Quark Binoviewing

[Pingster]

Wonder if someone can kindly help.

Ive been a binoviewer for a fews years now. I have no problems using them under the stars. They are perfectly collominated.

However using them with my quark... is near on impossible and very uncomfortable. I cant seem to get a matching view in both eyes. Even a single 40mm plossl is still very difficult as my eye placement needs to be bang on centre. So im not surprised quark bino is so difficult. But ive read some members have no issues and said its fantastic.

What am i doing wrong? Do i have a damaged quark as ive read the quality control is awful. If not why is the quark eye placement so critical compared to normal?

My Setup.

TAK 60mm or 80mm APO > Baader Prism Diagonal > Quark > Eyepiece.

*update:

An update. I think ive discovered why turning the binoviewer in the quark is required to "match" the brightness thru each eyepiece....

The mrk5 bino like most is polarized! I think the quark is also polarized becuse i have no issues with WL solar and ive never had an issue binoviewing at night.

You can test by removing the eyepieces from the bino and looking thru one barrel at a time at an LCD TV and rotating the bino. You will clearly see one side dims with less roatation than the other.

This answers my long standing issue. Ising the bino diring the day... i had noticed that one barrel in the bino showed a different highlight on objects to the other. I persionally find this extremely distracting and strains the eyes. Annoyingly this issue is barely present in my cheaper WO bino!

The question is.. can the mrk5 polarization be matched on both barrels?

http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/500910-mark-v-polarized-on-one-side/

[Peter Drew]

I use a binoviewer exclusively on my solar telescope. I don't have a Quark but the 6" objective is F10 so the focal length is probably similar as the Quark has a built in Barlow. The high magnification that can result usually requires long focus eyepieces to keep it manageable and these tend to have long eye relief leading to the eye placement problem you describe. I don't think there is anything wrong with your Quark in this respect.

[DRT]

I have successfully used TS Optics binoviewers with my Quark, Altair 152 refractor and TV 32mm Plossls - the views were stunning - almost 3D in appearance on the surface detail.

Do your bins have self-centering eyepiece holders? I have seen some bins that don't and the eyepieces can be slightly mis-aligned by clamps or screws pushing from only one side. The Quark has a tiny hole to aim at and I wonder if some slight misalignment at the eyepiece end would be exacerbated by the smallness of the target eyepiece opening in the Quark?

[Pingster]

Hi guys. I have mrk 5 bins that a self centering. When i say the images are not aligened... i mean compared to normal binoviewing... its very difficult to have both eyes looking right at the same time. Normal usuage of binoviewer i have no probs at all.

I have the same problem even with a WO binovewer. 

[Stu]

Is this related to the effect of the Barlow within the Quark extending the already long eye relief of the 32mm Plossl even further? I used to use one or two of the TV extender eyeguards on my 32mm Plossl when used with my Quark and this made eye placement much easier.

[DRT]

4 minutes ago, Stu said:

Is this related to the effect of the Barlow within the Quark extending the already long eye relief of the 32mm Plossl even further? I used to use one or two of the TV extender eyeguards on my 32mm Plossl when used with my Quark and this made eye placement much easier.

I used those too.

[Floater]

I doubt if I can be of any help here, Pingster, because I don't have any experience with binoviewers. The replies from those who do are probably of more value.

Nevertheless, and for what it's worth, I don't think there's anything wrong with your Quark. Eye placement is difficult - I struggled dreadfully with that early on - and an eye extender definitely helped. I also think Stu is on the right rack with his point about the effects of the Quark extending the eye relief. And, as Peter mentions, the built-in 4.2x Barlow can throw other spanners around in the works ... Those are the areas I feel you have to explore.

I do hope you get it sorted out. It's well worth persevering.

[Stu]

Does the Quark Barlow effect vary with distance to the focalplane in the same way a normal Barlow does? If so then adding a Binoviewer might push the mag up very high depending upon which scope you are using.

[skybadger]

I use both a diagonal and a WO bino viewer after my quark (not together) using the 20mm WO eyepieces and neither have caused the magnification to change compared to the straight through eyepiece position. The scope is a ST70 with m48 extenders . The binoviewer makes a big improvement for me and I have no issues with centering or  eye relief.

 

[Pingster]

Ive been using the quark all day. I dont really inderstand the tunung dial. It does not seem to make much difference in the view.

I have the chromosphere ver and what i see in the eyepiece does not look anything like the photos ive seen. I would say what i see they the eyepiece is x10 less contrasty.

Ive done some reading and it seems higher F ratio scopes give better contrast? 

What is each of the extreme dail positions supposed to excell at? As it seem to make very little difference even after waiting for it to go "green".

Turned fully anti-clockwise

Middle setting

Fully clockwise.

Where do you tend to have yours if we consider fully anticlockwise as 0 and each click clockwise as 1's.

80mm apo > UV/IR > Mir Dia > Quark > 40mm Televue Plossel. 

[DRT]

You will never see anything in the sky through an eyepiece that looks like a processed photograph.

I messed around with the tuning nob when I first got my Quark but haven't touched it since. Like you I struggled to see any difference between the various settings, particularly due to the 10 minute wait each time you adjust it as you can't tell whether or not the Quark has changed or the atmosphere you are looking through is slightly different.

The thing that I find makes to the biggest difference is the aperture of the scope and the magnification of the eyepiece. I use a 152mm Altair Starwave F5.9 and a TV 32mm Plossl. The views I get are fantastic, although not of photographic quality.

[Stu]

54 minutes ago, Pingster said:

Ive been using the quark all day. I dont really inderstand the tunung dial. It does not seem to make much difference in the view.

I have the chromosphere ver and what i see in the eyepiece does not look anything like the photos ive seen. I would say what i see they the eyepiece is x10 less contrasty.

Ive done some reading and it seems higher F ratio scopes give better contrast? 

What is each of the extreme dail positions supposed to excell at? As it seem to make very little difference even after waiting for it to go "green".

Turned fully anti-clockwise

Middle setting

Fully clockwise.

Where do you tend to have yours if we consider fully anticlockwise as 0 and each click clockwise as 1's.

80mm apo > UV/IR > Mir Dia > Quark > 40mm Televue Plossel. 

Which scope are you using Pingster? If very fast (f5 or so) then you won't be operating at near the optimum focal ratio so the contrast will be lower.

Is your quark new? They can be quite variable in quality, some showing fantastic detail and other much more washed out.

[Pingster]

Thanks for the replies guys. 

My quark is 1 year new. 

I use it in a F6 explore scienctific 80mm Apo. I read that idealy it needs to be a F7.5 to get good contrast. Saying that DRT gets great views in his F5.9. 

If i describe my view. I get really good prominemces as i have the dail either in the middle or a few click clockwise from middle. I can get good dark "cracks" that run along sun, i get nice "white spots"... but its the general surface of the sun.... it generally looks speckly, not those nice texture/ripples /fur and grooves all over it as seen in quark photos. 

There are moments when the whole surface does have a lot of "texture" but its fairly faint and i have to look really hard to strain with concentration.

[DRT]

I wonder if the 40mm Plossl is partly to blame for the lack of contrast? I don't have a 40mm TV but I do have a new Celestron E-Lux 40mm that came with my C11 so will test it against the TV 32mm at the weekend and report back.

Have you tried it without the UV/IR filter? Your scope has a small enough aperture that you don't need an energy reducing filter so perhaps one less piece of glass in the light path might help?

[Floater]

I think Derek has it nailed: you mustn't compare the view you get through an eyepiece with the images you see posted here and elsewhere. You just won't see that kind of detail. (I hope the imagers come in here and endorse that.)

It's well documented that the Quarks can be a bit idiosyncratic and 'individual'. My 'go-to click stop' is three anti-clockwise. It just seems to my eye to be the best of both worlds. I, too, have the chromo unit and would love to compare the prom version but, alas, that is unlikely. I've read often that the chromo renders proms well enough (which it certainly does) to make it questionable why there are the two versions.

I have fun playing with different ways to alter the f-ratio and magnification ... and I enjoy the views. It seems you are, too, but suffering from the amateur astronomer's curse/desire to see even more. 

Ain't it wonderful?

[Stu]

2 hours ago, Pingster said:

Thanks for the replies guys. 

My quark is 1 year new. 

I use it in a F6 explore scienctific 80mm Apo. I read that idealy it needs to be a F7.5 to get good contrast. Saying that DRT gets great views in his F5.9. 

If i describe my view. I get really good prominemces as i have the dail either in the middle or a few click clockwise from middle. I can get good dark "cracks" that run along sun, i get nice "white spots"... but its the general surface of the sun.... it generally looks speckly, not those nice texture/ripples /fur and grooves all over it as seen in quark photos. 

There are moments when the whole surface does have a lot of "texture" but its fairly faint and i have to look really hard to strain with concentration.

Don't forget Derek's f5.9 also happens to be 152mm aperture! That gives you a whole load of brightness and resolution to play with. I think f6 is probably ok, I used a Tak 60mm f5.9 and thought it was significantly better than a good PST. I experimented a lot when I had mine, and you certainly do get a tighter band pass when at or around the optimum (f7.5 ish) but it's not night and day.

So, did you buy it used at 1 year old or have you had it from new? If you look on the Daystar site there is a section showing sample images from units which had been returned to Daystar and were considered acceptable. There is a huge variability in them.

As to whether you see views which rival images, it depends obviously which ones you are talking about. Agreed, not the very high mag ones, but I regularly saw amazing detail in proms, the spicule line around the limb and good detail on the surface. I thought the view through Derek's 152 was pretty spectacular!

[Pingster]

If i go from an 80mm to a 127mm apo... will the image be brighter or does quark work differently? Also does it get brighter while maintaining or increasing contrast? 

[DRT]

I tried the Quark in my Evo 150 F8 today and would describe the image as "softer" than in the F5.9 152. It was also slightly darker.

I also tried switching between the TV32mm and Celestron E-Lux 40mm Plossls in the 152. The 40mm gave a sharp image that was noticeably brighter than the 32mm. Unfortunatley, by the time I got around to doing this the clearest part of the day has gone so I cannot discount the interaction of clouds and periods of bad seeing. I will try again tomorrow but the principle result is that a 40mm Plossl is certainly no worse in terms of sharpness and contrast than a 32mm.

[Pingster]

DRT on your 150 did you use a UV/IR filter or afront mounted ERF?

[Stu]

8 hours ago, DRT said:

I tried the Quark in my Evo 150 F8 today and would describe the image as "softer" than in the F5.9 152. It was also slightly darker.

I also tried switching between the TV32mm and Celestron E-Lux 40mm Plossls in the 152. The 40mm gave a sharp image that was noticeably brighter than the 32mm. Unfortunatley, by the time I got around to doing this the clearest part of the day has gone so I cannot discount the interaction of clouds and periods of bad seeing. I will try again tomorrow but the principle result is that a 40mm Plossl is certainly no worse in terms of sharpness and contrast than a 32mm.

I think that is what I would expect. The f8 would have been giving significantly higher mag than the f5.9 which would give a softer image if it had gone beyond the seeing conditions. Spherical abberation may also be a factor as I believe the f5.9 optic is better figured than the f8 although I'm unsure of the overall comparison in SA because the 152 is much faster which means it's harder to correct for SA.

The higher mag in the f8 would mean lower surface brightness and a dimmer image. In theory it should have shown more contrast as at f8 it is operating closer to the optimal focal length for the Quark. This effect was probably masked by the softness caused by the seeing though.

As you can see, it's a complex subject. Contrast will be improved by operating close to f7.5, but you also need to keep the magnification down to a level which the seeing regularly supports. If I were buying a Quark now I would definitely look to use it in a 152 f5.9, it's a great combination.

[DRT]

3 hours ago, Pingster said:

DRT on your 150 did you use a UV/IR filter or afront mounted ERF?

I use a 2" Baader UV/IR.

[Pig]

First of all forgive the formatting of this reply as I am having all kinds of problems with text size and spacing etc....

I use 2 scopes with my Quark Chromo an 80mm F5 & a 110mm F7 and both deliver fantastic but very different levels of detail. I also leave the tuning knob in the same position (one click clockwise from the centre). I do notice differences though as surface detail is enhanced and prominences can be tuned completely out.

The 80mm F5 gives me a full disc view with any eyepiece above 30mm and although the detail is much smaller it still very apparent. The 110mm F7 gives about a quarter of the disc and the detail is superb. The larger aperture does make quite a difference as everything is much bigger but I find the contrast is pretty consistent in both setups.

After a lot of experimenting I have settled for 2 eyepieces as shown in my signature, the 35mm is my preferred choice of the two in both scopes. Unfortunately I have never been able to remain comfortable using binoviewers for anything more than a few minutes and as a result have never tried any in the Quark.

Personally I don't think the F ratio makes much of a difference as long as you are within the specified limits, aperture and eyepieces make much starker differences to me.

 

[Pingster]

Thanks for all your replies. 

Yesterday i had a fantastic session. I believe i have a great sample of a quark. For the first time the sun looked like a 3D globe with much of the details i have seen in photos but without the mega enhanced contrast. First two sessions before, it looked like a flat disc with very little surface texture. But its all now all the features i see in photos are there and very beautiful, just maybe 1/3rd of the contrast (surface detail). However The proms are beautifully contrasty. 

To my suprise i had forgotten to take out the mrk5s x1.7 noisepiece and combined with 24mm panotpics i had beaitful close up views! I now see why people are so impressed with quark for high res work. Even in my 80mm the detail was very good indeed. Far better than what i see with white light solar.

What ive learned... the quark is extremely fussy with how well it plants/secures into the diaginal. I found that if one binoview side was darker than the other, simply reseat the quark and try again. Even try rotating the quark 90deg clockwise in the diaginal untill both sides of the bino are the same brightness.

Then its simply sit back and enjoy!

Before i bought the quark i read that 40mm panoptics are best. But personlly i found them very hard to get my eyes into the exact position and that the middle would have a dark bean shape. For me 24mm pantopics worked much better. 

Thanks for your help everyone and hope my experience will help others binoviewing their quarks. 

 

 

 

[Pingster]

On Sunday, August 07, 2016 at 08:07, DRT said:

I use a 2" Baader UV/IR.0

Hi DRT. I am considering a red altair astro 153 achro or maybe their 130 apo. Altaur recommends a front ERF for both theses scopes. But reading forums many members like yourself have no issues just using a 2in UV/IR at the diaginal front.  

[Floater]

I keep reading in this thread the statement that f7.5 is the 'optimum' for a Quark. Where does this figure come from?

The manual states: so we need to alter your telescope’s F/ratio in order to reach F/15 to F/30 where your DayStar will operate correctly. Best performance is at F/27-F/32 

If we are referring to the scope's basic, original f-ratio, elsewhere in the manual it states that the Quark is best suited to scopes with a focal ratio of f5-f9. The median there would be f7. So can someone please explain why f7.5 keeps cropping up?