Quark performance, good or bad? - Forums

Hi all,

I am happy to be here looking at those beautiful solar images done by Quark, you are all talented and skilled to have such results, well done all.

I keep reading time to time several times about the quality of Quark, so i keep thinking about its performance after all, is it good or bad? Is it about the design from the manufacturer that affects it or it is the device itself not that much good compared to competitors well knows such as Lunt and Coronado?

How do you know if your Quark is great performance or not? Only from results? What kind of results to determine it as great or not? Lunt could have bad results and yet people trust them anyway, my Lunt CaK is amazing and i got first result to be winning choice or IOTD somewhere although the comments mentioned it was under sample result and yet it won, so i need more details about that Quark hate by some.

I will say as an owner and user of both the DayStar Quark and the Lunt that the Quark has its place in Solar Photography. For me the Quark was a great starting point to get into Solar without spending a lot of money if you already have a telescope. With its installed 4.2x barlow you can really zoom into rim the surface details. Wonderful results can be achieved especially with the Chromosphere model as it is tuned for Prominences but can also produce nice surface images too.

After using the Quark for 2 years and enjoying working on Solar, I stepped up to the next level with the Lunt as it can produce exceptional results with their tuned Etalons.

I can't comment on the Coronado or the CaK filters as I don't have any experience with those.

Best, Eddie