Looking at future solar telescope

[Solsearcher]

Not a quirk but maybe something to consider . For viewing only you will see a lot more detail with a double stack and it does sound like this is what you are considering .
Tuning individual etalons is not difficult once you have learned how they react , what can be difficult for viewing is tuning an external etalon on a long scope without leaving the eyepiece . Reaching both etalons without taking my eye off of the view on my SM 60 is not difficult , I can not reach the external etalon on my 90 mm scope without leaving my viewing position . Once tuned into what I am viewing it is nice to sit back and enjoy the show , unfortunate it is half time right now .
I have viewed through a lunt pressure tuned 60 and would say the view was comparable to what I see through my Coronado 60 in single stack mode , I do like the way Lunt is offering their new double stack scopes by doubling up the internal modules . The advantage that I see here is ability to easily tune both etalons at the eyepiece . External etalons should provide a brighter view in my opinion because you will be eliminating the corrective lenses that internal etalons require . My gear is somewhat dated by today's standards and would welcome the opportunity to compare a new Lunt internal double stack against the new Coronado SM III external DS

[Tillibobs]

Sorry for coming in late.
I began my Solar journey with a PST then got a Solarmax60 and double stacked it. No problems until the day I unscrewed the external etalon to pack up and it fell to the ground ! ( I regret selling the PST as I could have used it for a PST Mod!. The insurance company paid out and I bought a Lunt80 with pressure tuning, much better than the Coronado. Present day....I'm into imaging ( when there's something to image ) and worked a swap !. I now have a Quark ( out on loan ) and a Lunt60 pressure tuned that I love. Were I to revert to viewing only and money wasn't a problem, I'd double stack the Lunt60 and be a happy bunny.
A thing to bear in mind is that there isn't an obstruction with the pressure tuned Lunt that you get with tilt action etalons.
Hope this helps.
Keith

[Bikerdib]

The Quark restricts me to only one or two telescopes due to the 4.2x barlow built into it, with the Coronado or Lunt I can pick my barlow and eyepiece for the views.
My shortest focal length refractor is a f/6.9 which would be f/29 with the Quark. Eyepiece selection becomes fairly limited at that focal length.

Am I missing something here? You state that with the Quark you are limited to one or two scopes so instead, you are looking for a dedicated solar scope. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a dedicated solar scope even more limited in that it is designed for a single intent? A Quark, a couple of TV plossel eyepiece (which BTW are nice to have in your eyepiece collection anyway) and you'd be set.

[Lady Fraktor]

Not really as I can pick the Barlow and eyepiece focal length to suit the conditions instead of being stuck at f/29+

[Lady Fraktor]

A thing to bear in mind is that there isn't an obstruction with the pressure tuned Lunt that you get with tilt action etalons.

Thank you for this Kieth, I am not sure if this would affect the view with the new Coronado III but something to check into to be sure!

I started out doing Ha observing with a PST as well, a fun telescope to use.
I used to mount it on the side of my 150mn f/8 so I could do WL with the wedge and Ha as well.
I was considering the PST conversion as well but someone at a star party in Austria decided to give my PST a new home.

[Solsearcher]

What Lady Fractor is referring to is that the Quark operates best at around F/30 , this is why they have a built in 4.2X barlow . What ever scope you use the Quark will quadruple the focal length . A dedicated solar scope (that is NOT a Daystar) will start out at the scopes native focal length . Viewing at 4x will be more forgiving than imaging at 4x . Successful imaging at 4x requires steady sky's , I live under the "jet stream" so it is a very rare opportunity that my sky will allow for 4x imaging . I had a quark and the S/T scopes to go with it , It was an excellent option for up close imaging but my sky rarely was steady enough to image at 4x so I sold mine .

[Bikerdib]

But we were not talking AP use, we were talking about visual (at least that's what I thought it started out as). I can use my Quark with my ES f/6 80mm and my 40mm TV Plossel and see the full solar disc. OK, maybe you would have to buy a couple ot Plossels, but again, they are not dedicated to solar only.

But, that night I can use my 80mm for some EAA or wide field viewing through lots of different eyepieces. I also live under a jetstream (sub tropical) and also have to deal with very high humidity (I'm about 80 miles from the Gulf of Mexico with almost constant onshore winds) which greatly affects the transparency.

I can see where the Barlow in the Quark would limit the device for AP but for visual, it is more flexible. Sorry if this is taking the discussion a little off topic but I'm just suggesting to look at all options for visual use

[smp]

I can see where the Barlow in the Quark would limit the device for AP but for visual, it is more flexible. Sorry if this is taking the discussion a little off topic but I'm just suggesting to look at all options for visual use

I've been confused, as well. It's pretty clear that Gabby isn't interested in a fixed 4.2x Barlow, but for visual use, I normally use my 40mm and 32mm Plossls with my TV-85 and Quark, and I love what I get to see.

smp

[Solsearcher]

I was not trying to sidetrack this thread , I did state that viewing at 4x is "more forgiving than imaging" and I have used my Quark for both . These are my personal opinions and nothing more , I was agreeing with Lady Fractor's logic and stating why . For visual use I preferred my dedicated solar scopes because they do offer more flexibility .
Yes you can squeeze the full disk into a 40mm plossil but the view was too much like looking through a straw for me and is why I used wide angle 2" eyepieces to try to open it up . I have found that starting at native F/L does offer more options visually as well as for imaging , but that is just me .

[smp]

I was not trying to sidetrack this thread , I did state that viewing at 4x is "more forgiving than imaging" and I have used my Quark for both . These are my personal opinions and nothing more , I was agreeing with Lady Fractor's logic and stating why . For visual use I preferred my dedicated solar scopes because they do offer more flexibility .
Yes you can squeeze the full disk into a 40mm plossil but the view was too much like looking through a straw for me and is why I used wide angle 2" eyepieces to try to open it up . I have found that starting at native F/L does offer more options visually as well as for imaging , but that is just me .

No problem at all! I apologize if I came across as arrogant in my post! Let's please continue the conversation.

I am coming at this from a pure visual observation only standpoint, as that is what I do (at this point anyway).

I am confused about the comments made that indicate observing in Ha without the 4.2x Barlow that is built into the Quark offers "more options." Certainly, lower magnification will offer an image of the Sun in the center of the field. I understand that, because when I perform my alignment in white light, my 32mm or 40mm eyepiece produces such an image. However, if I were to switch over to Ha, and see the same image, the prominences and visible surface features would be rather small to observe. To me, the options at that point would be to change eyepieces, or add a Barlow for higher magnification...

I get it that the Quark comes with the built-in 4.2x Barlow, and perhaps one may want to use only a 2x Barlow. Is that what you mean by more options?

Don't get me wrong. When I was starting out with my Quark, the jump from the white light image I saw, to the much more magnified Ha image with the Quark was massive, and took some getting used to. Indeed, I had to practice my alignment and set up so as to even get the Sun in the FOV of the Quark when switching away from the white light view. All that was needed was careful alignment and centering of the Sun in white light, and then the switch to the Quark goes pretty smoothly, but the first few times I tried to switch to the Quark and the Sun had disappeared from view were frustrating.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but it seems to me that if one is going to jump up to something on the order of a 4x Barlow to ultimately do their viewing anyway, then the Quark is ready made for this. If being able to have 1.5x, or 2x, or 2.5x is what one is looking for, along with perhaps 4x, then I understand that the Quark will be too restrictive.

Is that what you mean?

Thanks very much for your thoughts and comments!

smp

[Solsearcher]

The field of view appears larger at shorter f/l , the Quark produces long F/L so the view appears more compressed by comparison . Think of using a night scope on the moon with a permanent 4x barlow and then using an eyepiece to back out enough to contain it .

[Bikerdib]

The field of view appears larger at shorter f/l , the Quark produces long F/L so the view appears more compressed by comparison . Think of using a night scope on the moon with a permanent 4x barlow and then using an eyepiece to back out enough to contain it .

True that but on the other side of it, like Stephen already stated, any views of the sun's disc smaller than that provided with my current combination of Quark, 80mm f/6 OTA and either my 32mm or 40mm TV Plossel and I would be looking for more magnification anyway. I don't need to see a lot of blackness surrounding the sun, so to me anyway, there is no need for a wider field of view than what is needed to see the entire disc or maybe a little less if studying a certain feature. I tried a PST double and would still be using it if not for the corrosion problem that is even more problematic in humid environments like where I live.

Listen, if there was only one perfect setup, there would be no need for the wide variety of equipment available. And having started astronomy in the mid 1970s I can tell you, we are lucky there is so much relativly affordable equipment available these days to choose from. We are just having a friendly conversation about the pluses and minuses of the different set ups, that's what I meant about getting the thread off track since the original question was about dedicated solar scopes. I just thought I'd add a little conversation to help her make an informed decision.

BTW Solsearcher, I didn't imply that you took the thread off course; it is actually the discussion of the Quark that did that and I'm one of those that has done so.

[Solsearcher]

I am also glad that there is a place where friendly conversations can take place . I have not been offended in any way and I did not intend to upset or offend any members in any way , my only intent was to convey my personal experience with the products I have used . First let me say that the Quark is an excellent product and mine was a good one , very even across the field . I found the field of view to be similar to what I see through a good PST but brighter . The difference that I see and am trying to explain here is that when you go larger in aperture in a dedicated solar scope and fill the field with the solar disk it will be a larger disk to look at . If you want to get closer you can use different eyepieces or start adding barlows . The Quark starts out very close and by the time you back out enough to view the full disk it appears quite small , again my opinion but based on what I see when using my other options . Many who do not image enjoy studying the full disk as well as looking closer at the current features . There are many different options and combinations of these options out there and I am happy we have all of these choices . I am not partial to any solar products and support any company that produces them .

[Lady Fraktor]

Sorry I have not commented much, lots of work to do before I fly home on Friday.

If I was to use a Coronado 90mm f/8.8 and a 25mm Plossl I could have FOVs ranging from 1.22° to 0.32° just by changing the barlow.
Being able to change the barlow just adds a bit of variety with the view.

TeleVue 85mm/ Quark(4.2x) = f/29.5+ 32mm Plossl = 0.69°TFOV, 40mm = 0.68°

Using the Coronado I can get equivalent views using a 25mm Plossl using Klee 2.2x 0.71°, Dakin 2.4x 0.66°, TV 2.5x 0.63°
That would be f/19.4, f/21, and f/22

Using the barlows only provides options, both ways (quark or barlow) are fine visually, just a different method.

[smp]

It appears that I’m the culprit to keep this thread talking about the Quark. Sorry about that - but I greatly appreciate all the information I got from you all just the same.

Thanks very much to you folks who’ve helped increase my knowledge here.

:thumb:

smp

[Solsearcher]

not a culprit , lets say discussion motivator

[Altocumulus]

But the Quark is an option under the subject? So it remains a valid addition to the discussion.

From what I can glean, the Lunt and Coronado offer the more flexible option, adding barlows galore as appropriate, but limited to specific dedicated solar telescopes.

The Quark, by contrast, can be used across a number of other telescopes that retain their night-time capability - but the build of the Quark starts off with an in-built barlow.

[Solsearcher]

A simple way to explain the difference between a Quark (Daystar solid heated etaion) to an external air spaced etalon (Lunt Coronado Solarscope) When you drop a Quark into a 60mm F/7 scope you are also adding a 4.2x barlow because the etalon requires F/30 to work at it's best . If you mount an external etalon + blocking filter to the same scope you do not require any barlow . This is because air spaced etalons operate in parallel light and do not require a F/30 light path .
Lunt and Coronado both use corrective lenses on their internal etalons to straighten the light before it enters the etalon and then returns the light back to the cone after it exits the etalon . This is where the 2 systems differ , one requires F/30 the other does not . This doesn't make one system any better than the other , just different .

[Bikerdib]

So my question is; Lady Fraktor, have we urged you into swiping the credit card yet or pressing that "place order" button? Come on lady, what's the hold up?!? We are trying to help you spend your money.

[Lady Fraktor]

I am still waiting to see if anyone with a Lunt or Coronado is going to post their thoughts on them