11 replies to this topic

[Nathan_2448]

Hello folks!

I am quite experienced with deep sky imaging of galaxy/nebulae and would like to try my hand at solar imaging (solar flares and granulation). I have only done solar observations through an eyepiece with Baader film up to this point. I have come to understand that I basically have two options to choose from... getting a dedicated solar scope such as a Lunt, or getting a Daystar Quark. The Lunt scopes are dedicated to solar imaging and may perform better with less hassle, but the Daystar Quark could potentially allow me to use many of my scopes with different apertures and focal lengths. Anyone have any advice or recommendations? Thank you!

[EdFromNH]

A few months ago I bought a Lunt 50.  Prior to that I had only done white light (film and wedge).  I struggled with the same issue you are, and I liked the idea of switching the etalon among scopes.  I decided against the Quark because of many complaints of high variability in quality among the etalons (no personal experience, read about here).  I also didn't like the idea of the built in 4x telecentric which would make a mosaic a requirement for full disk (apparently with a reducer and a short FL it's possible).  In retrospect, the more zoomed in views are quite exciting and maybe I should've gone the other way.  There are also etalons from Solar spectrum. Like all the other brands, there is a lead time, but they are said to be less variable in quality (no personal experience, read here).  I'm happy with my Lunt for now, but I'm sure I'll want something else in the future.  So I probably didn't help you decide, sorry. 

 

Edit:  there is a dedicated solar imaging forum here, so maybe a mod can move this there.

Edited by EdFromNH, 06 September 2024 - 08:39 PM.

[GDAstrola]

The Lunt scopes with MT in the model number are modular.  That allows the user to switch between a scope with an etalon for Hydrogen-alpha use or then the removal of said filter and one then has use of a capable refractor telescope.  I will defer to others whether it is a triplet or doublet.

Enjoy.

[t-ara-fan]

I have a Lunt50. Love it. Good bang for the buck.

The Quark is tuned by a heater, so when you make a tweak to the band tuning there is a time delay before you see your results. That might be annoying.

My Lunt50 and 6mm filter can do a full disk of the sun with my ASI178MM (discontinued). Convenient.

[dcaponeii]

You should ask the folks in Solar Observing and Imaging.  This is the wrong forum for your question

[EdFromNH]

I have a Lunt50. Love it. Good bang for the buck.

The Quark is tuned by a heater, so when you make a tweak to the band tuning there is a time delay before you see your results. That might be annoying.

My Lunt50 and 6mm filter can do a full disk of the sun with my ASI178MM (discontinued). Convenient.

I forgot about disliking the heater based tuning.  Thanks for bringing that up, as it's an important consideration.  I also have the Lunt50/6mm and get full disk with the PlayerOne Apollo-M mini.  Still full disk with a 1.6 barlow, and I get more zoomed views with a powermate.  But still resolution limited at 50mm aperture (but I do like it).  And it was good bang for the buck (the 40mm is also a good deal).

[RedLionNJ]

Why is this is the planetary imaging forum? Moved to somewhere more appropriate.

[Prasad]

Hello folks!

I am quite experienced with deep sky imaging of galaxy/nebulae and would like to try my hand at solar imaging (solar flares and granulation). I have only done solar observations through an eyepiece with Baader film up to this point. I have come to understand that I basically have two options to choose from... getting a dedicated solar scope such as a Lunt, or getting a Daystar Quark. The Lunt scopes are dedicated to solar imaging and may perform better with less hassle, but the Daystar Quark could potentially allow me to use many of my scopes with different apertures and focal lengths. Anyone have any advice or recommendations? Thank you!

First, get a good reference book like Solar Astronomy. It is worth it. 

 

For solar imaging the camera must capture at very high rate, like greater than 100 or 200 frames per second. Deepsky imaging cameras may not give you such high frame rates because they are really made for long exposure captures.

 

Seeing conditions is the next thing to worry about. The Earth's atmosphere causes significant blurring of the captures. Air currents and winds are the reason. Being close to a home is an issue as heating or cooling systems cause turbulence in the air.  Being at high altitude location helps. 

 

All comments/suggestions made in the previous posts are relevant and must be considered. 

 

Good luck, and welcome to solar observing and imaging forum

Prasad 

[Sebastian_Sajaroff]

I have a Quark Prominence, which I use on a 70 mm F/6 ED refractor.
I don’t do any photography, but I can tell you the view is just breathtaking : prominences, spicules, filaments, flares, granulation, sunspots and other surface details come into life.
I observe with a 32 mm Plossl (that becomes equivalent to 7.5 mm) but still gives me a full disk, and my Baader zoom between 20 and 24 mm (partial disk view).
I was split between buying a Lunt or a Quark as well.

Lunt pros :
It’s specifically made for solar
They have a solid reputation (product and support).

Lunt cons :

I don’t like the idea of having two telescopes, specially
if one of them is dedicated to a single target.

Solar maximum is now, didn’t want to wait 6+ months for delivery.

A Lunt > 70 mm is far more expensive than a Quark

Quark pros :

Took me a 15 minutes bus to visit the astronomy brick and mortar shop, talk to the guys about their experience with Quark products and got back home with a Prominence they had right away.

It’s a small tube with a cable and a tiny charger, the whole is one pound.

Quark cons :

They made themselves a reputation of poor quality control.
Thankfully, looks like I won solar lottery.
The view on my 70 ED is MUCH better than on my club 40 mm Lunt, and matches our 80 mm Lunt.

The astronomy shop guys insisted on my telescope quality, according to them, many complaints about mediocre view on Quark come from poor achromatic telescopes, or not sticking to the focal ratio guidelines.

Having to keep it plugged all time

Waiting 15 minutes every time you tweak the tuning.
Most of the time, I keep the central position but had to turn left a couple of positions during hot days. I know it works between 40F and 100F.

Edited by Sebastian_Sajaroff, 07 September 2024 - 03:46 PM.

[cptbobrfh]

I have a Quark Prominence, which I use on a 70 mm F/6 ED refractor.
I don’t do any photography, but I can tell you the view is just breathtaking : prominences, spicules, filaments, flares, granulation, sunspots and other surface details come into life.
I observe with a 32 mm Plossl (that becomes equivalent to 7.5 mm) but still gives me a full disk, and my Baader zoom between 20 and 24 mm (partial disk view).
I was split between buying a Lunt or a Quark as well.

Lunt pros :
It’s specifically made for solar
They have a solid reputation (product and support).

Lunt cons :

I don’t like the idea of having two telescopes, specially
if one of them is dedicated to a single target.

Solar maximum is now, didn’t want to wait 6+ months for delivery.

A Lunt > 70 mm is far more expensive than a Quark

Quark pros :

Took me a 15 minutes bus to visit the astronomy brick and mortar shop, talk to the guys about their experience with Quark products and got back home with a Prominence they had right away.

It’s a small tube with a cable and a tiny charger, the whole is one pound.

Quark cons :

They made themselves a reputation of poor quality control.
Thankfully, looks like I won solar lottery.
The view on my 70 ED is MUCH better than on my club 40 mm Lunt, and matches our 80 mm Lunt.

The astronomy shop guys insisted on my telescope quality, according to them, many complaints about mediocre view on Quark come from poor achromatic telescopes, or not sticking to the focal ratio guidelines.

Having to keep it plugged all time

Waiting 15 minutes every time you tweak the tuning.
Most of the time, I keep the central position but had to turn left a couple of positions during hot days. I know it works between 40F and 100F.

I am a Quark-aholic! I have 2 Quark's and the views thru both of them are incredible!

I also believe, as well, are the problems associated with Achromats and Quark usage.I tried BOTH Quark's on multiple Achromats and compared the visual views with ED refractors. No comparison. It was like comparing day and night! My ED refractors blew the Achromats out of the water! 

My personal opinion: When using a Quark, get a ED refractor!

[astroflak88]

Get a Lunt 60 MT with Double stack. You won't regret it. I also have a quark gemini, they are both good. 

[BYoesle]

First, forget everything about imaging for nighttime DSO processing and applying it to solar imaging. You don't need Pixinsight, etc. The KISS principal is best. Otherwise you might just end up doing lots of stupid things - like imitating "popular" inverted disc modern art.

 

 

If you haven't already, read the Best of Solar Forum posts, and get a good book on solar observing and more complex issues, learn how to tune a narrow band solar filter to get on band, and learn the difference between a prominence, a flare, faculae, granulation, and plage. No, really; it's important.

 

I started with DayStar in 1976, and still use a newer PE grade etalon from DayStar. But if I had to do it over again, today I'd go with Solar Spectrum for a mica etalon system, and use a true telecentric lens from Baader.

 

The tuning lag and temperature set variability are significant issues, and will also vary with telescope f ratio. If you are new to narrow-band H alpha, mica etalons are not the best way to start these days when tilt or pressure tuned etalons are now available and respond instantly. I think the mica etalons are better suited to experienced observers and specialized hi-res imaging.

 

The better performance for Ha would be a f10-15 achromat over a shorter FR ED or apochromat. This will give a mica filter a better bandpass performance with a telecentric, but generally result in a longer EFL - possibly requiring using a focal reducer after the filter. Generally not the best choice for full-disc views or imaging.

 

You might get lucky with a Quark, but nowadays even with the expensive higher-end DayStar etalons they are often unable to meet the specified bandpass, and you also might be in for a nightmare.

 

Here's what one dealer stated regarding the Quark:

 

In simple terms the Quark is a cheap etalon that is not subject to much in the way of QC. Having learnt what you get when you make filters that way, we eventually decided to sun test every filter we received. We were not looking for perfect uniformity, that's not fair on a budget filter like this but dark shadows through the FOV, scratches and fingerprints etc can't be considered acceptable either. We mutually parted company because Daystar would no longer replace the stock we returned. I don't know of many other dealers who test Quarks so customers get what they get. It could be that something I returned to Daystar as poor would be accepted by an enduser as OK. Looking at your top images, that would have been a fail for me.

Solarchat

 

...and having had several Quarks I sold (that were tested by us as 'good') come back for repair, and sent away with 'repair - DO NOT replace!' and always getting back a new one of indifferent quality, I have never regretted making the change to Solar Spectrum filters!

Solarchat

 

So for air-spaced etalons, I'd go with Lunt. For mica etalons, go with Solar Spectrum. If there is a problem, customer service will usually be better.

 

Solarscope air-spaced etalons are also very good, but VERY expensive.

 

 

Edited by BYoesle, 08 September 2024 - 11:19 AM.