Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Questar 5

  • Please log in to reply
310 replies to this topic

#26 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 21 April 2017 - 09:27 PM

Some years ago when the 5" was a phantom, I made this drawing of what the size might be relative to the 3.5".

Looking at it on a 42" monitor, it is more or less life-size.  Looks good!



#27 JamesMStephens

JamesMStephens

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Posted 21 April 2017 - 10:30 PM

I wonder if the diameter of the base needs to be larger than 7" (like the Q 3.5)? The photos might suggest otherwise.  Maybe the Tristand could support a Q5.  



#28 Bomber Bob

Bomber Bob

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16,058
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • Loc: The Swamp, USA

Posted 21 April 2017 - 10:55 PM

Like Ben, I favor the classic Questar functions and appearance, and GOTO is not necessary.

 

Same here.  I really hope we don't see a Tiffany version ETX-125.


  • ianatcn, TerryWood and gfstallin like this

#29 ehallspqr

ehallspqr

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Port Townsend, WA. USA

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:06 PM

The 7" on the fork mount is 17 grand. I suspect the 5" would be in the neighborhood of 10k if mounted. Figure another couple grand for the PG3 and dec drive. Just a guess on my part. This all sounds expensive but price a 5" Astrophysics or Tak refractor on a decent mount and it isn't so bad. Made in the USA quality costs. Questars hold their value pretty well


  • TerryWood and gfstallin like this

#30 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,165
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 22 April 2017 - 02:32 AM

Exciting stuff jump.gif

 

A few decades ago, I asked Q if they would make a 5" for me. Not an option they said smile.gif

 

Now that they've moved forward to actually develop a Q5, I hope they stick with the original design. With double fork arms and control box. And a Powerguide. Something like the Standard and Duplex Q or the Q7. And for some people the newer Astro version of the Q7 with separate 2" star diagonal seems attractive. I prefer the classis Questar lay-out. And please keep that timeless, elegant and user friendly design of the original Q. Along with outstanding quality, it is the Questar's unique reason for being IMHO.

 

Compare to the Q7, the new Q5 will be small and compact. But make no mistake, compared to the little Q it will be massive!


  • ehallspqr, ianatcn, TerryWood and 1 other like this

#31 Panotaker

Panotaker

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 550
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2003
  • Loc: Austin, Texas

Posted 22 April 2017 - 07:01 AM

Personally, I like my manual setting circles, but I hope they make the 5 inch inch in both a non goto, and a goto version. If they do make a goto version, they need to make it pretty, not a bunch of ugly motors sticking out all over the place like an add on. Either way, they will be too expensive for me to afford. I just hope I live long enough to be able to buy a used one.


  • Dan Williams, justfred, TerryWood and 1 other like this

#32 Optics Patent

Optics Patent

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,861
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2016
  • Loc: Dallas TX

Posted 22 April 2017 - 08:27 AM

Compare to the Q7, the new Q5 will be small and compact. But make no mistake, compared to the little Q it will be massive!

I think of it this way:  The 3.5 is a "one-hand" scope that can safely be carried in one hand.  The Seven is a "two-man" (or "two-trip") scope.  The 5 would be a "two-hand" scope at 20-25 pounds.

 

And if the scope must be GOTO then the only electronics should be the position encoders, and the ability to communicate wirelessly with an external smart phone.  I worry that GOTO scopes won't have enduring value for 50 years, but the ability to communicate position with whatever electronics people are using is fine.


  • Mike Allen, BGeoghegan, TerryWood and 1 other like this

#33 dcriner

dcriner

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 08 Jun 2010
  • Loc: USA

Posted 22 April 2017 - 06:37 PM

The Q 5" sounds interesting, But, I'm wedded to the 3.5 - I carry it out and plop in on my concrete pedestal, with pre-aligned markings. I'm only into visual observing of solar objects. No deep-sky or astrophotography.



#34 Augustus

Augustus

    Fly Me To The Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,256
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 23 April 2017 - 05:45 PM

The Q 5" sounds interesting, But, I'm wedded to the 3.5 - I carry it out and plop in on my concrete pedestal, with pre-aligned markings. I'm only into visual observing of solar objects. No deep-sky or astrophotography.

More aperture is still going to mean higher angular resolution, and thus more detail on the Moon and planets - especially considering that the 3.5 and 5, being made in the same shop by the same company, are optical equals.


Edited by Augustus, 23 April 2017 - 05:45 PM.

  • ehallspqr and Terra Nova like this

#35 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 23 April 2017 - 09:26 PM

Like Ben, I favor the classic Questar functions and appearance, and GOTO is not necessary.

 

Same here.  I really hope we don't see a Tiffany version ETX-125.

They should offer both.  The electronics may lure some people used to LX200's etc, into the Questar camp.


  • ehallspqr and Augustus like this

#36 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 23 April 2017 - 09:28 PM

The Q 5" sounds interesting, But, I'm wedded to the 3.5 - I carry it out and plop in on my concrete pedestal, with pre-aligned markings. I'm only into visual observing of solar objects. No deep-sky or astrophotography.

Except the turning point in planetary observing is really above 4."  That's where festoons on Jupiter become much clearer and transient features appear and details on Saturn.


  • Larry Geary and Mike Allen like this

#37 JamesMStephens

JamesMStephens

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2015
  • Loc: Hattiesburg, Mississippi

Posted 23 April 2017 - 10:17 PM

 

The Q 5" sounds interesting, But, I'm wedded to the 3.5 - I carry it out and plop in on my concrete pedestal, with pre-aligned markings. I'm only into visual observing of solar objects. No deep-sky or astrophotography.

Except the turning point in planetary observing is really above 4."  That's where festoons on Jupiter become much clearer and transient features appear and details on Saturn.

 

I wonder if they considered a 4"?


Edited by JamesMStephens, 23 April 2017 - 10:18 PM.

  • Augustus likes this

#38 ehallspqr

ehallspqr

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Port Townsend, WA. USA

Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:27 AM

Both setup & viewing side by side, my ETX 5" vs my Questar 3.5", the 5" is hands down better in everyway. Not a knock against the little Questar, simply more aperture. And it doesn't hurt that Meade's Mak optics are very good. With double the light grasp, most all the brighter Deep sky objects are now within the scope's ability and worth viewing. The higher acuity and added crispness on planetary & moon are welcome and you can run the magnification up much higher before things become dim or the image softens. Very nice these 5" Maks. Think Questar 3.5 on steroids. No I think Questar realized 4" just doesn't gain you very much. Five inch is where you start to have some serious and noticable jumps in performance visible at the eyepiece. If my ETX 125 is any indication then the Q-5 will be still be a fairly compact and manageable package for those used to the little Questar. I think people are really going to like this 5" size. And its a Questar 5"!

 

As someone mentioned. This is the size Questar should have come out with 20 years ago.


  • Augustus likes this

#39 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:38 AM

 

 

The Q 5" sounds interesting, But, I'm wedded to the 3.5 - I carry it out and plop in on my concrete pedestal, with pre-aligned markings. I'm only into visual observing of solar objects. No deep-sky or astrophotography.

Except the turning point in planetary observing is really above 4."  That's where festoons on Jupiter become much clearer and transient features appear and details on Saturn.

 

I wonder if they considered a 4"?

 

I doubt it.  Not enough of a jump in performance over a 3.5."   But, I will say I preferred Meade's ETX105 over their 90mm.



#40 David Illig

David Illig

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Near Annapolis, Maryland

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:18 PM

My own preference is for a two-fork non-GOTO, but with a battery powered internal drive akin to the PG-1 (not requiring an external paddle control for sidereal drive).  Design should evoke the classic as much as possible, but with modernized refinements enabled by modern CNC machining.

Manual setting circles are soooo 1950's! I want a two-fork GOTO with USB, WiFi, and maybe Ethernet control via existing software—TheSkyX and the like.


  • Dan Williams likes this

#41 TerryWood

TerryWood

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,955
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 April 2017 - 06:55 PM

If I had a choice I would want it to be exactly like the Q 3.5 but bigger. For me, the ability to use setting circles and keep it simple is part of it's timeless charm. Plus it can be used without worrying about built-in electronic technology and ports going obsolete every few years. Although I do like the idea of add-on modules that could allow goto and other functions if desired. I also like that the OTA will be easily removable so it can be placed on a bigger EQ mount if you want to. It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. If it has built-in goto and other functions, I'll probably pass and go for the OTA only and mount it on a Losmandy GM-8. But then again...I might be swayed when the final product comes out.

 

V/R

 

Terry


  • Mike Allen, sgorton99, ehallspqr and 2 others like this

#42 Optics Patent

Optics Patent

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,861
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2016
  • Loc: Dallas TX

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:08 PM

Terry I agree that it should be a loyal rescaling of the classic.

The only change I'd make are minor design updates enabled and necessitated by making it all CNC machined instead of die castings.

I think the polished and machined highlights are critical but if this were all machined with no polish it would be nice. I worry that if they make it all black anodized like an Astro 7 it will lose some of its style and elegance.
  • TerryWood likes this

#43 TerryWood

TerryWood

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,955
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:19 PM

After re-reading Jim Perkins' e-mail, it looks like they will offer it in two styles (black or blue with star chart and moon map  like the current Q7). At least I hope that's what he meant. I'm partial to the polished look for the arms and base, but all machined would be ok too. I just want it to stay classy whatever they do.

 

V/R

 

Terry



#44 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:26 PM

After re-reading Jim Perkins' e-mail, it looks like they will offer it in two styles (black or blue with star chart and moon map  like the current Q7). At least I hope that's what he meant. I'm partial to the polished look for the arms and base, but all machined would be ok too. I just want it to stay classy whatever they do.

 

V/R

 

Terry

Burying the electronics and not having the scope festooned (!) with wires like a rat's nest would be a start.  And no crummy plastic housings for any electronics.  Some of the scopes (SCT's) using a lot of plastic today look awful.


  • ehallspqr and TerryWood like this

#45 TerryWood

TerryWood

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,955
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 24 April 2017 - 07:42 PM

 

After re-reading Jim Perkins' e-mail, it looks like they will offer it in two styles (black or blue with star chart and moon map  like the current Q7). At least I hope that's what he meant. I'm partial to the polished look for the arms and base, but all machined would be ok too. I just want it to stay classy whatever they do.

 

V/R

 

Terry

Burying the electronics and not having the scope festooned (!) with wires like a rat's nest would be a start.  And no crummy plastic housings for any electronics.  Some of the scopes (SCT's) using a lot of plastic today look awful.

 

Yeah, I can agree with that! I can't stand lots of wires. I wish the PG hand controller was metal, but if it's the only plastic I can live with that. I have the motorized declination drive and it's made of anodized aluminum, which is a pretty nice look. 

 

V/R

 

Terry



#46 ehallspqr

ehallspqr

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 446
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Port Townsend, WA. USA

Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:42 PM

I doubt will see the elegant design of the current Questar mounts. They probably will opt for a simpler design that is NC machining friendlier. Less machining operations the better for costs at the expense of some refinement and elegance. A single sided arm makes the most sense from a cost standpoint. Kind of like the cost containment exercise used by the Quantum telescope company. I agree they should make a standard with a tracking drive (preferably DC contained within the base) and offer goto, dec drive, encoders etc as an upgrade for those who want it. Since they are starting from scratch they should be able to better intergrate the encoders and dec drive so they don't appear so much like an afterthought.


  • BGeoghegan and TerryWood like this

#47 TerryWood

TerryWood

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,955
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2012
  • Loc: USA

Posted 25 April 2017 - 12:16 AM

I like the design of the Quantum 6, so if they go that route I'd be happy with that. I would be even happier if the Q5 had double forks. The Q5 prototype mount looks very robust too. From their e-mail it appears that it will actually be larger since he said it's currently under-sized. But I wonder how setting circles will fit onto that base the way it's designed. I guess we'll see.

 

(here's my Quantum 6...I think it weighs roughly 40 pounds)

 

update: the Quantum 6 catalog says it weighs 30 pounds, so my mistake.

 

V/R

 

Terry

Attached Thumbnails

  • image.jpg

Edited by TerryWood, 25 April 2017 - 10:59 AM.

  • Chassetter, ehallspqr and Terra Nova like this

#48 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:58 AM

 

 

After re-reading Jim Perkins' e-mail, it looks like they will offer it in two styles (black or blue with star chart and moon map  like the current Q7). At least I hope that's what he meant. I'm partial to the polished look for the arms and base, but all machined would be ok too. I just want it to stay classy whatever they do.

 

V/R

 

Terry

Burying the electronics and not having the scope festooned (!) with wires like a rat's nest would be a start.  And no crummy plastic housings for any electronics.  Some of the scopes (SCT's) using a lot of plastic today look awful.

 

Yeah, I can agree with that! I can't stand lots of wires. I wish the PG hand controller was metal, but if it's the only plastic I can live with that. I have the motorized declination drive and it's made of anodized aluminum, which is a pretty nice look. 

 

V/R

 

Terry

 

Plastic hand control is ok (it's not part of the scope!) and lighter than metal.  Machined, anodized housings for motors or electronics would be nice. 


  • TerryWood likes this

#49 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:59 AM

I like the design of the Quantum 6, so if they go that route I'd be happy with that. I would be even happier if the Q5 had double forks. The Q5 prototype mount looks very robust too. From their e-mail it appears that it will actually be larger since he said it's currently under-sized. But I wonder how setting circles will fit onto that base the way it's designed. I guess we'll see.

 

(here's my Quantum 6...I think it weighs roughly 40 pounds)

 

V/R

 

Terry

How stable is the single fork-arm of the Quantum.  P.S.  I almost bought a Quantum 4 in 1978, but I was young, didn't have much money and inflation tacked on $200 to the price just as I was going to buy it, so I got a C8!


  • TerryWood likes this

#50 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,113
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 25 April 2017 - 02:02 AM

I doubt will see the elegant design of the current Questar mounts. They probably will opt for a simpler design that is NC machining friendlier. Less machining operations the better for costs at the expense of some refinement and elegance. A single sided arm makes the most sense from a cost standpoint. Kind of like the cost containment exercise used by the Quantum telescope company. I agree they should make a standard with a tracking drive (preferably DC contained within the base) and offer goto, dec drive, encoders etc as an upgrade for those who want it. Since they are starting from scratch they should be able to better intergrate the encoders and dec drive so they don't appear so much like an afterthought.

I never thought the dec. motor for the Q looked bad, but integration would be good and needed for GOTO if they "go" that route.  But, if they go with a single fork-arm, its mass will have to be greater than using two so hiding the motor might be easier.


  • ehallspqr and TerryWood like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics