Finally I'm getting into solar through Quark but need advise on telescope

[salehram]

Hi all,

I've been waiting and saving for a while, now it comes finally when I'll be able to get to see the Sun in H-Alpha.

I'm getting a Quark chromosphere, but I'm a bit lost now between 2 telescopes for it:
Meade Infinity 80mm
Looks a descent one, I can use it as a grab and go telescope, and the whole family can use it as well as it comes with a set of EPs and an AZ mount, plus its focal length is f/5, that's a good wide field I'll get for night time and for the Sun observation as well...

The second option I have is:
DayStar 80mm Refractor Telescope with Quark H-Alpha Solar Filter
I'm only getting the OTA + the actual filter in one package. The only reason I am considering this is the fact it is being sold as a package, so the quality might be a bit better?

I need one final bit help to decide. And that is a feedback about the Meade 80mm telescope...

Anyone tried it? Is it worth it and how is the quality of the mount?
These would be really helpful!
Thanks a lot

[helicon]

I hope you pick one out that will fit your situation. Congrats in advance on the new scope. I can't offer much advice on solar stuff...

[smp]

Personally, I bought the Daystar Quark Chromosphere to match up with my TV-85. I love it.

I've read on the Internet that the Daystar packages do not offer a scope that would be useful for nighttime viewing. That's only what I've read around. Based solely on that, I'd vote for one of the fine 80mm scopes available from a variety of vendors.

smp

[notFritzArgelander]

Personally, I bought the Daystar Quark Chromosphere to match up with my TV-85. I love it.

I've read on the Internet that the Daystar packages do not offer a scope that would be useful for nighttime viewing. That's only what I've read around. Based solely on that, I'd vote for one of the fine 80mm scopes available from a variety of vendors.

smp

Quite right. Some of the Daystar packages have the Quark unit built into the scope and not removable. I was fortunate to spend time with an Astro Physics refractor and a Quark. It was splendid. Solar observing requires excellent stray light control found in very good OTAs.

[salehram]

So I'll go with the Meade option then...

I was also between Meade and Celesteon AstroMaster 80mm, the the mount of the Meade appears more user friendly than of the Celestron one..

[Lady Fraktor]

The 80mm Daystar is capable of viewing the night skies as well as operating with the Quark.
It also comes with a 2" focuser that looks to be much better than the Meade offering.
https://agenaastro.com/daystar-80-mm-re ... ilter.html

[salehram]

The 80mm Daystar is capable of viewing the night skies as well as operating with the Quark.
It also comes with a 2" focuser that looks to be much better than the Meade offering.
https://agenaastro.com/daystar-80-mm-re ... ilter.html

Yea but I dont get the extra EPs and the AZ mmount to have more uses for it with the family as well..

[notFritzArgelander]

The 80mm Daystar is capable of viewing the night skies as well as operating with the Quark.
It also comes with a 2" focuser that looks to be much better than the Meade offering.
https://agenaastro.com/daystar-80-mm-re ... ilter.html

Yea but I dont get the extra EPs and the AZ mmount to have more uses for it with the family as well..

It depends on whether you are shopping for gadgets or good images and what your budget is. The 80mm Daystar is usable for night observation and will outperform the Meade.

I've bought commercial grade refractors and they often require tweaking the collimation or objective spacing to get the optics right. Are you comfortable with that?

[Lady Fraktor]

The mount is reasonable though so that is an advantage, the eyepieces though are of poor quality and will need to be replaced sooner than later.
Plossl would be a good low cost eyepiece to look at.

[notFritzArgelander]

The mount is reasonable though so that is an advantage, the eyepieces though are of poor quality and will need to be replaced sooner than later.
Plossl would be a good low cost eyepiece to look at.

Agreed on the eyepieces. They are pretty poor matches with that scope. Also agreed on the mount. The telescope optics might be OK too. They are the ubiquitous 80mm f5 optic set from Synta that Meade, Celestron, Orion and others sell. My example is the only commercial grade optics that didn't need tweaking, BTW, so with some luck and a different set of eyepieces....

[Lady Fraktor]

Offhand does anyone know how much the Quark weights? I cannot find it.

[notFritzArgelander]

Offhand does anyone know how much the Quark weights? I cannot find it.

Even reviews don't report it. I'm taking it to be heavy. Greater than a Delos 6mm so I'd guess 0.5-1.0 kg. The only hint I found that this is true comes from this review: http://astronomynow.com/reviews/daystar ... index.html

A 1.25-inch diagonal could go either side, but the arrangement would be more stable if you placed the diagonal after the Quark. This might necessitate putting a draw-tube extension on a telescope with ample back-focus, as the Barlow in the Quark is telecentric, meaning it requires to be at a certain distance from the objective.

[Lady Fraktor]

That is good reading nFA!
This- Use of a diagonal needs a bit of consideration. A two-inch diagonal can only go between the telescope and the Quark. A 1.25-inch diagonal could go either side, but the arrangement would be more stable if you placed the diagonal after the Quark. This might necessitate putting a draw-tube extension on a telescope with ample back-focus, as the Barlow in the Quark is telecentric, meaning it requires to be at a certain distance from the objective. On a telescope with limited back-focus, a 1.25-inch diagonal placed after the Quark might be the only diagonal viewing option.
is something I have never heard anyone mention before.

I am just curious if the Meade with Quark will be over capacity for the mount.
I imagine re-greasing and snugging of fasteners will be required.

[notFritzArgelander]

That is good reading nFA!
This- Use of a diagonal needs a bit of consideration. A two-inch diagonal can only go between the telescope and the Quark. A 1.25-inch diagonal could go either side, but the arrangement would be more stable if you placed the diagonal after the Quark. This might necessitate putting a draw-tube extension on a telescope with ample back-focus, as the Barlow in the Quark is telecentric, meaning it requires to be at a certain distance from the objective. On a telescope with limited back-focus, a 1.25-inch diagonal placed after the Quark might be the only diagonal viewing option.
is something I have never heard anyone mention before.

It's the most informative review I've found to date.

[salehram]

Well that got more complicated now .. I am inclining to go good optics with good mount but that is out of budget.

Still looking for something simple and good at the same time and I can find some skywatcher stuff and William optics. The william optics option is just the OTA but that is still a high one. i still have my CG4 mount but I would love to have a simple az mount for family use as well... I guess more research time is needed...

[Lady Fraktor]

I would look at a simple photo tripod with a pan head, you could probably find one for a reasonable price used.

The Meade 80mm on the CG-4 would be a stable option though with the possible weak point being the focuser.
That can likely be tweaked enough for occasional use until you decide you wish to replace it.

[Lady Fraktor]

Well that got more complicated now .. I am inclining to go good optics with good mount but that is out of budget.

Still looking for something simple and good at the same time and I can find some skywatcher stuff and William optics. The william optics option is just the OTA but that is still a high one. i still have my CG4 mount but I would love to have a simple az mount for family use as well... I guess more research time is needed...

A simple achromat is all that is required for solar, an ED or apochromatic will give you no better view for the extra cost.

[salehram]

Does anyone have a feedback about Sky watcher star travel 80st?
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startr ... 0-az3.html

I read once about it but I lost the link to the review/article

[notFritzArgelander]

Does anyone have a feedback about Sky watcher star travel 80st?
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/startr ... 0-az3.html

I read once about it but I lost the link to the review/article

Optically it's a better package than the Meade since it comes with Plossl eyepieces, not MAs. MAs are really Kellners and dubious at f5. Maybe OK at f6.

Optically better than the Meade as a total package. Maybe not as good as the Daystar 80. Both are good choices depending on price and add ons. You'd still want your CG4 for observing the Sun with the Skywatcher.

[Lady Fraktor]

MAs are really Kellners and dubious at f5. Maybe OK at f6.

Pretend Kellner perhaps?
MA have three good uses, dust plugs, cushioning under heavy mallets strikes or used in batting practice.