Vixen VSD100 f3.8 5-element Apochromat

[Rodd]

12 minutes ago, henry b said:

I also have come  to the same conclusion as Rodd,  I must add it has been an expensive conclusion.  Henry B.

True--but I still love the FSQ 106 for its FOV with the resolution the ASI 1600 provides. 

Rodd

[Adam J]

8 minutes ago, Rodd said:

The reason it will be slower is there is only 61mm of aperture instead of 106mm--that's the only reason

Yes and with a smaller aperture and  identical focal length its a slower F-ratio. So one way or the other F-ratio matters at your chosen focal length.

Which will image faster a FSQ or the ZS61? In the end thats what your paying for. Forget longer focal lengths they are for a different job mate.

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Adam J

[Rodd]

13 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Yes and with a smaller aperture and  identical focal length its a slower F-ratio. So one way or the other F-ratio matters at your chosen focal length.

Which will image faster a FSQ or the ZS61? In the end thats what your paying for. Forget longer focal lengths they are for a different job mate.

 

IT DOESN'T MATTER.  I don't care what focal length you shoot at with 61 mm--with a reducer, or an extender--doesn't matter--it will be slower than 106mm

[Adam J]

16 minutes ago, Rodd said:

IT DOESN'T MATTER.  I don't care what focal length you shoot at with 61 mm--with a reducer, or an extender--doesn't matter--it will be slower than 106mm

Yes that is my entire point, what your paying the money in your FSQ is a scope that has the same pixel scale and the same FOV as a Z61 but is multiple times faster due to having a larger aperture. Which is exactly the same thing as saying its got a faster F-ratio at the same focal length. You paying about 4k more for a scope that is equivalent to a ZS61 but is four times faster.  Comparing it to a longer focal length scope makes no sense.

Anyway I am exiting this chat now as the CAPS are coming out. Its just that you clearly think about imaging in a very different way to me. I would chose my focal length to mach the size of object I want to image then get the largest aperture I can afford at that focal length. So if I wanted to image at about 300mm and had no cash it would be a ZS61 if I wanted to image at 300mm and had the cash it would be the FSQ 106, but a 130mm at F7.7 would not factor in that thinking at all.

Bye for now.

Adam

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Adam J

[Rodd]

22 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Yes that is my entire point, what your paying the money in your FSQ is a scope that has the same pixel scale and the same FOV as a Z61 but is multiple times faster due to having a larger aperture. Which is exactly the same thing as saying its got a faster F-ratio at the same focal length. You paying about 4k more for a scope that is equivalent to a ZS61 but is four times faster.  Comparing it to a longer focal length scope makes no sense.

Anyway I am exiting this chat now as the CAPS are coming out. Its just that you clearly think about imaging in a very different way to me. I would chose my focal length to mach the size of object I want to image then get the largest aperture I can afford at that focal length. So if I wanted to image at about 300mm and had no cash it would be a ZS61 if I wanted to image at 300mm and had the cash it would be the FSQ 106, but a 130mm at F7.7 would not factor in that thinking at all.

Bye for now.

Adam

 

 

To end--I was thinking about one thing only....speed. 

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, Adam J said:

Yes that is my entire point, what your paying the money in your FSQ is a scope that has the same pixel scale and the same FOV as a Z61 but is multiple times faster due to having a larger aperture. Which is exactly the same thing as saying its got a faster F-ratio at the same focal length. You paying about 4k more for a scope that is equivalent to a ZS61 but is four times faster.  Comparing it to a longer focal length scope makes no sense.

Anyway I am exiting this chat now as the CAPS are coming out. Its just that you clearly think about imaging in a very different way to me. I would chose my focal length to mach the size of object I want to image then get the largest aperture I can afford at that focal length. So if I wanted to image at about 300mm and had no cash it would be a ZS61 if I wanted to image at 300mm and had the cash it would be the FSQ 106, but a 130mm at F7.7 would not factor in that thinking at all.

Bye for now.

Adam

 

 

I appreciate your input Adam. I meant no offense and only used the caps for emphasis. I am somewhat of a dinosaur and did not realize caps can be construed as yelling.  Zig I offended, please forgive.  Sometimes my passions get the better of me (I wish I could say the same about my processing skills!).  Anyway, clear skies,

Rodd

[tomato]

Thanks for an informative and impassioned debate. If I can add my rather simplistic observation, If you want to capture your images in fewer nights, get a dual rig, in the end I am of the opinion that alas, how much cash you throw at AP is a factor.  

As we used to say in my drag racing days, “speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?”

[Adam J]

25 minutes ago, tomato said:

Thanks for an informative and impassioned debate. If I can add my rather simplistic observation, If you want to capture your images in fewer nights, get a dual rig, in the end I am of the opinion that alas, how much cash you throw at AP is a factor.  

As we used to say in my drag racing days, “speed costs money, how fast do you want to go?”

Yes a dual rig is the way forward these days if you really want to cut you capture times.