Tak FSQ-106ED or EDX

[kirkster501]

Sorry, me with yet another 106 question.  Sorry...

I read over on Cloudynights there are two versions of this scope, the ED and EDX.  Apparently the ED has the "captains wheel" to rotate the camera as opposed to CAA of the EDX.  In the UK it appears all the 106's I can see with dealers are the ED flavour.  I read that the EDX does not suffer so much from flexure when large loads are attached to the focuser.

Anyone share any thoughts on this please?

Still not 100% sure whether to go for the 85 or the 106.  I have the money for a 85 now but biding my time and having a think!  If its the 106 need to wait a little longer.  I think i like the idea of the 106, it will be more future proofed I think.  And the FR brings it right down to a widefield scope par excellence...

[Naemeth]

I'm not an imager, (at least at the moment), but I would go for the 85 - I haven't seen a bad image from it. I'm not saying that I've seen a bad image from the 106 either, but the HEQ-5 / Baby Q combo seem to work brilliantly for Sara, and for Olly (Atik 4000 and Baby Q I believe) until he sold his.

At the end of the day, I'm sure you'd be pleased with either scope, but I wouldn't rule out the Baby Q.

[AlistairHowie]

Jeeeez .... not another question 

Have you seen these pages here ?  http://www.nigelaball.com/ResourcePages/takadapters.html#

The site has contact details as well, so drop him a line ....

[kirkster501]

Jeeeez .... not another question 

Have you seen these pages here ?  http://www.nigelaball.com/ResourcePages/takadapters.html#

The site has contact details as well, so drop him a line ....

Thanks.  There'll be a lot more questions as well, rest assured! 

No had not seen that page.  I shall take a look.

[perfrej]

The EDX is not offered standard in Europe but can be ordered special from what I have heard. I have one and it is a great scope!

/per

[ollypenrice]

I chose the old fluorite as discussed on the previous thread.

You really need to consider the chip size bcause covering that, above all, is what you pay for. If you are not going to exploit the huge flat field of the 106, why pay for it? The gain in resolution is fairly trivial.

Widefield? The 85 with reducer offers a FL of 328mm and the 106 reduced is at 387mm, so the 85 gives a wider FOV until it runs out of flat field at a 40mm circle. WIth the camera you have now you'd get a wider field in the 85 reduced than the 106 reduced. But if you upgrade to full frame or beyond then the 106 takes over, but be aware that the 106 with reducer is right on, or beyond, its limits with a full frame chip. Unreduced it has a vast circle, future proofed till... after I'm gone!!

If I had, and intended to keep, an Atik 460 it would be a no brainer. FSQ85ED.

Olly

[kirkster501]

I chose the old fluorite as discussed on the previous thread.

You really need to consider the chip size bcause covering that, above all, is what you pay for. If you are not going to exploit the huge flat field of the 106, why pay for it? The gain in resolution is fairly trivial.

Widefield? The 85 with reducer offers a FL of 328mm and the 106 reduced is at 387mm, so the 85 gives a wider FOV until it runs out of flat field at a 40mm circle. WIth the camera you have now you'd get a wider field in the 85 reduced than the 106 reduced. But if you upgrade to full frame or beyond then the 106 takes over, but be aware that the 106 with reducer is right on, or beyond, its limits with a full frame chip. Unreduced it has a vast circle, future proofed till... after I'm gone!!

If I had, and intended to keep, an Atik 460 it would be a no brainer. FSQ85ED.

Olly

Thanks Olly.  Yes, I am very aware of your penchant for the 85  I am not dismissing that, just want to be a little future proofed for bigger chips in the future.  I shall think long and hard.  As I said before, I am a lunar visual and Open cluser visual nut as well.  A 106 would be a corker on the moon and on OC's!  But that said, so will a 85 I am sure.  And it is a full £1000 less.

[jackrussell0232]

I know the 106 must be amazing too, but my 85 really has taken my breath away.  At the rate I'm going, it will take me years of practice to produce any images worthy of it, but I actually looked through it a few nights ago and thought "how can this be the same size as my ED80" (which is also a great scope).  I think it is the telescopic equivalent of a 'rail gun' - how anything so small can pack such a punch defies explanation.  Expensive yes, but I wish I had bought one years ago.

When/if the big ccds become more affordable, I may eventually yearn for a bigger flat field, but I don't see me owning anything beyond 35mm diagonal for some time...

I bought mine with the finder, which is optically excellent too, but you'd need to have a very flexible neck and a small (japanese?) head, to look through it! (straight through finders - comedy).

Now saving for a TOA150.

JMHO,

Jack

[Velvet]

I have the 106 ED and its is a lovely scope not one complaint about it at all.  I have a microtouch focuser on mine but have used the Tak one

and both are very good.  I have full image rig hanging off mine and have not had problems.  No problems with the captains wheel either.

I have also done a joint project with Stephen (he has the 85) and that also is a great scope.

given you have the money for the 85 and the 106 is quite a bit more, go for the 85 and perhaps in time get the extender?  The reducer in the

85 is a nice combo too.

If you are going to come into some money quickly then my choice would be the 106, but then i am biased

Velvet

[ollypenrice]

I have the 106 ED and its is a lovely scope not one complaint about it at all.  I have a microtouch focuser on mine but have used the Tak one

and both are very good.  I have full image rig hanging off mine and have not had problems.  No problems with the captains wheel either.

I have also done a joint project with Stephen (he has the 85) and that also is a great scope.

given you have the money for the 85 and the 106 is quite a bit more, go for the 85 and perhaps in time get the extender?  The reducer in the

85 is a nice combo too.

If you are going to come into some money quickly then my choice would be the 106, but then i am biased

Velvet

Interestingly, though, you don't have focus drift issues with your 106ED. It may be to do with the environmental conditions where you image, but it is certainly a well-known issue for many people. On the other hand Kirkster lives quite near you so he might not have them either!

I think all the FSQ camera rotators and focusers are good, at least all the ones I've seen. I have a Feathertouch Captains's Wheel on the TEC140 but I don't prefer it to the Tak rotator. Both work well.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

I know the 106 must be amazing too, but my 85 really has taken my breath away.  At the rate I'm going, it will take me years of practice to produce any images worthy of it, but I actually looked through it a few nights ago and thought "how can this be the same size as my ED80" (which is also a great scope).  I think it is the telescopic equivalent of a 'rail gun' - how anything so small can pack such a punch defies explanation.  Expensive yes, but I wish I had bought one years ago.

JMHO,

Jack

I have admit to the fact that I've never looked through my 106. I must do so!

Like Jack I was blown away by the 85, visually. I was able to see the Hamburger galaxy in the Leo Triplet. I expected to see M66 and M67 but I thought that getting the third member in 85mm was remarkable. I have a good site but indifferent sight. (Heh, never thought of that little wordplay before!)

Olly

[kirkster501]

Remember that if you buy the 85 you do not get a CAA - its an extra.  I quite like the idea of one of those.  They are £200 odd.  So that would need to be added to the cost of the 85.  So the differential is then "only" £800....

I have not a clue what to do TBH!  I shall do a heeny-meeny-miny-mo I think.....

[ShineOn]

Remember that if you buy the 85 you do not get a CAA - its an extra.  I quite like the idea of one of those.  They are £200 odd.  So that would need to be added to the cost of the 85.  So the differential is then "only" £800....

I have not a clue what to do TBH!  I shall do a heeny-meeny-miny-mo I think.....

Actually not true. I recently got my 85 from Ian King.....complete with CAA bundled for the price on his website.

[perfrej]

Olly, I have not looked through any of my scopes. Who does

I reserve the rare visual moment for your kittle dobsonian !!!

/per

[kirkster501]

Actually not true. I recently got my 85 from Ian King.....complete with CAA bundled for the price on his website.

Wow, really?

Well, that might swing me towards the 85 then.  Does the 85 come with the necessary bits to get the EFW2 connected?  Via a 2-inch nosepiece?

[ShineOn]

Wow, really?

Well, that might swing me towards the 85 then.  Does the 85 come with the necessary bits to get the EFW2 connected?  Via a 2-inch nosepiece?

Yes, it was a surprise to me too because his site implies it's not included...but it is. I did trip up a bit on the various adapters / connectors needed though. Ian supplied me with the wide t mount and CA35 adapter but you'll also need this adapter to link the EFW2 to the imaging train:

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/adaptors/atik-m54-to-m42-t-adapter.html

I also had to go back to Ian for the Tak extension tube (part no. TKA23250) to use when operating at native focal length without the 0.73 reducer. The Tak system chart here maps things out:  

http://www.takahashi-europe.com/en/FSQ-85ED.systemcharts.php

Simon

[kirkster501]

Thanks Simon.  I have that adapter, it connects to a T thread.

I will give Ian King a call next week and he can talk me through stuff.  I have met him several times, he is a really helpful bloke.  I think I am going to go for the 85, following your, Olly's and Sara's example.  It will complement my RC8 nicely.  It is wider Nebula views I want first and foremost.  I will complement it with the reducer later on.

I notice you have the same CCD as me as well btw 

Thanks, Steve

[ollypenrice]

It gets more complicated with the reducer. The great thing about a Petzval at native FL is that there is no 'chip distance' so you just focus. With the reducer you will need a custom adapter to give you the right distance. Tom O'Donoghue sorted me out with one from the states and, more recently, Optcorps did likewise for the TEC reducer adapter I just bought. Sara can supply exact dimensions for your camera, which is really great. In both cases I just shut my eyes when the bill came and promised myself I wouldn't cry. However, FLO are in contact with a guy in the UK who will make these things. Tim told me he was very good as well.

I bought my Tak 85 new from the ill fated Albert Etherington and got all sorts of things included. I could have gone down for the lot, of course, but in fairness I actually got the clamshell, clamshell foot, CA35 and extension tube all in with the deal. Boy, Takahashi love their extras!

Steve, you will love this scope. It can walk on water.

Olly

[AlistairHowie]

Jeez Olly, will you stop sitting on the fence and say what you really think??? All this prevarication is doing my head in!

[kirkster501]

Sorry I have still not gone for it yet, despite all my bluster.  Just waiting to see how things develop with my wife's health before committing £3500, things very unceratin with her at the moment.  I also damaged my bike -  the rear Camag Record derailleur = £££££  Hopefully will get the Tak in next few weeks.

[giorgio_ne]

First things first,

1 - I wish your wife all the best, take great care of her.

2 - Concerning your choice, I will restate the obvious by saying that the 106 is a more performant scope.

That extra reach however will require more performant additional equipment to be fully exploited (mount, camera, maybe motorised focus).

It's entirely up to you to evaluate how your hobby will evolve and if you will be able to make the 106 as future prof as you wish it could be.

3 - Sell that bike and get a cheaper one. Your cycling performance is 99.999% determined by your own body and the will to get on that saddle.

Clear skies!

[ollypenrice]

First things first,

1 - I wish your wife all the best, take great care of her.

2 - Concerning your choice, I will restate the obvious by saying that the 106 is a more performant scope.

That extra reach however will require more performant additional equipment to be fully exploited (mount, camera, maybe motorised focus).

It's entirely up to you to evaluate how your hobby will evolve and if you will be able to make the 106 as future prof as you wish it could be.

3 - Sell that bike and get a cheaper one. Your cycling performance is 99.999% determined by your own body and the will to get on that saddle.

Clear skies!

I agree with one and three (especially one) but not two. In some ways the 85 has a better performance. I've quite a lot of experience of both. The small one is even better colour corrected and holds focus better. It is also less sensitive to internal reflections. A specific example, the Witch Head Nebula. My friend Tom suffered terrible off-chip flares from Rigel on his image using a 106. I got them in the 85 only if I used the reducer. When I took it out I had no more flares and I gave my data to Tom to patch his 106 image. It isn't a simple case of bigger being better. I find I'm more prone to haloes in the 106 as well.

Olly

[Earl]

Make sure everything is screw together no push fit silliness.

You might to to get adapters custom made.

[steppenwolf]

However, FLO are in contact with a guy in the UK who will make these things. Tim told me he was very good as well.

I can confirm that FLO's guy (John) produces excellent custom adaptors.

[kirkster501]

I can confirm that FLO's guy (John) produces excellent custom adaptors.

At what £££££ though?