AR152 988mm F/6.5 + Quark vs AR102 F/10 + PST Mod2?

[astrorg]

AMENDED: I do not know what happened with the title!
 

 

Hi

While I wait for Merlin66 PDF [PM] - I believe it is night there now [Australia, if I am not wrong!] and having read quite a lot of forum posts and I am still confused,
I wonder if :

E. Scientific AR152 988mm F/6.5 vs Quark or Bresser AR102 F/10 + PST Mod2 ?
I do have a Bresser 102XS 460mm F/4.5 ... too short, but I do not have any Refractor F10 ... yet!

I really wish to use the 152, but modding is expensive and maybe Quark cost less, but what do you really get using a quark - is it worth it?

I am not made of money, like most of us therefore, the less expensive the better [family comes first] - possibly keeping resolution as high as possible, to give me 'more' to do ... in the warm - here in the UK is often cold and wet.

The Sun is an added bonus - our beautiful nearest star, that keep us alive!

Please be nice, although I am good DIYer, I do not know much about optics etc. - never actually learned about it, let alone the specifics of Solar 'expensive' area.
I am a good leaner especially visually checking what others do.

Thank you very much for the kind replies from those in the know and also those that already did the mods or got a Quark [I also wonder which one, really!]
M

PS I do have Baader Continuum 1.25" filter I used years ago in white light using an old LX200 10" - I might re-use it soon in white light as I had it re-aluminated last year or so and not used much, being busy during the day and then tired to get out at night!
I do not have a PST thou!

Edited February 5, 2019 by astrorg

[xtreemchaos]

you get as much as you would ever need from a Quark, but i would advise getting a look through a setup before buying if you have a club near.  with a 150 mm you would also need a front mounted ERF. charl.

[Stu]

The bigger you go, the higher the mag and the better seeing conditions you need. Personally I think 100 to 120mm aperture is a good sweet spot. With a Quark, somewhere around f7 is optimum I think, so a 120ED would work well, or a TS 100mm f7 or similar.

The issue with a Quark is the x4.2 Barlow which is included, this means it is often a case of trying to keep the magnification down by not having too long a focal length. I tried a 150mm f5 with my Quark and found the views quite soft. The other one to consider is the Altair or TS 152mm f5.9. I've look through one of these with a Quark and the results were very nice.

[astrorg]

Thanks for your input - appreciated.

I agree with the 100-120mm I see most people that have experimented with them find it a 'sweet spot' price/resolution more affordable, therefore AR152 + results is too expensive as it needs the front filter ... etc.

By the way, this AR152 is very sharp indeed for an F/6.5

OK, I keep learning and learning now ...

Difficult to make a decision when pockets are tight.

I probably need to set a budget + an extra possible top up and stick to it.

[Merlin66]

PM sent.

 

[Davey-T]

9 hours ago, astrorg said:

therefore AR152 + results is too expensive as it needs the front filter ... etc.

I use a Tecnosky 152mm f5.9 refractor with the Quark and it only needs a Baader 2" 35nm HA filter so "only" about £100.00 as opposed to nearer £1000.00 for a front mounted one.

Dave

Edited February 6, 2019 by Davey-T

[astrorg]

10 hours ago, Davey-T said:

I use a Tecnosky 152mm f5.9 refractor with the Quark and it only needs a Baader 2" 35nm HA filter so "only" about £100.00 as opposed to nearer £1000.00 for a front mounted one.

Dave

Right - good news then and I remember to have looked at that Tecnosky you have sometime ago!

I have noticed already a couple of people mentioning the use of the Baader 2" 35nm HA filter ...
At present, I am tending to go either Lunt 50 with Helical focuser [to start with, then maybe upgrade it] or the AR152 F/6.5 I have + Quark [obviously second hand, my pockets are very small!]
Is there a URL I can see your images, just to give me an idea of what one could image?

Thanks
Mauro

[Davey-T]

Most recent taken a few days ago, if you trawl through the solar imaging section you'll find a few more, probably have to go back along way though as haven't done any for a while.

Dave

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Davey-T

[astrorg]

WOW !
Very rewarding.

 

[Davey-T]

And for comparison the image achieved with the Lunt LS60DS and ZWOASI178MM camera so you can see you obviously need both 

Dave

A very quiet day on the Sun

[vlaiv]

How about 4" F/10 scope with Quark combo?

That one does not have telecentric barlow included, so with above scope you can get both high magnification views and full disk viewing.

If you want to do full disk view at low magnification - just put aperture mask to make scope F/20-F/30 without having to use telecentric lens.

For medium powers, 2x telecentric will turn that into 2000mm FL scope, that you can further stop down if you want F/25 or F/30, or you can use it like that at F/20.

Another x3 telecentric lens will turn it into F/30 4" high magnification setup.

Quark combo also has much larger blocking filter - so you can use it again with combinations of telecentric lens and aperture stops to image at various scales.

[Owmuchonomy]

2 hours ago, astrorg said:

Right - good news then and I remember to have looked at that Tecnosky you have sometime ago!

I have noticed already a couple of people mentioning the use of the Baader 2" 35nm HA filter ...
At present, I am tending to go either Lunt 50 with Helical focuser [to start with, then maybe upgrade it] or the AR152 F/6.5 I have + Quark [obviously second hand, my pockets are very small!]
Is there a URL I can see your images, just to give me an idea of what one could image?

Thanks
Mauro

The helical focuser really let’s the Lunt 50 down. Avoid it.

[astrorg]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

How about 4" F/10 scope with Quark combo?

...

Thanks, I was looking through Daystar website and I was just thinking about 'what is this Combo' what does it combine?
Thanks for the clear and short explanation - I do agree with that, in fact my only doubt about the Quark with AR152 F/6.5 was the x4.3 in the Chromosphere or Prominence Quarks

I have been looking around for a 100mm F10 too - mmm - interesting

Strangely enough I did a 'card board cover for the AR152 a few years back with a ~50-60cm hole and fit a white solar filter!

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by astrorg

[astrorg]

Ha ha hah a aaaaa

AS usual something comes up that makes yo think! I mean those like me that cannot afford much and have to REALLY do a thorough research to avoid wasting hard earned cash - not much of it too!

But I do agree that Quark is 'ace' when it works.
 

 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, astrorg said:

Ha ha hah a aaaaa

AS usual something comes up that makes yo think! I mean those like me that cannot afford much and have to REALLY do a thorough research to avoid wasting hard earned cash - not much of it too!

But I do agree that Quark is 'ace' when it works.
 

 

I'm also considering quark at some (distant?) future - and yes, have the same concerns about it as you now do

I've seen those negative reviews and issues as well and that is quite a large sample base that behaved substandard. What it does not say is how many users are out there that are happy with their quarks (that do really work, or perhaps people don't understand that it should work better if it's substandard unit). We have no way of knowing if QC is better nowadays, and what is the chance of getting poor one. This is always a concern, as internet remembers things for long time, but suppliers tend to hold things in stock for a long time as well.

If it is any consolation - combo quarks were not around at that time - so these units are likely to be under new qc - IF it was improved in recent times.

[astrorg]

Yes, I do agree [hope!] the new ones are better 'tested' prior despatch too.

On Saturday as 'consolation prize' I will take the AR152 + 72ED out for solar at around 13:30H - if Sun is still visible enough - I am in a hole surrounded by houses and I am hoping on Sunday morning the Sun will be out (clear enough) to play with White Solar filter + Continuum filter + also test a UHC I have on OIII filtration and see what happens - but just checked and there might be some sleet or small amount of snow again!
I have not done any White Solar views or imaging in years, not that I have done anything worth looking at!!!
I remember only 1999 solar eclipse imaged [badly] with a Russian Z11 film camera- sun overhead, then 2004 Venus transit - came running from work and managed to get 'something' through UK North-East clouds - probably same camera.
Then in 2015 using a LX200 10" + Continuum and 2016 too ... once.
I barely played with it.
It is time I get the hang of it back in White standard filter and then keep reading and see if I can get a 'final' decision on this.

It is so exhausting when there is not much cash and you cannot really waste it too.
Pffff

PS
My ugly and few images of The Sun are here  ...
 

[astrorg]

Putting money away and resist 'offers' temptation !
It is probably going to be next year unless I can raise about 50% of it and then ask friends and family for help - I would like not miss this summer, even if not much is going on on The Sun.

I guess, I probably have to get the Quark Combo 'first' and spend time testing it with all my telescopes ... etc.
I was looking at these two
BRESSER-Messier-AR-102L-1350-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube-assembly - F/13.2 

BRESSER-Messier-AR-102-1000-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube-assembly - F/9.8

They both fit perfectly with DSLR for full Disk Movie [ if focuses well ] and eventually use 178M for details

The famous Tal seems unfindable now.

Edited February 8, 2019 by astrorg

[astrorg]

Now that I have a clear view of what to do [I hope!] I am still trying understand my needs based on what I have.

With my gear [see signature] which ERF should I really get?
Starting with AR152 F/6.5

The real questions are:

a. is it better to get the full width (very expensive) 150mm ERF on the AR152 being F/6.5 or a smaller one - lets say 75mm ERF - and I make a 152mm cap with the adaptation for the 75mm [as a reference] 'removable' glass?
b. also thinking to play with other telescopes (maybe even the LX200 in the future) - the 75mm would fit all of them and can always reduce the lens diameter with a cap
c. I have read of people actually using the 6" refractor without the ERF and only using the 2" IR/UV filter before their Quark [ actually on the diagonal if used] - but the AR152 has 2 lenses and I guess it will get hot

I am no expert in Optics, thou!

Any clarifications on the above points I am still not complete sure.

I mean logically one would buy the full ERF, but they are hugely expensive for a 6" telescope.
I am interested in imaging mainly.

In the end one wants to spend as less as possible and be able to have a lot to do and be safe too and not risking to destroy equipment.

... and then you find this wow!
;p]

PS I hope this thread helps other in a similar situation wishing to use what one has and be safe and enjoy the beautiful view of our nearest star.

Edited February 8, 2019 by astrorg

[Davey-T]

I don't think that an internal as opposed to a front mounted ERF makes a lot of difference except to your wallet.

I use a "cheap" Baader 2" 35nm HA filter fitted in the front of an 80mm extension tube needed to achieve focus for imaging and in the diagonal for visual with my 152mm, had a lot of use and the internal heat hasn't been a problem so far.

Don't think there's anything to be gained by using the SCT, I've used mine with Baader solar film on the front which works OK for white light imaging.

If you buy the SCT Quark then Barlow it on the 152 then maybe OK, not seen a side by side comparison of a combo Quark Barlowed and standard Quark on a refractor.

Dave

[vlaiv]

33 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

not seen a side by side comparison of a combo Quark Barlowed and standard Quark on a refractor

http://www.astrotest.it/test-reports/filters-including-h-alpha/daystar-quark-vs-quark-combo/

It's in Italian, so google translate (or if you know Italian ... )

 

[Davey-T]

Thanks for that link Vlaiv, very interesting.

Dave

[astrorg]

On 08/02/2019 at 16:18, Davey-T said:

I don't think that an internal as opposed to a front mounted ERF makes a lot of difference except to your wallet.

I use a "cheap" Baader 2" 35nm HA filter fitted in the front of an 80mm extension tube needed to achieve focus for imaging and in the diagonal for visual with my 152mm, had a lot of use and the internal heat hasn't been a problem so far.

Don't think there's anything to be gained by using the SCT, I've used mine with Baader solar film on the front which works OK for white light imaging.

If you buy the SCT Quark then Barlow it on the 152 then maybe OK, not seen a side by side comparison of a combo Quark Barlowed and standard Quark on a refractor.

Dave

I agree and I am no expert about the 35nm filter - I did read it somewhere [not sure].
If you follow whatever they tell you on shop pages, you would spend about 4-500% more than you really need!

So, you actually are saying I could buy a Quark Combo [use Barlow] + Baader 2" 35nm HA filter and I am OK?
Love this then!

[astrorg]

On 08/02/2019 at 16:53, vlaiv said:

http://www.astrotest.it/test-reports/filters-including-h-alpha/daystar-quark-vs-quark-combo/

It's in Italian, so google translate (or if you know Italian ... )

 

I am Italian born and will read with interest!

 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, astrorg said:

I agree and I am no expert about the 35nm filter - I did read it somewhere [not sure].
If you follow whatever they tell you on shop pages, you would spend about 4-500% more than you really need!

So, you actually are saying I could buy a Quark Combo [use Barlow] + Baader 2" 35nm HA filter and I am OK?
Love this then! 

Except I would not use barlow, but rather telecentric lens. It does very similar thing as barlow but optics are a bit different.

With telecentric lens magnification stays roughly the same as you move eyepiece / sensor away and towards lens element - with barlow it will change - closer will make it less magnifying - further away it will make it more magnifying. Barlow also has effect on eye relief with eyepieces, telecentric lens does not.

Due to different optical design telecentric lens are better suited for Halpha applications - field uniformity and such.

For cost effective telecentric look at ES ones:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlows/explore-scientific-2x-3x-5x-barlow-focal-extender-125.html

Also, consider which one you will get, depending on original F/ratio of your intended scope. Do bare in mind that using telecentric lens is not the only way you can change F/ratio of your system - aperture mask also changes F/ratio of your system, and you can use either or combination of both to achieve wanted F/ratio. However, max useful magnification will be limited by aperture (about x2 aperture diameter in mm), so using aperture mask reduces max magnification (good for full disk viewing without adding too much focal length, or in combination with x2 tele extender to get medium magnifications).

[astrorg]

Reading the Italian report and although it does not really give you a 'conclusion report', it seems that based on Telescopes I have the Quark standard chromosphere [+4.3x Barlow] is actually better for me.
With the exception of the old LX200, all my telescopes are F/3.9 (guider 60mm) to F/6.5.

So, possibly Quark Chromosphere (New) + Baader 2" 35nm HA filter is one solution - only wondering on the actual internal Barlow if it is that good - I assume it is properly set to be perfectly centred - one hopes!
Note: I noticed the heck of a difference image Quark vs Combo in that report, BUT ... he was using one heck of a Tele-extender + a very good Barlow!
I do not really know if it is worth risking buying a second hand Quark, but there is one thing to think that I guess most people that sell it and have used it, must have had all problems sorted [in theory].

But can possibly save £. 500 from a second hand one - I could buy it tomorrow [nearly]!