Jump to content


Photo

Why am I having trouble finding a refractor that

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Hosey

Phil Hosey

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008
  • Loc: LaGrange, GA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 05:49 AM

I am happy with? I just sent back the Meade 130 because I really didn't want to spend the money to upgrade the focuser as I felt the scope was already overpriced. To replace it, I went with an FLT-110, which seems a little better optically (nearly identical to the AT111 I used to have), but much more expensive. Maybe I'm asking too much of a scope for around 2k. What would you do if you were looking for a refractor for imaging only? I prefer new these days, I've had a bit of a run of back luck buying used. I gotta get off this merry-go-round.

#2 starbob1

starbob1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2007
  • Loc: IN

Posted 23 April 2013 - 06:06 AM

Well I was am int he same boat. Had the AT111 also plus the TAK tsa FS 102 Fsq 106 Edge 9.25.

Their really are not alot of APO's out their one can get right now. I found the new iOPTRON 108 ED to be the best value and at F6 pefect for imaging. So far I have just look though it and the optics seem fine. The focuser is decent for DSLR cameras. Great looking scope also. They also make a FF for it. Bob

#3 Jason B

Jason B

    Proud father of 5!!

  • *****
  • Posts: 6590
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Mid-Michigan

Posted 23 April 2013 - 06:44 AM

The AT111 and AT2FF have been a very good imaging combo for me, though I am in the aperture mode right now so my AT10 is getting the most use.

Then again, this weather in Michigan of late has not allowed any photons to hit the camera in many months!

#4 JoeM101

JoeM101

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2012
  • Loc: 45.66086, -73.54702

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:12 AM

Have been looking for the same for some time now... Have you considered the Skywatcher 120ed Schott although it is a doublet, it is an APO... the the crown element is Schott glass and second is flourite fpl53... Amazing views, no color and priced to keep 1600 new! Great reviews all around

Here's a thread Skywatcher 120

#5 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5549
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 23 April 2013 - 08:59 AM

The FSQ 85ED or 106 ED would appear to be off the shelf winners. The problem you have is you really need to look at focal length and f/#. The scopes you have been disappointed with had the same prescription at f/7. The 120 ED at f/7.5 is going to be similar. Another option would be the NP-127, which has a longer focal length with a faster prescription.

-Rich

#6 snommisbor

snommisbor

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 920
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2009
  • Loc: Cedar Park, TX

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:16 AM

Well I was am int he same boat. Had the AT111 also plus the TAK tsa FS 102 Fsq 106 Edge 9.25.

Their really are not alot of APO's out their one can get right now. I found the new iOPTRON 108 ED to be the best value and at F6 pefect for imaging. So far I have just look though it and the optics seem fine. The focuser is decent for DSLR cameras. Great looking scope also. They also make a FF for it. Bob


I cant believe you were not happy with the FSQ 106. That is one of the finest scopes for AP out there. What did you not like about it? As far as the 2K range the NP101 or even a TV101 could be had on the used market. You wouldnt take the hit of the initial depreciation of a new scope. I had one and it was great for imaging.

#7 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33793
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

I cant believe you were not happy with the FSQ 106. That is one of the finest scopes for AP out there. What did you not like about it?


It's a terrific imaging platform, but it's a lot of money to tie up in a focal length that is suitable for only a small range of targets. I buy one, use it for a while, get tired of looking at it on the shelf once I go back to smaller targets, sell it, and then miss it and get another. I'm on my third FSQ-106 now (actually, it was my second one, too; I bought it back). ;)

#8 JJK

JJK

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1986
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:55 AM

I cant believe you were not happy with the FSQ 106. That is one of the finest scopes for AP out there. What did you not like about it?


It's a terrific imaging platform, but it's a lot of money to tie up in a focal length that is suitable for only a small range of targets. I buy one, use it for a while, get tired of looking at it on the shelf once I go back to smaller targets, sell it, and then miss it and get another. I'm on my third FSQ-106 now (actually, it was my second one, too; I bought it back). ;)


What CCD chip are you using with the FSQ106? I'm thinking about getting one (or a TeleVue 127) to complement the range defined by a 10" Mak-Cass through a Ceravolo 300. The Ceravolo 300 will soon get a 16803-based camera, which should play nicely with the FSQ106 too.

#9 terry59

terry59

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:02 AM

I cant believe you were not happy with the FSQ 106. That is one of the finest scopes for AP out there. What did you not like about it?


It's a terrific imaging platform, but it's a lot of money to tie up in a focal length that is suitable for only a small range of targets. I buy one, use it for a while, get tired of looking at it on the shelf once I go back to smaller targets, sell it, and then miss it and get another. I'm on my third FSQ-106 now (actually, it was my second one, too; I bought it back). ;)


I fail to understand this perspective. I think a good scope and two cameras with different size chips would be a good option

#10 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33793
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:03 AM

What CCD chip are you using with the FSQ106?


I bought my first FSQ when I had the STL-11000. I never learned to love the interline 11000 chip so I went back to full frame chips with an ST-10 (which REALLY didn't need an FSQ) and then to 8300-based cameras (which don't much need it either). I have a 6303-based camera in the project pile which would benefit from the FSQ. The 16803 demands an FSQ!
;)

p.s. I took a look at the new QSI 16803 camera last weekend - nice!

#11 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33793
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:21 AM

I think a good scope and two cameras with different size chips would be a good option


The numbers get away from you pretty fast. If there were a chip 5 times the size of the one I use now (to make up the 5X difference in focal length of the FSQ) it would be astonishingly expensive - and my RC would never be able to illuminate it anyway. It's much more practical to switch telescopes.

#12 terry59

terry59

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:34 AM

I think a good scope and two cameras with different size chips would be a good option


The numbers get away from you pretty fast. If there were a chip 5 times the size of the one I use now (to make up the 5X difference in focal length of the FSQ) it would be astonishingly expensive - and my RC would never be able to illuminate it anyway. It's much more practical to switch telescopes.


I understand your response given that you have a large scope to begin with, which I did not know. I was referring to having a single scope such as the FSQ-106 and two cameras, say one with a Kodak chip and one with a Sony chip as opposed to having multiple size scopes and one camera. It seems to me both approaches can provide satisfactory images in mot cases.

#13 buckeyestargazer

buckeyestargazer

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Loc: IN, USA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:45 AM

I think a good scope and two cameras with different size chips would be a good option


The numbers get away from you pretty fast. If there were a chip 5 times the size of the one I use now (to make up the 5X difference in focal length of the FSQ) it would be astonishingly expensive - and my RC would never be able to illuminate it anyway. It's much more practical to switch telescopes.


I understand your response given that you have a large scope to begin with, which I did not know. I was referring to having a single scope such as the FSQ-106 and two cameras, say one with a Kodak chip and one with a Sony chip as opposed to having multiple size scopes and one camera. It seems to me both approaches can provide satisfactory images in mot cases.


I see what you are saying Terry. I image with an APM115 f/7 and Atik 383L (KAF-8300). But I would love to have a smaller chip camera such as the newer Sony based ICX694. I'm sure that this is not the correct way to think about this based on image scale, mathematics etc, but the smaller more sensitive chip will give a narrower field of view with my 115mm. I'm especially thinking about this now that we are in galaxy season and there's not a whole lot of options out there with my current focal length and CCD. Having a smaller chip camera might make those smaller galaxies seem more manageable with my same telescope. But again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. :foreheadslap:

#14 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33793
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:56 AM

I see what you are saying Terry. I image with an APM115 f/7 and Atik 383L (KAF-8300). But I would love to have a smaller chip camera such as the newer Sony based ICX694. I'm sure that this is not the correct way to think about this based on image scale, mathematics etc, but the smaller more sensitive chip will give a narrower field of view with my 115mm.


I see where he's coming from, too. You wouldn't really gain any detail or resolution, though - the Sony chip has pixels nearly as large as those of your 8300. You could just crop to get a smaller field.

#15 terry59

terry59

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:04 AM

I think a good scope and two cameras with different size chips would be a good option


The numbers get away from you pretty fast. If there were a chip 5 times the size of the one I use now (to make up the 5X difference in focal length of the FSQ) it would be astonishingly expensive - and my RC would never be able to illuminate it anyway. It's much more practical to switch telescopes.


I understand your response given that you have a large scope to begin with, which I did not know. I was referring to having a single scope such as the FSQ-106 and two cameras, say one with a Kodak chip and one with a Sony chip as opposed to having multiple size scopes and one camera. It seems to me both approaches can provide satisfactory images in mot cases.


I see what you are saying Terry. I image with an APM115 f/7 and Atik 383L (KAF-8300). But I would love to have a smaller chip camera such as the newer Sony based ICX694. I'm sure that this is not the correct way to think about this based on image scale, mathematics etc, but the smaller more sensitive chip will give a narrower field of view with my 115mm. I'm especially thinking about this now that we are in galaxy season and there's not a whole lot of options out there with my current focal length and CCD. Having a smaller chip camera might make those smaller galaxies seem more manageable with my same telescope. But again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. :foreheadslap:


Hi Joel - This is something I've given lots of thought to and have played with various scenarios using CCDCalc and a personal goal of getting 1" to 3" of resolution. I'm hoping that someone with more experience can validate my thinking or explain why it won't work. :confused:

#16 terry59

terry59

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4834
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2011
  • Loc: Colorado, USA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:08 AM

I see what you are saying Terry. I image with an APM115 f/7 and Atik 383L (KAF-8300). But I would love to have a smaller chip camera such as the newer Sony based ICX694. I'm sure that this is not the correct way to think about this based on image scale, mathematics etc, but the smaller more sensitive chip will give a narrower field of view with my 115mm.


I see where he's coming from, too. You wouldn't really gain any detail or resolution, though - the Sony chip has pixels nearly as large as those of your 8300. You could just crop to get a smaller field.


Hmmm...the newer Sony chips have much smaller pixels.

Edit: My apologies, perhaps I should have started a different thread

#17 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4194
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 23 April 2013 - 11:31 AM

I know why... And I told you this before. Hyperstar is haunting you.

Once you get used to f/2 speed nothing else will satisfy you.

I have an FSQ106 even that is too slow for me. That's why I have ordered a C8 Hyperstar lens the moment I ordered my new C8 Edge when I was downsizing from C11 Edge + Hyperstar.

#18 Phil Hosey

Phil Hosey

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1627
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2008
  • Loc: LaGrange, GA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 12:25 PM

I know why... And I told you this before. Hyperstar is haunting you.

Once you get used to f/2 speed nothing else will satisfy you.

I have an FSQ106 even that is too slow for me. That's why I have ordered a C8 Hyperstar lens the moment I ordered my new C8 Edge when I was downsizing from C11 Edge + Hyperstar.


Perhaps. My C11 and Hyperstar are currrently at Starizona getting setup. I love the simplicity of a refractor for imaging, but I'm also extrememly sensitive to cost vs performance and I feel like that I made a mistake selling my AT111 and I'm having a hard time finding something comparable at the same price.

#19 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43894
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:11 PM

I cant believe you were not happy with the FSQ 106. That is one of the finest scopes for AP out there. What did you not like about it?


It's a terrific imaging platform, but it's a lot of money to tie up in a focal length that is suitable for only a small range of targets. I buy one, use it for a while, get tired of looking at it on the shelf once I go back to smaller targets, sell it, and then miss it and get another. I'm on my third FSQ-106 now (actually, it was my second one, too; I bought it back). ;)


John:

I can see the money issue but it does seem that a photographer needs a wide range of lenses. On a trip one might want to image a bird on a wire a quarter of a mile away and later that day image the vastness of the Grand Canyon...

Jon

#20 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 33793
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003
  • Loc: NE Ohio

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:19 PM

I can see the money issue but it does seem that a photographer needs a wide range of lenses. On a trip one might want to image a bird on a wire a quarter of a mile away and later that day image the vastness of the Grand Canyon...

Jon


No argument here. I did replace the FSQ with a lesser instrument of similar focal length so I'd still have access to the same targets. Wasn't the same, though...

Since the TOA left I have quite a hole in the lineup; jumps from 530mm to 2400mm. Dunno what will fill it yet. :question:

#21 starbob1

starbob1

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2007
  • Loc: IN

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:47 PM

Where did I say I did not like the FSQ.Hell yes I like it. Amazing scope for wider field objects and visual. But I did that for a year and wanted aperture on my pier in the observatory. The Edge scopes just came out and I wanted the 11in Edge and sold the FSQ and got the Edge. Since I am not rich I had to sell the FSQ. I wish I could keep all of the scopes I have own but money is tight. This iOptron 108mm f6 could be a really nice imaging scope for the money, Yes it can never be a super APO but I do imaging for fun not to impress others. Bob :jump:

#22 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5549
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 23 April 2013 - 02:49 PM

This is why I have never sold a telescope. If I move on, I know I won't completely abandon the line of thought which got me to use the previous scope. Of course, that means I have 10 telescopes, now.

And I now see Sedat is trying to make me feel guilty about Hyperstar.

-Rich

#23 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4194
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

Not at all Rich. I cannot thank you enough for introducing the Hyperstar idea to me.

I cannot wait for the weekend to try out the C8 Edge - Hyperstar Duo. Hope weather gives me a break for that.

#24 Starhawk

Starhawk

    Space Ranger

  • *****
  • Posts: 5549
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2008
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:09 PM

Sedat,

You embarrass me. You are welcome for any help I have given such an advanced observer.

What camera are you using? I have a C8 OTA which was always better than my C11 I've been curious about trying this out with.

-Rich

#25 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4194
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 23 April 2013 - 03:18 PM

I will be using Atik 460 EX mono and SXVR-M25C OSC.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics