Skywatcher Quattro f4 Imaging Newtonian telescopes

[Tim]

Looks great! Maybe we will finally get to see some first light images from the Quattro's soon then...?

Proper ones you mean?

Weather looks pretty poor this week, but that will give me time to get everything set up nicely and make sure all the bits are set correctly before the clear skies come.

Very much looking forward to examining the scope. I have a C9.25 already, but this seems considerably wider in comparison. All that lovely mirror

[FLO]

Looks great! Maybe we will finally get to see some first light images from the Quattro's soon then...?

Yes, TJ will be kicking the tyres soon. I dare-say others will too.

I shall keep Mike's for my own use and make Nadeem's available for loan/review, then sell it at a discounted price.

HTH,

Steve

[MikeWilson]

I won't clutter this thread (I think I've posted enough here, I expect FLO will be happy to see me stop posting Quattro comments - although they have on the whole been 80% favourable!)

....but everyone may be interested in a longer "first light" image that I posted here, using Steve's new scope :

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-discussion/154458-second-first-light-quattro-8-cf.html

[FLO]

As for issues - I'm getting oblong stars (as shown above - although proper first light hasn't been possible without rings). I suspect this might be due to a pinched mirror but who knows?

Your returned telescope has arrived Mike, we haven't thoroughly checked collimation but we did notice immediately the secondary mirror is twisted off-axis.

This thread has thrown up something we really ought to have made clear from the outset. f4 Newtonians are very dependent on precise collimation. We have added a note to the Quattro's product description on our website in the hope it will prevent similar situations.

HTH

[Black Knight]

Your telescope has arrived Mike, we haven't thoroughly checked collimation but we did notice immediately the secondary mirror is twisted off-axis.

Mine was too, when it arrived. Probably not surprising really, although the adjusters were very tight. Hopefully all sorted now though

[Tim]

Not sure if the 8" secondary has them, but on the side of the secondary on the 10" are two flats that could help when setting the position of the secondary. Combined skew errors are the devils own work, and the thing is, you can pop a laser in and everything looks dandy, but in actual fact it is far from aligned and the image presented will show that.

[Tim]

I have more or less completed a review of the 10" Quattro CF now, and will be posting it up in the next couple of days. It will include photos and all the tech specs and measurements that you are likely to need.

Interestingly, when comparing the result from MN190 and Quattro on the same patch of sky and the same camera, I am leaning towards the Quattro. At the least it should perform as well as the MN190, but it will do it in half the time!

[Black Knight]

Not sure if the 8" secondary has them, but on the side of the secondary on the 10" are two flats that could help when setting the position of the secondary. Combined skew errors are the devils own work, and the thing is, you can pop a laser in and everything looks dandy, but in actual fact it is far from aligned and the image presented will show that.

Ok, that's interesting, I hadn't noticed that. I shall have to take a closer look .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tim]

They might just be a manufacturing remnant, I certainly dont think they are there on purpose, but it is a lot easier to judge their position than a rounded edge.

[Tim]

I will be posting a review soon of the Baader RCC1 coma corrector which can be used with the Quattro telescopes.

In the meantime though here is a picture showing the corner crop of an image taken with Baader MPCC on a 400D. Extreme corner is bottom left.

[MikeWilson]

Beautiful image TJ. The focus looks almost entirely nailed.

Much better than my image which just looks like a giant....

[Tim]

focus was spot on dead centre mike, this is the very corner of the frame from my 400D, you can expect the stars to increase in size somewhat compared to the centre

[Tim]

Another result just in.

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-deep-sky/155653-ngc-281-new-skywatcher-quattro-10-cf.html#post1947208

[R Fisher]

Question on Secondary mirror alignment.

Is the secondary offset built into the mirror by the position of the holder on the back ?

Calculated that mine should be appx 5mm but measuring the centre of the mirror to the centre of the holder it seems that at least 5 (maybe more (up to 7)) is pre built in.

Only done measurements coarsely as I didn’t want to take callipers anywhere near the mirror .

Have centred the spider dead on for now, had limited oppertunities to test on clear nights.

[R Fisher]

Well finally got a chance to test the scope on a clear night without clouds interrupting. Used NB filters so did a BiCol to enable me to get the image in one go.

Very pleased with the scope so far.

[FLO]

Very nice indeed

The Quattro's are now ticking along nicely here in the UK with positive customer feedback.

[Bogbreath]

Just received my 8" CF model with a HQ5pro mount last night

Got it unboxed and set up.... put my head outside and low and behold was greeted with a sky that had clouded up... GRRRRR

the curse of a new scope

[FLO]

All Carbon-Fibre and Steel Skywatcher Quattro telescopes are back in stock, except the 12-inch model which won't be available until early next year.

Someone reading this thread might have the impression Skywatcher Quattros had a bumpy start. That isn't the case. We have had only two returns: Nadeem's had damage to the edge of the mirror, Mike's was okay (the secondary mirror was rotated on it's axis) so was sent to MartinB for an SGL review then put aside for my own use. TJ is also getting along nicely with his 10-inch Quattro.

HTH,

Steve

[Macavity]

I see that "Fast Newtonians" are reviewed in the December 2011 S@N.

I sense Quattro owners don't have (never had) much to worry about?

[DrRobin]

Hi,

Please excuse me if it has already been mentioned, but can someone confirm the dimensions, length diameter and weight of the 200 and 250 please?

If someone has the weights for both the steel and CF that would be great.

I am guessing that the length of the 200 is just over 800mm and the 250 about 1000mm? I assume that the weight of the CF is a fair bit less.

Finally can anyone comment on the suitability of an HEQ5 for either model for astrophotography? I am guessing the steel tube 250 is too heavy?

[Earl]

Id say a HEQ5 is not enough for any of them, possibly a carbon 8 at a push

[ollypenrice]

I'd agree with Earl. Be aware that the Carbon is not primarily about weight but about low expansion and rigidity. Ultra fast systems need very high mechanical integrity to work, so keeping the focuser at an exact right angle to the tube is one issue, especially with a heavy camera hanging off the side. Carbon is very stiff and has a better chance of doing this than steel. The focal depth is also miniscule in fast sytems so low expansion avoids focus drift as temps change.

Olly

ollypenrice's Photos

[rocketandroll]

I'd think you'd be absolutely fine with the 8" on a HEQ5. I (and others) quite happily manage to run 8" Newtonians (steel tube ones) on a HEQ5 so a carbon one will be fine. The weight limit for a HEQ5 is about 15kg IIRC.

It's not ideal in wind and a bigger more costly mount would probably do better.... but you asked if it'd work on a HEQ5 for imaging and the answer is, with limitations... yes, the 8" almost certainly will.

Ben

[MikeWilson]

RE: HEQ5 and Quattro 8" CF, you'll need more than 10KG on a standard counterweight shaft to balance it, especially if you have a heavy camera / filter wheel / guide camera / guide scope.

It's doable with an extended shaft though.

All the best,

Mike

[Macavity]

I sense one needs to identify "the weakest link" - And work it (them!) in order. But then, I'm only using my HEQ5 - 8"/F4 TS/GSO as a "light-bucket" VIDEO scope. The latter, currently, in bits on my living-room floor! <G> Ultimately, a compromise - What one can afford, accommodate, (physically) handle etc. But a great... BIG "little" scope.

There are (unanswered) question here too... Helped by Web-links and local (SGL) knowledge... re. secondary offsets etc. The great thing is to "get to grips" with these (generic) scopes and share our experience.