Tak FC76DCU vs FC76Q, round one!

[Stu]

Had a long day today, driving to Surrey and back to pick up some remaining bits from the old house, so wasn’t expecting any observing tonight, or even any clear skies.

The skies had been pretty good all evening however, so I popped the little FC76DC out for a look at the Moon, then after dinner decided to do some testing of the DCU vs Q configurations.

Please take these as initial findings. I didn’t take any notes, I’m not great at doing that at the scope so this is all from memory.

A quick check showed that a 7mm Ortho in the DCU would give x81 whilst a 12.5mm would give x77 in the Q, so I settled on these being the closest I was likely to get, and about the right magnification.

I confess that changing between configurations is not the easiest. The threads are quite fine and it needs care to get them engaged cleanly, plus they can be quite screechy too when doing up or undoing. I would probably not often choose to switch mid session unless for comparison purposes. Without the CQ the scope is certainly more compact, and obviously better for general/widefield observing. I love the look of the scope with CQ fitted and this makes it much more suitable for high power lunar and planetary observing.

The other challenge I faced was a brief shower which must have happened when I was having dinner. The scope was quite wet, but luckily I always put all caps on and point the scope level when I leave it so a quick towelling off sorted it with no harm done.

I chose Polaris for its stable position and got to work 😉. 

On axis with the Orthos I checked diffraction patterns inside and outside of focus. Inside was very clear and well defined, whilst outside was just a little bit less well defined. This seemed to be the case with either configuration, possibly slightly better in the Q but nothing definitive. I will try higher power next time to see if it helps show differences.

Edge performance in the orthos puzzled me. The stars really weren’t that good towards the edge, almost like little crosses, although I could still see Polaris b. I don’t often look at targets off axis in them so was quite surprised. This was the same in both configs. Could be eye related but I don’t know!

One difference I did spot after swapping back the second time. In DCU mode there was the slightest hint of colour around the outer edge of the outer ring, red inside focus and greenish/blue outside I think. The rest of the patterns were colour free. With the CQ fitted, the colour disappeared completely so it did represent a slight improvement from very near colour free to colour free.

With the 24mm Panoptic, stars were sharp to the edge in both configs, as I would expect, beautiful eyepiece that it is!

With the Baader Morpheus I confess I don’t find the stars at the edge that sharp in any of my scopes I’ve tried it in. Not terrible but not Panoptic sharp. I fully expect to be shunned by the forum for this statement given the Morpheus’ fearsome reputation! 😱🤪🤣

I could not easily see Polaris b out to the edge. I fully accept this may be my eyes, and I will certainly check at my next appointment although my astigmatism is not severe from previous tests. I don’t wear glasses at the eyepiece as I use varifocals and find it awkward. Anyway, with the CQ module fitted, the off axis stars in the Morpheus sharpened up nicely and I could then see Polaris b right at the edge.

So, my initial findings based on a star test are a close ‘on points’ win for the Q over the DCU. Whether this translates to real world observing benefit remains to be seen.

Once done, I removed the CQ module and had a look for Comet C/2019 L3 ATLAS in Gemini, not expecting to get it, but after a brief star hop, there it was in the 24mm Pan, faint but surprisingly obvious. Popping the Morpheus in definitely made it easier to see, larger image and darker sky background. I also tried for the Eskimo Nebula which I found, again fairly easily although it was smaller and took more careful looking to find at low mag. Nice in the Morpheus, blinking into view with AV, brighter centre and a nice little halo. Need to get a bigger scope on these, but the best scope it the one you use, and the only one I was going to use last night was the FC76DCU/Q! 👍

[JeremyS]

Interesting report @Stu

I got my CQ1.7 module to use with my FC76 DCU. Used it a few times, but didn’t find a great deal of difference. As you noted, swapping it in and out is a bit of a pain (I always hold the OTA vertically, OG up to avoid any dislodged material falling onto the OG).  Then I tried it on my FS60 and these items have never since been separated. Makes a big improvement. It’s what led me to the FOA60 Q (which I have only ever used in Q mode).

I suspect where the Q module will be very useful is high power planetary - this is where you can get away with slightly shorter FL eyepieces, which are more comfortable.

I will be keen to hear about your further experiences. Interesting about the Morpheus, though. I’m not a fan.

[John]

Nice comparison @Stu.

Interesting regarding the Panoptic vs Morpheus views as well.

Comet Atlas does look quite nice at the moment, even in smaller apertures. Well worth a look and nice and high in the sky too.

 

[Highburymark]

Interesting report Stu. The star tests sound pretty normal. Which Morpheus were you using? I remember there being some reports of slight lateral colour with fastish scopes, but most Morpheus reviews have praised edge sharpness. Panoptic 24 is a tough comparison though - I’ve tested it with my Epsilon 130 and it’s pretty good even at F/3.3.

[Roy Challen]

Nice report, Stu. With a fat redundancy payment heading my way soon, I'm hoping the minister of finance will approve funding towards either a 60 or 76 mm Tak (or at least, a similar apo). These things are not easy to buy where I'll be going...

Edited January 9, 2022 by Roy Challen

[Stu]

2 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Interesting report @Stu

I got my CQ1.7 module to use with my FC76 DCU. Used it a few times, but didn’t find a great deal of difference. As you noted, swapping it in and out is a bit of a pain (I always hold the OTA vertically, OG up to avoid any dislodged material falling onto the OG).  Then I tried it on my FS60 and these items have never since been separated. Makes a big improvement. It’s what led me to the FOA60 Q (which I have only ever used in Q mode).

I suspect where the Q module will be very useful is high power planetary - this is where you can get away with slightly shorter FL eyepieces, which are more comfortable.

I will be keen to hear about your further experiences. Interesting about the Morpheus, though. I’m not a fan.

Thanks Jeremy. Certainly from what I’ve read I expect the CQ module to show a much bigger impact on the FS60C so will give that a go soon. I am quite enjoying it in the 76 though at the moment but time will tell what I settle on using. Some decent planetary and lunar observing time will help to establish if there is any genuine benefit in the 76 but I suspect it will be fairly marginal on axis, perhaps more significant on axis.

I was expecting to sell the Morpheus when I picked up the 13 Ethos but I’m still hesitating about it. It’s much lighter and in some respects (eye relief) more comfortable to use but for me the edge performance is much better in the Ethos. Sounds like it’s not just me that experiences that.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, Highburymark said:

Interesting report Stu. The star tests sound pretty normal. Which Morpheus were you using? I remember there being some reports of slight lateral colour with fastish scopes, but most Morpheus reviews have praised edge sharpness. Panoptic 24 is a tough comparison though - I’ve tested it with my Epsilon 130 and it’s pretty good even at F/3.3.

Thanks Mark. Yes, nothing Earth shattering certainly. It was the 12.5mm Morpheus and I’ve been surprised that I haven’t found it as sharp at the edge as all the reports suggest. I have no idea if it’s eye related or not. The Panoptics are excellent in that regard though it is true.

I was most surprised by the orthos, which is perhaps what led me to wonder if my eyes were causing the problem but stars on axis look fine, and they are sharp in the Televue so I’m a bit confused.

[Fedele]

i have a Norpheus 12,5 and i don t like it:

- parallax

-yellow vignetting of the field

- not uniform black of the field

- orribile construction

- ..... etc

Sorry,. Thi is the first and the lst china thing i have buyed

Edited January 9, 2022 by Fedele

[JeremyS]

22 minutes ago, Fedele said:

i have a Norpheus 12,5 and i don t like it:

- parallax

-yellow vignetting of the field

- not uniform black of the field

 

Sorry,. Thi is the first and the lst china thing i have buyed

But apart from that, is it OK?
 

🤣

[HollyHound]

7 hours ago, Stu said:

t was the 12.5mm Morpheus and I’ve been surprised that I haven’t found it as sharp at the edge as all the reports suggest. I have no idea if it’s eye related or not.

I’ve not tried the 12.5mm, but did have the 14 mm Morpheus and tested it alongside an XW 14 and Delos 14 in the StellaMira 80mm f/10… the Morpheus had some field curvature, the XW had a little less and the Delos had none. 

I kept the XW and sold the other two, because I just love the on axis quality of the XW range, prefer the ergonomics and the field curvature is mild in the FC-76DCU and no issue at all on the FOA-60Q or Mewlon 180 😀

As you’ve indicated, the Ethos 13 has none, so that gets used a lot too 👍

Edited January 9, 2022 by HollyHound

[Andrew_B]

I put a tiny amount of Loctite Super Lube on the threads of the CQ 1.7x Extender to help protect them from wear and stop them sticking. It makes a big difference but make sure that it's only a tiny amount and clean off any excess.

[Victor Boesen]

15 hours ago, Stu said:

which is perhaps what led me to wonder if my eyes were causing the problem

Have you tried using one of your three other eyes Stu?