Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

Astroblagger

PST Verses Quark?

Recommended Posts

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"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!   :icon_biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :eek:

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.