12 replies to this topic

[Supernova74]

I have on loan a Altair 72 EDF f6 435mm approximately f-length FPL-53 Doublet and a Daystar Quark chromosphere and this is the very first time i have managed to peek through a Quark and admittedly was very impressed with the results yesterday on the 18th of June.I have been wrestling with myself for several years now between a dedicated solar scope or the Quark being an alternative.However before there’s another total solar eclipse again in the UK it would be best to make my mind up.I chose this particular setup for my freind who wanted to observe the whole solar disk through the eyepiece and seems to work very well with a 32mm-40mm plossl eyepiece and any eyepiece below 20mm on average proves a little bit more difficult to achieve precise focus.

 

This was the sole reason initially why i was put off purchasing a daystar Quark chromosphere as  with longer focal length refractor telescope it’s kind of an all or nothing kind of scenario as the Quark has a built in Barlow lens.Some amateurs prefer this kind of observing style but for me I would like more control in being able to observe the whole sun through the eyepiece also being able to see the whole sun through the eyepiece.then if necessary i can zoom in more on certain regions of the sun with a shorter focal length eyepiece.

 

im currently looking at two refractor telescopes one is an Altair 102 ED doublet at f7 and f-length of 714mm,and the other scope is a Altair 102 triplet both scope share FPL-53 glass elements and share very similar spec apart from one being a triplet (which could be overkill)so if i wish to observe the suns full disc through any of the two telescopes with a focal length of 714mm or there abouts,what focal length eyepiece would be required.

 

it doesn’t have to be exsact but as a starting point.

Edited by Supernova74, 19 June 2025 - 07:24 AM.

[Astrojensen]

im currently looking at two refractor telescopes one is an Altair 102 ED doublet at f7 and f-length of 714mm,and the other scope is a Altair 102 triplet both scope share FPL-53 glass elements and share very similar spec apart from one being a triplet (which could be overkill)so if i wish to observe the suns full disc through any of the two telescopes with a focal length of 714mm or there abouts,what focal length eyepiece would be required.

 

it doesn’t have to be exsact but as a starting point.

You can't see the whole disk in with a Daystar Quark (standard version) on a refractor with a focal length longer than 450mm, regardless of what eyepiece you use. 

 

You can use a 0.5x focal reducer in the nosepiece of the Quark, if you want to see the whole disk, but the images are going to be a bit less contrast, since you're then going below the minimum f/ratio for the Quark. You could use a compressor and then stop the objective down a bit, but it would be easier to just use the 72mm f/6. 

 

But the 102mm will deliver substantially better details, so it's a tradeoff. Personally, I often prefer to see the increased details, rather than the full disk, and prefer larger telescopes over smaller ones. Except when I have to carry them. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Supernova74]

You can't see the whole disk in with a Daystar Quark (standard version) on a refractor with a focal length longer than 450mm, regardless of what eyepiece you use. 

 

You can use a 0.5x focal reducer in the nosepiece of the Quark, if you want to see the whole disk, but the images are going to be a bit less contrast, since you're then going below the minimum f/ratio for the Quark. You could use a compressor and then stop the objective down a bit, but it would be easier to just use the 72mm f/6. 

 

But the 102mm will deliver substantially better details, so it's a tradeoff. Personally, I often prefer to see the increased details, rather than the full disk, and prefer larger telescopes over smaller ones. Except when I have to carry them. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

Thankyou you Thomas and food for thought yes don’t want to start adding reducers in the optical chain 

Not for visual.

[pcrichmond]

I use a 70 f6 for full disk and an old 102 f6,5 achromat with the Quark.

Really enjoy the detail I get using the achro at the longer focal length but still keep it to a 25mm ep tops.

The 40-32mm ep range seems to work best for the Quark most of the time on either scope.

Still some nice views going on. Enjoy.

[Astrojensen]

Thankyou you Thomas and food for thought yes don’t want to start adding reducers in the optical chain 

Not for visual.

It can actually work extremely well for visual, but mostly on longer focal ratio instruments. I use a reducer even on my 6" f/8 ED, to get the magnification down to more reasonable levels. But the image starts to get noticeably soft, once you're going below f/4. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Jethro7]

Hello Supernova74 

Like you I podered off and on a Ha Solar viewing system for several years. About a month ago I settled on a Lunt Solar Systems scope. Even though the Lunt Solar scope was 4X the cost of a Quark, I feel I made the best desision. It seems that every time I would almost pull the trigger on a Quark. Some one on CN would post their horror story about trying to deal with Daystar's Customer Service. Daystar has a long history of apparently poor customer service. From these postings, the number one issues are, these individuals did not receive a Quark that  worked well or it broke and Daystar either did not care or was unresponsive. Dont get me wrong, there are many folks that are very happy with their Quarks but In the end  I did not want to take the chance on joining the ranks of the unhappy Quark owners. I'm very happy with the performance of my Lunt LS60MT scope and eagerly awaiting for the double stack Etalon. and have the peace of mind if I ever need it, that Lunt Solar Systems offers one of the very best customer support there is.

 

 

HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro

Edited by Jethro7, 19 June 2025 - 12:33 PM.

[BYoesle]

If you can afford it I'd get something more reliable than the inexpensive Quark.

 

Not sure if you are aware of the variable quality issues with the Quark (and other current DayStar products), and the Terms of Sale issues you'll might have with DayStar. This review covers those issues well.

 

What's your experience level? Have you looked through any other H-alpha solar telescope systems? A one-off example is not a very valid or reliable way to evaluate what you might want to get.

 

A f30 focal ratio or slower is needed for good mica etalon bandpass performance. Quarks that I have looked through (about 7) have been about 0.8 to 1.0+ A bandpasses - especially when used at less than f30. You might get a good one like the one you may have looked through, but many are pretty wide and not very uniform.

 

The Quark Combo doesn't include the built-in telecentric, so you can tailor the filter using your own telescope configuration, such as the traditional f15 refractor or cat and a 2X "telecnetric" Barlow like the TV Powermates, etc.

 

Also consider that using a front DERF (not a plain colored glass filter) at the objective will give the best overall performance and filter system longevity.

 

If you do get a Quark, make sure your dealer will take it back if there is any issue or your are dissatisfied for any reason.

 

Consider Solar Spectrum filters for a mica etalon alternative to the DayStar. The Suna or Baader Sun Dancer versions are closest to the Quark.

 

Lunt, and the new SkyWatcher HelioStar 76 are also good options for front etalons and/or complete H-alpha telescopes.

[Supernova74]

If you can afford it I'd get something more reliable than the inexpensive Quark.

 

Not sure if you are aware of the variable quality issues with the Quark (and other current DayStar products), and the Terms of Sale issues you'll might have with DayStar. This review covers those issues well.

 

What's your experience level? Have you looked through any other H-alpha solar telescope systems? A one-off example is not a very valid or reliable way to evaluate what you might want to get.

 

A f30 focal ratio or slower is needed for good mica etalon bandpass performance. Quarks that I have looked through (about 7) have been about 0.8 to 1.0+ A bandpasses - especially when used at less than f30. You might get a good one like the one you may have looked through, but many are pretty wide and not very uniform.

 

The Quark Combo doesn't include the built-in telecentric, so you can tailor the filter using your own telescope configuration, such as the traditional f15 refractor or cat and a 2X "telecnetric" Barlow like the TV Powermates, etc.

 

Also consider that using a front DERF (not a plain colored glass filter) at the objective will give the best overall performance and filter system longevity.

 

If you do get a Quark, make sure your dealer will take it back if there is any issue or your are dissatisfied for any reason.

 

Consider Solar Spectrum filters for a mica etalon alternative to the DayStar. The Suna or Baader Sun Dancer versions are closest to the Quark.

 

Lunt, and the new SkyWatcher HelioStar 76 are also good options for front etalons and/or complete H-alpha telescopes.

Firstly yes i have peeked through several solar telescopes from both Lunt and Corronado.Most recently i peeked through an older Lunt LS80 tha and admittedly wasn’t exactly blown away with the performance after changing the blue glass and general service.Maybe i didn’t test the scope thoroughly enough to give a more fair assessment.However i also hear! through the nerd vine that even Lunt can get it wrong from time to time,also the internal etalons can actually vary in performance.I partly disagree calling a daystar quark “inexpensive” is not truly accurate at $1200-1300 a pop and for some amateurs is considered a fair junk of change.Yes compared to a Lunt solar telescope is chalk and cheese in price variation and the time you have added a suitable OTA! any filters that maybe required (maybe a ERF) as an overall solar setup still works out to be quite expensive.

 

Yes i feel deeply sorry for the individual who spent $10k on a daystar solar scope back in 2022 and can imagine this has put a lot of people off now and quite possibly in the feasible furture purchasing a daystar product.However from experience also add Losmandy,Orion optics UK to that list with several others i don’t care to mention.Sadly from time to time things can go drastically wrong and there will always be one or two negative feedback on the product itself also the manufacturer.Even the skywatcher Heliostar 76mm when first released had some teething issues.

[Jethro7]

Hello Supernova74,

"I also hear! through the nerd vine that even Lunt can get it wrong from time to time, also the internal etalons" yes this does happen from time to time but at least Lunt Solar Sytstems will go the distance to make it right. FWIW, Lunt got it right with my LS60MT Solar scope. 

 

HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro

[Scuba2do]

If you can afford it I'd get something more reliable than the inexpensive Quark.

 

Not sure if you are aware of the variable quality issues with the Quark (and other current DayStar products), and the Terms of Sale issues you'll might have with DayStar. This review covers those issues well.

 

 

Lunt, and the new SkyWatcher HelioStar 76 are also good options for front etalons and/or complete H-alpha telescopes.

I can vouch for the new Heliostar 76 a lot cheaper than other DS options. .  Easy to use, visually pairs with the Solarquest mount and great with Baader 8-24 zoom for visual astronomy.  Best decision to get this , for me.

 

Tony

[Durkinphd]

https://www.cloudyni...r-buyer-beware/

 

I (of course) strongly advise against this plan, but if you do, buy from a retailer that allows a return (NOT Daystar!) and use a credit card. Good luck!

 

(You should really consider the Heliostar, instead.)

[hopskipson]

You have gotten some good advice here. I did the same thing about 7 years ago. I went with the Quark and luckily got a good example. I already had 2 refractors a F/7 102mm for close up and a ST80 for full disk viewing. I masked the 80 for better performance. It worked well for about 6 years but now the electronics failed. Along the way I picked up quite a few different options and found air spaced etalons are the most uniform and don’t require electronics to work. I have a Lunt 80 that is 13 years old and still works beautifully.

Good luck with your decision.

[BYoesle]

I partly disagree calling a daystar quark “inexpensive” is not truly accurate at $1200-1300 a pop and for some amateurs is considered a fair junk of change.

 

Well it's all relative. I'll bet some of those folks might spend $5 per day on coffee - and that's almost $2000 per year.

 

My perspective is that when I first got into H-alpha solar as a kid, only observatories could afford H-alpha filter systems. Then Del Woods came out with his DayStar filters in the mid 1970's and these were considered "affordable." My 0.75 ATM cost $800 - that's ~ $4000 in today's dollars. I used it with an ERF that stopped down my 80mm f15 refractor to 40mm to get the requisite f30.

 

Today you can get an equivalent Lunt 40mm telescope for less than $900. And this and/or other more expensive options can be a life-time investment, so to my mind they are worth paying more for in order to get the level of quality they can offer.

 

But that's just me.

 

Now I'm off to get that inexpensive brain surgery I'm obviously so in need of...