Short Focal Length Tak question......

[johnrt]

Short focal length astrograph.......

Tak Epsilon 130 "Mini Nana"

OR

Tak FSQ 85 (Baby Q)

Discuss.......

[wuthton]

Baby Q for me.... Cameras attach to the back of telescopes as far as I'm concerned  .

[swag72]

Looks like a new scope on the cards then John?

Of the two I'd go for the Baby Q, but then I am biased and can only speak from my experience! So far this scope has proved to be a corker. I love it. 

[johnrt]

Hmm, it's not an immediate purchase, but one for the mid to long term, I'm still enjoying the 6"RC a little too much, but one on the cards at some point. So please hold off on the PM's offering me your unwanted Tak's at least for the time being.

Now I was quite prepaired for the Baby Q endorsements, it's a proven performer and in the right hands an awsome instrument, *but* is nobody else curious as to the possibilities with the "Mini Nana"? I do like to back the underdog and do something a little different, and it has pricked my interest.

[swag72]

I was just writing the PM offering my BabyQ ..... As I don't wish to offend I'll delete it :d

[johnrt]

An image from Astrobin with the "Mini Nana"

[lensman57]

Hi John,

If I were rich I'd go for the 180 F2.8, the images that I have seen taken with this scope on Astrobin were breathtaking.

Regards,

A.G

[ollypenrice]

Baby Q. (Well there's a surprize!  ) You can do F3.9 easily, without fiddle or faff, night after night after night. Point and shoot. And after three years you don't have to pull it to bits for cleaning and start the collimation over again. And do you want diff spikes at short focal lengths? It's one thing to like them at 2 metres but do you want to do the Pleiades with diff spikes? Or Milky Way widefields? These images have something of the second world war mass cemeteries to me.

F3.9 is hardly slow and refractors are so easy, long lived, maintenance free and productive. Plus you'd have the option of the native FL as well.

Olly

[johnrt]

And do you want diff spikes at short focal lengths? These images have something of the second world war mass cemeteries to me.

Oh not now you've made that comparison, no!!!! I'll never be able to look at them quite the same again now!

[ollypenrice]

Oh not now you've made that comparison, no!!!! I'll never be able to look at them quite the same again now!

Glad to hear it!!  Mass star spikes are not good to my eye. I learned to live with them in Yves' 14 inch but that was at 2.4 metres so not many stars per frame. The other great negative is delivered by all those stars that don't quite create spikes but are not round, either. Little diamond-like things with putative spikes. No, not for me.

Baby Q, Baby Q! (C'mon Sara, tell 'im!!!!)

lly

[swag72]

Baby Q? Nah don't bother

[pietervdv]

I would go for the Epsilon. It covers a FF sensor which I am nor sure a reduced fsq 85 will ? Collimation is tricky on an Epsilon, but once you have it nailed very stable. There is just something very special about images taken with an Epsilon. It is the incredible sharpness and the signature star spikes. And besides, refractors are easy, why not go for something different?

[pietervdv]

To come back on Olly point about blocky stars... That is indeed the only issue with the Epsilon. This is caused by the huge thick vaned secondary spider. You see it in the OO astrographs aswell. A custom DIY double vaned spider from 0.5 mm sheetmetal should fix this, if you are up for such a teardown/rebuild.

Regards,

Pieter

[ollypenrice]

To come back on Olly point about blocky stars... That is indeed the only issue with the Epsilon. This is caused by the huge thick vaned secondary spider. You see it in the OO astrographs aswell. A custom DIY double vaned spider from 0.5 mm sheetmetal should fix this, if you are up for such a teardown/rebuild.

Regards,

Pieter

Yes, I thought of your home made reflector when I made that comment, Pieter, because your ultra thin vanes give a great look and avoid the blocky stars. However, you also have a longer focal length and I think that the wider the field the more obtrusive the star spikes become.

Olly

[johnrt]

Would ripping apart a £2300 scope and rebuilding part of it to make it fit for purpose not grate on the nerves a little?

[ollypenrice]

Would ripping apart a £2300 scope and rebuilding part of it to make it fit for purpose not grate on the nerves a little?

Quite possibly! I remember that the rarely-seen Vixen VC200L was a blocky star monster and people sometimes ground down the thick spider vanes to improve it.

Olly

[whipdry]

Whatever you decide I wish you luck with your choice of Takahashi!

As a Baby Q owner I'd just add this...

Peter

[johnrt]

Or I could save myself a few thousand £££'s and embark on this lunacy with the 6"RC! 

[ollypenrice]

Or I could save myself a few thousand £££'s and embark on this lunacy with the 6"RC! 

It's a heck of a lot easier in one go: http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-3D2Hw7s/0/O/M31%20Outer%20Halo.jpg

However, I really wish I could get the colour balance that Jonas achieved in his masterpiece. (I don't aim to compete on resolution!  ) Next time he's here I'm going to sit him down with a nice drink and talk him into telling me what he did...

lly

[tony210]

The VC200L with ground down spider was a hell of an imaging scope however! - playing Devils advocate - I do feel tempted by retractor stars ... they seem to need much less attention than mirrored scopes-good thread - Tony.

[johnrt]

It's a heck of a lot easier in one go: http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/i-3D2Hw7s/0/O/M31%20Outer%20Halo.jpg

However, I really wish I could get the colour balance that Jonas achieved in his masterpiece. (I don't aim to compete on resolution!  ) Next time he's here I'm going to sit him down with a nice drink and talk him into telling me what he did...

lly

Well, I can look on the bright side here, I could certainly leave panels 4,3,8,9,14 & 13 until last and I'd have a pretty decent image even without them