Takahashi FSQ-85EDX [visual]

[josefk]

Another piece of the puzzle to take any residual usability friction/irritation out of my Alt-Az set-ups - especially for GnG where simple enjoyment of the experience is as important as the observing side itself. This TV "equaliser" brings four of my mini GnG EP set into within 15g of each other leaving just a wide field EP 86g out of balance (which doesn't matter for wide field). No creeping up or drooping down now after EP changes. Happy days.

[Concordia000]

Maybe it’s time to invest in a harmonic drive mount and just use it alt az to avoid balance issues…

 

Jokes aside, may I ask what eyepieces you are using for the FSQ?

[josefk]

@Concordia000 no batteries or power supplies here 😀  and no whirring or ticking either. 
 

if I take this scope out in the car it could be any EP in my box but if I take it out on foot to a site a short walk away then it is most commonly going to be 24mm Panoptic, 8mm Ethos, Tak 5mm LE, 4mm TOE, 3.3mm TOE. 

That set gives me x19 to x136. A new Tak 1.5 extender enables a higher top end (x205) but it’s really x169 I have in mind with the extender and 4mm TOE as an optimal (but as yet untried) high mag combo for this set-up.

The 8mm to 4mm EP swap will be a commonly exercised one I think. 

[Deadlake]

The other option is Y balance, SuperMount make a compact AltZ which will balance in the Y axis.

See:

http://supermount.kr/?act=shop.goods_list&GC=GD00

The smaller mount will take the FSQ and allows Y balancing which is a game changer as the scope will be effectiviely balanced in any position. 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Deadlake

[John]

23 hours ago, Deadlake said:

The other option is Y balance, SuperMount make a compact AltZ which will balance in the Y axis.

See:

http://supermount.kr/?act=shop.goods_list&GC=GD00

The smaller mount will take the FSQ and allows Y balancing which is a game changer as the scope will be effectiviely balanced in any position. 

Fascinating mounts those. Ultra simple but clearly beautifully made and they handle surprisingly large loads.

 

[josefk]

Thanks @Deadlake - i will definitely have a read up on those for future interest.

Everything is dialled in now though i think - my fluid head has adjustable counterbalance and with that and largely equalised EPs i feel like i'm in business for a smooth experience. 

[josefk]

Simple set-up last night enjoying a few Messier and three parts of the Veil whoo hoo 🙂

What a beautiful warm night to be sat out too.

[Concordia000]

Finally got to use the baby Q last weekend and it worked well out of the box. It seems that I got a good unit as shown in the aberrations inspector.

One thing to note is that due to the design, there is a reverse lighthouse diffraction pattern on the brightest stars, and it seems nothing can be done about it. A lot of owners don’t seem to mention this…

I didn’t look through the scope, though it’s not for the lack of trying — it turns out the long takahashi 2” adapter is too long if the CAA is still attached, and I can’t get the adapter ring (which I need to connect to the 2” adapter) off the CAA. I guess I will buy a 1.25” diagonal and try again.

[josefk]

Glad you’re happy with it @Concordia000  - I will never be scrutinising mine visually to the extent you are with that inspection SW but I do like the fine, round, in-focus to the edge, stars I see in mine 😀.
 

Which ring won’t unscrew for you?  I can reach focus leaving the CAA attached, then minus the Tak standard extension, minus the Tak visual back, plus a Baader click lock (similar depth (length) as the Tak visual back bit, and with a Baader 2” prism (110mm lightpath).
 

Cheers

[Concordia000]

On 25/09/2023 at 19:06, josefk said:

Glad you’re happy with it @Concordia000  - I will never be scrutinising mine visually to the extent you are with that inspection SW but I do like the fine, round, in-focus to the edge, stars I see in mine 😀.
 

Which ring won’t unscrew for you?  I can reach focus leaving the CAA attached, then minus the Tak standard extension, minus the Tak visual back, plus a Baader click lock (similar depth (length) as the Tak visual back bit, and with a Baader 2” prism (110mm lightpath).
 

Cheers

Number 10 in the system chart above.

I have to unscrew the CAA to focus, as the Tak 2” visual back is quite long — longer than the Baader clicklock, I think. 

[josefk]

More in hope than expectation tonight i'm afraid - bright moon, boiling skies, and local fog 😞

Saturn did look quite nice for a few milliseconds here and there though and the deer park was pretty...

 

 

[josefk]

Jupiter looked phenomenal through this kit last night. x98 with two eyes (2.6 GPC, 1.5 Tak extender, 18mm TAO) being just beautifully aesthetic and satisfying. 
Mono with a 4mm TOE for x169 brought more scale and more detail but definitely didn’t bring greater immersion.

 

 

 

[Stuart1971]

On 25/09/2023 at 17:17, Concordia000 said:

Finally got to use the baby Q last weekend and it worked well out of the box. It seems that I got a good unit as shown in the aberrations inspector.

One thing to note is that due to the design, there is a reverse lighthouse diffraction pattern on the brightest stars, and it seems nothing can be done about it. A lot of owners don’t seem to mention this…

I didn’t look through the scope, though it’s not for the lack of trying — it turns out the long takahashi 2” adapter is too long if the CAA is still attached, and I can’t get the adapter ring (which I need to connect to the 2” adapter) off the CAA. I guess I will buy a 1.25” diagonal and try again.

You have got a really good example there, I had one and it was awful, this is what I got in the corners. With an APS-C sensor

And why o why should you have to use 2 flatteners with such a premium scope, one built into the 4 element Petzval design, and another screwed on the back, no other scope I know of requires 2 flatteners to work properly, it’s a joke…but at least they supply the second flattener in the box now, I had to buy it extra and made barely any difference at all…☹️

 

Edited January 27 by Stuart1971

[Stuart1971]

These scopes are an old optical design, and Tak themselves told me that they were not designed for the modern small pixel cameras, it’s pot luck now if you get a good one or not, and it shouldn’t be, when you are spending a large sum like that, I would never buy another tak for imaging until they change the design and bring them up to date.

Now when I used with my old SX CCD camera with giant pixels, it was superb from corner to corner…as that what they were designed for….i should never have sold that…☹️

for visual, I guess it’s not a real issue, I don’t know as never done visual….

[josefk]

I’m visual only @Stuart1971  - I don’t even take phone snaps through the EP so flatteners schmlatteners so far as I’m concerned 😂
 

I did consider waiting for the latest Vixen VSD90SS to be out and about (rather than buying the baby Q late last summer) but only for the extra 5mm of aperture not for a newer optical prescription. The FSQ106 is a bit too heavy and from what I can tell a bit tricky to set up for visual and the TV NP101is is a bit too long to mount in the way I like (video head) so the baby Q still stands alone in its niche for a short easily mounted flat field scope. 

[Stuart1971]

3 minutes ago, josefk said:

I’m visual only @Stuart1971  - I don’t even take phone snaps through the EP so flatteners schmlatteners so far as I’m concerned 😂
 

I did consider waiting for the latest Vixen VSD90SS to be out and about (rather than buying the baby Q late last summer) but only for the extra 5mm of aperture not for a newer optical prescription. The FSQ106 is a bit too heavy and from what I can tell a bit tricky to set up for visual and the TV NP101is is a bit too long to mount in the way I like (video head) so the baby Q still stands alone in its niche for a short easily mounted flat field scope. 

Well yes for visual all good..

but my point was for imaging, that many of them are not flat-field scopes, even when using the two flatteners…so they should sort out the QC and make sure they are all as advertised…