Another comparison; Starwave ED-R 102 v Takahashi 76Q

[IB20]

First clear night I’ve had opportunity to try out the new 4” APO and whilst at it I thought I’d compare it to the Takahashi 3” in 76Q configuration. Firstly, in a grab n go sense, the Tak took 30 seconds to take out on the Starbase AZ mount, a real one handed job at around 7kg. The Starwave on the other hand was taken out in two pieces; a hefty 9kg AZ4 mount on steel tripod and 4.5kg OTA. Still, all set up after 5 mins though so not too bad. I have seen such set-ups described on SGL as grab and groan, which I’d probably agree with, it’s certainly up there with the 8” dob.

 

After 15-20 mins cool down it was time to test them optically (aesthetically they both look the business might I add). So trying to be fair and keeping to similar eyepieces, I opted for the 7XW in the 102 @ 102x and the 10XW in the Tak @ 96x. With the moon dominating it was really the only target to aim for first, so turned both OTAs towards our closest stellar neighbour. 

After focussing around the SW placed terminator and much to-ing and fro-ing between both scopes, it was fairly noticeable that there was more to see in the Starwave. What I mean by that was the ray patterns and lines were a bit more etched, the mare looked a bit richer and had a touch more depth and craterlets seemed to pop out a bit more. There wasn’t a huge difference between the main craters on show between their walls, shadows, nooks and crannies. 

Neither scope showed any false colour and the perfect contrast between whites and blacks were seemingly on a par with each other. I’m not certain there wasn’t anything I saw in the 4” that I didn’t see in the 3”; whereas switching that comparison around, I’m certain of it. 

After increasing the magnifications, it was only at the maximum I could get the 714mm Starwave, 286x with a 2.5mm TOE, where the little Tak started to get the upper hand. More atmospheric turbulence started showing and the image was a little softer in the Starwave, the 76Q on the other hand, happily ploughed on to 381x with the same eyepiece despite the appearance of some floaters at a now 0.2mm exit pupil. For some reason floaters don’t seem to bug me as much on the moon as they do on planets and white light solar. 

Realising I’d only checked out one target, I turned my attention to a double star that has impressed me in the shorter 76DCU configuration. Turning both scopes to Izar showed a beautiful golden and steel blue double, truly stunning and one of the best targets in the night’s sky. The Starwave showed a thicker and brighter first diffraction ring and larger gap but I’d say overall I preferred the views through the Tak as it was all just slightly better controlled, the colouration of the secondary is just mesmeric. 

So, about 2.5 hours of comparison and I looked at two target, 😅 but it was lots of fun.

To summarise, I don’t know what I came away being more impressed with, that the Starwave is as good if not better for some things as a 3” Tak  or the 3” Tak is as good if not better than a 4” APO. One thing is certain, more comparisons will happen soon!

Some gratuitous iPhone snaps and a sketch attached.

[jetstream]

13 minutes ago, IB20 said:

it was only at the maximum I could get the 714mm Starwave, 286x with a 2.5mm TOE, where the little Tak started to get the upper hand. More atmospheric turbulence started showing and the image was a little softer in the Starwave, the 76Q on the other hand, happily ploughed on to 381x with the same eyepiece despite the appearance of some floaters at a now 0.2mm exit pupil.

Excellent report! Both scopes showed very well and the fact that a 76mm scope could compete with a 102mm scope is amazing. I find that small aperture jumps in small scopes can matter. For the Takahashi 76mm to pull away from a 102mm at very high mag is a testament to its excellent optics IMHO.

Rumour around the campfire has told me the Takahashi 76mm is a superb grab and go and your report highlights this.

Eagerly waiting more reports!

Gerry

[IB20]

I’d also say the Starfield and iterations are only going one way in price, the current £899 is a very good price for what you’re getting. If you find a well loved one on the used market, you are getting a real bargain!

[GordonD]

That's a great report, I enjoyed reading it - thanks for taking the trouble to post. They sound like 2 very fine scopes.

[IB20]

Had a morning of white light solar and did a little comparison. I will caveat this with that atmospheric blurring and turbulence played their part throughout the morning, seeing isn’t great!

Both 76Q and 102ed-r looked really sharp at 95 & 102x respectively; both through XWs with the 7.5nm continuum filter - I couldn’t really tell them apart. The absolutely huge sunspot AR3363 at the solar limb looks astonishing, plenty of surrounding faculae and at high 238.5x on the Tak, showed beautiful umbral spindles on odd occasions. I couldn’t quite get the Starwave to support much higher mags than 102x; it never quite reached the views of the Tak but it is quite breezy and there are heat plumes in my local environment when not windy. 

I was reading about atmospheric blurring and resolution last night and it’s something I’m experiencing more with larger apertures, the 76mm isn’t impervious to it but certainly seems to cope with poorer or sub-optimal conditions better!

So a small win for the Tak, hopefully there’ll be opportunity to do this again when the seeing is better but it’s immaterial today as both scopes have lost out to the might PST Coronado. 😅

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by IB20
Mag 238x not 228x

[IB20]

.

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by IB20

[takurrito]

Thanks for the great report. I've been likewise very impressed with the FC-76q. Long focal length scopes like the f/12.6 FC-76Q cuts through bad seeing really well and delivers sharp views when faster scopes reveal a boiling mess. 

[IB20]

Have been comparing these two wonderful scopes over a few nights on Saturn. I have to say there really isn’t a lot in it and both scopes give the most satisfactory and pleasing result. The resolution grasp of the 4” makes the Cassini division slightly more visible but not by a huge margin. It’s a tough comparison due to the closed angle of the ring system, perhaps this will tell more when they open up later this decade! The smaller moons are definitely more visible and don’t require averted vision or a slight nudge to regain them to pop into view but there’s nothing there so far in the bigger scope that I can’t or don’t see in the 76mm.

I did feel the larger scope showed a touch more atmospheric dispersion but again it’s a very marginal observation and it’s the day to day variation of seeing and that impacts this result.

Last night with the 76mm the views of Saturn were just jaw-dropping; as reported by a host of other SGLers. The 9mm BGO, 7mm XW and 5mm XW just gifted astonishingly perfect views. The planet appeared etched like a 3D image, Rhea, Titan and Iapetus all on show and I could’ve viewed it for hours (which I pretty much did!).  I loved dropping the mag in the BGO and seeing Saturn framed with its pin point moons. The 9mm BGO really impressed me last night, it’s a cracking eyepiece.

Conditions look great again tonight so one of the scopes will be out, not sure which though but whichever it is I’m spoiled for choice! 😃

[IB20]

Well they both came out! 😅

A direct comparison tonight but the seeing isn’t quite there as it was last night. I have the 9mm BGO in the Tak for 106x and the 7XW in the Starwave at 102x.

Again, pretty much identical views, the Starwave is yielding a brighter view but the Tak’s dimmer image is showing better contrast. The northern polar darkening and planetary banding looks clearer in the Tak to my eye, the ring in front of the planetary face is more defined in the Tak too. 
Occasional atmospheric heat wobble creates a very slight red fringe on the western anse of the ring system in the 102ed-r; the Tak is absolutely colour free. I’m having to be hyper critical here, it’s really a very, very slight dispersion effect but I can detect it.

From my comparisons on other targets it’s obvious that in my average local seeing conditions that the Tak copes with the heat escape from neighbouring houses and from my own paved observing area better.

 

[IB20]

As Saturn has climbed in the sky and the surrounding heat loss has reduced or not affecting the views so much both scopes are showing ever improved images. The Cassini division showing much better and increased magnification up to 150x is now consistently stable. Had so much fun swapping between these two fabulous scopes - there is something just irresistible about that gold colouration on Saturn cast by the Tak. I just keep returning for one more look…

The moon and Jupiter are just beginning to rise but sadly I have an early start tomorrow so they’ll have to wait. 😔

 

[RobertI]

This continues to be a really fascinating and informative read, thanks! I’d be really interested to see how they compare on some DSOs, such a globulars, open clusters and some emission nebula with an OIII or UHC filter (eg: the Veil). I’m guessing standard laws of aperture would apply, but the Takahashi seems to break the laws of nature! 🙂

[IB20]

1 hour ago, RobertI said:

This continues to be a really fascinating and informative read, thanks! I’d be really interested to see how they compare on some DSOs, such a globulars, open clusters and some emission nebula with an OIII or UHC filter (eg: the Veil). I’m guessing standard laws of aperture would apply, but the Takahashi seems to break the laws of nature! 🙂

Oh for sure, I have compared M13 and M57 and globular clusters are very much better resolved in the 4” but will get round to some more targets when I get chance.

I was scanning the sky just randomly with the Starwave and I could see so many stars despite the very bright sky background. If I ever pull my finger out and go to a dark sky site I would 100% take the Starwave over the Tak. The wider views and better light grasp afforded in the faster 4” would allow me to see some of the emission nebula targets I’ve never been able to see from my back yard. I might look at acquiring a 2” diagonal, really push the boat out and convert it into a wide field scope.

I have to say for a small scope used for solar system targets, I’d be very surprised if there was anything better than the 76Q. It really does punch above its aperture. I’d like to see a FOA-60Q v 76Q space off; maybe one of the Takophiles would be so kind as to buy two Q extenders and give us a comparison. 😁

[John]

I think that is the thing about Taks and, to be fair, the other top brands such as LZOS, Astro Physics, CFF, TEC and a couple of others. You can be confident that the instrument you are using has the potential to perform right to the very limits that the specification will allow. 

The competition is not far behind though and pressing closer all the time !

Edited September 5, 2023 by John

[RobertI]

31 minutes ago, IB20 said:

Oh for sure, I have compared M13 and M57 and globular clusters are very much better resolved in the 4” but will get round to some more targets when I get chance.

I was scanning the sky just randomly with the Starwave and I could see so many stars despite the very bright sky background. If I ever pull my finger out and go to a dark sky site I would 100% take the Starwave over the Tak. The wider views and better light grasp afforded in the faster 4” would allow me to see some of the emission nebula targets I’ve never been able to see from my back yard. I might look at acquiring a 2” diagonal, really push the boat out and convert it into a wide field scope.

I have to say for a small scope used for solar system targets, I’d be very surprised if there was anything better than the 76Q. It really does punch above its aperture. I’d like to see a FOA-60Q v 76Q space off; maybe one of the Takophiles would be so kind as to buy two Q extenders and give us a comparison. 😁

Thanks that’s really interesting to hear. I am taking my Starwave 102EDR to Kelling in a few weeks, and in the unlikely event of some clear skies, I’m hoping to try some challenging emission nebulae and push it to its (and my) limits. Talking of wide field, I do have a 38mm Panaview eyepiece which fits in the whole of the Veil with the 102EDR, but the circular shape of the nebula means the interesting bits sit on the periphery of the FOV where there is significant image distortion, due to field curvature I am guessing. I could just try refocusing so that the edge is in focus I guess, never considered that……

Edited September 5, 2023 by RobertI

[Stu]

Very interesting comparisons @IB20. I’ve not tried the 76Q on the sun as I’ve always worried about the CQ optics overheating. To confirm, you use it with a Herschel Wedge without issues?

I’ve not done a side by side, but from experience of using the FC-76DCU compared with the FC-100DC in good seeing conditions and with a Baader CoolWedge, I’ve always been able to see a clear difference in detail shown on the Sun. Granulation pops out much more clearly and the detail in the active regions is much easier to access. Under poorer conditions I would expect the smaller scope to match the larger one though.

[IB20]

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

Very interesting comparisons @IB20. I’ve not tried the 76Q on the sun as I’ve always worried about the CQ optics overheating. To confirm, you use it with a Herschel Wedge without issues?

I’ve not do a side by side, but from experience of using the FC-76DCU compared with the FC-100DC in good seeing conditions and with a Baader CoolWedge, I’ve always been able to see a clear difference in detail shown on the Sun. Granulation pops out much more clearly and the detail in the active regions is much easier to access. Under poorer conditions I would expect the smaller scope to match the larger one though.

Yep, I have used the 76Q on WL solar and haven’t experienced any heat issues, the wedge hasn’t over heated. I’ll caveat this with I haven’t had a full day session in today’s type heat though so I can’t 100% be sure that no problems would arise. Having only one wedge I’ve only been able to compare the two scopes on a handful of times, usually in ordinary seeing which has certainly levelled the performance of the two scopes in terms of visible granulation. I’d expect the 4” to show good granulation in good conditions, something I don’t really see in the 76mm.

Now 3” Tak v 4” Tak might not be a fair fight but I’d be interested to see the comparison!

[IB20]

Wow wow wow. The seeing is exquisite tonight. For the first time I’ve had the Starwave ED-R take the 4mm TOE on Saturn. The Cassini division is beautifully clear at each ansae. Titan, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus and Tethys all visible along with HD211841. The image is just perfect, the banding and colouration a joy, the darkening polar hood clear and adds real depth. What a fabulous telescope! 

My wife came out and had a look, she even gave out a little “wow”. She no longer thinks I’m a weird nerd or a peeping Tom. 😅😅

The double double looked incredibly sharp in the 5XW, you could drive a bus through the gaps. 

Very, very, very impressed. 

[John]

I'm just waiting with my ED120 for it to rise above the roofline. Thanks for the appetiser 🙂

[IB20]

7 minutes ago, John said:

I'm just waiting with my ED120 for it to rise above the roofline. Thanks for the appetiser 🙂

Hopefully you have similar seeing as me, it’s still really balmy here. It’s like viewing in southern Europe.

The 102ED-R is really earning its keep tonight. The 120 should be wonderful. 

[IB20]

I adore the AZ75 too, this combo is a match made in heaven. I don’t even have a finder on and it’s a doddle lining up Saturn at 173x 😅

I used to think I’d need slo-mo for any planetary observing, well I don’t even slightly miss it.

[John]

48 minutes ago, IB20 said:

I adore the AZ75 too, this combo is a match made in heaven. I don’t even have a finder on and it’s a doddle lining up Saturn at 173x 😅

I used to think I’d need slo-mo for any planetary observing, well I don’t even slightly miss it.

I am using the slow-mo's on my Skytee II with the ED120. Mind you I am observing at 300x plus currently. The Rowan's are superb mounts though. Quality just oozes from them 👍

Edited September 9, 2023 by John

[IB20]

Jupiter, my favourite of all targets, is coming in to view. I told myself not to look at it until it’s in a better position later in the year. Well that lasted all of 5 minutes. 
The versatility of a refractor on a higher tripod compared to a low down dob has made it easy to get it in view. I honestly don’t know what to say, it is just the most beautiful sight. The GRS is just rotating into view and is clear as day. The banding is sensational. The Galilean moons are just huge, with lovely airy disks.

I am a complete and utter 4” refractor convert. This is turning out to be the best night ever. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by IB20

[RobertI]

33 minutes ago, IB20 said:

Jupiter, my favourite of all targets, is coming in to view. I told myself not to look at it until it’s in a better position later in the year. Well that lasted all of 5 minutes. 
The versatility of a refractor on a higher tripod compared to a low down dob has made it easy to get it in view. I honestly don’t know what to say, it is just the most beautiful sight. The GRS is just rotating into view and is clear as day. The banding is sensational. The Galilean moons are just huge, with lovely airy disks.

I am a complete and utter 4” refractor convert. This is turning out to be the best night ever. 

Superb, stay out as long as you can!   

[CraigT82]

7 hours ago, IB20 said:

Jupiter, my favourite of all targets, is coming in to view. I told myself not to look at it until it’s in a better position later in the year. Well that lasted all of 5 minutes. 
The versatility of a refractor on a higher tripod compared to a low down dob has made it easy to get it in view. I honestly don’t know what to say, it is just the most beautiful sight. The GRS is just rotating into view and is clear as day. The banding is sensational. The Galilean moons are just huge, with lovely airy disks.

I am a complete and utter 4” refractor convert. This is turning out to be the best night ever. 

I’m jealous! Didn’t get out with my 102 unfortunately. Did you get any chance to compare the Tak and the 102 under good seeing? 

[IB20]

58 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

I’m jealous! Didn’t get out with my 102 unfortunately. Did you get any chance to compare the Tak and the 102 under good seeing? 

Sadly, no. I thought about it but got so into the views with the 102 that time zipped by. I also don’t like handling the Tak if I’ve had a few, it’s on a much lighter tripod and mount and I didn’t want any clumsiness occurring. 🫣