Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Skywatcher Quattro f4 Imaging Newtonian telescopes

FLO

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 475
  • Created
  • Last Reply
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I'm not, I own one, remember :) Here...

Yes, you recently bought the new model GSO with wider tube. The vignetting you mentioned in our discussions about the GSO model related to the earlier GSO 8" f4, if I remember correctly? :)

My point here is that the Quattros are a brand new design. They have new tubes, new mirror-sets, new focusers and a new design brief. If they do use baffles the tubes will be sized accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George

George

Posted
Posted

In this picture it looks like a 3 vane spider......this is getting confusing which image is the production OTA?

I suspect tho this is the 200 so maybe the 250 & 300 have the 4 vane spider.

post-13224-133877619127_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Found a good pic of the 10" CF although it doesn't look like it has the new focuser.

John, I have a feeling all the stock phots are showing the wrong focuser. We'll make our own photos when they arrive :)

George, it is the camera angle, they are fitted with four-vane spiders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Revs

Revs

Posted
Posted
The vignetting you mentioned in our discussions about the GSO model related to the earlier GSO 8" f4, if I remember correctly? :)

Aye that's the one.

A carbon tube would be nice :) The one in that pic is a steel one as far as I can see. I wonder if the CT has em..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George

George

Posted
Posted
John, I have a feeling all the stock phots are showing the wrong focuser. We'll make our own photos when they arrive :)

George, it is the camera angle, they are fitted with four-vane spiders.

Yes I can see your right now......time for bed with my tired hay fevered eye's :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A carbon tube would be nice :) The one in that pic is a steel one as far as I can see. I wonder if the CT has em..

My guess is they are using baffles in the steel tube to stiffen the tube and reduce flexure :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George

George

Posted
Posted

I think a side by side comparison with the MN190 would be in order, Im guessing (FLO down ATM) that the CF with coma corrector would still work out cheaper than the MN190 but as said the field flatness would not be as good.

Damn this as thrown a spanner in the works as the MN190 was on my post redundancy buy tho I suspect the MN190 would probably be better with the DSLR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I think a side by side comparison with the MN190 would be in order

TJ is currently using a 190MN but has ordered a 10" Quattro (I think he also owns a GSO 8" f4). It'll be interesting to hear his thoughts after he has used it a while :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeWilson

MikeWilson

Posted
Posted

Having spoken with TJ re: his GSO; the understanding that I took away from it was that the GSO imaging newt wasn't that good and the MN190 is the best bet. I wonder if his thoughts change after the 10" Quattro.

I've been wanting an 8" Quattro since the moment they were announced; this looks like just the ticket for us HEQ5 owners and a clear cut upgrade from the traditional 150P/200P Newtonians.

All the best,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blackparticle

blackparticle

Posted
Posted

I'm certainly looking forwards to enjoying all the images that will be taken with them anyway. As for the MN190, I have to say the sample image up on FLOs site is one of the best 'amateur' images I've ever seen.

The price of any of these scopes compared to the results they can obtain is truly mind-boggling. In some ways I'm glad I didn't get into optical astronomy 30 years ago. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamsp123

adamsp123

Posted
Posted

I am in bit of a quandry regarding getting one of the 10" CF models, I do really like my MN190 but as I have a Baader MPCC the thought of having a scope 1.75 times faster with nearly the same focal length and better resolution is rather tempting.

First priority I have though is to see if my NexAtlux "upgrade" to my Vixen Atlux mount works as I hope for better tracking, rather than splashing out on a new mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim

Tim

Posted
Posted
I'm sure field flatness will be fine with an MPCC. And at f/4 and with no glass, the Quattro would be more suited to a DSLR than an MN.

I disagree on that based on my experience of using a 350D and 400D with both 8" F4 newt with MPCC, and the MN190. With such big chips you will get much flatter results with the MN190, and the colour abberration introduced by the corrector in the MN190 is minimal, you have to look very close to notice the difference in focus between red/blue.

At any rate, once mine arrives, and assuming we have some clear nights I will do a direct side by side comparison with the MN190, (still a scope I want to cuddle), the CF 10" Quattro, and the GSO 8" F4.

For me, the main things I will be looking for are;

Smooth solid focuser which doesn't shift appreciably when locked.

Spider vane that doesnt flex or twist and will hold the secondary firmly, whilst being straight and true (hate it when diffraction spikes diverge!)

Mirror cell that holds the primary steady while the tube rotates around the mount.

Secondary mirror large enough to illuminate a DSLR sized chip.

And I am hoping the CF tube will reduce the need to refocus regularly as with steel tubes, as I like to track a single target all night and it suits me not to refocus.

Oh, and I hope it fits in my obsy :)

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Revs

Revs

Posted
Posted

That'll be interesting, Tim. I look forward to reading your findings. Regarding field flatness, you know better than me, I'm still very much a newb :) I do love the MN's, but the weight put me off as I didn't want an EQ6 if I could avoid it.

Which version of the GSO do you have? The TS one I have ticks all the boxes in your list, except the primary cell is poor. It's something I'm looking in to upgrading. The TS focuser is particularly nice and solid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim

Tim

Posted
Posted

Which version of the GSO do you have? The TS one I have ticks all the boxes in your list, except the primary cell is poor. It's something I'm looking in to upgrading. The TS focuser is particularly nice and solid.

I dont know which model exactly, but the box makes a decent stand for my coffee mug.....

The GSO type F4's, and I have seen and operated on a few, including the Altair Astro variants etc really haven't impressed me. Have even seen versions that were literally impossible to collimate properly without experienced intervention B) Shame, because on the few occasions mine did decide to play ball the results were reasonable (pics in my album, M42).

I am hoping that this new one, in keeping with the other SW kit I have will be more solidly constructed, with fewer corners cut.

I like to run individual sub frames from between 30 to 120 minutes, so any defects in the optical train soon start to show up, especially at F4, where collimation is critical.

Looking forward to this arriving, however the Mrs has just sent me a text, she's found this thread! :) Hello Babe, need any handbags?? Shoes??? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.