Daystar Quark Reliability Resolved ?

[johngm]

Hi All,

I am considering purchasing a Daystar Quark Chromosphere, but having researched the forums, including SGL, it seems though there are or were a lot of quality issues. Unfortunately, most of these reviews/posts seem to be from around 2015 - 2016. I would like to here from people who have purchased one in the last couple of years and find out if there Quality control has improved, or is it still a lottery.

Thanks in advance

John

[Carbon Brush]

In late 2018 I wanted to upgrade from my PST. I looked at quark vs Lunt vs PST+mods and other options.

Like you I found a lot of problems reported that may have been in part due to Daystar trying to push a new product in time for an eclipse.
I asked questions on SGL and got a lot of very informed responses.

At the end of the day I decided on an established 'works out of the box' Lunt scope (a used LS60 package).
The idea being that if I got poor quark results the seller might argue it is my scope, erf, etc.

At the 2019 Practical Astronomy Show I spoke with a couple of retailers and a scope expert reviewer about quark and complete solar scopes from Daystar.
Basically I could not find anyone able to persuade me that the Daystar offerings were good. There was no history.
How could they offer a complete scope for less than a Quark, etc? No real answers.

More than a year on, there should be more information and experience from users about the Daystar offerings.

On my LS60. I have been very happy. Like everyone, I am just waiting for a more active sun.
The blue filter (a common issue) was a bit cloudy. Bresser sent me free replacement without issue.

Keep asking and if you need links to the threads where I was asking questions, I will try to dig them out.

Good luck.

David.

[johngm]

7 hours ago, Carbon Brush said:

In late 2018 I wanted to upgrade from my PST. I looked at quark vs Lunt vs PST+mods and other options.

Like you I found a lot of problems reported that may have been in part due to Daystar trying to push a new product in time for an eclipse.
I asked questions on SGL and got a lot of very informed responses.

At the end of the day I decided on an established 'works out of the box' Lunt scope (a used LS60 package).
The idea being that if I got poor quark results the seller might argue it is my scope, erf, etc.

At the 2019 Practical Astronomy Show I spoke with a couple of retailers and a scope expert reviewer about quark and complete solar scopes from Daystar.
Basically I could not find anyone able to persuade me that the Daystar offerings were good. There was no history.
How could they offer a complete scope for less than a Quark, etc? No real answers.

More than a year on, there should be more information and experience from users about the Daystar offerings.

On my LS60. I have been very happy. Like everyone, I am just waiting for a more active sun.
The blue filter (a common issue) was a bit cloudy. Bresser sent me free replacement without issue.

Keep asking and if you need links to the threads where I was asking questions, I will try to dig them out.

Good luck.

David.

Cheers David, if you can dig out those links, that would be appreciated.

John

[Davey-T]

Don't think things have improved particularly, I have new last March  that failed before Christmas, waiting for the present situation to improve before returning it.

The main problem is that there is no such thing as a normal Quark so everyone is different and while supposedly meets some sort of minimum standard they all vary and Daystar admit this on their site in so many words.

Dave

[johngm]

56 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Don't think things have improved particularly, I have new last March  that failed before Christmas, waiting for the present situation to improve before returning it.

The main problem is that there is no such thing as a normal Quark so everyone is different and while supposedly meets some sort of minimum standard they all vary and Daystar admit this on their site in so many words.

Dave

Thanks for the feedback Dave. So, it sounds like they haven't been listening to there customers concerns, and have not improved there quality control.  I do understand your point also, about variation, and expectations, but you would think a company like Daystar would have a set minimum standard, and the optics fully checked before dispatch. 

Regards John 

[Davey-T]

They mass produce the mica etalons then grade them saving the best ones for their high end filters then the rest go to the Quark, not sure how they decide a cut off point, must be a temptation to slip a few borderline ones through if the demand is there.

Another "problem" is that they only post pictures from top performing Quarks on their site.

Dave

[johngm]

1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

They mass produce the mica etalons then grade them saving the best ones for their high end filters then the rest go to the Quark, not sure how they decide a cut off point, must be a temptation to slip a few borderline ones through if the demand is there.

Another "problem" is that they only post pictures from top performing Quarks on their site.

Dave

I've also noticed that Youtube Vlogers who have large followings are also given premium examples for reviews. Chucks Astrophotography is a prime example, although i will admit i like his channel.

John

[Tomatobro]

its a lottery. The performance of mine (6 months old) is very VERY disappointing. Hopefully it will be exchanged when the lock down eases but I am not holding my breath.

[Carbon Brush]

A few links to other threads on solar scopes, mentioning Daystar.
No particular order and no responsibility accepted for accuracy or completeness🙂

 

[George Gearless]

Interesting timing. I was on the verge of purchasing one. But like you, I was worried about the reports of very variable quality.

It's 'cheap' as solar telescopes go. But it's a big chuck of money for a telescope/eyepiece that essentialy can only be used for one thing. So I mailed FLO a couple of days ago and got a response yesterday. I asked if they did some sort of quality check before sending it out, or if they just shipped it as they got it from the manufacturer. 

The answer was this: There has been some variability in the performance of individual quark units. In normal times we could test a unit before despatching but at the current time that is not possible as our warehouse and warehouse staff are working under strict distancing rules and everyone else is working from home.

I interprate that as "we don't normaly test before sending. But if you ask us to, we will". And "currently we are not able to test it, even if you asked us to". The answer does not include an estimate as to when they will be operating normaly again. 

Personaly I have not quite given up on the Quark just yet. I'm reading about the alternatives as much as I can, but it seems to me that price is going to be the deciding factor here. I simply can't afford a solar scope that rivals the EvoStar 80mm (that I already own) and a Quark.

On the other hand; it doesn't matter if it's cheap, if it doesn't work. 

 

Edit: Daystar says that up to 120mm you do not need an UV/IR filter. Technicaly that may be so. But in their mail to me, FLO did recommend an UV/IR cut filter https://www.firstlightoptics.com/daystar-quark-solar-eyepieces/daystar-2-uvir-cut-filter.html for even my 80mm. That'll set you back another £119.  Just thought I'd mention that.

Edited May 15, 2020 by George Gearless

[Carbon Brush]

Thinking about UV/IR cut filters when 'building a solar scope.

I may be talking rubbish, so please feel free to correct me.

When we buy 'odinary' scopes, they are intended for looking at a night sky, or terrestrial targets.
The scope designers and manufacturers are not thinking in terms of the scope being subject to a lot of UV & IR, whether on paint or lens coatings.
We have all seen anodising and paint fade. Plastic becoming brittle, etc.
Not quite the same. But I have seen spectacle lens coatings craze from heating on a car dashboard.

If you use an 'ordinary' scope as your solar scope, do you risk this damage?
In particular bombarding the objective and tube internal paint with lots of UV?

This may be an argument for fitting a UV/IR cut filter in front of the scope, even if it is not deemed necessary.

To the best of my knowledge, reasons for the 'rusty' Coronado PST objectives were never fully explained.
The same goes for the cloudy blue glass filter in Lunt solar scopes.

Maybe I'm paranoid. 🤔 But when my LS60 is on the mount, but not being looked through, I use a cheap push on lens cap.
This reduces UV exposure significantly. Literally one second to fit or remove.

Looking forward to hearing informed comments.

David.
 

[Nigella Bryant]

I was the same when wanting to take the plunge into solar observing and imaging. After research I bought a second hand Lunt 60mm, later added a double stack. Very satisfied with the Lunt and a great scope. I also think a CAK Lunt filter would be a good starting point instead of a quark. Just my take on things.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Nigella Bryant
more comments added

[George Gearless]

13 hours ago, Carbon Brush said:

 

If you use an 'ordinary' scope as your solar scope, do you risk this damage?
In particular bombarding the objective and tube internal paint with lots of UV?

 

That's actualy a very good question. I'd like to know that as well.

[George Gearless]

I just checked with another supplier, Astroshop.eu in Germany. They said that they test most of the equipment before sending it off, but particularly the Quark is tested because they too are aware of the variable quality. As they put it in their mail "we don't want to send you a bad one ". The only problem is that Astroshop.eu is a VERY expensive place to shop. The Quark at FLO costs £999. Astroshop costs £1193. Yikes!

I think I'll wait for the normal operations at FLO and hope they'll test it for me before sending it. But I think I've pretty much made up my mind to go the Quark way.

[johninderby]

I have had a few very good deals from Astroshop as they offer substantial discounts occasionaly. Picked up a small mak for 75 quid less than the best UK price a few weeks ago. Prices are average for a German shop though on most things. A lot of astro kit is cheaper in the UK.

Edited May 16, 2020 by johninderby

[BGazing]

I bought mine with TS more than a year ago (FLO was not yet selling them). They also advertise with 'we test it on the Sun before we ship it'.

Well it arrived with what appeared to be a smudge on the back red filter. It took me a while to figure out that the best setting for it is -5 (all the way CCW).

Honestly, I expect that 'testing on the sun' would also involve figuring out where the best setting is, as on the other settings the Sun appears featureless. 

My Quark has been serving me well and it is one of the best purchases I have made, completely transformed my observing patterns.

I am sure a double stacked 80mm Ha Scope would be better, or a more expensive Ha back etalon...however...

 

Here's a link with my experiences

 

[David Smith]

16 hours ago, George Gearless said:

I just checked with another supplier, Astroshop.eu in Germany. They said that they test most of the equipment before sending it off, but particularly the Quark is tested because they too are aware of the variable quality. As they put it in their mail "we don't want to send you a bad one ". The only problem is that Astroshop.eu is a VERY expensive place to shop. The Quark at FLO costs £999. Astroshop costs £1193. Yikes!

I think I'll wait for the normal operations at FLO and hope they'll test it for me before sending it. But I think I've pretty much made up my mind to go the Quark way.

Remember you have a 30 day no-quibble return option with FLO. So you can test and return if not happy.

[George Gearless]

3 hours ago, David Smith said:

Remember you have a 30 day no-quibble return option with FLO. So you can test and return if not happy.

True.

 

I'd just like to avoid that hassle of having to send packages back and forth between England and Denmark if I can avoid it. Keep in mind, I am a first time user of both the Quark/Lunt/other sun telescopes. So I have no frame of reference. If I had a professional give it a 'once over' before being shipped, I'd feel so much more comfortable. Through references from this forum in particular, I trust FLOs expertise entirely.