Jump to content


Photo

FSQ-106EDXIII F5 Astrograph for Imaging

  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#26 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:48 AM

I have already adapted FTF2015BCR to be used in tandem with the original focuser. I have also adapted a Baader 3.25 Click lock visual back.

However, FTF2015 BCR will not be good for the most, especially for those who are using larger sensors. This weekend I will look into adapting a 3" Feathertouch focuser.

#27 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:22 AM

Go for the one without the Captain's Wheel. This rotator needs very special treatment to remain square. If you rotate it under load there is no guarantee that you will fasten it square to the focal plane.

#28 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:28 AM

While we are on the subject, I would like hear from folks about off-axis guider options for a typical FSQ106EDXIII+DSLR+ST-i/Lodestar kind of setup

For an good OAG check out the monster Mog on the Astrodon site, there is a seperate article there on using it with a FSQ106.
But- from my experience, you don't need or want off axis guiding at 530mm focal length, its over kill, just get a loadstar or SBIG guider camera and the SBIG guider lens kit and it will produce great results at that focal length. I used both systems and much prefer the guider/lens kit for ease of use and ease of finding a guide star.

Everyone, I think most of us understand the sporadicity (I made the word) of focuser flexure; and I think most of us also understand the importance of Takahashi recognizing that it IS a problem regardless.

I think the fact that Takahashi has come out with three versions of the FSQ106ED says that they know about the issue.

Does above look correct? Is TNR just a distributor or actual Takahashi company in the US with the clout to address equipment re-design issues and NOT just the repairs/warranties? Is TNR a vendor on CN and/or have they ever chimed in on such issues?

Without contacting Japan directly, yes, they are the go to people for Tak in the US ( and probably had much to do with improving the focusers to this point)
As for contacting them in a forum, they are active on the Yahoo forum "Uncensored TakGroup", "Art1942" is the manager for Takahashi at TNR.

#29 John Boudreau

John Boudreau

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 855
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Saugus, MA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:40 PM


Does above look correct? Is TNR just a distributor or actual Takahashi company in the US with the clout to address equipment re-design issues and NOT just the repairs/warranties? Is TNR a vendor on CN and/or have they ever chimed in on such issues?

Without contacting Japan directly, yes, they are the go to people for Tak in the US ( and probably had much to do with improving the focusers to this point)
As for contacting them in a forum, they are active on the Yahoo forum "Uncensored TakGroup", "Art1949" is the manager for Takahashi at TNR.



Art is also a member here on CN (CN profile is "art1942us") and whle he's more active on the Tak Yahoo group, he does chime in here from time-to-time.

#30 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

I have already adapted FTF2015BCR to be used in tandem with the original focuser. I have also adapted a Baader 3.25 Click lock visual back.

However, FTF2015 BCR will not be good for the most, especially for those who are using larger sensors. This weekend I will look into adapting a 3" Feather Touch focuser.


Thanks Sedat; we'll look forward to your 3" focuser test.

Question: I if search for FTF2015BCR, I get all these..., which one exactly are you referring to? Thx

#31 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:34 AM

Thanks Rex/John; let’s see if we hear from Tak.

So has anyone tested DSLR+2" Tele Vue 2.0x Powermate... on NON-‘Captain’s Wheel’, i.e., FSQ106EDXIII; Powermate adds significant back-focus so would like to know if ‘Reduced’ 153mm back-focus will suffice?

#32 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

Thanks Rex/John; let’s see if we hear from Tak.

I would not expect any answer other than " call Art or Fred" .
By the way Art is very friendly and knowledgeable if you call him at TNR.

So has anyone tested DSLR+2" Tele Vue 2.0x Powermate... on NON-‘Captain’s Wheel’, i.e., FSQ106EDXIII; Powermate adds significant back-focus so would like to know if ‘Reduced’ 153mm back-focus will suffice?

I believe that a Powermate does not change the optical in-focus on a system, it just adds physical length, ( I may be mistaken on this one, but that is the way my extender Q works and from what I read, that is the way Televue describes the Powermate's operation)

I think you should do some research as to what type of system you want to set up before you decide which model of FSQ you want. for example, remember that the 2" nose piece reduces available in-focus by 40 mm when you calculate your in- focus needs.
A rotator (CAA) is most used to frame a guider chip image, but a CAA and OAG both eat up at least 75mm (with adapters) so most systems with a CAA and OAG use an all threaded system to eliminate the 40mm used by a nose piece.
A captains wheel model is great for use with a separate guider/ lens mounted either on the rings or on the finder bracket and used with a DSLR and/or a set of bino viewers as you can rotate the binos with the captains wheel and don't usually need to rotate the DSLR . ( at least I prefer all my images with the same orientation for processing purposes).
Just some things to think about.
Rex

#33 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

I was referring to this one. For heavy loads the rack and pinion version should be preferred but a DSLR and a powermate is not heavy for the crayford one at all.

#34 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:19 PM

Go for the one without the Captain's Wheel. This rotator needs very special treatment to remain square. If you rotate it under load there is no guarantee that you will fasten it square to the focal plane.


Hi Sedat,
Do you mean the captain wheel or CAA by 'rotator'?

Thank you.

#35 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:37 PM


So has anyone tested DSLR+2" TeleVue 2.0x Powermate... on NON-‘Captain’s Wheel’, i.e., FSQ106EDXIII; Powermate adds significant back-focus so would like to know if ‘Reduced’ 153mm back-focus will suffice?


I believe that a Powermate does not change the optical in-focus on a system, it just adds physical length, (I may be mistaken on this one, but that is the way my extender Q works and from what I read, that is the way TeleVue describes the Powermate's operation)

I think you should do some research as to what type of system you want to set up before you decide which model of FSQ you want. for example, remember that the 2" nose piece reduces available in-focus by 40 mm when you calculate your in- focus needs.


Actually, Powermate... ADDS significant back-focus besides physical length. Would like to hear from folks who have tested DSLR imaging through 2.0x Powermate on ‘X’ (NON-‘Captain’s Wheel’) model?


Note: The two DSLR setups I have listed above are what I have been using thus far and intend to use if I were to get an FSQ-106.
1. DSLR+2"Adapter+LPS...
2. DSLR+2"TeleVue 2.0x Powermate...

#36 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

I was referring to this one. For heavy loads the rack and pinion version should be preferred but a DSLR and a Powermate is not heavy for the Crayford one at all.


Thanks Sedat; would you be able to post some up-close pics of FTF2015BCR adapted to your FSQ-106, preferably FSQ-106EDXIII. One thing I am not clear about is if whole FTF2015BCR... can be adapted or just the bottom knobs section?

#37 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:54 PM

Today, I took some photos for you:

First, the picture of the female-female adaptor I made

Posted Image

I am threading this onto the TAR0130

Posted Image

I can then thread on the Baader clicklock visual back to FSQ106. I have originally purchased this for my C11 Edge, to be fitted to the 3.25" at the back of this scope. But I made an adaptor flange and I am able to use it with the FSQ as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Now I am fitting the FTF2015 BCR

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

In this configuration, after the course adjustment, you should lock down the stock focuser (to eliminate all the play of the Tak focuser) and use the Feather Touch for fine focusing. However, the smaller inner diameter may introduce some vignetting depending on your sensor size. I have tried this configuration with QSI683 and didn't notice an objectionable vignetting. Below is an uncalibrated, stretched light frame for you to see what I mean:

http://astrofotograf...x1_L_frame7.jpg

Hires photo

Most probably, full frame sensors will have some light fall off in the corners but for the time being I don't have access to such a sensor.




#38 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:38 PM

This FTF2015 crayford focuser is capable of lifting 8-10 pounds, which is way above my needs for the time being.

For heavier equipment, either the FTF2015BCR-RP rack and pinion version can be used, again leaving the stock focuser in place, or else one of the 3" rack and pinion focusers can be adapted to the FSQ106's body easily.

Here are some photos to give you an idea as to how this 3" focuser compares to the 2" one and the stock focuser

Posted Image

The 3" inner diameter looks more than sufficient and larger than the diameter of the corrector lens.

Posted Image

#39 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 06 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

This is great info Sedat and I really appreciate; I am sure it comes handy to lot of folks. More follow-up questions:

•I presume TAR0130 is a spacer that doesn't come with FSQ106, correct?

•The female-female adapter you improvised may not come handy for everyone, so does that mean those folks are out of luck on such FTF2015BCR adaptation? Is there an actual female-female adapter that could be used instead of creating one?

•I can see 2” FTF2015BCR adaptation might be prohibitive for most, notwithstanding any vignetting it may cause on full frame sensors.

•What is the part number for 3" rack and pinion focusers you show?

•I see 3" FT focuser doesn't require TAR0130 spacer, correct? Does it adapt without needed any additional pieces? If yes, this might be the simplest adaptation (i.e., no improvising) if I understand correctly? Does 3” focuser directly thread-on/attach to FSQ-106EDXIII?

•On the flip side, I can already see the advantage of using add-on focusers on ‘Reduced’ 153mm back-focus on FSQ-106EDXIII where they will add quite a bit of back-focus for situations like the one I cite above (adding 2" TeleVue 2.0x Powermate, etc.)

•Last but not least, would heavy 3" FT focuser along with attached equipment cause flexure inherent in the FSQ-106EDXIII design (since stock focuser mechanism stays in place in all of these add-on scenarios)?

Hope you don’t mind my asking all these questions, you have been a great help. Regards

#40 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 07 January 2013 - 12:43 PM

Hi again,

I presume TAR0130 is a spacer that doesn't come with FSQ106, correct?



This part is not included in the price but can be ordered from TNR or through their dealers. It is an original Tak accessory.

The female-female adapter you improvised may not come handy for everyone, so does that mean those folks are out of luck on such FTF2015BCR adaptation? Is there an actual female-female adapter that could be used instead of creating one?



I don't know if TNR has a female-female adaptor. It was too easy to build so I did it. But this is not all you gonna need; you also need an adaptor to fit the dovetail of the FTF2015 focuser which on the outside should have the same thread as TAR0130.

I will share the drawings with Wayne from Starlight Instruments so that they can build this adaptor as an accessory for their focusers.

I can see 2” FTF2015BCR adaptation might be prohibitive for most, notwithstanding any vignetting it may cause on full frame sensors.



I am not sure I understand you here correctly. Why would it be prohibitive for most ?

What is the part number for 3" rack and pinion focusers you show?



FTF3025B-A is the one I have at hand (came with my TMB92SS) but FTF3015 or FTF3035 can be chosen as well depending on the individual's needs.

I see 3" FT focuser doesn't require TAR0130 spacer, correct? Does it adapt without needed any additional pieces? If yes, this might be the simplest adaptation (i.e., no improvising) if I understand correctly? Does 3” focuser directly thread-on/attach to FSQ-106EDXIII?



No, on the contrary, this is the most complicated adaptation. You will need to remove the tak focuser assy and build an adaptor to fit the FT focuser to the rear of the FSQ's tube. Unless I have a really heavy imaging system, I am not planning to go into that. But for those who need something better than Tak focuser, at least there is a solution.

On the flip side, I can already see the advantage of using add-on focusers on ‘Reduced’ 153mm back-focus on FSQ-106EDXIII where they will add quite a bit of back-focus for situations like the one I cite above (adding 2" TeleVue 2.0x Powermate, etc.)



This, completely depends on the imaging system you have. For me this configuration is great and it appears it will be fine for you too. But if you consider that the second focuser is eating up the very precious back focus real estate, it can be a great problem for some of the users.

Last but not least, would heavy 3" FT focuser along with attached equipment cause flexure inherent in the FSQ-106EDXIII design (since stock focuser mechanism stays in place in all of these add-on scenarios)?



As mentioned above, when the 3" focuser is considered, the stock focuser should be removed from the back of the tube. Otherwise you won't have enough back focus for your imaging system to reach focus( you will need more in_focus but it won't be available)

Hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily.

Clear skies

Sedat

#41 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 08 January 2013 - 07:25 AM

The female-female adapter you improvised may not come handy for everyone, so does that mean those folks are out of luck on such FTF2015BCR adaptation? Is there an actual female-female adapter that could be used instead of creating one?


I don't know if TNR has a female-female adaptor. It was too easy to build so I did it. But this is not all you gonna need; you also need an adaptor to fit the dovetail of the FTF2015 focuser which on the outside should have the same thread as TAR0130.

I will share the drawings with Wayne from Starlight Instruments so that they can build this adaptor as an accessory for their focusers.

I can see 2” FTF2015BCR adaptation might be prohibitive for most, notwithstanding any vignetting it may cause on full frame sensors.



I am not sure I understand you here correctly. Why would it be prohibitive for most ?

I see 3" FT focuser doesn't require TAR0130 spacer, correct? Does it adapt without needed any additional pieces? If yes, this might be the simplest adaptation (i.e., no improvising) if I understand correctly? Does 3” focuser directly thread-on/attach to FSQ-106EDXIII?



No, on the contrary, this is the most complicated adaptation. You will need to remove the tak focuser assy and build an adaptor to fit the FT focuser to the rear of the FSQ's tube. Unless I have a really heavy imaging system, I am not planning to go into that. But for those who need something better than Tak focuser, at least there is a solution.


Thanks Mr. Bilgebay for all the feedback. I like the engineering side of the focuser adaptations but I also feel some of us just might want to use things out-of-the-box at times after spending hefty sum$ and that’s a disadvantage.

About 2” FTF2015BCR focuser, dovetail adaptor part for FTF2015 sounds complicated. Also what I was referring to is that, as you have said, there is inherent vignetting problem with that setup, especially for full frame sensors, even if Starlight Instruments were to build the accessory for it.

Let me also clarify what I meant about the back-focus; there are two aspects I am talking about, having more “IN” focus when using standard 2” DSLR adapter setup, and having more “OUT” focus when using magnifiers of ‘2" TeleVue 2.0x Powermate’ type. Basically a large focuser displacement is required to fit both scenarios.

About 3” FTF3025B-A focuser, it seems to fit the requirements we talk about (no vignetting, having extensive IN and OUT travel), it also seems more invasive and almost prohibitive, as you mention, plus I am afraid any flexing it may introduce due to its own+equipment weight.

Last but not least, I do feel Tak will be best served by putting Feather Touch focusers by default on these scopes. Keep your comments/insights coming. Regards

#42 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 08 January 2013 - 08:03 AM

Here's an image of mine in action (or, getting ready for action):

http://www.californi...y-ap900-fsq.jpg


Daniel, wanted to share great setup of yours and to ask if you could provide the mounting plate and rings specifics/brand/part #s. Thanks in advance. Regards

#43 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4114
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:10 PM

Last but not least, I do feel Tak will be best served by putting Feather Touch focusers by default on these scopes



Ditto!

#44 Denimsky

Denimsky

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: BC, Canada

Posted 09 January 2013 - 01:46 PM

Last but not least, I do feel Tak will be best served by putting Feather Touch focusers by default on these scopes



Ditto!


I'm sure they will sell much more scopes by just doing that!

#45 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 09 January 2013 - 07:41 PM

You know that on the Yahoo Narrowband imaging group, this problem was discussed and the best solution was to have Precise parts machine a custom tube and replace the entire focuser with a machined tube and an FLI Atlas focuser. Problem solved for any weight of camera.
Rex

#46 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:55 AM

I had contacted Art (TNR) and he asked me to send him a list of questions that he could answer; I have compiled a list of issues/questions. Feel free to add to what I have put together which is sum of all what I feel has been discussed in this and the other... thread. Thx

This thread being heavily focused on FSQ-106EDXIII, most questions are regarding the same:

Flexure:
A well-known and most common problem reported on FSQ-106EDXIII is focuser flexure; please read the threads for details. ED has gone through ‘ED (Old)’, ‘Q’ and ‘X’ models but focuser flexure problem remains to be resolved; some users have suggested the very reason FSQ-106ED has gone through three versions already speaks for the awareness/acknowledgment of the problem by Takahashi. It is true FSQ-106EDXIII focuser may not flex under nominal load but it HAS flexure for practical applications regardless as most have stated in this and other other... thread. Some folks are re-engineering the stock focuser, some have suggested less invasive measures like re-tensioning, re-greasing the focuser, etc. So most important question would be when the stock focuser on FSQ-106EDXIII is really going to be fixed/re-designed for all practical load scenarios?

Defocusing:
Although most understand that some defocusing will happen with temperature changes, there seems to be a consistent problem with FSQ-106EDXIII focuser getting defocussed; some have suggested this being the result of different density materials (thick cast focuser housing/thin focuser tube) affecting clearances, hence the design; others have provided tips how to manually compensate for defocusing, etc. When is FSQ-106EDXIII defocussing under temperature changes going to be addressed?

Collimation:
Poor collimation on some of the FSQ-106EDXIII have been reported. Most of us wouldn’t have expected this problem on such a small/solid looking scope; personally I would rather like NOT even to check the collimation on a scope of this caliber and value, and have the peace of mind that it came collimated. Please comment on what’s being done to fix this problem once for all?

Focuser Adaption:
To overcome stock focuser issues, some users have tried Feather Touch adaption which is neither straightforward nor anomaly free (vignetting being the one, 2” FTF2015BCR focuser requiring complex ring and dovetail adaption with the existing stock focuser, 3” FTF3025B-A focuser adaption, to completely replace stock focuser, being the most complex, etc.), while some are suggesting replacing stock focuser with machined custom tube, etc. Is any re-design effort being made to have FSQ-106EDXIII either adaptable (out-of-box) to specific/certified Feather Touch focuser/s and/or have needed parts designed/available to make such adaptions possible?

Feather Touch ‘out-of-the-box’:
Given the challenges, are there any plans to forgo FSQ-106EDXIII stock focuser altogether in favor of Feather Touch?

Where to buy:
Is TNR best place to buy FSQ-106EDXIII given issues listed above and having the ease of any warranty work that users may need performed on these scopes?

Quality Control:
Given the sporadic nature of some of these issues, is QC being missed on some of the scopes?

Warranty Transferability:
Warranty is non-transferable, and it is a grave concern for most; a can you address that?

TNR Clout:
How much clout TNR has to have above issues corrected, some of which require major design changes? In other words, is TNR just a distributor or much more than that; what are the chances these issues make it to Takahashi Japan in case TNR is not in such an advantageous position?

Regards

#47 tomcody

tomcody

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Titusville, Florida

Posted 10 January 2013 - 01:37 PM

Have you considered buying a Televue NP-101is?
Given your concerns stated above, you might like it better.

#48 D. Perry

D. Perry

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Southern California, USA

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

Hi mmalik,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Here are some answers to your questions...

- Yes, feel free to embed an image of my scope/mount setup.

- I use SoCalAstro tube rings and dovetail plates. You can find everything at http://www.socalastro.com/Products.htm

- The OAG is the Astrodon MMOAG (Monster Manual Off-Axis Guider). I'm using an SBIG ST-i autoguider and an FLI ML11002-C imaging camera.

- All of this info is on the Equipment page of my site:
http://www.californi...t/equipment.php

If you're planning to eventually move to a 44mm diagonal chip then, yes, the FSQ is the best option for a readily available 4" refractor (in my opinion). I honestly don't think you're going to see any issues with the scope and any DSLR.

Keep in mind that all of the issues you're worrying about and that have been discussed here, have been discussed by about 5-6 people in this thread. That represents a tiny fraction of the number of FSQs out there. There are plenty of people imaging with 16803 cameras with 5-pound bodies and huge filter wheels, and they're getting excellent images. There have been a couple people who went to extremes to replace the entire rear cell of the scope but it's not something the vast majority of people are going to need to worry about.

Every scope will have some kind of issue or something about it you might not like. Given that the FSQ already has excellent, corrected optics with an imaging circle of 88mm, and a solid focuser with 10:1 focusing and a focus lock, it's a better starting point than almost all other scopes out there in its class. The TeleVue NP scopes and the discontinued Pentax SDP telescopes are pretty much the only direct competitors. Some of the other manufacturers make excellent scopes but almost none of them are as fully corrected over as wide a field as the FSQ. And while many of them have reducers and field flatteners available, most will still exhibit noticeable levels of vignetting, field curvature, coma, and even CA, on a 35mm format or larger chip. A noteable exception here is Astro-Physics, as they tailor their reducers/flatteners to their scopes and have excellent large format options (get ready to wait 8 years for a new scope though).

Again, all of this is just my 2 cents. I'm partial to Tak, obviously, and have not been disappointed with the 3 I've owned (FSQ-106ED-XIII, FS-60CB, and TOA-130F).

Here are some images from my FSQ:

http://www.californi...0-ml11k-fsq.php

http://www.californi...8-ml11k-fsq.php

http://www.californi...0-ml11k-fsq.php

Best,

#49 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:43 PM

Have you considered buying a TeleVue NP-101is?


@Jon said it right in another thread...; and I agree.

Plus I have been doing narrow-angle AP and would like to try wide-angle which is not possible/of quality with anything but FSQ-106EDXIII.


Note: Few samples of my narrow-angle AP:
NGC 7331 - Spiral Galaxy In Pegasus...
IC 434, Barnard 33 - Horsehead Nebula...
Horsehead Nebula [Up Close]...
NGC 7023 - Iris Nebula [Up Close]...

#50 mmalik

mmalik

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5320
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:27 AM

If you're planning to eventually move to a 44mm diagonal chip then, yes, the FSQ is the best option for a readily available 4" refractor (in my opinion). I honestly don't think you're going to see any issues with the scope and any DSLR.

Keep in mind that all of the issues you're worrying about and that have been discussed here, have been discussed by about 5-6 people in this thread. That represents a tiny fraction of the number of FSQs out there. There are plenty of people imaging with 16803 cameras with 5-pound bodies and huge filter wheels, and they're getting excellent images. There have been a couple people who went to extremes to replace the entire rear cell of the scope but it's not something the vast majority of people are going to need to worry about.


Thanks Perry for your feedback and all the details, very much appreciated. Like your astro-photos.

Perry, no, not worrying, just trying to understand and possibly help address long standing focuser and flexure issues which I do understand are NOT much of a concern with the basic DSLR setup but could be a problem with heavier pay loads.

Everyone, changing gears a bit; I have been doing DSLR imaging and may possibly dabble in CCD imaging. I would like to know about your experience in mounting SBIG CCD STT-8300M Camera + FW8-STT Self-Guiding Filter Wheel specifically to FSQ-106EDXIII? Any pics you could post of your ‘FSQ-106EDXIII + STT-8300M + FW8-STT Self-Guiding Filter Wheel’ setup will be greatly appreciated.

(Note: This is different from older STF-8300M CCD camera and FW5/FW8 filter wheels)


On a side note, in an effort to learn and explore more about CCD imaging, I have created a post in CCD forum on Understanding STF-8300M & STT-8300M...; if you would like to contribute to CCD discussion then no need to respond here; use the link... instead. Regards


Note: My DSLR work here...; some DSLR processing instructions here....






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics