Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2_winners.thumb.jpg.b5430b40547c40d344fd4493776ab99f.jpg

ollypenrice

Beehive, 1st Light FSQ106N/Atik 11000

Recommended Posts

OK just a cluster, but I needed to test orthogonality, collimation etc. The 11000 is now working to the book and the FSQ106N is pretty good, I'd say. It did move in focus but in this 4.5 hour run I did one refocus but lots of checking.

RGB, 10 minute subs, Takahashi FSQ106N Fluorite/Atik 11000 mono/Takahashi EM200.

Tell you what, clusters are little devils to process. I'd forgotten just how picky they are!

Olly

Lots of sky.

BEEHIVE%20FIN%20copy-L.jpg

A closer look.

BEEHIVE%20FIN%20CROP%202-L.jpg

The toys.

FSQ106N-M.jpg

The smaller stars are showing dark haloes here but not on my monitor. (Honest, Gov...)

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I get more of the impression of a cluster from the second image than the first. Given the wider shot I'd almost say it looks more impressive with the naked eye :)

Nice image though :)

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow I get more of the impression of a cluster from the second image than the first. Given the wider shot I'd almost say it looks more impressive with the naked eye :)

Nice image though :)

James

Yes. I gave it a helping hand in the widefield, too, by increasing the saturation of the cluster stars and putting a slight blur on the field stars. The camera pulls in so many field stars by comparison with the naked eye or even the eyepiece that the cluster gets a little lost.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly,

Is it only my impression, or you have your dew heaters inside out?

Cheers,

milosz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly,

Is it only my impression, or you have your dew heaters inside out?

Cheers,

milosz

Well now, there's a question. I have no idea! I assumed the pretty side was meant to be seen. There's a touch of the Folies Bergère about those red garters which kind of appealed to me, though I won't go into too much detail since the Mods on here pretend they don't frequent the place. :grin:

I'd better see which side gets hottest...

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these are 'dew not', the velcro goes to the outside. There is an insulation between the heater and the velcro, so the red side should be hotter. But you'll never know :)

Cheers,

milosz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly

How about a nice image of Kemble's cascade with the 106??

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much much nicer on my screen... ;)

Nice image of the buzzy bees...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olly

How about a nice image of Kemble's cascade with the 106??

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Good idea. Will do.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly looks like the gear is doing it's stuff Ollly - great shot :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely image Olly, although with the full version it's very difficult to spot the cluster ;).

Is it just me, or is there a kind of split in light in the bright star in the bottom left? The light doesn't go all the way round, can't be diffraction spikes can it? It's the only star I've seen on there with that pattern.

EDIT: Same pattern but reversed on bright star on bottom right hand side

Edited by Naemeth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely image Olly, although with the full version it's very difficult to spot the cluster ;).

Is it just me, or is there a kind of split in light in the bright star in the bottom left? The light doesn't go all the way round, can't be diffraction spikes can it? It's the only star I've seen on there with that pattern.

EDIT: Same pattern but reversed on bright star on bottom right hand side

Classic FSQ106 effect, though the lensing of the 11 meg may have something to do with it since you rarely see 106 images taken with other cameras! Dennis over on PAIG has just commented that his is the same. The FSQ85 doesn't do it, or at least didn't do it on the 4000 chip.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic FSQ106 effect, though the lensing of the 11 meg may have something to do with it since you rarely see 106 images taken with other cameras! Dennis over on PAIG has just commented that his is the same. The FSQ85 doesn't do it, or at least didn't do it on the 4000 chip.

Olly

It's a nicer effect than diffraction spikes though :).

Does it only affect the far sides of the image, or any star that is bright enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's any bright star but the offset of the halo depends on the position. It's symmetrical in the middle and behaves a bit like coma as you move out.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Olly. I get those split stars too with my FSQ106N and Atik 11000. I'm still looking to see if I have an example of the loop on the stars, but I'm attaching a typical bright star area with my set up.

post-4679-0-79402000-1363559929_thumb.jp

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Olly. I get those split stars too with my FSQ106N and Atik 11000. I'm still looking to see if I have an example of the loop on the stars, but I'm attaching a typical bright star area with my set up.

post-4679-0-79402000-1363559929_thumb.jp

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the dew nots should be the other way around Olly!

Great image, as usual.

Since you posted a picture of the Tak, I was wondering what finder shoe you use? I'm having trouble finding something suitable for my Baby-Q; needs to be a Synta fitting for the finder I want to use...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the dew nots should be the other way around Olly!

Great image, as usual.

Since you posted a picture of the Tak, I was wondering what finder shoe you use? I'm having trouble finding something suitable for my Baby-Q; needs to be a Synta fitting for the finder I want to use...

It's an Altair Astro shoe. You have to be careful not to over tighten them or they bend, but they work fine.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like this is a know and widely accepted part of 106N ownership. Much like diffraction spikes I suppose!!! Shows that even at this level of spending AP is full of compromises - Do you accept the halo's or accept the less wider field of the FSQ85 - Why can they not make a scope that gives you everything?!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pic Tom :) Interesting star shapes :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to believe that such a fault would be widely known and yet considered acceptable in a Tak costing (I'm guessing) more than £3500 new? Is it possible that it's actually caused by some other part of the optical train?

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm struggling to believe that such a fault would be widely known and yet considered acceptable in a Tak costing (I'm guessing) more than £3500 new? Is it possible that it's actually caused by some other part of the optical train?

James

It's hard to say. Most people using the FSQ106 also use the Kodak 11 meg chip. (It's the 'APOD factory' setup with more APODS than you can shake a stick at, Tom's Rho Ophichus being a fine example.) It may be that this chip contributes to the problem, possibly through its microlenses. In testing the FSQ85 with the new camera it produced a set of light-dark-light rings around a bright star which were not present in the same shot with an Atik 4000. So is it the camera or is it the scope? Who knows?

If you are looking for perfect optics on all targets, artefact-free, you are not going to find it. It doesn't exist. Our recent Horse in the ODK14 was massively cropped because there were huge flares all over the place from bright stars out of shot. The best optics I've used from this point of view are those of the FSQ85. It very rarely struggles with anything. A Ritchey Chrétien at native FL is an all reflector system so has a fighting chance, but who wants to work at F8? Not I. Nor do I want spikes on shorter FL images. Once you have light going through glass there are going to be objects which present a challenge. And if you want a large flat field you can't have it with an all reflector system (to my knowledge.)

To be fair to the FSQ106 (which costs rather more than £3.5 new :eek: ) it has an utterly enormous corrected field. (Note Les's recent images with his monster 36X36 format camera). It is optically terrific but not perfect. Such is life. Very few telescopes can cover these large chips. This used FSQ106N cost £2300 with rings, less anything I get back from Parcel Farce who smashed the flight case. I don't know anything that would work better with the large chip. There are cheaper instruments which claim to cover it but I've spoken to some owners...

Olly

PS, Also significant is that the Tak survived gross abuse in transit and yet still gives good stellar images. And it's fully collimatable so, had it not held fast, it would have been sortable. It's an oldish example but that doesn't bother me at all. I had a Mk 1 'Pearl River' Genesis which was a s good as new when twenty years old and it's still marching on, I gather, now that it's about thirty.

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.