Ovoids with Mesu and Tak FSQ 85

[steppenwolf]

Steve (Gnomus) I recall only too well the way you were treated by both dealer and Tak Europe - I fully understand why you wouldn't consider buying another new one - neither would I. My dealer worked hard on my behalf and refunded with no quibble when it was clear that the instrument didn't perform as claimed.

[libraryman]

I've had this short video on my iPad for some time, I took it after stripping down a Takahashi fsq106ed focuser!

Its not complete and the sound is weak, but it gives some idea of how the design is supposed to reduce flex!

After  reading this post I thought it may help owners to understand the innards of the focuser and the mechanics of it..

nothing to be afraid of but care has to be taken on reassembly of the linear bearing carrier back onto the tube.....slow and careful.

the point is that removed from the scope, one has a much better feel for adjusting the 4 grub screws that control friction on the pads.

after adjusting the pressure via the 4 grub screws; the focuser in the video felt much smoother and tighter!

Ray

      

IMG_0651.MOV

[gnomus]

Thank you Ray.  My issue was not flex in the focuser, however.

[libraryman]

No worries, it's for anyone who thinks  flex is a contributor to the oval star issue, I just see it referred to in the preceding posts and thought it may be of use to someone!

Ray

[ollypenrice]

Besides the two Steves on here I have come across several other problem Baby Q posts, all about corner stars. Mine was fine and there's one here in our robotic shed which is also fine but I no longer recommend the Baby Q when asked because there are too many bad ones circulating. When you can't trust the European importer (and you can't, as Steve's experience shows) or the QC then it's time to take a rain check. The clincher in Steve's case came when he found the same camera perfectly satisfactory in a later scope, so it wasn't chip tilt. In an all-screwed assembly that's about that, surely?

We now run a pair of old FSQ106Ns here and are 100% happy wth them. 

Olly

[libraryman]

In my opinion, it's about the marketing hype that has been perpetuated by the belief that the Takahashi is "the" telescope to own if you wish to obtain the best images!

the simple truth is that just like any telescope; the Tak range are susceptible to manufacting issues!

The importers try to peddle the lie that Tak's are perfect and no issues ever arise because of the care and attention taken during manufacture.  Of course there can be issues and problems, it's a fact of life but they are less than willing to accept it and given the difficulties of assessing and proving an issue in the great British climate along with the other contributors (camera sensors) uiding issues etc, it can be difficult to resolve issues.

Ray

Edited October 16, 2016 by libraryman

[gnomus]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

.... but I no longer recommend the Baby Q when asked because there are too many bad ones circulating....

So with the demise of the WO Star 71 (which had pretty poor QC in any case, it would seem), and a bar on Tak, what options are out there for the aspiring widefield imager wanting something a little better (or maybe a whole lot better) quality than an ED80?  By widefield, I mean it would need to be able to fit in M31 in a 'oner'.  

The Esprit 80 looks a good option, but it is on a fixed foot that, I am told, cannot be removed.  It is not clear, therefore, how you can get a guidescope on top of it, unless you are happy with a finderscope sitting in the standard Synta shoe (I'm not sure that I am).  

I feel a new thread coming on........  (You can tell the weather is rubbish in blighty at the moment can't you?)

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

So with the demise of the WO Star 71 (which had pretty poor QC in any case, it would seem), and a bar on Tak, what options are out there for the aspiring widefield imager wanting something a little better (or maybe a whole lot better) quality than an ED80?  By widefield, I mean it would need to be able to fit in M31 in a 'oner'.  

The Esprit 80 looks a good option, but it is on a fixed foot that, I am told, cannot be removed.  It is not clear, therefore, how you can get a guidescope on top of it, unless you are happy with a finderscope sitting in the standard Synta shoe (I'm not sure that I am).  

I feel a new thread coming on........  (You can tell the weather is rubbish in blighty at the moment can't you?)

It's a serious question!

I don't think you can get M31 in a single frame with anything resembling a telescopic focal length. If you get the full outer glow it is a two panel in full frame format at 500mm FL. That means you have to have something that will cover full frame to get anywhere near, in one. The claimed image circle for the Esprit 80 with flattener is a rather paltry 33mm so that won't take a big chip. For the big Kodaks you need about 45 or 46. Theory says 44 but that turns out to be a bit 'iffy.'

It was after some thought that we went for the older fluorite FSQ106N option here. The 88mm claimed circle rather puts the problem to bed. Buying second hand you can ask for a sample image from the scope, too.

It shouldn't be this difficult but it is...

Olly

[Uranium235]

Youre probably looking at a camera lens then.... but thats going to be pricey.

Fortunately, 2nd my Star71 turned out to be alright - but only when its perfectly focused. If im a bit off or I leave it to drift on a cold night then the corners do suffer.

[StuartJPP]

45 minutes ago, Uranium235 said:

Youre probably looking at a camera lens then.... but thats going to be pricey.

Take up bird photography as a hobby, buy either a Canon/Nikon 500mm f/4, a 400mm f/2.8 or a 600mm f/4 lens and then you effectively only paid half for your OTA due to it's dual purpose use

Well that is what I told the OH anyway...plus it looks cool in camo...

 

 

After all, if it is good enough for these guys...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/09/01/canadian-prof-discovers-dark-matter-milky-way-size-galaxy.html

[gnomus]

Love the second photo.  So now we know what happens to all those Taks that get returned.

[StuartJPP]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

Love the second photo.  So now we know what happens to all those Taks that get returned.

Naah, they wouldn't use mere Taks, these are proper OTAs with nano coatings

 

[mftoet]

So with the demise of the WO Star 71 (which had pretty poor QC in any case, it would seem), and a bar on Tak, what options are out there for the aspiring widefield imager wanting something a little better (or maybe a whole lot better)

One of the many refractors + correctors, extenders and reducers of Borg / Astro Hutech might be the answer. I once owned a Borg 101ED that covered Medium Format. I used it with a Mamiya 645 camera. 

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/borg/astrogr/index.htm

You can also keep an eye out for secondhand Pentax refractors from the analogue age. Remember that "full frame" (35mm) coverage was the standard back then. 

[kirkster501]

Gnomus (I would have used Steve, but there's too many of us about on this thread ),

The pixel size of that image is such because it is just a screen capture - yes, as you state,  the original is 2800x2200.  Even in that image the stars to the upper left are not 100% correct.  But I think that can be explained by the fact these were 6 x 300s exposures and my PA is not perfect.

I've attached a single M31 300s luminance with the 85 + reducer that has not been tinkered with in any way.  I cannot see anything wrong with my scope.  At extreme zoomed in maybe the tiniest amount of egginess in the corners.  I am prepared to accept that even if it were the scope producing it. So I am happy with my BabyQ.  Sad that some folks have been disappointed with theirs and the dream did not live up to expectations.  Indeed, there is £4000 worth of scope when the reducer is factored in.  At that price one has a right to expect perfection.

Edited October 17, 2016 by kirkster501

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, kirkster501 said:

Gnomus (I would have used Steve, but there's too many of us about on this thread ),

The pixel size of that image is such because it is just a screen capture - yes, as you state,  the original is 2800x2200.  Even in that image the stars to the upper left are not 100% correct.  But I think that can be explained by the fact these were 6 x 300s exposures and my PA is not perfect.

I've attached a single M31 300s luminance with the 85 + reducer that has not been tinkered with in any way.  I cannot see anything wrong with my scope.  At extreme zoomed in maybe the tiniest amount of egginess in the corners.  I am prepared to accept that even if it were the scope producing it. So I am happy with my BabyQ.  Sad that some folks have been disappointed with theirs and the dream did not live up to expectations.  Indeed, there is £4000 worth of scope when the reducer is factored in.  At that price one has a right to expect perfection.

You'll struggle to find a scope that can do better at F3.9 than that. Top left isn't perfect but it isn't bad and you can write a quick Ps action for 'rounding stars' (one at a time but there won't be many) to fix that corner. Mind you, if you were using an 8300 chip you might not be so happy... While it ought to be possible to buy a scope knowing that it will give perfect stars corner to corner within the specified image circle it just seems that you can't!

One thing, though Steve (Kirk!): put the official flattener on your TEC and there you will have a flat field you could land a glider on. WIth full frame ours isn't even slightly taxed. 

Olly

[ollypenrice]

17 hours ago, mftoet said:

 

One of the many refractors + correctors, extenders and reducers of Borg / Astro Hutech might be the answer. I once owned a Borg 101ED that covered Medium Format. I used it with a Mamiya 645 camera. 

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/borg/astrogr/index.htm

You can also keep an eye out for secondhand Pentax refractors from the analogue age. Remember that "full frame" (35mm) coverage was the standard back then. 

But perhaps the problem with the older scopes can be the blue correction, which didn't need to be anything like as good at the shortest wavelengths as is now needed for digital cameras? My Mk 1 F5 Genesis (remember that one?) was Tak-like in narrowband but out of its depth in blue.

Olly

[gnomus]

Hi Steve

Your stars have the opposite issue to mine.  Mine formed a radial pattern around the image, whereas yours tend to point towards the centre.  Yours don't look nearly as bad as mine did (albeit with an 8300 chip).  Do you use the reducer?  If so, are you certain you have the spacing correct?  It is possible that most of these would 'stack out' and, as Olly says, you could use a rounding action for the few that remain if they bother you.   I have a PS action and could send it to you if you want it.  But it is very easy to make up your own.   (I have a slightly different action set up for small, medium and larger stars).  The other relevant point that Olly makes is that you are at f/3.9.  I get round stars all over with the flattener on my Esprit - but that is at f/7 which I guess is a much easier proposition.  

I'm probably too fussy and a pixel peeper and a whole load of other things (no doubt the wife could chip in with a few choice epithets).  

PS When are we going to see some images from that TEC?  I saw one at the Astro show in Warwick at the weekend and it looked all new, shiny and very tempting.  It's just as well I had the missus with me......

Regards

Steve   

[Tiny Small]

19 hours ago, mftoet said:

 

One of the many refractors + correctors, extenders and reducers of Borg / Astro Hutech might be the answer. I once owned a Borg 101ED that covered Medium Format. I used it with a Mamiya 645 camera. 

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/borg/astrogr/index.htm

You can also keep an eye out for secondhand Pentax refractors from the analogue age. Remember that "full frame" (35mm) coverage was the standard back then. 

Interesting... I've got a 645 and an RZ 67 with a phase one digital back collecting dust at the moment... wonder what the wife will say when I pitch that idea to her.

[mftoet]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

But perhaps the problem with the older scopes can be the blue correction, which didn't need to be anything like as good at the shortest wavelengths as is now needed for digital cameras?

That is probably an issue you have to consider indeed. Now you mentioned it: in the end I used the Borg 101ED in its native f/6.4 configuration with a minus violet filter.

From what I've heard, the Pentax 100 SDUF II isn't so good for digital photography for the reason you mentioned.  That's probably why Vixen redesigned it and added an extra lens. 

[kirkster501]

Hi Steve (gnomus), See my M27 with the TEC here:

@Olly, yes I will get the Flattener for the TEC as well eventually.  Not sure I need one though with my current chip on the Atik 460.  I did the maths when I bought the TEC.  (Incidentally the TEC is a magnificent visual scope!).

Back to topic of the FSQ, yes, I am using the reducer on the M31 above (and the NA nebula I posted on Saturday).

Most important thing for me is to gain processing experience after the stacking and combining stage - as the M27 demonstrates.  I think I am steadily getting there in terms of getting the data in the can.

I am very pleased with my FSQ + reducer (after I fixed the reducer).

[kirkster501]

Meant to also say  that my FSQ 85 is perfectly par-focal with the Baader LRGB and Ha filters and the focus stays true all night.  PERFECTLY parfocal.  I have spent a lot of time confirming this, they are absolutely bang on focus when i move filters.  They are NOT quite parfocal with the TEC - LRG are parfocal but Blue and Ha are not quite and need a tiny nudge.

Edited October 17, 2016 by kirkster501

[gnomus]

Jings I'd forgotten about M27 - and I commented on it too.  This age thing is no laughing matter.  Regarding parfocality - I would have thought that a modern chap like you would have everything robofocussed.  

[kirkster501]

5 minutes ago, gnomus said:

Jings I'd forgotten about M27 - and I commented on it too.  This age thing is no laughing matter.  Regarding parfocality - I would have thought that a modern chap like you would have everything robofocussed.  

My next project after I get my MESU in and working Steve  

[ollypenrice]

Humph, robotic focus. Any of you guys host five robotic scopes? I do, and I also host five fingers on each hand and they are not connected by USB....

lly

Edited October 17, 2016 by ollypenrice

[steppenwolf]

The stars on my FSQ were elongated radially with my 8300 equipped camera like Steve (Gnomus'), not pointing into the corners as yours demonstrate minutely in bottom left and top right but pixel peeking is the only way to see these and I wish my example had been as good as this.

Autofocus is well worth implementing Steve (Kirkster) but as you say, one step at a time, get that lovely Mesu in and working first!