Quark First Impressions - Joy and Dismay

[Renims]

Quark is good grazing. You must have a 1000mm focal length and focal length 0.5 times equalizer

My Photos Quark

http://stargazerslou...phere-of-Poland

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/222560-observing-solar-daystar-quark-chromosphere-of-poland/

http://solarchat.natca.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12798

Is it a bad image. Do Not do this Coronado 60 or Lunt 60

Updated daily FACEBOOK  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007698887035

invite

[olawelin]

Hi, how do you think a Quark Chromosphere on a WO FLT98 would perform compared to a Lunt 80 with a powermate 2.5X, camera is a skyris 274M.

//Ola

[DrRobin]

Hi Ola,

Pop over to Newcastle upon Tyne with your FLT98 & Lunt 80 and we will find out......  I have a Lunt 60 DS and a 'soon to be returned after repair/adjustment' Quark which I have been using in a ZS80.  Based on my own experience my Lunt 60 DS has out performed my Quark, but as the Quark wasn't working correctly it isn't really a fair trial.

A comparison of my Quark in a ZS80 v my Lunt 60 DS should be similar to your FLT98 v Lunt 80.

I expected my Quark in a ZS80 to be about the same as my Lunt 60 DS, may be slightly better (the Quark should be) so it will be very interesting to see if the Quark can outperform my lunt when it is working correctly.

As an aside I am thinking of selling my Lunt 60 DS and go for a Lunt 80 DS (DS-II), I assume your Lunt 80 is excellent?

Robin

[Luke]

Interesting question, Ola. Obviously that's a very fine scope you have there already in the Lunt 80

I am not used to a Lunt 80, so I don't know how it compares to my Quark in a 100mm scope. And I only use my 100mm scope + Quark for visual (because my 120mm scope is the same focal length, so I might as well use that instead of the 100 for imaging - I like using the 100 on a giro for visual, a bit easier to handle than the 120!)

For the visual folks, I prefer the Quark quite a bit in my Skywatcher ED100 than in my Tele Vue 85. Only 15mm more aperture, but I think the 100mm hits a level of resolution where I am ridiculously happy with the view, there is so much to see. So I personally would recommend around 100mm upwards if possible with the Quark. The "wow!" gap between the 85 and 100 is for me bigger than between the 100 and my 120mm.

Of course, all solar scopes are amazing and have their pros and cons, I actually use my 60mm + Quark more than the other scopes at the moment as it's great for grab and go It is of course not always about the most aperture!

I hope someone can answer your question better.

[olawelin]

Hi Ola,

Pop over to Newcastle upon Tyne with your FLT98 & Lunt 80 and we will find out......  I have a Lunt 60 DS and a 'soon to be returned after repair/adjustment' Quark which I have been using in a ZS80.  Based on my own experience my Lunt 60 DS has out performed my Quark, but as the Quark wasn't working correctly it isn't really a fair trial.

A comparison of my Quark in a ZS80 v my Lunt 60 DS should be similar to your FLT98 v Lunt 80.

I expected my Quark in a ZS80 to be about the same as my Lunt 60 DS, may be slightly better (the Quark should be) so it will be very interesting to see if the Quark can outperform my lunt when it is working correctly.

As an aside I am thinking of selling my Lunt 60 DS and go for a Lunt 80 DS (DS-II), I assume your Lunt 80 is excellent?

Robin

Thank you! As I live in Sweden it would be quite far for me to travel    It would be interesting to see how your Quark performes vs the Lunt when you get it back.

And yes, the Lunt 80 is very nice indeed, I only have the single stacked, would also be nice to see how much better it gets when double stacked, what I´ve heard is that it gets much better for visual use but not so much better for imaging.

//Ola

[olawelin]

Interesting question, Ola. Obviously that's a very fine scope you have there already in the Lunt 80

I am not used to a Lunt 80, so I don't know how it compares to my Quark in a 100mm scope. And I only use my 100mm scope + Quark for visual (because my 120mm scope is the same focal length, so I might as well use that instead of the 100 for imaging - I like using the 100 on a giro for visual, a bit easier to handle than the 120!)

For the visual folks, I prefer the Quark quite a bit in my Skywatcher ED100 than in my Tele Vue 85. Only 15mm more aperture, but I think the 100mm hits a level of resolution where I am ridiculously happy with the view, there is so much to see. So I personally would recommend around 100mm upwards if possible with the Quark. The "wow!" gap between the 85 and 100 is for me bigger than between the 100 and my 120mm.

Of course, all solar scopes are amazing and have their pros and cons, I actually use my 60mm + Quark more than the other scopes at the moment as it's great for grab and go It is of course not always about the most aperture!

I hope someone can answer your question better.

Thank you for the information! Think I will stick with the Lunt until I get a larger refrector some day, then I might get a Quark.

//Ola

[Davey-T]

Saw the Quark at Herstmonceux recently and was very tempted to buy one but remembered this thread and wanted to go over it again first.

Couldn't resist temptation completely though and bought a Point Grey Blackfly camera.

I have a Revelation 100mm f/6 refractor which appears to be suitable but Renims says you need a 1000mm f/l and .5 f/reducer, so is there some advantage to starting with a long focal length and then reducing it rather than a shorter focal length to begin with ?

Anybody else done any imaging yet as I'm a bit confused about the imaging FOV of the Quark ?

I have an LS60DS so the Quark looks a good bet for close ups even if it takes a while to come to life.

If anybody can come up with a good reason not to buy one now would be a good time 

Dave

[DrRobin]

Hi Dave,

To find out what can be achieved with a ST-102 (F/5) have a look at Brian's amazing photos, the most recent are here:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/225081-solar-session-ha-and-cak-10-september/

Luke's photo are pretty impressive as well.

I, like you have a Lunt 60, so bought a Chromosphere model for close ups and for traveling, but sadly mine won't reach lock and has gone back to the states for a mod/re-calibration and is expected back soon.  I would be very happy if I get something approaching Brian's pics.

According to Daystar you need F/5 to F/9, but they say there is nothing to be gained over F/7 and I suspect that it will become quite slow and with the 4.2x barlow pushing the optics a little too much at F/10.  I like Luke and I think Brian all use a 0.5x reducer on the camera as it is the Quark's Etalon which needs to be run at F/30, not the whole system.

As to whether you should hit the 'buy' button I couldn't say until mine comes back from repair.  I know Luke and Brian both really love their's and I would like to love mine.

Robin

[Davey-T]

Thanks Robin, can't wait any longer, hitting the buy button, hope yours returns soon and lives up to expectations.

Dave

[Luke]

Hi Dave,

Hope you enjoy the Quark! :laugh:

My guess is that your Revelation 100mm will perform very well with the Quark. I have a Revelation 66mm and that is a cracking little scope, very sharp with solar white light, though I don't use it with the Quark as I have a 60mm scope that I use as my solar grab and go.

At the moment I always use the 0.5x reducer for imaging with the Quark. One reason why is that at prime focus, my gear shows strong Newton's Rings with the Quark. With the 0.5x reducer, I can't see any rings. Although you can try to remove the rings in a few ways, just sticking the 0.5x reducer on seems the most painless to me and I am happy with the reduced image scale anyway.

Also, the thing is, the reducer is taming the Quark's integrated 4.3x Barlow a bit. So prime focus is a bit like using a 2x Barlow.

A smaller scope with 4x Barlow versus a larger one with 2x Barlow at same image scale - my money is on the bigger scope. Have a look at this thread comparing lunar imaging with a smaller aperture scope at similar image scale to a larger aperture scope:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/204449-refractor-60mm-vs-200mm/

I see a similar sort of thing with my 120mm frac versus 8 inch SCT when imaging the Moon.

Luke

[CCD Imager]

Which 0.5x reducers are you guys using?

My Quark is ordered, but not known when it will arrive...

Adrian

[Luke]

Hi Adrian,

I use this one from Telescope House:

http://telescopehouse.com/acatalog/Revelation-0.5x-Focal-Reducer-1.25-.html

It also works with my 1.25 inch Plossl eyepieces to give a wider field of view, though I tend to prefer without the reducer visually. I am less bothered about full disc/wider views than I thought I would be before getting the Quark! Though it's nice to know I can go wider if I want.

Which 0.5x reducers are you guys using?

My Quark is ordered, but not known when it will arrive...

Adrian

[Luke]

Re: the 0.5x reducer, a little warning. If you are using a long nosepiece with your camera, you might find it reduces a bit too much and the image might look warped. I guess it depends on the camera too, but I use this C mount nosepiece with my Grasshopper 3:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Baader-Planetarium-C-Mount-Adapter-Sleeve/dp/B005DP86FS

I tried the optional extension that Baader do to extend it as I liked the idea of even more reduction as an option, but the image with the extender on was no good, the reduction was pushed too much.

So with the Quark you are probably best with a short nosepiece if you want to use the 0.5x reducer. I think Modern Astronomy do one that is a touch shorter than the Baader one.

[CCD Imager]

I plan to use the Quark on my WO 70mm F6 scope. For visual, I have a few TV eyepieces and also an AP-Baader Binoviewer, so plan to use a reducer just screwed into the eyepiece. Using the binoviewer will be interesting! For imaging, I have an ASI120MC, so that shouldn't be a problem, but I might also use my QSI camera where I have had good success in years gone by..

How flat is the field of the revelation? A similar one is the Antares 0.5 reducer. All very cheap, so I don't expect too much.

Adrian

[CCD Imager]

Your comment on the nosepiece length noted..

Adrian

[Pingster]

I would love to get a quark. Owners, can you tell me if this is a use and forget item. Use it put it away for a year, take it out and use it again? Or do the filters/any parts need "renewing"?

I would only but it if its minimum maintenance.

Also a concern. Our APO have immaculate collomination. Surely pointing it at the sun and exposing the inside and lens to such extreme heat will in a short span of time damage the optics?

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter Drew]

The Quark is too new on the scene to determine the longevity of its components, there is a good guarantee period though. The telescope objective receives only the ambient sunshine in air temperature, the Quark is designed to withstand the focused heat. The caveat is not to use the Quark with Petzval designs of refractor or other corrective lenses that would be positioned before the Quark.     

[Luke]

I would love to get a quark. Owners, can you tell me if this is a use and forget item. Use it put it away for a year, take it out and use it again? Or do the filters/any parts need "renewing"?

I would only but it if its minimum maintenance.

Also a concern. Our APO have immaculate collomination. Surely pointing it at the sun and exposing the inside and lens to such extreme heat will in a short span of time damage the optics?

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to say that for me, this is not a use and forget item. I use it in my ED100 and then I can't help thinking about how awesome the view is and can't wait to use it next   I have even had a dream about using it!!

Ahem, being a bit more serious, I remember there was some discussion about longevity, here's a quote and a link to the thread in its full glory, I hope that helps:

"They do come with a slightly different type of blocker and they may have the 10 to 20 year average life on them like the Quantum, but not sure on that. The good news is that the blockers are much smaller than the larger Quantum and therefore less expensive to have replaced. When you are not using your filter, it is always a good idea to store it in a dry place, preferably in an air tight container with some desiccant. This will lengthen the life of the blockers. The filter itself should last a lifetime."

Thread here, to the second page where you can find the quote:

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/461837-quark-first-light/page-2#entry6107740

The unit itself feels sturdy to me.

All this talk of Quark and not many piccies! Here is my latest Quark effort with my ED120:

---

7th September, 2014

Equinox 120, Quark Chromosphere, Grasshopper 3 camera (ICX687), Revelation 0.5x reducer

[hunterknox]

I have to say that for me, this is not a use and forget item. I use it in my ED100 and then I can't help thinking about how awesome the view is and can't wait to use it next   I have even had a dream about using it!

Ahem, being a bit more serious, I remember there was some discussion about longevity, here's a quote and a link the the thread in its full glory, I hope that helps:

"They do come with a slightly different type of blocker and they may have the 10 to 20 year average life on them like the Quantum, but not sure on that. The good news is that the blockers are much smaller than the larger Quantum and therefore less expensive to have replaced. When you are not using your filter, it is always a good idea to store it in a dry place, preferably in an air tight container with some desiccant. This will lengthen the life of the blockers. The filter itself should last a lifetime."

Thread here, to the second page where you can find the quote:

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/461837-quark-first-light/page-2#entry6107740

All this talk of Quark and not many piccies! Here is my latest Quark effort with my ED120:

---

7th September, 2014

Equinox 120, Quark Chromosphere, Grasshopper 3 camera (ICX687), Revelation 0.5x reducer

World class. You must be thrilled with that one.

[Pingster]

Luke, thanks for the reply.

Sont feel shamed of dreaming about using your scope, i dream of using my dob under dark skies all the time ;P

10years Is a good lifespan, very reasuring. I mean i plan to use it a lot, but was worried if i put it away for a year it would break. For example every year when i put my dob away and i look at the mirror the following year, its filthy i give it a good clean and i always think the view is not as good as the year before

Your picture is amazing. I only have an 80mm APO.

Has anyone had heat damage to their APO "Night time performance" from using it as a solar scope?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pingster]

Also. Surely the diagonal must get extremely hot? Im worried the diagonal mirror glue will unstick.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk