First light with the Takahashi FOA60(Q)

[HollyHound]

1 hour ago, JeremyS said:

I use an Oklop bag for my Tak FOA 60Q. But I wouldn’t take it hiking in it. Too long.

For my FC76DCU is use a backpack 

I have the same bag for my FOA-60(Q)... works well for keeping it safely stored around the house anyway... have one also for the DZ and Mewlon 👍

[MalcolmM]

9 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

I have the same bag for my FOA-60(Q)... works well for keeping it safely stored around the house anyway... have one also for the DZ and Mewlon 👍

Big favour please? Could you link to the bags you use for 60Q, 100 and Mewlon please? Thanks,

Malcolm 

[HollyHound]

11 minutes ago, MalcolmM said:

Big favour please? Could you link to the bags you use for 60Q, 100 and Mewlon please? Thanks,

Malcolm 

No problem...

• FOA-60(Q) - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-80mm-600mm-apo-refractors.html
• FC-100DZ (or indeed the FC-100DC) - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-100mm-900mm-apo-refractors.html
• Mewlon 180C (although it says it's for a 9.25 SCT it is just the right size for the Mewlon too, the finder pocket embraces the built in finder perfectly 😁) - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-backpack-for-925-inch-sct-telescope-ota.html

In all cases (pardon the pun)... they can be stored with full diagonals/extensions and Clicklocks required, without removal 👍

Hope this helps 😀

Edited December 14, 2022 by HollyHound

[JeremyS]

23 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

I have the same bag for my FOA-60(Q)... works well for keeping it safely stored around the house anyway... have one also for the DZ and Mewlon 👍

It was you that told me about the Oklop bas for the FOA 60Q, Gary. Thanks 👍🏻

[HollyHound]

Just now, JeremyS said:

It was you that told me about the Oklop bas for the FOA 60Q, Gary. Thanks 👍🏻

No problem... that's why I love this forum 😁

[Hans Joakim]

Thanks for the feedback, Gary and Jeremy! Much appreciated.

Those Oklop bags are excellent. I have this two-compartment, padded bag that I’m very happy with: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-small-telescopes.html

Just out of curiosity: Have any of you done a side-by-side comparison between the views had in a FC-100 and the FOA-60Q on say the Moon, planets and brighter Messier objects? Not a fair comparison aperture-wise, or considering the higher price tag for the FC-100, but curious about how well the smaller gem matches its larger sister! 

(Guess I’m just looking for good reasons to buy another Tak!) *** Calling Takophile Anonymous ***

Edited December 14, 2022 by Hans Joakim

[JeremyS]

24 minutes ago, Hans Joakim said:

Thanks for the feedback, Gary and Jeremy! Much appreciated.

Those Oklop bags are excellent. I have this two-compartment, padded bag that I’m very happy with: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-small-telescopes.html

Just out of curiosity: Have any of you done a side-by-side comparison between the views had in a FC-100 and the FOA-60Q on say the Moon, planets and brighter Messier objects? Not a fair comparison aperture-wise, or considering the higher price tag for the FC-100, but curious about how well the smaller gem matches its larger sister! 

(Guess I’m just looking for good reasons to buy another Tak!) *** Calling Takophile Anonymous ***

Well, I’d love to say that my FOA 60Q and FC 100 DZ performed the same. Planetary detail, notably Jupiter and Mars, is better in the DZ. Deep sky objects are also brighter. Pretty much as you’d expect. But the FOA is no slouch, especially considering how easy it is to grab and go.

If you want an inspiration on the FOA as a visual scope, have a look at this guy’s website: https://www.fzu.cz/~kupco/astro/equipment/FOA60.html

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Hans Joakim said:

Just out of curiosity: Have any of you done a side-by-side comparison between the views had in a FC-100 and the FOA-60Q on say the Moon, planets and brighter Messier objects? Not a fair comparison aperture-wise, or considering the higher price tag for the FC-100, but curious about how well the smaller gem matches its larger sister! 

I don’t have an FOA-60Q or a DZ, but do have an FS-60Q, FC-76Q and FC-100DC. 

To be honest, as they say, ‘Ye cannae change the laws of physics!’

They perform as you would expect, increasing aperture gives increasing brightness, limiting magnitude and resolution. I’ve not compared, say, the 60 with the 100 on the Moon, but I have on planets between the 76 and 100 on the Sun, and the resolution benefits are clear. For example, I find you have to observe quite carefully to see granulation in the 76, but with the 100 it is right there (assuming decent enough seeing conditions).

On Jupiter, with the 60mm the basics are there, the main equatorial belts with some hints of detail and possible others too. GRS and shadow transits can also be seen. In the 100mm there is more detail in the belts and more likely to be others on show. Shadow transits are easier to spot and more detail would be seen around GRS for example.

Recently I observed Mars with the 60mm, admittedly when the blander side was facing us the detail was pretty scant, faint markings and hints of an ice cap. Again, through the 100mm the detail was much more obvious. The FOA may well do better on Mars, but will still be aperture limited.

The obvious benefit of the FS-60C or Q is the compact size. Recently I was away for three nights; at my parents for two and a hotel for the third. At the last minute I ‘threw’ in the FS-60Q with a few eyepieces and a ScopeTech Zero mount and a lightweight tripod. Very light and compact and took up no room. It allowed me to see the occultation of Mars, a shadow transit on Jupiter and also the Moon. Cool down is basically non existent and it is trivially easy to setup and put away. I probably wouldn’t have bothered taking a larger scope, so it showed it’s worth to me quite clearly.

[MalcolmM]

6 hours ago, HollyHound said:

No problem...

• FOA-60(Q) - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-80mm-600mm-apo-refractors.html
• FC-100DZ (or indeed the FC-100DC) - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-100mm-900mm-apo-refractors.html
• Mewlon 180C (although it says it's for a 9.25 SCT it is just the right size for the Mewlon too, the finder pocket embraces the built in finder perfectly 😁) - https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-backpack-for-925-inch-sct-telescope-ota.html

In all cases (pardon the pun)... they can be stored with full diagonals/extensions and Clicklocks required, without removal 👍

Hope this helps 😀

Perfect! Thanks very much @HollyHound Seeing as we share a taste in scopes, have you any experience with the Masuyama 85° eyepieces? I'm intrigued by them and love the fact they are relatively light. I'm wondering if a pair of 16's would work well in the Maxbrights.

Apologies for going off topic!

Malcolm 

[MalcolmM]

2 hours ago, Hans Joakim said:

Thanks for the feedback, Gary and Jeremy! Much appreciated.

Those Oklop bags are excellent. I have this two-compartment, padded bag that I’m very happy with: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-small-telescopes.html

Just out of curiosity: Have any of you done a side-by-side comparison between the views had in a FC-100 and the FOA-60Q on say the Moon, planets and brighter Messier objects? Not a fair comparison aperture-wise, or considering the higher price tag for the FC-100, but curious about how well the smaller gem matches its larger sister! 

(Guess I’m just looking for good reasons to buy another Tak!) *** Calling Takophile Anonymous ***

I did this exact comparison (FOA60Q and 100DC) on the moon the other morning. The 60 gave fantastic sharp contrasty views. I could have soaked them up for hours. But then I looked through the 100 and it was like 'being there'! Much more detail. Hadley was obviously there in the 60, but with the 100 it shouted out at you. That being said, they are a great pairing.

If you've half an hour to spare I'll give you 100 reasons to get another Tak! But I'm very biased; I just love 'em 

Malcolm 

[MalcolmM]

A word of warning @Hans Joakim. I had not heard of Taks a year ago. I then joined this forum and read posts from @JeremyS @HollyHound and @Stu and now I have a whole family of Taks!

Malcolm 

[HollyHound]

4 hours ago, Hans Joakim said:

Thanks for the feedback, Gary and Jeremy! Much appreciated.

Those Oklop bags are excellent. I have this two-compartment, padded bag that I’m very happy with: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescope-bags-cases-storage/oklop-padded-bag-for-small-telescopes.html

Just out of curiosity: Have any of you done a side-by-side comparison between the views had in a FC-100 and the FOA-60Q on say the Moon, planets and brighter Messier objects? Not a fair comparison aperture-wise, or considering the higher price tag for the FC-100, but curious about how well the smaller gem matches its larger sister! 

(Guess I’m just looking for good reasons to buy another Tak!) *** Calling Takophile Anonymous ***

I did exactly this last week… as others have already said, the FC-100DZ will always show more detail and colour. However the FOA-60Q manages to get pretty close, and certainly holds its own for contrast. 

Jupiter shows more colour and intricacy on banding in the DZ, but the FOA gives a massively pleasurable view, and of course is much more compact  (travel?).

I find on the moon it’s actually a lot closer, perhaps due to brightness, but again I’m sure more subtle detail will be seen with the DZ.

Mars is sublime through both and I would slightly give the edge to the FOA, not for detail but for colour rendition and the sharpest rendition of the colour.

The DZ will always win on DSOs of course, due to aperture.

Now where the FOA does win, is with doubles… the airy disc is just so crisp, clear and bright and the diffraction rings are much more diffuse, so aids seeing close double partners 👍

If you can get one, then you will enjoy it… I’ve had mine for a year and a half, and love it 😀

Edited December 15, 2022 by HollyHound

[Hans Joakim]

Thanks for these excellent user reports and recommendations, @JeremyS @HollyHound @MalcolmM @Stu! 

@MalcolmM I'm not quite there with a personal fleet of Taks yet, but I do see myself heading in that general direction. This is such an infectious environment!

Currently torn between the FOA-60Q or instead using the DF in a large backpack and with focuser removed as travel companion... Torture!

[Stu]

38 minutes ago, Hans Joakim said:

instead using the DF in a large backpack and with focuser removed as travel companion

Like this you mean? 😉

The smaller scopes are certainly that bit lighter and easier to travel with, but the FC100 is definitely doable and a 4” scope under dark skies is really worth it.

The FC-76DC split tube model is well worth considering too as a middle ground.

[Stu]

7 hours ago, HollyHound said:

Now where the FOA does win, is with doubles… the airy disc is just so crisp, clear and bright and the diffraction rings are much more diffuse, so aids seeing close double partners 👍

Small scopes do present wonderful large airy disks don’t they? I love the views of doubles through my little scopes, even the little TAL Alkor, 66mm newt. Something like Izar looks like a tiny blue grey gem sat on a golden ring around a perfect airy disk. Beautiful.

Ultimately though, resolution wins and the DZ or DC will show significantly tighter doubles than the FOA60Q despite its quality, assuming you have good or excellent seeing conditions. The larger aperture shows smaller airy disks, which makes tighter doubles possible.

I did enjoy Mars through the 60mm, not so much detail as you say, but a lovely crisp and contrasty disk. I’m sure the better correction of the FOA has an impact on trickier targets like Mars though vs the FS-60

[MalcolmM]

2 hours ago, Hans Joakim said:

Currently torn between the FOA-60Q or instead using the DF in a large backpack and with focuser removed as travel companion... Torture!

It all depends on the type of travel and how portable/small the kit needs to be. An FS60CB can get away with a very small mount and a photo tripod. The whole lot (plus diagonal and eyepieces) can fit into a small carry on bag if flying. This will do wide field and up to x150 with suitable eyepieces. The FOA is just a little shakier on the same mount/tripod combo. Of course the compromise is only 60mm instead of 100mm. But for me, I value the portability over aperture for travel.

Now if you're putting it all in a backpack to hike to a dark site then extreme portability is maybe less important.

Maybe what you need is 60CB, 76DCU and the Q module and ... you see how the spiral starts  but you'd have all bases covered 

Malcolm 

 

 

[HollyHound]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Small scopes do present wonderful large airy disks don’t they? I love the views of doubles through my little scopes, even the little TAL Alkor, 66mm newt. Something like Izar looks like a tiny blue grey gem sat on a golden ring around a perfect airy disk. Beautiful.

Ultimately though, resolution wins and the DZ or DC will show significantly tighter doubles than the FOA60Q despite its quality, assuming you have good or excellent seeing conditions. The larger aperture shows smaller airy disks, which makes tighter doubles possible.

I did enjoy Mars through the 60mm, not so much detail as you say, but a lovely crisp and contrasty disk. I’m sure the better correction of the FOA has an impact on trickier targets like Mars though vs the FS-60

Agreed, the 100mm scopes will always win on detail and tighter doubles 👍

The FOA-60Q does however just give a sublime view, everything just seems so “perfect” and “jewel like”… in fact I think @JeremyS even calls his Gemma for that very reason 😃

The ScopeViews review does indicate that the longer f ratio scopes do better in “turbulent seeing”, so that is another advantage I guess.

It certainly can’t work miracles (although it might come close 🤣) and won’t supplant the DZ or DC, but makes a wonderful companion… which is why I have my AZ75 setup most of the time to out there two side by side 😎

[Stu]

6 minutes ago, HollyHound said:

The FOA-60Q does however just give a sublime view, everything just seems so “perfect” and “jewel like”… in fact I think @JeremyS even calls his Gemma for that very reason 😃

Agreed. I think what happens is that the larger airy disks produced by the smaller scopes hide a multitude of seeing sins and just appear as beautiful bullseyes against the black of the sky. They are also visible at lower power and are normally visible in most reasonable seeing conditions.

Larger scopes produce smaller airy disks which need higher power to see, and these more often get hidden behind the mess of variable seeing conditions.

[IB20]

Can anyone recommend a padded storage/travel bag for the 76DCU & 1.7q extender? Either constructed or separated. Many thanks 😃. 

[MalcolmM]

9 minutes ago, IB20 said:

Can anyone recommend a padded storage/travel bag for the 76DCU & 1.7q extender? Either constructed or separated. Many thanks 😃. 

I use this. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01MCRTITT?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title

You need to separate the tube, but this takes 76DCU plus AZT6 plus cradle, diagonal and eyepieces ... just! It also fits Easy Jets free carry on. I attach a Gitzo Traveller to the exterior tripod attachments. If I use the 60CB rather than the 76 then the tripod also fits inside.

That being said, the Airport Messenger @Stu has posted about looks like it can hold more but may not meet easyJet free carry on dimensions.

Malcolm

 

[MalcolmM]

PS Sorry, just realised I did not put the Q extender in it. It would probably fit at the expense of the cradle, mount and eyepieces. I'll check and post a photo!

[MalcolmM]

28 minutes ago, IB20 said:

Can anyone recommend a padded storage/travel bag for the 76DCU & 1.7q extender? Either constructed or separated. Many thanks 😃. 

mmmm ... bit of a squeeze! Note I have the full 60CB in. Removing it's lens cell/dew shield would give a bit of extra room.

[Stu]

21 minutes ago, MalcolmM said:

mmmm ... bit of a squeeze! Note I have the full 60CB in. Removing it's lens cell/dew shield would give a bit of extra room.

This was my ultimate madness 🤣🤣. Never actually taken this lot anywhere but it shows what is possible.

 

[MalcolmM]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

This was my ultimate madness 🤣🤣. Never actually taken this lot anywhere but it shows what is possible.

 

Fantastic! That's very impressive!

Malcolm