PST Verses Quark?

[Astroblagger]

How does a PST compare imagingwise to the quark???

[Freddie]

Way better using either your 80 or 120 with appropriate energy rejection filter. There are some questions however over quality control (have a google or search on SGL) so that assumes you get a "good one"

[Peter Drew]

No contest really as you are unlikely to fit the Quark to a 40mm telescope. However, a future PST mod could be a different matter!  

[Astroblagger]

how much is the whole set up quark ERF etc al in?

[Davey-T]

Quark is around £1099.00, you don't need a ERF for 80mm need one for 120mm.

Not many suppliers in the UK now due to quality control issues I think.

Dave

[Freddie]

Even with my 120 I just use a UV/IR cut filter with no problems on a tracking mount imaging for hours.

[Moonshane]

You might get away with that but some heat will get through based on my experience.  The erf protects your gear not your eyes.

[Freddie]

Only image so eyes not in the equation. When I first started with the 120 I was worried about heating so was checking every few mins. I have never detected any heat rise even after hours. A different FR 120 scope may or maynot however result in some heat build up. 

[Moonshane]

I am basing my view on my 120ed with 1.25" Lunt wedge. It still got a little warm with a baader 2" uv/ir cut filter but nothing like as warm as without. . That said in the end I concluded there was no benefit or real risk so I sold the filter.

[Joseki]

I'm pretty sure the official Daystar recommendation is that for 120mm you just need to use a uv/ir rejection filter as the ERF before the Quark- not an expensive front fitting ERF job - I did try this myself once with an Evostar 120mm f8 scope + Quark which was fine.

[Moonshane]

I suppose another option would be a 35nm Ha filter or similar?

[Davey-T]

1 minute ago, Moonshane said:

I suppose another option would be a 35nm Ha filter or similar?

That's what I use in my 152mm, a "real" ERF costs more than the scope 

Dave