Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

TAK FSQ Fluorite versions

kirkster501

Recommended Posts

steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted

This is very odd because the Tak Europe importer is perfectly clear about the image circles of 40 and 44mm. http://www.optique-u...uit/m/0/p/TK023

Much to my surprise, I also found the incorrect specification here.

Solutions are to robotize the focus (and if Maurice doesn't fancy it I can promise you I certainly don't!!)

I'm with you, Olly - despite my love of all things computerised, this would be a last resort for me unless I was imaging remotely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Much to my surprise, I also found the incorrect specification here.

I'm with you, Olly - despite my love of all things computerised, this would be a last resort for me unless I was imaging remotely!

I think I'll email them about this...

Olly

Email sent, stating that from experience I don't believe in the 60mm and asking about the America and Europe discrepencies in spec.  This is pretty weird for a firm like Tak. It's a crying shame that the long ends of this image were distorted because it's a pretty glorious FOV, eh what??  :grin:  :grin:  Ignore the various CCD defects. Those are now sorted.

test%20stackP1WEB-XL.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

So why the change from flourite glass to ED ? not to cut costs I hope. Is there any advantage to using ED glass ?

Dave

Tak say 'mainly for environmental reasons...' That might be Japanese for 'money,' of course...  We must be fair to the ED versions of the 106; they are even better colour corrected than the fluorites and can take the focal reducer. The downside is just this infernal focus drift.

Gee whiz, thats an incredible FoV!!! :)  Astonishing!  What combo took that?

This was Baby Q and Atik 11000 at native 450mm FL. But get in close and the end distortions are quite severe. The 106 has a FL of 530 but no distortions.

(You can still do M78, Horse, Flame, Running Man and M42 in 2 panels, though...)

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kirkster501

kirkster501

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am very tempted by that 106 scope of Mark's too.  I have the money burning a hole in my pocket :) It would make a great lunar observing scope as well with the extender Q.  Very tempted.  I just wished he lived nearer to me so I could check it out.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

If you want an FSQ second hand I think you'll have to travel or trust your fellow astronomers. They are not that plentiful. Tom went from Ireland to London for his. My TEC was delivered from Leicester to SE France by its owner (!! I contributed to his fare...) and Parcel Force tried and failed to destroy my 106N. Sara came from Spain to collect my 85.

C'est la vie. I hope someone buys the damned thing before I do!

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mftoet

mftoet

Posted
Posted
The Baby Q without reducer doesn't claim to cover the ST11000 either. It only claims 44mm. Part of the confusion, maybe, comes from the non specific term 'full frame' which Takahashi take to mean 35mm. The Kodak 11 meg is over 37mm on the long side, according to Atik.

A little caution about chip size and actual/effective imaging area. According to this product sheet, the chip size of the 11k measures 37.25 x 25.7 mm. The total number of pixels is 4072 x 2720. Nevertheless, the active number of pixels is 4008 x 2672 which (by multiplying the numbesr by 9 micron) yield an imaging area of 36.07 x  24.05 (43.4 mm diagonal). Sounds like 135 film format (a.k.a. full frame: 36.0 x 24.0 mm) to me. The "35" in 35 mm film refers to physical width of the film (including the perforations).

As far as my Japanese goes, I can read "44 mm" in the third line in the specifications of the FSQ-85ED on the Takahashi website. If the specs are true it should be suitable for a full frame camera. I wonder why Olly had problems with it covering a 11k sensor. Maybe the active pixels are spreaded over the 37.25 x 25.7 area and the 11k sensor is in fact effectively/actively a little larger than true full frame?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlistairHowie

AlistairHowie

Posted
Posted

Re the dodgy Tak specifications, this is unfortunately nothing new!  Here's the comical wording from a great 2010 review of the FSQ85 which you can find here ... http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=803

As usual, Tak should be more careful in their wording. Let's just take the basics. How much does the 85 weigh? I see it at 7.5 pounds, and I see it at 8.8 pounds. Sorry, in good conscience, I don't own an accurate-enough scale to tell you. And just how long is this scope, just in case, like me, you have a favorite carrying case lined up? The instrument is 14.5 inches (368mm) long with the dewshield retracted, and 18” (457mm) long with it extended. One inch equals 25.4 millimeters. 25.4 millimeters equals one inch. The measurements are from the edge of the dew shield to the edge of the focuser with nothing installed, which would define the term Optical Tube Assembly. I fail to see the difficulty in listing accurate figures. I wish I could work out all of the numbers they get wrong in their specifications, but I am afraid I might make a mistake and create more confusion, so I did the simplest. I double dare you to find my numbers. I have seen it listed at 12", and I have seen it listed at 25”. It all seems so comical, but what if these numbers are important to the potential buyer? If you need to know a certain value, please feel free to contact me and I will do my best to calculate an accurate number for you using my scope itself. I’m quite sure your dealer would be understanding in your return of the instrument for this reason, but none of us really need the hassle

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

A little caution about chip size and actual/effective imaging area. According to this product sheet, the chip size of the 11k measures 37.25 x 25.7 mm. The total number of pixels is 4072 x 2720. Nevertheless, the active number of pixels is 4008 x 2672 which (by multiplying the numbesr by 9 micron) yield an imaging area of 36.07 x  24.05 (43.4 mm diagonal). Sounds like 135 film format (a.k.a. full frame: 36.0 x 24.0 mm) to me. The "35" in 35 mm film refers to physical width of the film (including the perforations).

As far as my Japanese goes, I can read "44 mm" in the third line in the specifications of the FSQ-85ED on the Takahashi website. If the specs are true it should be suitable for a full frame camera. I wonder why Olly had problems with it covering a 11k sensor. Maybe the active pixels are spreaded over the 37.25 x 25.7 area and the 11k sensor is in fact effectively/actively a little larger than true full frame?   

I wondered about this as well, but I'm pretty sure Yves also found he didn't get perfect ends with his equivalent setup. Could it just be that the pixels are slightly separated and, therefore, spead out as you suggest?

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kirkster501

kirkster501

Posted
  • Author
Posted

How does one connect the EFW2 filter wheel to the CA35 thread please?   I am assuming this thread is what is presented by the CAA ?  I would want CA35 to T thread presentation. Better still, CA35 to 2" Baader click-lock adapter could attach too....  That would be great for the AP shebang and also EP's and other gadgets.

Rgds, Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted

How does one connect the EFW2 filter wheel to the CA35 thread please?

Tak do a 54mm (F)  to 'T' (M) adaptor which is 12mm deep. However, I seem to recall that the front port of the EFW2 is 54mm (F) so if spacing isn't and issue (i.e. no reducer) perhaps you could find a 54mm (M) to 54mm (M) adaptor ring to connect straight onto the filter wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kirkster501

kirkster501

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Tak do a 54mm (F)  to 'T' (M) adaptor which is 12mm deep. However, I seem to recall that the front port of the EFW2 is 54mm (F) so if spacing isn't and issue (i.e. no reducer) perhaps you could find a 54mm (M) to 54mm (M) adaptor ring to connect straight onto the filter wheel.

Yes that could be possible. I do not use OAG and nor a  reducer if that helps with an answer.  This must be a common question.

Ideally, I'd like a 2" Baader Click lock to fit onto the CA35 thread in some way. That gives the best of all worlds:  a secure connection for a 2" nosepiece for AP and also a good way of getting 2" Diagonals/EP's securely connected.  I shall investigate later (when i am not stealing work's time ;)  )

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.