DayStar Solar Scout SS60-DS 60mm

[JBracegirdle]

Hi Everyone,

I'm interesting in solar Hydrogen Alpha. I'm still new to astronomy, but I was wondering if the DayStar Solar Scout SS60-DS 60mm telescope would be the best introduction to solar. I was thinking of getting one and an AZ5 mount (partly so I could also use it for the StarMax 90 on the Moon I like the idea of smaller movements with the slow motion cables).

I would love to be able to process an image with surface detail and prominences like the video below done with a PST. Is this possible (or better) with a Scout?

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by JBracegirdle

[Davey-T]

You should be able to equal that with the Daystar Scout which is basically a Quark with a smaller etalon attached to a 60mm refractor, you'll need a fast frame rate camera especially if your guiding by hand, I see you have a ASI224MC but mono would get you better images.

And obviously the Sun looks nothing like that ATM being sunk in it's minimum state.

Dave

[JBracegirdle]

Thanks Dave, that's what I was hoping, there are a few samples out there and they look good, but I've not seen many processed with a combination of exposures. I was thinking of upgrading the camera, but maybe a new mount and telescope is enough for one order. 😁

You're right about the minima, I'm an amateur radio operator as well so the two hobbies could go well together. But the good thing about the minima is things can only get better as Prof Brian Cox may sing. 😁

[johninderby]

That PST vid is probably using a PST mod which takes some of the PST bits and puts them in a much bigger aperture scope. Not representative of a standard PST. 

[JBracegirdle]

I thought that it was a PST mod, but he does say in the description and comments that it's the stock PST, just imaged though the eyepiece well.

He does say he thinks each PST is different and he may have got a really good one. He also says it looks better with his eyes than the image shows!

[Mark at Beaufort]

I have had a PST for nearly 15 years together with a Coronado Double Stack which has provided excellent views over the years both surface and proms. Many members at star parties have commented on the quality of the visual view. However,  I have never had a view like the one portrayed in the image above.

I did think about buying a Daystar 60mm Scout but would like to try one before buying.

 

[johninderby]

I had a 60mm Scout and found it poor for visual. It’s at it’s best for imaging.

Always liked my PST when I had one despite the sweet spot. It was just nice to use..I’ve looked through a few PSTs and never seen anything remotely as good as in that vid.

Edited December 14, 2019 by johninderby

[Miguel1983]

I have the Daystar solarscout and in our astronomy club other members have a Coronado  and Lunt, all of the members who looked trough my Daystar were surprised by the quality of the view, certainly for this pricepoint.

I'm really looking forward to some more solar activity and getting more into solar imaging.

[Peter Drew]

The PST etalon that I use on my 150mm mod gave better views than those shown in the video when in its original form.  It was selected from several PST's that passed through my hands.      🙂

[Rusted]

40 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

The PST etalon that I use on my 150mm mod gave better views than those shown in the video when in its original form.  It was selected from several PST's that passed through my hands.      🙂

Since we are on the subject I thought I'd share a "live" video from my heavily modified [secondhand] CR150HD, 150mm f/8 H-alpha+ PST stage 3 refractor. Having no useful comparisons my own PST etalon may be good, average or poor. This is what I typically see on my 25" computer monitor during video capture. [BUT MUCH BIGGER!]

The thermal agitation from the earth's atmosphere is very evident. It varies widely from hour to hour and day to day. I never saw much through my secondhand PST because the original ITF was opaque. It was soon replaced with a matching Maier ITF but by then Mr Peter Drew Esq. had me dismantling my poor little PST to become a donor for endless modification.

 

 

[vineyard]

Wow that is insane, Rusted.  And ever so slightly hypnotic.

[Highburymark]

For imaging alone you might find the Solar Scout pretty decent, as John says above, though every unit will perform differently. Ideally you’d be able to test the scope before buying, as these are very much entry level products, using filters that didn’t make the grade for Daystar’s more expensive offerings. There are still very few positive Solar Scout owners’ reviews on the web which is puzzling. But the Scout is exceptionally cheap. Buy from a retailer which is happy to exchange if there are any problems. I can recommend the AZ5 for solar observing though - it’s the perfect manual mount in my view.

[Davey-T]

49 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

using filters that didn’t make the grade for Daystar’s more expensive offerings.

I thought that according to Daystar they were cheaper because the filters were smaller not inferior.

Dave

[JBracegirdle]

Thanks for your replies. Would the Daystar Scout be a better option than putting a Daystar Quark on my Startravel 102? Could I used use the ZWO UV/IR cut filter with the Quark? 

[joe aguiar]

i have the coronado 11 60mm single stack,

joejaguar

[Miguel1983]

9 hours ago, JBracegirdle said:

Thanks for your replies. Would the Daystar Scout be a better option than putting a Daystar Quark on my Startravel 102? Could I used use the ZWO UV/IR cut filter with the Quark? 

The difference between the Quark standalone, more expensive, and the one fixed on the solarscout 60 is that the standalone has a 21mm clear aperture and 12mm blocking filter, the one in the solarscout has 16mm of clear aperture, the Coronado PST has a 5mm blocking filter.

My astronomy club mates and myself found that the view in the daystar was a bit brighter than with the Solarmax 2 60mm and the Lunt 50mm, so in my experience the solarscout is a great solarscope for the money.

Edited December 15, 2019 by Miguel1983

[Davey-T]

14 hours ago, JBracegirdle said:

Thanks for your replies. Would the Daystar Scout be a better option than putting a Daystar Quark on my Startravel 102? Could I used use the ZWO UV/IR cut filter with the Quark? 

A Quark on a refractor will be superior to a Solar Scout while obviously more expensive it does mean you can swop it to other scopes in the future, shouldn't need a filter as such with the 102.

Just be aware the despite Daystars claims to the contrary not all Quarks are born equal and it can be a bit of a minefield, obviously the images on Daystar site are taken with the best performing Quarks, I honestly think it's safer to buy a second hand one that you can see images taken with to confirm the quality, also they do not last forever so may need an expensive overhaul after 5 years or so, I  don't know what this time period is based on, whether it's related to simple passage of time or the amount of use, if the latter mine will last 20 years 😂

Dave

[Highburymark]

20 hours ago, Davey-T said:

I thought that according to Daystar they were cheaper because the filters were smaller not inferior.

Dave

Was referring to the fact that all Quarks/Scouts use mica etalons that have not made the grade for Quantum SE etc.

Though I’ve yet to read a report about the Solar Scout which suggests the best examples are as good as the best Quarks. With the Scout coming in at £400 less than a Quark rrp, it wouldn’t be surprising if the better etalons were used for the more expensive product. All idle speculation, I agree. I’m in two minds about my Quark. So far not impressive on surface detail (though with blank sun and so-so seeing, it’s difficult to make a definitive judgement - particularly with the high magnifications that the Quark requires - hoping this may improve with a more active sun and more experience), but it’s fantastic for proms - through 4” frac the views are breathtaking. 

[Davey-T]

4 minutes ago, Highburymark said:

hoping this may improve with a more active sun and more experience), but it’s fantastic for proms - through 4” frac the views are breathtaking. 

Sounds like a couple of the Quarks I've had, great proms but crap surface details, I have one here ATM waiting for me to psyche myself up for the rigmarole of sending it off to Daystar.

Dave

[Tomatobro]

You can take reasonable pictures with a long focal length refractor fitted with a mylar filter using a zwo colour camera

But you do need some surface to photograph which is in short supply at the moment

[joe aguiar]

9 hours ago, Miguel1983 said:

My astronomy club mates and myself found that the view in the daystar was a bit brighter than with the Solarmax 2 60mm and the Lunt 50mm, so in my experience the solarscout is a great solarscope for the money.

 thats different from my expernce i test my oringinal coronado (before meade had it) to the lunt 60mm verison and i fount the coronado was brighter clearer then the lunts verison.

mine had a bf10, i agress with u on that other part bf5 or lunts bf6mm are both too small.I dont know what size their lunts bf was if it was a 6mm or the 12mm tho but testing side by side on same day u can easily see mine was much brighter i would say 25%

joejaguar

Edited December 15, 2019 by joe aguiar

[steveex2003]

Minefield.

I have sat on the fence for more or less a year on a solar scope. My actual experience of solar amounts to nothing more than an 80mm with a solar filter, and very recently too (managed to get the Mercury Transit - which was wonderful.

A year full of reading, analysis paralysis, forget about it for a month - rinse and repeat has led me to the following third-hand conclusions.

Quark, standalone or Daystar. Hit and miss, get a good one; super. Get a bad one; wonder what all the fuss is about. Waiting times for on-band tuning.

Coronado. The mk2 seems blighted with complaints about the cheap plastic focuser. Bit cheaper than the Lunt alternative. Tilt tuning only. Mk3 is expensive.

Lunt. Good offers on the mainland for the pressure tuned 50 and tilt tuned 60 at present. Seems the 6mm BF is really the minimum size to aim for. The 50's helical focuser is not stellar. Pressure tuning seems to be a well regarded addition. Larger apertures, BF's and DS options get heinously expensive.

External etalons and BF's. Just plain expensive.

I have an FLO voucher given to me for 50th in May and I still haven't committed to the purchase. I'd love a pressure tuned Lunt 60, 12mm BF, but at £4K it's just way out of my budget.  

Edited December 15, 2019 by steveex2003

[Miguel1983]

1 hour ago, joe aguiar said:

 thats different from my expernce i test my oringinal coronado (before meade had it) to the lunt 60mm verison and i fount the coronado was brighter clearer then the lunts verison.

mine had a bf10, i agress with u on that other part bf5 or lunts bf6mm are both too small.I dont know what size their lunts bf was if it was a 6mm or the 12mm tho but testing side by side on same day u can easily see mine was much brighter i would say 25%

joejaguar

We did a side by side comparison on the same day.

But, i guess seeing can mean a lot for the different systems, one might handle it better than the other ? 

[Rusted]

I'm still using a secondhand PST BF5. It's awful! If it wasn't for the clouds I'd never see a thing through it!

Mind you, it's not my fault! Peter Drew made me do it! It was a dare! 🤣

 

[Tomatobro]

How about a Daystar Quark, Skywatcher 72 ED pro, Skywatcher Solar Quest, Baader 2 inch IR/UV filter, an Altair or other 2 inch diagonal and a ZWO mono camera as a possible setup? And a ZWO camera tilt adapter to remove the Newton rings.?

Gives the option of going to a bigger refractor in the future but would need an ERF on the front end