Quark qualms quelled

[Floater]

I posted a couple of threads some weeks back, moaning about the difficulties I was having with the Daystar Quark filter. A long story made short - I’m not moaning now.

The two Quarks I had previously did not match up to what I had expected and it turned out that this was because they did not come up to spec. Shame on you, Daystar. They were returned and I was refunded. Thanks to Widescreen Centre, who could not have been more helpful or understanding.

I then bought a ‘pre-loved’ Quark from fellow SGL member, Paul Yates, who assured me the unit he was selling did, indeed, cut the mustard. Thanks to Paul, who told it like it was.

The upshot is that my Quark gives great views and it is, as often claimed, a breakthrough in solar observation. Well, certainly for me. There are still many things I want to try out - filter(s) and binoviewers among them - and which scope is best to use. But that’s just fine, I’ll be happy messing around.

So, finally, to anyone who has a thought about Quarking, go for it. Be careful about the quality control aspect and insist on getting a unit that lives up to the hype - but do seek the light …

You won’t regret it.

[laudropb]

Sounds like you are going to have fun playing with your new toy all you need is the Sun to co-operate. Haven't see much of it down Glasgow way this summer.

[jetstream]

Quarks are capable of giving views that best some images out there, and pretty good ones at that. The prom resolution and sharpness of detail can be shocking in good seeing and for those conditions I wish I had a 6" APO or ED scope....

I'm very glad you got a good performing Quark now and look forward to your further reports!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Glad you got a good unit now. Have fun in the sun!

[Patbloke]

Great news Floater,

I recently popped into the widescreen centre London hoping to take a look at a Quark, however, they didn't have any in stock. I did speak to Simon though at some length about the Quark and he reassured me that they were a great piece of kit and they test them at the centre before selling them on. I am waiting for a star party or someone to invite me to take a look through one as I'm pretty sure I would like what I see and move ahead with a well earned present purchase to me. 

[Pig]

Excellent news Gordon  I hope the new Quark has reduced any bitter taste you experienced to something a lot sweeter. I love the views mine delivers and I am always looking forward to the next sunny day.

[paulastro]

I'm delighted that your are so pleased with the Quark Gordon, and also that you are clearly putting it to good use.  May the Sun shine on you 

[Patbloke]

Jeepers!! Have you seen the price of these things lately? I should have bought a box full when I was researching them to buy ages ago! better investment than property me thinks!! ha ha 'Quark Quark' looks like a Quark, sounds like a Quark.... must be a Duck??

[Peter Drew]

If the current price reflects better QA and reliable performance then it will be worth the price.   

[xtreemchaos]

great news mate, you got there in the end, I love my quark, it amazes me everytime I used it, luckly I got to try before I buy, so took a lot of worry outa buying one. clear skys, charl.

[Floater]

Wow! Two years dormant and this thread kicks back into life. ??

[ollypenrice]

So are Quarks now going out with bearable QA? They have to be interestng but the variability in QA put me right off. The only one to appear here was a new replacement for an original dud and was also a dud itself when opened and tried.

Olly

[GUS]

On 7/12/2015 at 18:27, jetstream said:

Quarks are capable of giving views that best some images out there, and pretty good ones at that. The prom resolution and sharpness of detail can be shocking in good seeing and for those conditions I wish I had a 6" APO or ED scope....

I'm very glad you got a good performing Quark now and look forward to your further reports!

Jetstream, why do you say you wish you had an APO or ED? For h alpha aren't APOs or EDs supposed to be no better then achromats? Have you compared the resolution, clarity, contrast or image sharpness between an APO or ED with an achromat of same size? Have you noticed any difference? Has anyone? I know we're only looking at a very narrow wavelength in the red so color correction doesn't apply, but has anyone noticed any spherical aberration or off axis aberrations (field curvature, astigmatism & coma) in an achromat?

 

[jetstream]

2 hours ago, GUS said:

Jetstream, why do you say you wish you had an APO or ED?

I have a 90mm APO triplet and a 4.7" SW ED doublet which work very well with the Quark, seeing considered. Today the 90mm gave superb Ha views. I was making a point about aperture and the resolution it provides in reference to the 6" refractor. I have no idea how an achromat would work with a Quark.

[Piero]

I have no experience with this so mine is just a thought.

Considering that the quark has an integrated 4.2x barlow, my suspect is that a medium slow (>f6) achromatic refractor might deliver high quality images with the quark. 

A 150 f7 or f8 would be a monster refractor though, requiring a very solid mount. It would also require quite long f.l. eyepieces for observing under normal seeing conditions.

It would be interesting to know how the Celestron C6r works on h-alpha..

Alternatively, has anyone tried an f7-f8 achromat of smaller aperture (e.g. 4") with the quark?

 

Edit 1:

Interesting that Daystar also sells the filter with an 80mm f6 achromatic refractor:

http://agenaastro.com/daystar-80-mm-refractor-telescope-quark-h-alpha-prominence-solar-filter.html

So maybe a wide field 150mm f5 refractor also works well?

 

Edit 2:

Interesting discussion:

 https://www.cloudynights.com/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=reputation&do=add_rating&app_rate=forums&type=pid&type_id=7650137&rating=1&secure_key=544b66170d4662778bd17d0a05b19150&post_return=7650137

[Stu]

22 minutes ago, Piero said:

I have no experience with this so mine is just a thought.

Considering that the quark has an integrated 4.2x barlow, my suspect is that a medium slow (>f6) achromatic refractor might deliver high quality images with the quark. 

A 150 f7 or f8 would be a monster refractor though, requiring a very solid mount. It would also require quite long f.l. eyepieces for observing under normal seeing conditions.

It would be interesting to know how the Celestron C6r works on h-alpha..

Alternatively, has anyone tried an f7-f8 achromat of smaller aperture (e.g. 4") with the quark?

 

Edit 1:

Interesting that Daystar also sells the filter with an 80mm f6 achromatic refractor:

http://agenaastro.com/daystar-80-mm-refractor-telescope-quark-h-alpha-prominence-solar-filter.html

So maybe a wide field 150mm f5 refractor also works well?

 

Edit 2:

Interesting post: https://www.cloudynights.com/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=reputation&do=add_rating&app_rate=forums&type=pid&type_id=7650137&rating=1&secure_key=544b66170d4662778bd17d0a05b19150&post_return=7650137

150 f8 is too much for the Quark Piero, the mags just go too high. I tried a 150 f5 and the spherical abberation just made it soft.

Best large scope for the Quark is the 152 f5.9 Altair or TS model, gives fab images! The focal length is manageable and the objective is nicely figured.

[GUS]

I had completely forgotten about this video I had seen some time ago where the pst mod is sharper than the Quark, @ 230mm aperture:

 

[Pig]

I didn't know the Quarks were that old.... 5 years ?

[GUS]

Sorry!! The comparison is with a Daystar PE 0.5A, not a Quark!

[Peter Drew]

My main experience in Ha solar viewing has been with PST mods. The system I use involves a 2x Barlow and binoviewers resulting in a 4x amplification,similar to a Quark. On my 150mm F10 my minimum magnification is 150x, for some reason, still a matter of debate, this provides a bright, highly detailed view,not quite as contrasty for surface detail as a Quark but the Quark image would be dim at this magnification. Regarding types of objectives for Ha, it's great that "common" achromats can give such good results, ultimately the higher end options should still produce better results due to the higher level of figuring though the difference seems to be closer to achromats for solar observation as the magnification range is generally lower.

[xtreemchaos]

5 hours ago, GUS said:

I had seen some time ago where the pst mod is sharper than the Quark

I dont want to disappoint you or brag or show off or anything the like but the view when seeing is good is as good if not better than both the setup vids your showing with my quark +ed80. charl. ps anybodys welcome to come around and have a look ...

[Davey-T]

I use my Quark with 152mm f/6 refractor and it works well as Charl said when the seeing is good the views are incredible unfortunately there are only a few days with great seeing so I generally use a .5 f/r for imaging, it works so I haven't bothered to do the maths. 

Dave

[xtreemchaos]

I found that the views with my quark where amazing when I first got it and was using with a badder 2inch uv/ir cut filter screwed in to my wedge , ive since started using a 1.25 ZWO uv/ir screwed into the bottom of the quark , its a lot cheaper filter but has improved clarity loads, why it has I don't know maybe because the filter is nearer the cam, I just don't understand the data sheet you get with the filters "if you do happen to try one and are using a colour cam remember to remove the ir filter from cam".

I agree Dave, good seeing is few and far between, Ive used my quark once without the reducer. charl.

[Macavity]

Does anyone know how the Quarks work? <grin> I know a bit about pressure tuning
and (external) double-stacking filters etc.: Change of Air Density, "tilting things" etc. 

Casually wondering where external power... HEATING things(?!) comes into all this? 

[xtreemchaos]

black magic ,you have to keep them away from crosses Chris  , havnt a clue but thay do it well mate. charl.

"some say" that's why Daystar dosnt want them taken to bits because there full of runes and rabbits feet and the alike