Lunt 40mm or Daystar 60mm for imaging

[bluesilver]

Hi,  Not sure if i have got this in the corrects section,  sorry if i have it incorrect.

I have always been doing DSO Imaging and a bit of planetary imaging and now i am looking at getting a scope to try out some Solar imaging.

Been doing lots of research and just getting more confused the more i research

I think i have got my choices down to type brands at least, but please correct me if i am going down the wrong track here.

I was looking at either the Lunt 40mm or the DayStar Sloar Scout 60mm with Quark filter,  they both seam to be around the same price even though one is 40mm and the other 60mm,  plus two very different scopes.

Is the Lunt the better quality of the two?

My plan was to imaging the sun and if possible to get the hole disk in the same frame.

The Lunt comes with different filters, and from what i can read,  it appears the 1200 or 12mm filter is the one to use for imaging?

The DayStar is a bit more confusing,  it comes with two options, CHROMOSPHERE or DS H-ALPHA, the Chromospher is a bit more pricy than the other,  but not my much.

i don't really want to go all out and get a 60mm Lunt when only just starting out in Solar imaging.

Can all the ones i mentioned also be used for visual use as well?

Any advice on these scopes would be appreciated,

I won't go into cameras and field of view yet,  just trying to get an understanding on which way i should be looking.

Ideally an image of surface detail and showing flares would be the goal,  but just not sure if i am looking or heading in the right direction here.

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

[Elp]

They can both be used for visual and imaging I believe but note there is an additional challenge in getting your gear to reach focus when doing solar imaging.

The two Daystar variants you've mentioned I believe are two different things. The chromosphere quark is an eyepiece which you can use with any telescope (refractor recommended, larger scopes over 80 odd mm will benefit from an additional DERF placed on the objective to minimise the heat energy entering the scope and to offer some protection to the quark). There is also a prominence version (the former can also see prominences as well as surface detail so it the better choice of the two) as well as other elemental types.

The solar scout has the quark built in, the DS refers to the fact it is a double stack etalon, which tightens up the bandpass even more to reveal more detail and contrast but I'd be a little sceptical about it considering it's price point, double stack etalons for other scopes normally cost as much as the initial scope. The normal quark works fine (I've used it in an f5.9 apo), if you want more contrast a slower f10 or so scope even an acromat will do as the quark has a built in 4.2x Barlow or thereabouts. More detail requires larger aperture, which then needs a DERF (you can use a 35nm h alpha filter in front of the diagonal but for scopes larger than 100mm I think the DERF is the way to go).

The entry level daystars also have a quality lottery (they're made with their lowest quality etalons) so if going down that route use a retailer who quality check their equipment and have a good return or exchange policy.

Personally, id go with the Lunt as they're good quality (founding company employees were from Coronado), or you can get a Coronado PST to test the visual aspect, imaging is possible with the PST but it takes practice and specific equipment. I settled on the quark myself for my circumstances, I didn't want another scope sitting around and the quark takes up little space.