Quark v Lunt 60 DS (12/10/14)

[DrRobin]

Hi,

I have had my Lunt 60 for about 2 years now and it has been a consistent performer.  However, there is a new kid on the block in the shape of a Quark.  I should say I really want the Quark to work, it would be nice to have one scope for WL & Ha (and CaK?) but I have struggled with my Quark to get any images which compare to my Lunt.  However, that was until today.  I had assumed that a Quark in a 80mm semi-Apo would outperform my Lunt, it doesn't.  However, in a 102mm it does, see the following:

The Lunt image was taken with a 1.5x barlow and then cropped and re-sized, the Quark was with a 0.5x reducer, the camera was the same (ASI120-S) and the number of frames were about the same (2,000 frames @ 30 fps).  The conditions were far from perfect, there was mist, but the two images were only about 30 mins apart, so it is a good comparison.  Clearly the Qaurk edges the Lunt in to second place, but I had to crop and enlarge the Lunt shot for the comparison so may be if I had fitted a 2x or 3x to the Lunt it might have been closer, but I am prepared to notch this win up to the Quark.

I suspect that had I used my WO ZS80, the Lunt would have won, which says something about my Lunt 60 DS.  My Lunt 60 DS cost close to £4k, the Quark and WO 102GT combo cost about £2k, quite a difference!  Strangely, though I still prefer my Lunt, it is just easier to live with and produces more reliable results more of the time.  That said I have seen some great shots from a Startravel 100mm, so conclusion, you need a 100mm frac or more for a Quark to excel.  The other issue, my Quark doesn't have quite an even field as my Lunt, but perhaps if I remove the 0.5x converter, perhaps it wouldn't look so bad?

So in conclusion, if you want super close ups, with a fair amount of fiddling, then a Quark is the best.  If however, you want a decent image, which is easy and repeatable then a Lunt 60 DS is a very hard act to beat.  Of course it depends on your budget, bang for buck the Quark has the advantage, especially if you already own a decent sized refractor.

Okay, boring bit and comparison over, now the pics:

First then Lunt 60 DS.

The prom....

Now the Quark images....

[Ruud]

They're all very good images, but I agree, the Quark looks better. I guess that would be partly because of the higher resolving power of the WO? After all, the WO has a considerably wider aperture.

The Quark is quite impressive. I must find out more about it.

Thanks for posting the comparison!

[Luke]

Very nice images and comparison, Robin. Glad to see the 102 stepped up to the plate

[SimonfromSussex]

Good to see a comparison Robin, amazing images from both either way!!

Be good to try this again a few more times in differing conditions to really get a feel for the differences?

[David Smith]

Good comparison Robin and some interesting conclusions. I suppose it should not be a surprise that the £4k setup has some advantages over the £2k setup really. CaK is next on my shopping list but I have to say I am starting to find the limitations of PST and a Lunt 50 is looking mighty attractive

A lovely set of images, some good stuff from the Quark (no 8 with the invert false colour filament) but the full disks are still my favourite.

[Montana]

There you go, you can't beat that Lunt 60mm full disc, however in the hiREs you can't beat the Quark :)

Alexandra

[JB80]

Great images Robin and a good practical comparison too.

[Pete Presland]

certainly does make for an interesting comparison. the images sugest the Quark has it, but the crop and enlarge must have had some effect on the image.

fantastic work for all the images though, i do love the close ups personally.

i wonder how long it will be before some Quarks turn up on the 2nd hand market, as i believe they are bringing out another version later.

[Mark at Beaufort]

Great set of images Robin. It is so good to have genuine comparisons side by side. There are so many members trying to decide between the Quark and the Lunt 50mm especially if you have a good refractor. I have an excellent 102mm APO which I use with the Herschel Wedge but I am still worried about the quality control of the Quark.

[DrRobin]

Thanks everyone, I have been trying to do this side by side test for sometime.

Alexandra got it right a Lunt 60 for full disc [mosaics] and a Quark for high magnification. I find my Lunt easier to live with and more flexible, it is certainly faster and easier to get everything aligned and tuned. I record what works best, both PT settings and tilt, as well as rotation and camera settings, so once I have done the same for my Quark no doubt it will get faster and more repeatable without having to go through the whole range of settings each time.

PS Luke my Quark works best with neutral or -1 tuning, but it is in a rigid 2" diagonal and if there is any slop or droop then you would need to use + tuning.

However, it appears to get good results from a Quark you need a 100mm or upwards. It's performance is actually dependant on F number but a larger aperture at the same F number will have a longer focal length and I think it must be this which also suits the Quark. I don't think you need a decent Apo, an ordinary achromat should be just fine as long as spherical aberration is okay at the Ha band. You do however, need a 10:1 focuser otherwise nailing the focus will be nearly impossible. I know Luke uses a 75 or 80mm and gets good results so may be I have to put more effort in to my own 80mm.

I bought a Quark to do one of two things, firstly it's bandwidth is supposed to be less than 0.5A, so should be narrower than my Lunt double stack. On the basis of most of my tests it is about the same. The second reason was for a travel scope to use with my white light wedge. So far it hasn't excelled in my WO ZS80, but I did get a few good images whilst on holiday and that was without the tuning working correctly, so perhaps I need a more extensive try.

If you didn't have an Ha scope and bought a Quark, I don't think you would have been disappointed. Likewise if you bought a Lunt 50 or 60 I also don't think you would be disappointed either, they really are two different things for two different views, the first for high magnification and the second more suited to full disc viewing.

I couldn't imagine doing mosaics with my Quark, a full disc would take around 20 panes, but the field is not perfectly flat and I found rotating my Quark can push two bright patches out of the field of view of the camera, although it does then go slightly off band and needs tuning, suggesting that the Etalon has a slight tilt on it.

Robin

[Luke]

Interesting about the tuning, Robin. With my new one I am using Neutral at the moment and my best guess it that the correct tuning is neutral or one click in either direction. Four clicks in either direction seemed a fair way off the pace. Interesting is that my previous Quark got warm when powered up and not even connected to scope, whereas the new one doesn't get warm, no obvious warmth to it that I can feel. I can't recall if the earlier ones got warm or not.

I haven't processed many shots from my 85mm or 60mm scopes yet, but Mark Townley is getting some results I'd be very happy with from a 70mm scope if you check out solarchat. He obviously knows his stuff far more than I do.

Quark or Lunt 50, I hope people don't do their heads in too much pondering it. Both have some very strong advantages, I'd suggest play to their strengths and you'll be happy either way. So for me that might mean a nice light very flexible and portable mount for the Lunt 50 so you keep it super portable and ready for action at a moment's notice. If imaging with it, perhaps a big enough camera chip if funds allow to get full disc in a single tile if the Lunt is fine for that (I'm not sure we know for sure yet how it is for imaging?)

And for the Quark, a 100mm+ frac if possible to really take advantage of the extra detail the Quark can give you, and don't pine over loss of full disc, because this setup is more about detail, which you really cannot see at low power.

[Pig]

Excellent report Robin  I have been waiting for a comprehensive and realistic write up and you have certainly delivered on that score.

The images are mouth watering from both setups, thanks for posting.

[Stu]

Have you had much of a chance with the Quark on the TV60 Luke? Just wondering what the visual views are like full disk? I would hope comparable to a PST or a little better?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moonshane]

The images are excellent but how is the detail visually with the quark?

[Stu]

The images are excellent but how is the detail visually with the quark?

Hi Shane,

Luke's comment on another thread was that visually the quark is possibly better than in imaging.

I reckon this is the case with white light, the visual detail is better than most images so fingers crossed I find the same in Ha!

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moonshane]

Wow!

Although I do like/prefer whole disk white light. I agree about wedge detail. Amazing

[Luke]

Stu, if anything I use the Quark with the Tele Vue 60 more than any other scope, as that's my grab and go and I am lucky that I can do solar lunch with it And on hols I used it 17 straight days. I have done side by side visual with it versus SolarMax 60 in single stack and in double stack mode.

My score card for visual:

Quark + TV60 vs SM60 Single Stack:

Contrast similar, disc detail slightly better with the Quark. Spicules similar, fractionally better in Quark. Significant sweet spot with SM60, no obvious sweet spot with Quark (so e.g. no need to move proms towards centre of view).

WINNER: QUARK

Quark + TV60 vs SM60 Double Stack:

Contrast better in SM60 DS, very nice, this is a significant advantage to the SM60 DS. Spicules far better in Quark, with SM60 DS they are barely visible. Again, sweet spot with SM60 DS that isn't really there with Quark.

WINNER: DRAW

TV85 + Quark vs SM60:

Significantly more detail with Quark. Spicules with Quark are now really prominent, a nice bonus of 85mm versus 60mm.

WINNER: Quark by some margin

SW ED100 + Quark vs SM60:

Vastly more detail with Quark, spicules in your face, fine swirls and whirls all over the place around AR's, smaller proms richer in detail and really take on character, tiny loops clear and a joy to look at.

WINNER: Quark. Frankly, it's a massacre in terms of detail. But I am not knocking 60mm, that's what I use the most. But aperture is king when it comes to detail, but really any solar scope is a joy to look through, I have had some lovely views through PST's though not owned one, so when portability is a big factor, a small scope can make sense. I certainly appreciate being able to carry all my solar gear with ease in one go when taking my SM60 to work for lunch. Can you imagine if I hauled in an ED100 F9 and HEQ5 mount...

Of course, as we know, there are other considerations too, like the Quark needing power and warm up time, the above is just purely about the views and detail.

Have you had much of a chance with the Quark on the TV60 Luke? Just wondering what the visual views are like full disk? I would hope comparable to a PST or a little better?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luke]

Stu, I tried to find the comment but not sure where that is or exactly what I said? I don't think I meant to say that. Or I had flu at time of writing

For me, solar imaging versus visual, they are different, especially wtih my images as I don't try at all to match the eyepiece view, some people do try to get it close.

In my opinion, I have never seen a single solar image that is just like the eyepiece view. I don't mean that one is better than the other, just that they are different. Which is kind of cool as it means I like to look through the eyepiece as well even if I have been imaging for three hours, because the view is different through the eyepiece. I also like "observing" on screen, but there is something significantly different between the eyepiece view and what you seen on the lappy screen! Not better necessarily, just different.

Hi Shane,

Luke's comment on another thread was that visually the quark is possibly better than in imaging.

I reckon this is the case with white light, the visual detail is better than most images so fingers crossed I find the same in Ha!

Stu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stu]

Thank you Luke, and my apologies for misquoting you. Having read what you have just put, I think that ties up with the other thread, I was just mis interpreting it.

I guess I will find out sooner or later :-), but if the views are comparable with the images then I'm in for a treat.

The little Tak 60 now has a lovely FT on it so is a joy to use, and I can make myself a nice case up with Tak 60, Herschel Wedge, Quark and eyepieces that I can easily take anywhere :-)

Cheers,

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stu]

Post #19 in this thread...

http://stargazerslounge.com/index.php?/topic/227091-First-light-with-my-new-Quark-Chromosphere

To be fair to me, you did seem pretty enthusiastic about the Quark :-) :-)

Cheers

Stu

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[olawelin]

Hi Robin, and thank you for the nice pictures!

I have the Lunt 80 and thinking about getting a quark for close-ups, would use it on my WO-FLT98.

Question:

Do you use a ERF or UV/IR filter in your Quark setup?

//Ola

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Very interesting thread, and some stunning images from both the Quark and the LS60. I do seem to see some banding in the close-up images of the Quark, or is this just me?

[Stu]

Very interesting thread, and some stunning images from both the Quark and the LS60. I do seem to see some banding in the close-up images of the Quark, or is this just me?

There do seem to be areas of bright and dark in the Quark which are not present in the Lunt images, I agree Michael.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrRobin]

Hi Robin, and thank you for the nice pictures!

I have the Lunt 80 and thinking about getting a quark for close-ups, would use it on my WO-FLT98.

Question:

Do you use a ERF or UV/IR filter in your Quark setup?

//Ola

Hi Ola, what a nice scope your Lunt 80 is    I just a use a 2" UV/IR filter on my 102GT or ZS80 scopes with the Quark.  It seems to work fine.

There do seem to be areas of bright and dark in the Quark which are not present in the Lunt images, I agree Michael.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a slight Newton Rings issue with my ASI120M camera.  It is just visible in the Quark, but not in the Lunt, so perhaps it is this which you can see?  The field in my Quark is also slightly uneven, there are two bright edges towards the corners of the ASI120M frame.  I can push these out of the field of view by rotating my Quark, but this requires a slight adjustment to the tuning, which seems to take around 8 minutes, so I really need to get all my settings noted as 8 minutes really is a long while, especially if there is cloud.

Robin

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Thanks for the update. I have heard of the NR problem with the ASI cameras. I am considering a Point Grey when I upgrade my ASI130 (which is WAY worse in NR that the ASI120).