Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Telescope Specific Forums >> Questar Forum

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Halo27
member


Reged: 07/29/08
Posts: 11
Tripod for 3.5" Q
      #2576520 - 08/12/08 01:14 PM

TRIPOD RECOMMENDATIONS: Waiting for my 3.5" Q to arrive next week. This is my first telescope since 1964! I'll need a good tripod (setting it up on a table won't always work for me). Could any of you suggest what specific tripod (make and model #) to buy? I've read about the pleasures of marrying the Q to the Tristand. It's the cost that's holding me back. Any suggestions will be appreciated. Lenny

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LarryV
member


Reged: 06/02/08
Posts: 54
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2576642 - 08/12/08 02:09 PM

Lenny,
I have the Tristand, and am really happy with it- built like a tank, and solid as a rock! A good alternative would be the Bogen Tripod, listed in Questar's January 2008 price list as #19343. As described there, it has a 2-axis micro fluid head and handle, quick release plate, rising center column, 3-section tubular legs with flip locks, and bag. It lists for $354.00. I have no personal experience with this tripod as to how steady a mount it would provide. A call to Jim Reichert at Questar would be advisable; another "Super" Bogen tripod is also available for $675.00. Jim will be able to advise you with all the details.
Enjoy your new Questar- they are one of a kind!
Larry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ColoHank
sage


Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 204
Loc: western Colorado
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2576867 - 08/12/08 03:31 PM Attachment (44 downloads)

I think just about any sturdy tripod would do, though I'm not a big fan of attaching the 7" diameter base of the Q directly to the modest mounting plates typical of most tilt-heads found on competent camera tripods. I tried it with my Bogen 3030, and found that the arrangement was too vibration prone and way too tippy. I also couldn't shake the memory of once having to replace a casting that suddenly failed in the Bogen's tilt-head.

You want as much support and security at the base of the Q as you can get. Consider using only the legs of whatever tripod you get (or already have) and fabricating an adjustable wedge that affords a heftier, more stable mounting surface.

--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
other odds and ends...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LarryV
member


Reged: 06/02/08
Posts: 54
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: ColoHank]
      #2576993 - 08/12/08 04:30 PM

WOW!
What a beautiful piece of woodworking, Colohank, It looks solid as a rock!
Larry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GR1973
member


Reged: 09/29/07
Posts: 34
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: LarryV]
      #2577311 - 08/12/08 06:35 PM

Yes ,After about 1 year search ...My latitude is 30 sometimes i move south , i need a variable length Tripod that can work on every land even if it is not completely flat,i did not consider the tristand instead i bought Gitzo G 1500 tripod with Gitzo G 1570 3 way low profile head....

Great, very stable and worth the money value..

Edited by GR1973 (08/12/08 06:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GR1973
member


Reged: 09/29/07
Posts: 34
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: LarryV]
      #2577329 - 08/12/08 06:41 PM

Quote:

Lenny,
A good alternative would be the Bogen Tripod, listed in Questar's January 2008 price list as #19343. As described there, it has a 2-axis micro fluid head and handle, quick release plate, rising center column, 3-section tubular legs with flip locks, and bag. It lists for $354.00. I have no personal experience with this tripod as to how steady a mount it would provide. A call to Jim Reichert at Questar would be advisable; another "Super" Bogen tripod is also available for $675.00. Jim will be able to advise you with all the details.
Enjoy your new Questar- they are one of a kind!
Larry




I asked Jim reichart about this and he told me that is not suitable for Astro model
THE other one SUPER BOGEN IS THE ONE THAT CAN TOLERATE THE HIGH MAG IN YOUR SCOPE


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LarryV
member


Reged: 06/02/08
Posts: 54
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: ColoHank]
      #2577362 - 08/12/08 06:56 PM

ColoHank, you have to set me straight on this--did Titus really know what an atom was way back between 99 and 55 BC?
Larry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NeilR
member


Reged: 02/18/08
Posts: 63
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2577367 - 08/12/08 06:58 PM

I also use a Tri-Stand. They are very stable, wonderful and really finish off the Questar concept. If you cheap out on your support you will regret it and upgrade quickly.

I have a Gitzo Series 2 (G1228, similar to the current GT2540) which I would not recommend because the legs are too skinny. It's a fine tripod for reasonable focal length photo lenses. It has 28mm diameter legs.

I have a Gitzo G1410 (Series 4, 41mm legs) which performs about equally to the tri-stand when set to the same height. I use a Markins M20 ballhead with a 5.5" Arca-Swiss long lens plate on the bottom of the Q, which helps stabilize the base. I agree with the above that you don't want some wimpy attachment plate.

Based on the above, I would suggest at least 41mm legs in CF or alloy. You may get away with 32mm legs but I wouldn't downgrade from the Gitzo 1410 if I had to start over. That eliminates inexpensive legs like the Bogen 055 series if you try to roll your own setup. I'm not necessarily recommending the Gitzo and Markins products; I have them for general photographic use and mention them for comparison. A G1410 and M20 would run you upwards of $900 with a plate. Unless you have other uses for a sturdy standard tripod, you're better off kicking in a couple hundred more and doing the real deal- the Tri-Stand.

The only possible negative about the Tri_Stand is that the wedge has a "tail" that could interfere with a full size DSLR camera if you are thinking about photography. I have the old lower latitude version which has a taller tail. The clearances on the normal/current wedges are unclear to me, not having one.

I know nothing about the Questar Bogen offerings; I'm sure they would service you well and I'm sure they provide adequate heads, which is very important.

I too am impressed with Col Hank's workmanship .

HTH,
Neil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RRavneberg
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 12/02/05
Posts: 632
Loc: Columbus, OH
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: NeilR]
      #2577384 - 08/12/08 07:05 PM Attachment (24 downloads)

I also use the TriStand for portable use. It's excellent.

--------------------
Ron Ravneberg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ColoHank
sage


Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 204
Loc: western Colorado
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: LarryV]
      #2577529 - 08/12/08 08:13 PM

Actually, Lucretius (Roman) borrowed the notion from Epicurus (Greek), who in turn was inspired by Democritus (also Greek). Both Greeks predated Lucretius by several centuries. It just goes to show the power and endurance of good minds and good ideas.

Atom, I believe, derives from a Greek word describing something small and indivisible.

--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
other odds and ends...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LarryV
member


Reged: 06/02/08
Posts: 54
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: ColoHank]
      #2577727 - 08/12/08 09:29 PM

Even at my advanced age, I learn something new every day!
Thanks, ColoHank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Halo27
member


Reged: 07/29/08
Posts: 11
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: ColoHank]
      #2578759 - 08/13/08 11:44 AM

thank-you for your suggestions. Your self-fabricated tripod is beautiful!. I'm actually now considering biting the bullet towards the Tri-stand...any comment on that? Lenny

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LarryV
member


Reged: 06/02/08
Posts: 54
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2578816 - 08/13/08 12:17 PM

You will never regret it, Lenny. It is designed specifically for the Q 3 1/2, and one more important factor is the longer 1/4-20 central attaching bolt. Camera tripod bolts are much shorter. Since your $3K Questar is hanging off that one bolt when in use, you will be surprised with the increase in "peace of mind" you will enjoy with the Tristand!
Happy viewing, Larry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ColoHank
sage


Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 204
Loc: western Colorado
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2578834 - 08/13/08 12:37 PM

I've never seen a Tri-Stand in the flesh, but those who own and use them rave about their functionality and esthetics. Based on such owner enthusiasm, I'd have to assume that a Tri-stand is probably the perfect complement (and compliment) to a Questar. But $1245 is a lot of money -- enough for three additional Brandon eyepieces and a full aperture solar filter, for example, with change left over. I might consider a Tri-Stand for myself, maybe, if I ever win the lottery (if I ever buy a lottery ticket).

Otherwise, no. There are too many other ways to skin that cat.

--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
other odds and ends...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Halo27
member


Reged: 07/29/08
Posts: 11
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: LarryV]
      #2579028 - 08/13/08 02:14 PM

Larry..I really appreciate your comments and read all your posts. I just heard that my Questar is on the way and I'll probably have it this Friday. Now I'm getting a bit intimidated by my not knowing about polar alignment, the RA and Declination aspects of the Scope, etc. Hopefully, the questar instructions and other similiar instructions I've down-loaded will do it for me. I'm up in the air about other "things" I may want (sooner or later). ie. Filters, Front lens diaphram, rubber eye-cups, and I'm still confused about the tripod thing ( wedges? leveling feet...) If I have a heavy stable table for the back-yard, can I get away with just using the Q on that for awhile? By the way, I live in Las Cruces, NM I've read so much in the last few days about the pros and cons of the Q and the Tripod suggestions, that my head is spinning. Perhaps, when the Q arrives and I take it out and gaze upon it..that's all I should do for a couple of days! I'm excited! Lenny

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SATMAN
member


Reged: 12/02/07
Posts: 49
Loc: NJ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2579120 - 08/13/08 03:04 PM

I was the same way when I got my 3.5 stsndard with the power guide 2) in December of
last year. The first use attempt was on a leitz tilt-all camera tripod which made me very nervous $4500 telescope on a too small tripod is not an acceptable risk!!! polar alignment with the tripod pan head was nearly impossible.
about a month later I bought a tristand . Its built like a tank and polar alignment is very easy (similar to a celestron tripod wedge ) you have altitude and azmuth adjustments that are very smooth and an eyepiece shelf to boot! when set up it has everything with-in reach including my hp ipaq pda with software bisques the sky on it (its great for using with the setting circles on the Q.) I highly recommend the tristand .

--------------------
CELESTRON/VIXEN C102 GP REFRACTOR
CELESTRON SUPER C8 PLUS
VIXEN 90 CUSTOM REFRACTOR ALTAZ. MOUNT
QUESTAR 3.5 STANDARD
CORONADO PST
BRANDON 94mm f/7 ON VIXEN POLARIS MOUNT
VIXEN PORTA MOUNT
BRANDON EYEPIECE SET (circa 1986) 8,12,16,24,32, 2.4X DAKIN BARLOW
VARIOUS NAGLERS 3-6 ZOOM,7,9,11,13,16,24PANOPTIC

Edited by SATMAN (08/13/08 03:06 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NeilR
member


Reged: 02/18/08
Posts: 63
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2579138 - 08/13/08 03:09 PM

A good solid table is probably a good idea while you get accustomed to the scope and it's handling. A shaky table will be frustrating but you will know quickly if it works or not.

Same for all the other accessories. it's cheaper to order later than to buy everything before you know what you really need. The nice thing about the Q is that everything you *need* is built in. Otherwise it would not be a Questar. Most accessories we buy for general observing is based on obsession, not need

The manual has a seemingly bewildering number of techniques for polar alignment, progressing from simple but a bit crude to increasingly sophisticated methods.

The simplest way to do it is to set the declination to 90 degrees and center Polaris. That gets you to within 3/4 of a degree. That means that if you use the circles you should be within one or two widths of the field of the standard 16mm EP.

If all you want is for the centered object to stay in the field for some time, the above will do it. You only have to go further if you want to make the circles more accurate.

You can improve that by setting dec to 89.25 degrees, more or less, and pointing the eyepiece tube at Alkaid in Ursa Major and the finder points to Epsilon Cassiopeia. This time of year, that puts the EP pointing roughly horizontal and west, and the finder pointing toward the east. If you draw an imaginary line running from Alkaid through E Cass, the EP and finder should lie on the line, with the EP pointing west this time of year just after dark.

You then point to a known star reasonably close to the celestial equator and set the circles to the listed Right Ascension of that star. This time of year Altair (Southernmost star in the "Summer Triangle") is a good choice, at RA 19h51m and DEC 8d 53m.

I use Vega at RA 18h37m DEC 38D 47m because the first thing I like to look at is E Lyrae, which is my favorite summertime object with the Q and is within the finder field at that point. Sometimes I save time by going straight to E Lyrae, getting my double-double fix and then setting RA to 18h44m. Although not "near" the celestial equator it seems to be close enough. You simply MUST observe E Lyrae on your first night of observing . Otherwise you will be booted from this forum.

When I say "finder pointing" above, I mean the finder cage sticking out of the bottom of the Q. This time of year the EP and finder are almost level around 11pm - both stars are about 31 degrees altitude at my location. Within an hour or so of that, level will get you very close for visual use.

If you get that even close (you don't need surveying tools to do this for visual work), you will find the circles very accurate, usually within a single field of view of the initial setting. this will make more sense after you get the scope. If you have not observed in a while and your skills are rusty (mine get rusty in a couple months ) just point the thing at Polaris with dec at 90 degrees and work with that for awhile.

The method above is Questar's suggestion via the manual. Ron R has a different approach which works well if you have a 32mm EP, but I think Q's way is slightly simpler and works with any EP.

Ron's polar alignment cheat sheet with calibration stars (for RA) is good for all seasons. I don't have the link handy; Ron will probably chime in. Bob Vanderbei over on the yahoo group also has his own cheat sheet with calibration stars and prescription for getting the pole set good enough for photo work. I just point my scope at Alkaid or E Cass and I'm good to go but the calibration star lists are always on my observing clipboard.

Neil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
LarryV
member


Reged: 06/02/08
Posts: 54
Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: Halo27]
      #2579878 - 08/13/08 09:48 PM

Lenny,
NeilR's post is spot on. Before you commit to any type of support for your new scope, by all means play with it inside a few times to get used to it's various controls, and use your heavy table at night. There's lots of time to get your permanent mount, whether it's a Tristand or other sturdy tripod. Give us a post when that new beauty arrives!
Clear skies, Larry


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RRavneberg
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 12/02/05
Posts: 632
Loc: Columbus, OH
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: NeilR]
      #2580509 - 08/14/08 09:17 AM

Quote:

Ron's polar alignment cheat sheet with calibration stars (for RA) is good for all seasons. I don't have the link handy; Ron will probably chime in.




Actually, I have written up quick versions of both polar alignment processes (i.e., the one I came up with and the one in the manual). Both seem to produce equal results, but, as Neil notes, the manual-based version is not dependent upon any particular eyepiece.

--------------------
Ron Ravneberg


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
NeilR
member


Reged: 02/18/08
Posts: 63
Re: Tripod for 3.5" Q new [Re: RRavneberg]
      #2580701 - 08/14/08 11:01 AM

Ron, I would like to see your 2nd version if you care to attach it or provide a link...

There is a peculiar characteristic of the Q method, which I summarized above. Because the eyepiece has to point at Alkaid, and is currently level at around 10pm, as the weeks roll by now the eyepiece will have to be angled downward and to the west, such that by the beginning of December the EP will be pointed straight down.

This will cause some interesting contortions in order to view in the EP. I think some members should have photos taken and posted here, illustrating their method of viewing upside down with the OTA pointed near Polaris

If you were good at "Twister" as a kid, and keep in shape, you may not have difficulties.

Questar mentions a solution, which I did not address because this is the 1st fall-winter that I have used this method. They suggest setting DEC to "the wrong" 89.25 degrees, on the other side of 90. Then the alignment is reversed, with the EP pointed at Epsilon Cass and the finder at Alkaid.

I haven't tried that switch yet, but see no reason why it won't work as long as one remembers which 89.25 degrees to set.

Interestingly, Questar suggests setting DEC to 89 degrees, not 89.25, but we all know that 89.25 is more accurate if you can make that fine assessment. I find it easier to do on my Q7 simply because the scales are larger. On the Q3.5 I just set it a smidgen past 89 using a magnifying glass. A quarter degree is half a field width with the 16mm EP, which, combined with any other minor errors could be the difference between getting an object in view or not.

Just as an aside, a lot of us disdain GOTO. I do too, I guess, maybe just because I have never owned a GOTO. But it occurs to me that there is little or no effective difference between using GOTO and using circles. In either case I could point my scope at something, find it and observe it, without ever knowing where it is in relation to other objects in the sky, which is the main argument against using GOTO. What do others think about that?

This subject has come up with me because I am slowly working down the Astronomical League Double Star List. They ask that you not use GOTO, that you star hop. They do not mention circles, one way or the other. To keep in the spirit of things, I have always tried to comply with what I think is the spirit of that request, and not rely on circles but rather star hop. As a result I can spend a lot of time working out star hops to the more obscure doubles, many of which are not very interesting and otherwise not worth the effort. I worked Draco the other night, logging my observations in short order, but I used the circles because most of the stars are somewhat out in the boonies, given my light polluted skies and the waxing moon. Also with doubles embedded in Milky Way star fields, where they all look alike except there happens to be 2 stars close together. Was I cheating?

I started my Double Star logs in 2004 and I'm only half done. I need to either drop that project or finish it :-). Otherwise they may consider 10 year old observations "expired" and reject them

Neil


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)


Extra information
1 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  spaceydee, Clive Gibbons 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 1313

Jump to

Home



Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics