-a and white light. But that's just what suits me. Some folks will e.g. prefer the better contrast with a double stack. Because of the fundamental difference in design/approach, there are all sorts of little plusses and minuses either way.

One nice plus of the regular H-a scope that I really like - and will miss a bit - is having more freedom with your eyepiece selection. I really love viewing with Tele Vue Radians with my SolarMax 60, they are so comfy to use. With the longer focal length Tele Vue Plossl's in the Quark (32 and 40mm), I have to have quite a gap between the eyepiece and my eye. I am getting used to this and it's not much of a problem, but the Radian is more comfy, I can rest my eye right up against it. The Plossls do give a very good view, which reminds me, I have a Celestron E-Lux 40mm that might make for an interesting comparison.

Particularly, as you say, so far as proms were concerned. The fine detail to be seen in even the smallest of these was mesmerising, as were the spicules and large AR teasing it's way around the ende of the limb into view.

All in all, I'd say the Quark is keeping up quite nicely?

Just as a side question, would you say that you have noticed any sweet spit at all in the Quark? Mine appears not to have so much of a sweet spot as it does a not-so-sweet spot in one edge of the FOV.

[Joves]

One nice plus of the regular H-a scope that I really like - and will miss a bit - is having more freedom with your eyepiece selection. I really love viewing with Tele Vue Radians with my SolarMax 60, they are so comfy to use. With the longer focal length Tele Vue Plossl's in the Quark (32 and 40mm), I have to have quite a gap between the eyepiece and my eye. I am getting used to this and it's not much of a problem, but the Radian is more comfy, I can rest my eye right up against it. The Plossls do give a very good view, which reminds me, I have a Celestron E-Lux 40mm that might make for an interesting comparison.

I purchased a 32mm Televue Plossl for use with the Quark and find the same thing, Luke. As lovely an EP as it is, the eye relief kills me a little. Feels counterproductive having to keep my eye raised from the eyecup and allowing all the stray light to wash out the view.

I posted the same comment only yesterday in an eyepiece thread and Moonshane kindly directed my attention to one of these:

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=158#.U6_6EMtOWP8

I'm definitely going to buy one and see how it goes. Will let you know!

[Sarah]

I purchased a 32mm Televue Plossl for use with the Quark and find the same thing, Luke. As lovely an EP as it is, the eye relief kills me a little. Feels counterproductive having to keep my eye raised from the eyecup and allowing all the stray light to wash out the view.

I posted the same comment only yesterday in an eyepiece thread and Moonshane kindly directed my attention to one of these:http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=158#.U6_6EMtOWP8

I'm definitely going to buy one and see how it goes. Will let you know!

I look forward to seeing how you get on with it, when it arrives. Looks like that might be a good solution!

Sarah

[Luke]

You learn something new every day!

Thanks, Aaron, that looks just the job. The astro fund is empty, but we've ordered anyway and the fund is reset to 2p

I purchased a 32mm Televue Plossl for use with the Quark and find the same thing, Luke. As lovely an EP as it is, the eye relief kills me a little. Feels counterproductive having to keep my eye raised from the eyecup and allowing all the stray light to wash out the view.

I posted the same comment only yesterday in an eyepiece thread and Moonshane kindly directed my attention to one of these:

http://www.televue.com/engine/TV3b_page.asp?id=158#.U6_6EMtOWP8

I'm definitely going to buy one and see how it goes. Will let you know!

[Mark at Beaufort]

I have really enjoyed reading this thread because I was debating whether to buy the Lunt 50mm or the Quark for my 102mm Astro Tech APO. Currently I use this scope with a Herschel Wedge and binoviewers so to have a H.alpha facility on the same scope would be brilliant. At the moment I have the Astro Tech on one side and the PST on the other. I have to say that the surface detail and proms through the PST are very good so any new purchase really has to be a big improvement.

Luke I am sorry you had the quality issues with your Quark but at least SCS Astro seem to have it under control.

I recall when the PST came out there was view you should try and view through the scope before purchase because they varied in quality and performance. Perhaps with SCS Astro having a 'shop' a visit would be in order to check the Quark before purchase.

Well I am still thinking - do I want the quick grab and go of the Lunt 50mm? Or, should I have the convenience of the same Refractor for both white light and H.alpha and buy the Quark.

Another point I read that the Quark might come with a 2x barlow in the future allowing a wider FOV? Or was this wishful thinking!!!

Finally the literature on the Quark states '1.25" or 2.0" combo eyepiece snouts with safety indent slot directly into your diagonal Standard 1.25 eyepiece drawtube output with optional 2" and SCT accessories available' - does this mean you could use a 2" EP which would give a wider FOV to allow a complete Sun.

Look forward to further report and I hope that at some stage to look through a Quark.

[cyborg421]

I have a 100mm frac and you can get (just ) a full disk of the sun using a focal reducer and the Quark.. I didn't notice any difference in the quality of the view with it. One of my friends preferred the view with the reducer in.

Simon

[Luke]

I have a 100mm frac and you can get (just ) a full disk of the sun using a focal reducer and the Quark.. I didn't notice any difference in the quality of the view with it. One of my friends preferred the view with the reducer in.

Simon

Simon, is that, viewing is fine with a 0.5 reducer and eyepiece? I was wondering if that might be possible! I had a little imaging test with a 0.5 reducer and did wonder how an eyepiece might fare but haven't tested it yet. So I am thinking, a 0.5 reducer will reduce eye relief? The 40mm Plossl has a ton to spare...

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?!

[Luke]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the kind words about the QC issue

As far as I know, the Quark works 'best'  at around F30 (taking into account the integrated 4.3x Barlow). As far as I recall, the possible 2x version down the line is aimed at long focal length refractors, with the 'ideal' still being F30 (as far as I know). That said, I did a little imaging focus test with the Quark and an F6 scope and 0.5 reducer, and the image on-screen I thought looked okay, at about F13...

I'm not sure about the 2 inch optional accessory. That is interesting.

One thing I forgot to mention, for Baader clicklock owners. I found the Quark did not want to fit into my 1.25 inch clicklock. So I used a 2 inch clicklock instead. Can anyone else confirm that? My 1.25 inch eyepieces seem fine in the clicklock.

I have really enjoyed reading this thread because I was debating whether to buy the Lunt 50mm or the Quark for my 102mm Astro Tech APO. Currently I use this scope with a Herschel Wedge and binoviewers so to have a H.alpha facility on the same scope would be brilliant. At the moment I have the Astro Tech on one side and the PST on the other. I have to say that the surface detail and proms through the PST are very good so any new purchase really has to be a big improvement.

Luke I am sorry you had the quality issues with your Quark but at least SCS Astro seem to have it under control.

I recall when the PST came out there was view you should try and view through the scope before purchase because they varied in quality and performance. Perhaps with SCS Astro having a 'shop' a visit would be in order to check the Quark before purchase.

Well I am still thinking - do I want the quick grab and go of the Lunt 50mm? Or, should I have the convenience of the same Refractor for both white light and H.alpha and buy the Quark.

Another point I read that the Quark might come with a 2x barlow in the future allowing a wider FOV? Or was this wishful thinking!!!

Finally the literature on the Quark states '1.25" or 2.0" combo eyepiece snouts with safety indent slot directly into your diagonal Standard 1.25 eyepiece drawtube output with optional 2" and SCT accessories available' - does this mean you could use a 2" EP which would give a wider FOV to allow a complete Sun.

Look forward to further report and I hope that at some stage to look through a Quark.

[Joves]

Mark, having only ever viewed through my own PST (I have not a single REAL LIFE astronomy friend, so all my gear has been bought with hopeful first time views in mind), I cant really comment as to whether it would be considered a good or bad one. I've been very happy with the views through it up until now (and still am, as a matter of fact) so assume it is at least a reasonable one. The difference between it and the Quark though, to me, is night and day. Well, perhaps more like dawn and day. Surface features that I kind of "imagined" I was seeing through the PST have been absolutely confirmed by the Quark. I guess this shows that the "little scope that could" (my beloved little PST) was actually showing me exactly what I thought it was. But that's the difference between the two. What I merely thought I was looking at through it, I absolutely KNOW I am seeing through the Quark. Like most things astro, I guess the adage "Aperture Rules" applies just as much to solar. I'm very much only a novice when it comes to solar observing, so I can really only report on what my eye see's. As silly as it sounds, the difference between the PST and Quark, for me, can probably be summed up by this... I've owned the PST for a good year or so and enjoy getting it out every now and then when I can be bothered... I've now owned the Quark for a week and haven't been able to stop thinking about using it. A little lame perhaps, but it has had quite an effect.

I haven't tried it with a focal reducer as yet, but must give it a go. I get a nice (if relatively tight, compared to the PST) full disk view through my TV76 and a nice 1/2 to 2/3 disk through my 110mm... This is the one I'd particularly like to try the focal reducer on. If I can get a full disk view with nice detail through the 110mm, I think for me it could be quite the show stopper,

As for the 2" eyepiece adaptor, I too am very interested in this. The only thing really dampening my enthusiasm for it (and the lovely wide views I could hypothetically get through my Ethos EP's) is that all the 2" eyepieces I own are fairly complicated designs, which are supposedly not a great match for the Quark. By all accounts, it appears it performs best with simpler EP designs. I'm sure the simple adaptor wouldn't be overly expensive though, so definitely worth a shot once it becomes available, I guess.

Simon, I'm very encouraged by your observation of no discernible loss of image quality with focal reducer attached. Can I ask what type of FR you used?

[Joves]

Luke,

Not sure if you had a chance to try your Quark visually with your 32mm Plossl and focal reducer attached, but I just had a cracking session with this setup. The eye relief on the Plossl was a lot more comfortable and the surface detail seen was ridiculously good. My best views yet!

Might I also say, the sun is putting on a fantastic show at the moment. Active regions galore. There is even a filament coming round the eastern limb, which as we speak can be viewed as half filament/half prom, which is a first to see for me. The 3 dimensional effect it adds is incredible!

[Pig]

Very tempting indeed  I am still awaiting Dr Robins comparison with his Lunt 60mm comparison

[Stu]

Luke,

Not sure if you had a chance to try your Quark visually with your 32mm Plossl and focal reducer attached, but I just had a cracking session with this setup. The eye relief on the Plossl was a lot more comfortable and the surface detail seen was ridiculously good. My best views yet!

Might I also say, the sun is putting on a fantastic show at the moment. Active regions galore. There is even a filament coming round the eastern limb, which as we speak can be viewed as half filament/half prom, which is a first to see for me. The 3 dimensional effect it adds is incredible!

Sounds more and more tempting each time I read about it!

Did you compare the 24 pan with the Plossl Aaron?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Merlin66]

Visually....

The Quark's better bandwidth (0.4A v's 0.7A for the PST) should certainly bring out far more surface detail.

The required F30 or so I think challenges the normal seeing conditions, and the restricted FOV for imaging puts it in the same league as the PST mod. Close up imaging rather than full disk.....

Bang per buck, I have to say however, the feedback is pretty good.

[DrRobin]

DrRobin is also waiting for his Quark/Lunt side by side shoot out as well.

Robin

[spaceboy]

I have been interested to read about the results users are having in the Quark but most of these users seem to already have a solar scope of one kind or another. What my question would be is say you didn't have a dedicated solar scope and you had only borrowed a Quark and solar scope for a few days, which of the two would you most likely want to keep ?

From what I have read the Quark takes a little while to warm up, it needs power to do this and tuning requires patience to get the best results. I have also read that depending on seeing conditions and where you are viewing on the solar disc can also require tuning so it's not just a case of getting it right the first time and your set for the session. Given that there is no dedicated cooling the wait can be extended if you find the results are better in one bandwidth than another. There is the most obvious advantage in using a Quark in that you can use it in apertures that would be beyond most peoples bank balance for a dedicated solar scope but again I see this can have it's cons in that to see spacious full disc views the focal length ideally needs to be 450mm or less. Given that seeing doesn't always allow for higher magnifications visually would this not be a potential issue for those who only own longer FL scopes.

Compare this to say the new Lunt 50 with pressure tuning which is priced the same where do you feel the Quark would stand ?? A dedicated solar scope with the ability to tune almost instantly. Full disc views or higher magnification require nothing more than a change in eyepiece. OK there is no cheap or easy solution for improvement regards an increase in aperture with a solar scope. With no need for power or warm up time the Lunt is more a grab and go for those grabbing a quick look in between clouds days.

I'm not knocking either option here I more trying to get an idea which would be the more worthy investment if you didn't already have one or the other.

[Joseki]

Well no-one's lent me a Lunt 50 (but I'd be happy to test it out if anyone wants to send me one in a couple of weeks when they start shipping them  ) but it is my first Ha scope/setup.  Setup time isn't really an issue for me as the few times I've had a chance to use it I plug it in to the battery straight away and whilst it's warming up I get everything else set up.  In use yesterday I had it attached to a diagonal + uv/ir filter and plossl.  Given that I was using it with an evostar 120 on a AZEQ6 mount it was significantly less hassle to swap to a whitelight setup - lunt wedge and was swapping between them as quickly as changing an eyepiece.  I don't know about tuning based on seeing conditions, I had thought you could find the right point for your scope and stick with it for starters (with a bit of fiddle room later to bring out detail in particular aspects).  I would say in my experience I'm happy with it and it's limitations (battery pack, warm up and focal length) aren't much of an issue for me.  I'm sure I'd be happy with a Lunt 50, though I do like using a larger scope that I can then use nocturnally (which is more wife friendly).  From just a practical point of view rather than views I would say get what you fancy, what suits your observing best and forget about the kit and use it.  

[Joves]

Sounds more and more tempting each time I read about it!

Did you compare the 24 pan with the Plossl Aaron?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The view through the 24 Pan is fine, Stu. I find the 32mm Plossl to be slightly better though. It appears, only marginally, to be a little sharper and obviously, with the lesser magnification, a bit brighter. Combined with a 0.5 focal reducer, it seems even that bit better again. I tried the FR in the Pan, but it really isn't a suitable option, as the eye relief gets impossibly tight.

[Joves]

I have been interested to read about the results users are having in the Quark but most of these users seem to already have a solar scope of one kind or another. What my question would be is say you didn't have a dedicated solar scope and you had only borrowed a Quark and solar scope for a few days, which of the two would you most likely want to keep ?

From what I have read the Quark takes a little while to warm up, it needs power to do this and tuning requires patience to get the best results. I have also read that depending on seeing conditions and where you are viewing on the solar disc can also require tuning so it's not just a case of getting it right the first time and your set for the session. Given that there is no dedicated cooling the wait can be extended if you find the results are better in one bandwidth than another. There is the most obvious advantage in using a Quark in that you can use it in apertures that would be beyond most peoples bank balance for a dedicated solar scope but again I see this can have it's cons in that to see spacious full disc views the focal length ideally needs to be 450mm or less. Given that seeing doesn't always allow for higher magnifications visually would this not be a potential issue for those who only own longer FL scopes.

Compare this to say the new Lunt 50 with pressure tuning which is priced the same where do you feel the Quark would stand ?? A dedicated solar scope with the ability to tune almost instantly. Full disc views or higher magnification require nothing more than a change in eyepiece. OK there is no cheap or easy solution for improvement regards an increase in aperture with a solar scope. With no need for power or warm up time the Lunt is more a grab and go for those grabbing a quick look in between clouds days.

I'm not knocking either option here I more trying to get an idea which would be the more worthy investment if you didn't already have one or the other.

If I were in the situation of having to choose between the two, I'd have to say that I would choose the Quark. It's versatility between different scopes is a major plus for me. This is, of course, largely based on the fact that I already own a few refractors, of which a couple of them are suitable to use it in.

I've not seen through a Lunt 50 (nor has anyone yet) and am sure that it will be a very nice scope. It is still only 50mm though. Not knocking it's size for a second, but I'm positive it's view won't be able to match the Quark's in a larger scope. I've just done a side by side comparison between the Quark in my TV76 with my PST and, whilst both looked nice, there really was hardly a comparison in the amount of detail seen between the two. I find the image really starts to dim when the PST is pushed beyond 35-40x magnification, whereas the Quark/TV76/32mm Plossl combo handles 65x mag with image brightness to spare. Used in the Eon ED 110mm, it's comfortably showing a bright image at 89x. Where the surface detail, other than obvious Bright AR's and filaments, in the PST is seen as a "mottling" that kind of teases the eye, the entire disk through the Quark resembles different gauge brush strokes through wet paint. The other thing that I am extremely happy about is the fact that the chromosphere Quark also performs well on prominences. Better than the PST as well, which the little scope always performed very nicely on. I have no doubt the Lunt 50 will offer slightly better views than a PST or Lunt 35, but it still is only a 10-15mm increase in aperture. This being said, if I didn't already own a refractor to use the Quark in, I'd definitely be tempted by the Lunt 50.

As for the 450mm or less focal length needed for full disk views, this is only a rough guide. The TV76 has a 480mm focal length and I can manage it. I also have no issue with the batter power requirements either. As does John, I power it up before taking the scope outside. The view is great regardless of what tuning it is on, so the wait to get on band between tuning adjustments is also a non-issue for me.

These are obviously all only personal opinions and preferences, but hope they've helped with your question at least a little.

Aaron

[Solar_observer]

I don't own a decent frac,so it made sense for me just too buy the dedicated lunt 50 :-)

I really enjoyed the views in the lunt 35 I had,so I'm surely going to enjoy the little upgrade.

[Joves]

Makes perfect sense then, Skem.

That "little" upgrade represents more than double the gathered light, so I'm sure you'll love the new views!

[spaceboy]

 I plug it in to the battery straight away and whilst it's warming up I get everything else set up.  In use yesterday I had it attached to a diagonal + uv/ir filter and plossl.  Given that I was using it with an evostar 120 I don't know about tuning based on seeing conditions, I had thought you could find the right point for your scope and stick with it for starters (with a bit of fiddle room later to bring out detail in particular aspects).    I'm sure I'd be happy with a Lunt 50, though I do like using a larger scope that I can then use nocturnally (which is more wife friendly).  

Thanks Joseki.

I'd chose the lunt 50 for comparison based on price but yes given no-one will have actually gotten to look through one yet I should have really chose a different solar scope for direct comparison

My concerns lie mainly with the whole tuning thing and inevitably wait. As Sean points out in this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEYCC8mDL9s that tuning may be require due to various factors like rotation of the sun, seeing, focuser slop, I assume also for where your looking on the solar disc and whether your looking at Chromosphere or proms, any changes in magnification and obviously initially when adjusting to get the best views. I have no doubt the Quark performs superbly and gives views that most affordable solar scopes simply cannot offer due to the lack of aperture I'm just weighing up the pros and cons in my own mind.

If I were in the situation of having to choose between the two, I'd have to say that I would choose the Quark. It's versatility between different scopes is a major plus for me.

I've not seen through a Lunt 50 (nor has anyone yet) and am sure that it will be a very nice scope. It is still only 50mm though. Not knocking it's size for a second, but I'm positive it's view won't be able to match the Quark's in a larger scope. I've just done a side by side comparison between the Quark in my TV76 with my PST and, whilst both looked nice, there really was hardly a comparison in the amount of detail seen between the two. I find the image really starts to dim when the PST is pushed beyond 35-40x magnification, whereas the Quark/TV76/32mm Plossl combo handles 65x mag with image brightness to spare. Used in the Eon ED 110mm, it's comfortably showing a bright image at 89x. Where the surface detail, other than obvious Bright AR's and filaments, in the PST is seen as a "mottling" that kind of teases the eye, the entire disk through the Quark resembles different gauge brush strokes through wet paint. The other thing that I am extremely happy about is the fact that the chromosphere Quark also performs well on prominences. Better than the PST as well, which the little scope always performed very nicely on. I have no doubt the Lunt 50 will offer slightly better views than a PST or Lunt 35, but it still is only a 10-15mm increase in aperture. This being said, if I didn't already own a refractor to use the Quark in, I'd definitely be tempted by the Lunt 50.

As for the 450mm or less focal length needed for full disk views, this is only a rough guide. The TV76 has a 480mm focal length and I can manage it. I also have no issue with the batter power requirements either. As does John, I power it up before taking the scope outside. The view is great regardless of what tuning it is on, so the wait to get on band between tuning adjustments is also a non-issue for me.

These are obviously all only personal opinions and preferences, but hope they've helped with your question at least a little.

Aaron

Thanks for your help Aaron

Can I ask how you are powering the Quark ? Are batteries the only way to go ? I know Maplins do some solar panels I'm just wondering if one would be a better long term solution given most solar observing is done when the sun is out. I have tried to find a Quark manual on the net just to see what's what. The only other concern I would have is the whole electronic thing with the Quark that isn't an issue with solar scopes. I see that there has been some QC issues with filters in the Quark but I am aware there is a 5 year warranty. Is this within the UK do you know ?

[DrRobin]

Hi,

I bought an Anker Astro Pro 2 15,000mAHr from Amazon (about £43), it powers the Quark via USB and my mount (12V) at the same time.  It works really well with both and is easier than having to get mains nearby as the Quark PSU doesn't have a very long cable on it.

I am not sure a Quark v Lunt 50 (or 60 or other small dedicated solar Ha scopes) is going to be all that useful, they are two different things.  The Quark will work better for high magnification shots and the smaller shorter focal length Ha scope will work better for full discs.  I think it will depend on what you want to look at?

I think it is for this reason that the Quark has been bought by people who already have a dedicated solar Ha scope and are looking for high magnification views in a scope of reasonable aperture.

So the answer to your question, which one to buy, is probably both.  If you have a decent refractor (10:1 focuser is essential) from around 70 - 110mm then a Quark is going to go on this and give you some good views.  If you haven't then factor in the cost of a decent refractor and it starts to make the Lunt 50 or 60 attractive.

I haven't had my Quark long enough (only used it twice) to know if it will oust my Lunt 60, I doubt it somehow and will probably keep both, using the Lunt for full disc mosaics and the Quark for the close ups.

Robin

[Luke]

Hi Aaron,

I had a lovely session yesterday with the Quark and Skywatcher 100ED Pro! The proms were very engaging and there were so many swirls in the active regions, a bit like Alexandra's amazing images with her SF100.

I tried the 32mm and 40mm Plossl with and without the Revelation 0.5 reducer, and also tried the Tele Vue eyeguard extender (I put one on the 32mm and two on the 40mm). I was quite impressed by how well the 0.5 reducer worked (ditto for imaging with my small chip Grasshopper 3 video camera). So I think the Quark is a bit more flexible than I first realised.

Sarah and I actually both preferred the view without the reducer, but it's good to know it's there if we want a wider view. The eyeguard extenders made the view more comfy for me, so a big thanks for that I need to test how many extenders are optimum for me.

Luke,

Not sure if you had a chance to try your Quark visually with your 32mm Plossl and focal reducer attached, but I just had a cracking session with this setup. The eye relief on the Plossl was a lot more comfortable and the surface detail seen was ridiculously good. My best views yet!

Might I also say, the sun is putting on a fantastic show at the moment. Active regions galore. There is even a filament coming round the eastern limb, which as we speak can be viewed as half filament/half prom, which is a first to see for me. The 3 dimensional effect it adds is incredible!