Quark qualms quelled

[jetstream]

My Quark works in sub zero temps- Daystar tuned the heater for me to work in these temps.

[xtreemchaos]

30 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

They have a 5 year warranty I think, not sure if they've actually been out 5 years yet, after 5 years Daystar recommend sending them back for refurb.

Dave

thanks Dave, ive another Q, is it possible to DS a quark ?, ive been wondering this a while. charl.

[Davey-T]

3 minutes ago, xtreemchaos said:

thanks Dave, ive another Q, is it possible to DS a quark ?, ive been wondering this a while. charl.

Dont see why not I seem to remember someone mentioning it, but you'd probably need a big aperture to gather enough light but then you'd need a big DS to avoid losing all the light.

Dave

[Peter Drew]

15 hours ago, GUS said:

Wouldn't know, but here are some words from da maan himself, the king. See if you can get an inkling into the unveiling of the mystery:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/534901-double-stacking-a-daystar-quark/

This link goes into some depth concerning double stacking of a Quark. Jen Winter, CEO of Daystar advises against doing so on the grounds of incompatibility with other types of etalon and the claim that the build of a Quark automatically gives a double stack result. The latter could account in part for the dim but very contrasty image that is similar to double stacked etalons. I'm pretty sure some imagers on Solarchat are double stacking Quarks to good effect.  

[GUS]

Didn't pay attention to the name, just assumed it was a guy, so I hereby make the correction: ...here are some words from the gal herself, the Queen, Jen Winters.

[xtreemchaos]

thanks Dave and Peter, I didnt realise that quarks are already double staxed "just shows how green I am regarding quarks" it do sound like there not needed, thats  good, sounds like it would cost a lot just to get a bright image aperture and DS unit . im very happy how mines working with the little ed80, its far better than i thought it would be, im blown away with the amount of detail it shows, even with my processing skills which is very low its not hard to get a half decent image and vis is so easy. thanks Guys .charl.   PS keep it to yourself but clear skys forcast tomorrow .

thanks Merlin, I do gather its not a DS mate and its data gathering is similar. charl.

[Merlin66]

The Quark is not a double stack configuration- it's that, as supplied, it's capable of a narrow band performance similar to that normally achieved with a Lunt/Coronado DS arrangement.

 

[Pig]

9 hours ago, Floater said:

This is precisely how I feel about it ... and I've been banging on about it for ages

Ah, Shaun, you've put into words just what I fear. I'm trying to get the chance to compare my Lunt 60 with a similar instrument owned by a very accomplished solar imager because I'm not blown away by the views mine produces ... and I feel I should be!

Gordon, I thought my Lunt 60 was great but it does not compare to the Quark, even in a smaller 80mm scope with a full disc. Be rest assured I have looked through quite a few Lunts & PST 's, and apart from the 90mm Coranado which was fantastic, I wouldn't say there was much between all of them. Thus I would say your scope is typical.

The seeing and the activity at the time of observing, as you well know, makes a big difference. However, to address this I have experimented with a Quark and a Lunt at the same time when dual mounted and compared them over a month or so and my opinion will not change. (at the time it was an 80mm Equinox and a 60mm Lunt) so a lot more light for the Quark but even so the difference was huge. Much more than the Lunt 80mm I have tried. 

I would prefer to buy 2 Quarks and achieve the expected life span of a lunt 60 and still have change, in addition  you would not put up with the crazy focusser the Lunts are supplied with. But Daystar seriously messed up with the customer relationships and have probably missed the boat now.

[ollypenrice]

Let's talk instead about Russian roulette.

'I played it once and I'm perfectly alright.'

Nobody denies that you're perfectly alright but it might still be a mistake to present Russian roulette as a game for all the family!

Olly

 

[xtreemchaos]

it might be just me Olly but I carnt see how a quark can give you a hole in the  dosnt matter how much I try, a hole in ya bank balance maybe.  charl.

[johnfosteruk]

7 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Let's talk instead about Russian roulette.

Nail.. On.. Head..

Every other product I spend nearly £1k on has quality control and I know Dave's was fine for two years, stuff goes wrong down the line, I know and accept that. But out of the box the failure rates seem high unless I'm missing something. No denying it's the best H-Alpha view when it's good but I'd expect better from a firm that manufactures gear for NASA. Even a statement accepting they had a bad batch or something would be better than the ordeal Kieron and his customers had.

Of course I am prepared to be told I'm wrong! AND my opinion may change if Dave kindly lets me have a look through his at Lucksall

 

[Floater]

Okay, Shaun. From what you write there may soon be a Lunt 60 DS on offer to a new owner ... ?

But, of course, I want to carry out this potential side-by-side test if I can. It's not proving easy to get these scopes together but I feel fortunate in that it's geographically feasible - not too many Lunt 60s within a couple of hundred miles of me, I guess - and the owner of the other scope knows her stuff, in spades. ? But I have this gut feeling that you're right.

I'm a bit 'heavy' on solar gear and I think something ought to go. The SM40 is going nowhere far away from me - for as far ahead as any old guy should try to envisage. That leaves Quark or Lunt.

As you know - and a lot of other Loungers who responded to my moans about my first couple of Quarks - I have had my issues with the kit. So I'll stick my tuppence worth into the mix, some of which I repeat: Daystar's reputation took an extreme blow when they contrived to turn what should have been a fantastic new product into a customer relations train crash. Anyone who does any reasearch before buying solar gear will come across the 'Quark quirks' - and they will be concerned.

I've already written that I think it's dreadful that someone, new to Ha viewing, could spend a substantial sum on a Quark and not know that they have, in fact, not got 'the real deal'. But not only that, unless one can properly compare the views through your Quark with another, how can you know that your unit cuts the mustard? Shaun, your descriptions of the views through your Quark are so wonderful they plant a seed of doubt in my mind about my unit ... ?

And I'm afraid Daystar's head honcho is fighting a rearguard action - all about damage limitation. Her company did cause a lot of damage to suppliers and customer confidence but also - and this is where it becomes unforgivable for me - they failed properly to deal with the fall-out from a busted production plan. It's all very well telling us that quality control was not finely tuned in order to keep costs down but, as another contributor above put it, the product should at least perform as described. Would anyone buy a car knowing the maker might not have checked the steering 'in order to keep costs down'?!!

This has turned into a long ramble. Sorry. Still amazed that this thread thrashed back into life after two years.

On a happier note, we have clear skies forecast for tomorrow. (Mind you, dog to walk, grandsons to entertain - will struggle to shoehorn in some solar. ?)

[ollypenrice]

31 minutes ago, Floater said:

Okay, Shaun. From what you write there may soon be a Lunt 60 DS on offer to a new owner ... ?

But, of course, I want to carry out this potential side-by-side test if I can. It's not proving easy to get these scopes together but I feel fortunate in that it's geographically feasible - not too many Lunt 60s within a couple of hundred miles of me, I guess - and the owner of the other scope knows her stuff, in spades. ? But I have this gut feeling that you're right.

I'm a bit 'heavy' on solar gear and I think something ought to go. The SM40 is going nowhere far away from me - for as far ahead as any old guy should try to envisage. That leaves Quark or Lunt.

As you know - and a lot of other Loungers who responded to my moans about my first couple of Quarks - I have had my issues with the kit. So I'll stick my tuppence worth into the mix, some of which I repeat: Daystar's reputation took an extreme blow when they contrived to turn what should have been a fantastic new product into a customer relations train crash. Anyone who does any reasearch before buying solar gear will come across the 'Quark quirks' - and they will be concerned.

I've already written that I think it's dreadful that someone, new to Ha viewing, could spend a substantial sum on a Quark and not know that they have, in fact, not got 'the real deal'. But not only that, unless one can properly compare the views through your Quark with another, how can you know that your unit cuts the mustard? Shaun, your descriptions of the views through your Quark are so wonderful they plant a seed of doubt in my mind about my unit ... ?

And I'm afraid Daystar's head honcho is fighting a rearguard action - all about damage limitation. Her company did cause a lot of damage to suppliers and customer confidence but also - and this is where it becomes unforgivable for me - they failed properly to deal with the fall-out from a busted production plan. It's all very well telling us that quality control was not finely tuned in order to keep costs down but, as another contributor above put it, the product should at least perform as described. Would anyone buy a car knowing the maker might not have checked the steering 'in order to keep costs down'?!!

This has turned into a long ramble. Sorry. Still amazed that this thread thrashed back into life after two years.

On a happier note, we have clear skies forecast for tomorrow. (Mind you, dog to walk, grandsons to entertain - will struggle to shoehorn in some solar. ?)

To hell with the Quark. I do admire your refusal to split infinitives! 

Olly

[Floater]

12 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

To hell with the Quark. I do admire your refusal to split infinitives! 

Olly

Oh, I have been known to happily split infinitives ... but only in extremis.

[Peter Drew]

Does anyone use high magnification visually with a Quark?, most reports I recall seem to describe relatively low powers,less than 100x or so. I'm no more interested in looking at a full solar disc than I am a full lunar disc, my interest is in high resolution views of prominences and surface active areas. My lowest magnification is 150x and in good seeing up to 300x, is this possible with a Quark on a suitable aperture?   

[Floater]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

I'm no more interested in looking at a full solar disc than I am a full lunar disc ...

But Peter, a full solar disc, especially when busy, is a different beast from a full lunar disc. Full disc Luna can be fairly featureless and washed out; full disc Sol, in Ha, can give scale to filaments of a mind-boggling size, and other features - including gargantuan proms that challenge understanding - are plentiful. It is ever changing, sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. And I think that's the point: my views of the Moon are very unlikely to change; my views of the Sun definitely will!

As for magnification, I'll leave others more technically minded than I to provide numbers. My experience, only ever visual, is that I can't boost the mag too high at all. Atmosphere, seeing, transparency; all the usual suspects. ?? As usual, the wonderful stuff our imagers produce is never in my eyepiece. ?

[Pig]

Much fuss about nothing as far as I see it ? Please spend 2.5k and mine will blow yours out of the water. I've spent more on a single eyepiece than the cost of a Quark let alone on something that delivers excellent solar views. 

I also bought mine off Kieran !!! So it isn't all bad.

Gordon I have also observed through a B1200 DS Lunt and it doesn't compare... very dark views, huge expense too.

Surely Charl's images show this !!!!! are folk blinded by the light ?

[John]

9 minutes ago, Pig said:

Much fuss about nothing as far as I see it ? Please spend 2.5k and mine will blow yours out of the water. I've spent more on a single eyepiece than the cost of a Quark let alone on something that delivers excellent solar views. 

I also bought mine off Kieran !!! So it isn't all bad.

Gordon I have also observed through a B1200 DS Lunt and it doesn't compare... very dark views, huge expense too.

Surely Charl's images show this !!!!! are folk blinded by the light ?

So you would reccommend this product ?

We have got to be more critical if we are to push the standards up IMHO. We do not have to be "beta testers" for products or accept poor quality control.

If manufacturers see that the customers are prepared to be so forgiving then we will see more stuff that is not up to scratch on the basis that we appear to be a "soft touch" I feel.

We must be discriminating if we want quality IMHO.

 

 

[ollypenrice]

6 hours ago, John said:

So you would reccommend this product ?

We have got to be more critical if we are to push the standards up IMHO. We do not have to be "beta testers" for products or accept poor quality control.

If manufacturers see that the customers are prepared to be so forgiving then we will see more stuff that is not up to scratch on the basis that we appear to be a "soft touch" I feel.

We must be discriminating if we want quality IMHO.

 

 

Agreed. In a number of specialized areas in which I've dabbled over the years I've come across a remarkable willingness to put up with products which fail to deliver, either through inherent faults or poor QC. I've also consistently voiced my objection. In another life I was a buyer for the NHS and 1) studied the consumer protection laws and 2) had to think of patients who might be put at risk by bad products. (Anything from surgical tools to fresh eggs.) The law is the law and justice is justice.

Sure we can, and perhaps should, cut a bit of slack for low volume specialist manufacturers doing their best to give us a good and innovative product. But Daystar demanded orders of magnitude too much slack in the early days. I still don't know from this thread what their QC is like these days. We really need another dealer to come in.

Nobody denies that a good Quark is fantastic. That would be crazy. It obviously is fantastic, in my view.

Olly

[xtreemchaos]

 thanks Shaun, I rest my case " in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

id deff recommend one, but if you can get a try before you buy thingy it takes 50% of the worry away. clear skys. charl.

[ollypenrice]

6 hours ago, xtreemchaos said:

 thanks Shaun, I rest my case " in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

id deff recommend one, but if you can get a try before you buy thingy it takes 50% of the worry away. clear skys. charl.

Great image and much better than I ever got on surface detail with my Lunt 60.

Olly

[xtreemchaos]

thanks Olly, it was very good seeing thismorrning , if you look at my solar pics in the solar imaging sec  you see it after its been processed. thanks again charl.

[Pig]

John I would definitely recommend the Quark, it would be wrong of me not to do so as I personally have not experienced anything negative whatsoever, I can only give the highest of praise ? I have also looked through quite a few and all have been better by far than the Lunt 60 I had, as it happens I am still waiting to look through a poor example.

Of course we have to strive for quality and should not accept being short changed. Daystar do have a lot to answer for, especially so considering their position within the solar market place. However, it is not just Daystar...... 

Should one have to replace the focusser on the Lunt 60mm ? because not only does it not focus very well, in addition woebetide ranyone hanging a camera off that beast as it will at some point cost you way more than a Quark. When one considers the entry level cost it is crazy. 

The Celestron Starsence release is another example of the manufacturer using people's hard earned cash as part of their product development cycle, it couldn't tell what century it was in and as a result couldn't find planets ? We have to be quite patient with more than just the seeing conditions when taking up this pastime.

 I am not justifying Daystars actions in any way and I am sure this emphasises what you are pointing out, but it isn't just the Quark that has had a poor start, but boy oh boy one would think it was by the attention it has received. 

[jetstream]

Daystar replaced my 2 poor Quarks for me after I let them know about the issues they had and my current one is good-not perfect but good. I get spectacular views in my 90mm f7 and if seeing allows mind blowing views in the SW120ED. I couldn't recommend the 120mm though- it is much too hard to get the low mag needed @900mm fl.

I would like to try a good 80mm f6 with a Quark... this would give a really nice view with the 32mm TV plossl (I think)... the 630mm Raptor still gives a bit too high mag with this eyepiece at times (I do use a reducer to great effect though).

 

[jetstream]

22 minutes ago, Pig said:

John I would definitely recommend the Quark,

Shaun, what scope are you using with the Quark now?