20 replies to this topic

[moshen]

I'm finding with a 32mm Brandon EP in the Quark the eye placement is very finicky. It has to be exact or you'll get blackouts. Additionally because of the 21mm etalon I only get maybe a 35 degree afov out of the 32mm EP.  I have no problem with the performance of the Quark - details are great once eye placement is exact but it's nothing like viewing through a normal eyepiece at DSO in terms of comfort.  I heard this is a common complaint with the Quark, perhaps because of both the etalon size and the 4.3x barlow.

 

For those who visually use a Quark as well as a dedicated solar scope (I'm thinking about a Lunt LS60 or LS80 with a larger blocking filter), is the experience viewing visually much easier and is comfort similar to using eyepieces normally as on DSO?

 

I don't really have issues with the Quark heat up time, but I'm thinking if there is a large increase in viewing comfort than a dedicated solar scope might be worth the cost for me.  If there are similar issues with finicky eye placement and blackouts with dedicated scopes then choosing a smaller scope to use with the Quark for full disc views might be the better option.

 

Any experiences here would be appreciated.

Edited by moshen, 31 May 2019 - 04:37 PM.

[msl615]

OK...I can weigh in on this first, but I am sure you are going to get a lot of perspectives in others who have much more solar time than I do.

 

I actually moved from a dedicated Lunt H50   to the Quark for the opposite reasons: I found the H50 to be very hard to visualize with eyepieces, vs the relative ease of the Quark. I use TV32 and 20mm plossls along with a Stellarvue 25mm. I tried a 40mm TV plossl for one season, but eye placement was too hard for me.

 

With the 40mm it was critical to use an eyepiece extender to be of much use. With the 32mm, I use a Dioptrx anyway, and that places my eye at the perfect distance. I found eyecups essential both for placement and for any extra help with light leaks.

 

Yes, the placement is tough, and I tell others to stand back, find the red dot, and then take their eyes to dot. Otherwise, they don't see anything. This was especially the case for the H50. 

 

Does the Brandon 32 have an eyecup to help place and hold your eye:?

 

Also, the 21mm field stop of the Quark is less than the 32mm and 25mm, so you have to compensate for that in calculations of FOV, etc, but I don't think that should impact how easy it is to see through, eye-placement, etc. 

 

That is my perspective and it might be different for your eyes and situation. I sold the H50 and now only use the Quark.

 

BTW,  high quality WF eyepieces (PANs etc) are almost impossible to use in my hands. Too much glass, too many reflections. Quark recommends the relative simple plossls, and I can see why.

 

 

Mike

Edited by msl615, 31 May 2019 - 04:52 PM.

[dscarpa]

 I was considering a Quark but having to use narrow FOV eyepieces put me off. I didn't realize  that the FOV  was made even narrower by the Quark, 35* is like a monocentric . I just ordered a Coronado  III 90 DS from Astronomics!   David

[bobito]

I can say my LS60 is just as comfortable to look through as my night time scopes, as long as I put a dark towel over my head.  If you are not covering your head when viewing that may be adding to your difficulty with eye placement.

 

I am interested in what other have to say about the Quark as what you stated about your experience is a concern for me.  Long eye relief and large eye lenses don't seem to be ideal things to have when viewing in the daytime.

[Tyson M]

The LS60 B1200 was one of the finest scopes I have used, brought me a lot of joy.  No issues with eyepieces like the 32 Plossl.  I was having problems with the LS50 and the 32 plossl, because of the small focal length of the 50, eyeplacement was very hard to use.

 

The LS80 gets amazing reviews, if you can afford it I wouldn't hesitate.  I have looked through one and it is truly amazing, a wonderful step up from 60mm.  Not sure about the DS module for it, you will have to read more about that.

 

That being said, I want to buy a quark for my TSA102S....if I don't like that then I will buy a  LS80 someday

Edited by Tyson M, 31 May 2019 - 05:21 PM.

[moshen]

OK...I can weigh in on this first, but I am sure you are going to get a lot of perspectives in others who have much more solar time than I do.

 

I actually moved from a dedicated Lunt H50   to the Quark for the opposite reasons: I found the H50 to be very hard to visualize with eyepieces, vs the relative ease of the Quark. I use TV32 and 20mm plossls along with a Stellarvue 25mm. I tried a 40mm TV plossl for one season, but eye placement was too hard for me.

 

Thanks for weighing in. Which blocking filter did you use for the H50 and do you think it would have been easier with a larger one with comfort and eye placement?

That's very interesting you feel the Lunt 50 was more difficult than the Quark. I find you have to be very precise with the Quark, both in distance and position or the view can immediately black out. 

 

When I use the 32mm eyepiece with 2 stacked 2x barlows on the sky or terrestrial, I get the same very finicky eye placement as with the Quark. So I have a feeling the built in 4.3x barlow is part of the cause.

 

As for afov, I know I can go down to a 25mm Plossl and get the full 50degree afov, but with the 4.3x barlow that becomes a bit too much for my seeing.

[moshen]

 I was considering a Quark but having to use narrow FOV eyepieces put me off. I didn't realize  that the FOV  was made even narrower by the Quark, 35* is like a monocentric . I just ordered a Coronado  III 90 DS from Astronomics!   David

 

I have a feeling it's not the 21mm front Etalon that is the afov restriction but the 12mm front blocking filter. With my f/6.6 refractor may be vignetting even more than the 21mm Etalon does. 

 

The Quark Combo has a larger front blocking filter however you also need to buy a 4x Powermate to go with it.

[bobito]

...

 

The Quark Combo has a larger front blocking filter however you also need to buy a 4x Powermate to go with it.

I had never noticed that.  I'd guess that since both have "21mm clear aperture" that the FOV is the same.  I wonder if that is a type-o?  12mm to 25mm for a blocking filter is a significant difference.

[moshen]

I had never noticed that.  I'd guess that since both have "21mm clear aperture" that the FOV is the same.  I wonder if that is a type-o?  12mm to 25mm for a blocking filter is a significant difference.

 

Because the blocking filter is in front of the barlow in the non-combo version it can be smaller. However Daystar mentioned that the Quark Combo can get you more afov (depending on refractor speed?):

 

https://www.cloudyni...ions/?p=7177835

[bobito]

Thanks for the info!  Odd Daystar doesn't have that info anywhere on their site.

[Eddgie]

I have used multiple scopes now (PST, LUNT 60, Meade Solarmax II 60 DS and the Quark).

 

Now, I am going to say this at the same time that I my actions are going to sound contradictory, but that shows I have no great bias here.

 

The chief advantages of the dedicated scopes are many:

• Full Disk sun
• Light and compact
• No warmup and no delay when doppler tuning (and this is actually a pretty serious issue for people that like to doppler tune a lot). 
• Can even be binoviewed for full disk sun (I had my Lunt 60 set up for this and had wonderful views.  

The chief disadvantage:

• Cost  per cm of aperture
• Band width (double stacking really amps up the price)
• Since apertures are small, getting high power views to study fine detail can seriously dim the image

And this leads me to my advice:  For visual use, If you are fine with the warmup and need to use high powers, then using the Quark with something like an 80mm refractor for lower powers and a larger refractor for higher powers, then a dedicated double stack telescope that can provide band pass similar to the quark is a very expensive proposition.

 

If though, a lot of your observing sessions are short, or you would do more observing if you could just carry out a small scope, set it up, and look though, then a dedicated solar scope does indeed make a lot of sense.  Just like the difference between a big reflector and a small refractor, many people will say that they use the small refractor as much or more as the larger reflector because it is quick and easy to use.

 

Now I have moved more to the Quark approach because I find myself spending more time studying the smaller details (I am purely visual) and am going to sell my 60mm Double Stack because as my focus is more on seeing the fine detail in surface features and proms, and the 60mm does not allow me to use the high magnifications I am using these days.

 

It is hard to do, but I told myself that if the Quark worked out for high power, then the money to buy the Quark would come from the sale of the double stacked 60.  My standard practice in recent years is to have a financially neutral position in astro gear.  If something new comes into the house, some amount of gear of the same the same value has to go away to pay for it.   I have not spent any new money on Astro gear in several years (not including my image intensifier).   

 

I am sure I will miss the quick look capability of the Meade 60DS, but I was ready for more detailed study.  I hate the slow tuning of the quark, but on the other hand, I could never afford a 120mm dedicated solar scope and with the Quark and my 120ED, I have that.

 

I do think that in a perfect world having both is the best solution. but if I could only have one or the other, I suppose it would be the Quark, and in this case, my financial discipline requires the sale of the Meade.   

 

(I have not sold the Meade yet because my Quark is back at Daystar for service, and sometimes I think about simply keeping it because it really is handy to be able to take a quick peek.   My money rules are pretty strict though so there can be only one). 

 

Now, the big question is for quick looks is it worth the cost of a double stack setup because having used the Quark, you may find that the step down to a 7 angstrom system (single stack) is a hard bullet to bite.   Having used mostly single stack systems before the Meade 60 DS, I would be hard pressed to go back to single stack.  Going double stack though is a big hit to the wallet.

 

Do you think you could be happy with single stack, and if not, is your budget for the stand alone scope going to let you get double stacked?  If not, you may find that you would feel cheated going to a dedicated single stack.  That would require you to budget appropriately. 

 

If cost were no object, I would be using a Lunt 100 DS rather than the Quark because of all of the advantages it offers.  It just comes at an insanely high price. 

Edited by Eddgie, 01 June 2019 - 12:21 PM.

[NorthernlatAK]

I have not looked through any ha scopes at all yet but am leaning towards a quark. For reasons you have stated I'm wanting a 4" f10 with quark to start my adventure into ha and feel the double stacked dedicated scopes are far too expensive for me. I feel like an f10 will get me close to on band well and 4" is enough aperture for good detail.
I have heard the larger (90mm+) ds dedicated scopes are phenomenal to look through. I just can't do that to my wallet with 5 yr old twins to raise.

[moshen]

I have used multiple scopes now (PST, LUNT 60, Meade Solarmax II 60 DS and the Quark).

 

Now, I am going to say this at the same time that I my actions are going to sound contradictory, but that shows I have no great bias here.

 

The chief advantages of the dedicated scopes are many:

• Full Disk sun
• Light and compact
• No warmup and no delay when doppler tuning (and this is actually a pretty serious issue for people that like to doppler tune a lot). 
• Can even be binoviewed for full disk sun (I had my Lunt 60 set up for this and had wonderful views.  

 

 

Thanks Eddgie, very helpful. I noticed you didn't put viewing comfort or wider afov as an advantage. Having not spent much time with a dedicated scope, do you feel the finicky eye placement in the Quark also happens with your dedicated scopes? Besides that very sensitive eye placement - the very narrow afoot (35 degrees?) in the partial view of the sun (with my 92mm f/6.6, the shortest scope I have) are my main issues with the Quark.

[dscarpa]

 My excellent single tilt etalon Lunt 60 B1200 is as easy my night scopes  to view through. I use 82* eyepieces with only a little vignetting when you add a barlow.  The Coronado 90 IIs are still being sold at discount, the 90 II DS BF15  for $3,500 for example.  People who bought them posted about their helical focusers being poor and a $500 Moonlite is the only replacement.  I waited for a sale to swing for the 90 III DS BF15 saving $930 in addition to a $250 Cloudy Nights discount. OPT stopped  their rewards program after it was sold. Bad move OPT. David

Edited by dscarpa, 01 June 2019 - 02:01 PM.

[moshen]

 

Now, the big question is for quick looks is it worth the cost of a double stack setup because having used the Quark, you may find that the step down to a 7 angstrom system (single stack) is a hard bullet to bite.   Having used mostly single stack systems before the Meade 60 DS, I would be hard pressed to go back to single stack.  Going double stack though is a big hit to the wallet.

 

Eddgie, so you find your Quark to be better than single stack. I know there isn't much surface detail these days but how does your Meade 60 DS compare in contrast to your Quark?

[MalVeauX]

Heya,

 

I've done both dedicated single & double stack dedicated scopes up to 60mm aperture, and huge aperture single stacks with a Quark up to 200mm.

 

I used to think aperture was king, even for visual.

 

It's very personal for one thing. It's not as simple as "this" is better than "that."

 

What I've found for my own personal bias with respect to visual is that I would rather have a dedicated, shorter double stack for pure visual over a larger aperture single stack (Quark or not!) in most situations. The Quark is fairly comfortable, but as many have noted, eye position matters a lot and so it's not something you stand and sway around trying to do, it's better to sit and be comfortable and careful so you can take in the view. I found binoviews to improve this immensely, to the point where I don't really get black outs with my binoviewers, I don't know why, but I can look through them and get very few tunnel like looks with binos with my Quark, which makes viewing with my Quark about as comfortable as using a dedicated short telescope for the same purpose. So for me, if it was a single stack, I'll take my Quark plus binos over any dedicated small aperture single stack. So in this way, I will favor aperture because my Quark + binos is about as comfortable and quite better than most small aperture single stacks. But, that's the caveat, single stacking viewing. I highly recommend you never look through a double stack unless you're ready to spend money. It's that much better. Enough that I made the statement about, I will take a visual only dedicated double stacked scope for solar viewing, over a much larger aperture single stack solar scope for visual purposes. The double stack is just more contrasty, the continuum at the limb supressed, and plages and filaments pop very bright and dark so the contrast is very good. Visually, I absolutely love looking through a double stacked 60mm for example way more than even looking through my 120mm with a Quark and binoviewer. They are both comfortable to look through (with the binos). So it came down to the visual difference and the contrast beats aperture in my book, under casual viewing conditions for most features. Granted, I have a 200mm HA scope, but I still would rather look through a much smaller double stack. The smaller aperture will work almost all the time and not be seeing dependent like a big aperture scope will be, and the contrast of the double stack is so much different that I prefer it over a large aperture single stack. That said, double stacking makes it dimmer. But, a full disc with a long focal length eyepiece is very bright in a double stack. If your goal is high resolution viewing, the double stacks will be very dim. For some, too dim! But, when I'm doing casual visual, I'm not looking through a big scope. Most people are not because of the setup time and seeing limits. While it will provide a higher resolution view with a big aperture and the Quark, it's not nearly as fast and simple as a much smaller double stack dedicated scope that doesn't need a tracking mount to operate, etc, and weigh over 20+lbs and all that. So again, for visual, I'd take a smaller double stack over a larger aperture single stack and Quark.

 

The easiest and most pleasing visual experience for me so far is a full disc FOV (low power) with long focal length eyepieces (bright view) through any aperture double-stack (generally smaller due to size/cost) such as 60mm, give or take based on budget. Instant views. Bright views. Comfortable to view, for me it was no different than viewing at night through a typical refractor and typical eyepiece setup. If you're ok with full disc views, and/or much dimmer high power views, then this is the easiest, simplest, best way to go in my book. The double stack views are just so contrasty and gorgeous that I prefer them, visually, over a much larger aperture single stack.

 

If your interests are high resolution, a single stack is pretty much it, because to crank up the power of magnification in a double stack is going to come from having either shorter focal length eyepieces and a double stack (dim view) or a really large aperture double stacked ($$$$$). Mean while, a large aperture single stack will be much brighter and show you every little detail if seeing allows. For me, this is where my Quark & Binoviewers come in, with my larger scopes (120mm to 200mm) when seeing allows.

 

Either way, I find binoviewers on either system much more comfortable and easy to use than a monoview approach. My Quark + bino is about as comfy to use as my single eyepiece dedicated scopes. The difference again comes down to contrast and brightness and for my eyes a double stack simple provides the better easier fast visual experience if you want it easy and comfortable.

 

Best way to do it? Both! But when I'm in my later years and I have to choose between my biggest single stack and a small double stack, for visual, it will be the small double stack for visual every time.

 

As for eyepiece selection, for either system, I much prefer simple high contrast eyepieces that are longer focal length. They're just more comfortable to me and very bright with high contrast. The sun is what, 1 degree? So having a 4~5 degree or larger FOV from a fancy eyepiece doesn't get you anything. I've tried nicer eyepieces on different setups and at the end of the day, I'm happy with a cheap 32mm~25mm plossl over something far better when it comes to HA viewing. Bright and high contrast, FOV doesn't matter much, again, you're not looking at a star field you're looking at 1 star and it's 1 degree visually so it sort of makes it really, really easy in that sense. But I absolutely consider binoviewers a must!

 

40mm Double Stack

60mm Double Stack

40~80mm Single Stack (ST80 + Quark + Binos)

120mm Single Stack (F8 + Quark + Binos)

150mm Single Stack (F8 + Quark + Binos)

200mm Single Stack (F10 + Quark + Binos)

 

 

I would want a double stacked 90mm dedicated scope if I had to choose just one for the rest of my solar-experience-days visually and for imaging. Binos & double stacking is just bliss when it comes to HA visual.

 

Very best,

Edited by MalVeauX, 01 June 2019 - 08:39 PM.

[Eddgie]

Eddgie, so you find your Quark to be better than single stack. I know there isn't much surface detail these days but how does your Meade 60 DS compare in contrast to your Quark?

Hard to compare a scope that can give a 4mm or 5mm exit pupil (the Meade) to one that can only do a 1.3mm exit pupil (120ED).  At lower powers, the view in the Meade is very contrasty, but at about 60x, the view dims enough that some of the contrast is hard to utilize.  At 95x in the 120ED, the view is not as dim as in the 60mm at 60x, but the contrast still looks pretty good, because this is a 1.3mm exit pupil compared to a 1mm exit pupil in the Meade at 60x. 

 

So, hard to really compare.  To do it right, I would have to use a 60mm scope and have the same magnification.

[dscarpa]

 I use at least 90X  more often than not in my single tilt etalon Lunt 60.  Hope I don't regret getting the 90 DS if it's going to be dim at that power. Guess I can always take a etalon off. No binoviewers  for me till I get my bad right eye fixed.  David

[bandazar]

I'd rather just have a single stack low angstrom scope than a double stack.  Double stack adds weight and reflections (based on my experience with the coronado 90mm (type I or type II I don't remember), if I were going to go that route.  Yes, I know proms are harder to see in low angstroms, but you can counter that to some extent by the amount of brightness that is allowed to reach into the scope.  It may wash out surface details, but lower angstroms can potentially bring out more edge detail.

[Tom Dugan]

I never expected I would have anything to say on this forum, because I was never interested in solar enough to spend more than could pay for a decent white-light aperture filter. Then I went to NEAF this year.

 

I spent both days there, and because that's a lot of time for a relatively small conference I spent a lot of it out in the yard at the solar setup. Comparing Coronado with Lunt with Daystar was enlightening, and I was getting hooked.

 

Like Marty said, it's personal, so your opinion will be different from mine. In comparing all three at the same time under the same conditions I thought the Quark showed every bit as much if not more than the dedicated solar scopes (single and double stacked, if memory serves). So inside I spent some time talking to Daystar and ended up getting the Quark Chromosphere.

 

I'm running it on a Explore Scientific 127ED, 952mm fl, so with the Quark built-in telecentric jacking that up to 4000mm efl, that's making for a tiny exit pupil. I found my Meade 40mm widefield gave the best view, and then found that by screwing a 0.5X focal reducer on the EP gave a really great view, so then I was ready to give it a real test - outreach.

 

Yesterday our club partnered with the local library in kicking off their summer reading program by showing the sun via projection, full-aperture-filtered white light, and H-alpha. We had a couple of hundred kids and parents come through. Most had no problem finding that little ruby-red porthole and moving in to look through it, so I won't have any qualms running the same rig for other outreach events.

 

Anyway, moshen, there are two takeaways from my experience: That in a head-to-head comparison the Quark more than held its own against Lunt and Coronado (btw, all scopes I looked through at NEAF were 80mm-90mm, I think), and that a focal reducer might make a real difference for your viewing. I'm using the 1.25" Highpoint model, fwiw. Thirty bucks.

 

-Tom

Edited by Tom Dugan, 02 June 2019 - 11:21 AM.

[dscarpa]

 I suspect the DS scopes will come into their own when the Sun perks up a bit, there's not a lot of surface features of late.  Can't say I was comfortable with using my beloved black WO ZS110  with a Quark without a front ERF.  I also have a empty Unistar-AP tripod that needed a scope and no need for another night one which made the getting the 90 DS more appealing for me. At some point  I'm getting an adapter for the ZS110  and Im keeping the Lunt 60 B1200  so I can have a single stack shootout or be a one man band for solar outreach.. David.

Edited by dscarpa, 02 June 2019 - 02:11 PM.