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

BORG 107FL F3.9ED

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#26 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 09 December 2018 - 05:49 AM

Well.. it is just a matter of money. I will get my borg next week, however i work mono

 

If you consider an FSQ+Feather Touch+Reducer you end up sky high. 

If you consider a mainstream triplet + feather touch + redoucer you get the borg

 

Plus i have been reported many times that the best in class fsq is the 85



#27 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 09 December 2018 - 10:56 AM

The images posted on the Digiborg blog look pretty good to me. It also seems like it’s easier to setup a system that will work well with a heavy camera because you have feathertouch right out of the box which is more stable and easier to automate than the default FSQ.

#28 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 24,297
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 09 December 2018 - 02:45 PM

Well.. it is just a matter of money. I will get my borg next week, however i work mono

 

If you consider an FSQ+Feather Touch+Reducer you end up sky high. 

If you consider a mainstream triplet + feather touch + redoucer you get the borg

 

Plus i have been reported many times that the best in class fsq is the 85

Let me know what you think of the Borg. I am coming from a Canon great white telephoto lens, which has some issues with the IS float, but otherwise is exceptionally well corrected (I have no blue scattering). It looked like there was some blue scattering in the Borg example images. Getting a very fast scope is important, but I'd also like one that is very well corrected.

 

The FSQ85 has a smaller aperture, which will affect the size of the diffraction limited spot. I am also coming from a 150mm aperture, which for a refractor definitely helps in the resolution department. The loss of 65mm worth of aperture is more than I care to lose.



#29 medderx

medderx

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 130
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted 09 December 2018 - 07:07 PM

Yes please let us know what you think of the borg (pictures would be nice too grin.gif ). I really hope it is good. 



#30 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 09 December 2018 - 07:13 PM

Let me know what you think of the Borg. I am coming from a Canon great white telephoto lens, which has some issues with the IS float, but otherwise is exceptionally well corrected (I have no blue scattering). It looked like there was some blue scattering in the Borg example images. Getting a very fast scope is important, but I'd also like one that is very well corrected.

The FSQ85 has a smaller aperture, which will affect the size of the diffraction limited spot. I am also coming from a 150mm aperture, which for a refractor definitely helps in the resolution department. The loss of 65mm worth of aperture is more than I care to lose.


There must also be 50 threads on here and the Tak user group about issues with the 85. I almost bought one when I sold my WO71 but it really doesn’t support full frame chips
  • CounterWeight likes this

#31 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 13 December 2018 - 08:30 AM

This is going to take some days, going to buy correct screws, making right cables, testing, balancing and setting... same assembly stuff as ever.. i have to say that setup is lightweight, both scopes has same backfocus (60mm+20 rotator) that is **** nice

 

20181212-181450.jpg

 

20181213-101409.jpg

 


  • psandelle, alanjgreen, BinoGuy and 2 others like this

#32 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 15 December 2018 - 03:44 AM

After assembling yesterday i was working with spacers. i still think i have a slight axial problem with the Qhy filter wheel (and its locking system)

Polar alignment was not perfect, i cannot see polaris from my garden, i have to find a quicker way to drift align

 

A couple of luminance frames 30 and 120 seconds:

 

test.png

 

horsie2.jpg

 

 


  • psandelle likes this

#33 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,597
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 15 December 2018 - 08:07 AM

Jon, I set up a Hubble artificial star to test the W-O Flat6-A that I bought.  I had high hopes for the Flat6 but on my Lomo 80/480 "the best 80mm in the world" according to some, it is outperformed by the Televue 0.8X TRF2008.  Granted the Flat6 and TV 0.8X are not the spendy AP or Riccardi flattener, but what I discovered was that my humble Canon 300/4L puts up a good challenge to the Lomo 80/480 + TRF2008.

 

My point being... you may discover that whatever you choose will not be that much of an improvement over your great white Canon.

 

https://orlygoingthi...non-is-for.html



#34 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 20 December 2018 - 04:05 PM

I am not gone.. simply we have all cloudy nights lately...



#35 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 06 January 2019 - 05:37 AM

I am testing too many things right now, my setup has changed a lot. 

 

However, i wish to start saying that i did not finetuned spacers yet! i calculated backspaces "more or less", i have still to do the +/- 1mm additions

 

i did a quickie. it is truly not calibrated, fast thrown. 3 poses each LRGB, 15 secs luminance, 120 secs colors, gain 0. no color balance, this is how it gets out crude.

 

M42-Quickie.jpg

 

I think my camera is not perfectly plane. 3 corners has round stars, the upper right has a little elongated. on this corner this is the halo:

 

Borg107-Halos.jpg

 

As you work LRGB i think it is something very managable. At this price tag, this optic seems right.


  • psandelle, CounterWeight and vdb like this

#36 vdb

vdb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,531
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 06 January 2019 - 07:37 AM

With all due respect, the F3 reducer for the FSQ106 is not of the best optical quality IMHO, nor is the Reducer QE built all that great (grub screws.... bad idea). The Reducer 645 is a great piece of equipment though, but costs $2500. Compound that with the Fisher Price quality focuser on the FSQ and it is really difficult to recommend that system to anyone that is imaging with something heavier than a DSLR camera. Collimation has also plagued that scope, and others that are of the same design. With a full focuser replacement and good collimation though, the FSQ is a champ. That is a lot to ask of someone to accept IMHO.

 

 

The 645 reducer threads into the last cell so it's not adding weight to the focuser, I have both the F3 and the 645 reducer, and quite frankly both are great, I was amazed at the F3 reducer, on paper it seems so-so but in real use it performs good, I only took one shot with  it and 2 with the 645, but both without an auto-focuser so they drifted out of focus. Actually the stars up to the corner where better in the F3 focuser, go figure (I'm under the impression that the f3 reducer compensates the focus drift from the FSQ). Not enough data to draw any conclusions but it seems the F3 is a stellar performer ...

 

/Yves


  • CounterWeight likes this

#37 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 06 January 2019 - 09:24 AM

Since i have some spare time, i gave a better look to the single channels. The blue has elongated stars everywhere. the halos probably comes from wrong spacing

 

M42Blu.jpg

 

Edit: other colors doesn't have same eccentricity. i feel like until today this optic was spaced with luminance/red prevalence, while it might require to be adjusted via blue channel. it might be possible that all pictures that were posted were wrongly spaced. working on this tonight

 

Edit 2:

 

Math surprises:

 

L: 0,4219

R: 0,3904

G: 0,4688

B: 0,3930

 

Green is out of tune


Edited by CrzHrs, 06 January 2019 - 11:12 AM.


#38 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 06 January 2019 - 04:36 PM

I got a little better G result shortening 0,2mm spacers, however i am not pleased with the result:

 

Comparison-Full.jpg

 

Comparison-Zoom.jpg

 

Same workflow process.. still i have to try to correct the blue halo via integration in app



#39 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 07 January 2019 - 03:38 PM

What filters are you using? You might have a tilted filter and/or a filter that is not quite uniformly thick. I had this issue and it was a real pita at fast focal ratio.

Edited by akulapanam, 07 January 2019 - 03:45 PM.


#40 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 07 January 2019 - 04:25 PM

Good point. it is an astronomik lrgb set. i will test eccentricity filters vs empty position



#41 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 07 January 2019 - 11:28 PM

Good point. it is an astronomik lrgb set. i will test eccentricity filters vs empty position

Interesting I actually had issues with the same brand.


Edited by akulapanam, 07 January 2019 - 11:28 PM.


#42 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 08 January 2019 - 08:47 AM

Mmmm.. i have some doubts about defective filter.

 

If i do the avarage between RGB i have to get L

 

here i have

 

L 0,4219

R 0,3930

G 0,4688

B 0,3930 

 

avarage rgb value is 0,4174 that is 0,0045 far from L...

 

Do i am wrong?



#43 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 08 January 2019 - 09:04 AM

I have another doubt. given the camera is a QHY163M, efficency is (the highest stet the 100%, not real value):

 

Green 100%

Blue 90%

Red 80%

 

maybe is it possible that i exposed green too much that saturates faster?



#44 orlyandico

orlyandico

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9,597
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Singapore

Posted 08 January 2019 - 09:40 AM

The QHY163M has a 4/3 sensor, which is 1/4 the area (half the height and width) of an FF chip. So it won't be a serious challenge for the Borg 107FL if the goal is to determine the performance in the corners of FF.



#45 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 08 January 2019 - 11:49 AM

I have another doubt. given the camera is a QHY163M, efficency is (the highest stet the 100%, not real value):

Green 100%
Blue 90%
Red 80%

maybe is it possible that i exposed green too much that saturates faster?


What are your background values. That should determine correct exposure. Usually you see star shape get worse as band pass narrows and as you go from Red to Green to Blue for the same reason as critical focus zone reduces. You are focusing each channel correct?

#46 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 08 January 2019 - 12:43 PM

No, i didn't focus each filter. i am still learning how this optic wants to be threaten. All the images with this optic that we saw before me had a blue halo. this optic has too, but i think it is just a matter to learn how to image with this. unluckly now is cloudy, but i will gather more more more and more data and more accurate. 

 

What impress me is that this optic, even just with a silly strech is **** warm.

 

Borg107.jpg

 

Left:

 

Statisticsleft.jpg

 

Right:

 

statistics.jpg

 

the image on left has 0,2mm shorter distance from the one on right. 

 

30 Secs left, 120 right. i think i have to re-adapt R:20 secs, G:16 secs B:18 secs or so


Edited by CrzHrs, 08 January 2019 - 01:02 PM.


#47 akulapanam

akulapanam

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012

Posted 08 January 2019 - 03:04 PM

Interesting. I have yet to find a filter set that is truly parafocal at F5 or below. This will definitely impact eccentricity and halos. Refocus for each filter and see what you get. I also suspect you have some tilt , fast focal ratio is very sensitive to that as well, and changing the spacers can change this.

Edited by akulapanam, 08 January 2019 - 03:05 PM.


#48 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 08 January 2019 - 04:00 PM

I think the tilt is on the camera. Whatever i do the problem is on the upper right,even if i rotate the block. Maybe tomorrow i'll be able to reach better data,my prime goal was distance, now colors



#49 CrzHrs

CrzHrs

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 443
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Venezia (VE)

Posted 10 January 2019 - 03:33 PM

Good news,

focusing each filter things went much better. bad experience (i went mono till one month ago). here is at spacers 59,8mm

 

Starv1.jpg
Starv2.jpg

 

3 poses 10sec each, Lrgb

 

tonight FWHME values are:

 

L 0,5146

R 0,4684

G 0,4920

B 0,4133

 

poor seeing

 

Doing last test at 60mm space, then choosing one of the two. 



#50 StevenBellavia

StevenBellavia

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2014
  • Loc: New York

Posted 10 January 2019 - 06:51 PM

I don't know if all Borgs are the same, but I started a thread on the Borg 90FL f/4:

 

https://www.cloudyni...ue#entry8905365

 

In quick summary:

 

I think the Borg 90FL f/4 is like dating a gorgeous super-model, who has some issues, requiring constant attention, but still worth staying in the relationship.

 

My Borg 90FL f/4 has significant chromatic aberration, which is essentially solved with an aggressive UV-IR cut filter. I own the IDAS UIBAR-III, which just about eliminates blue and red bloat.  The Baader semi-apo filter works great too, especially  if doing OSC, or even combined with a R, G or B filter. This is a Flickr album regarding the Borg, RGB and the semi-apo filter.

 

https://www.flickr.c...th/42582505410/

 

It also has a slight astigmatism, requiring precise focus, which forces me to find the spot where the stars are perfectly round, and may actually be a good thing.

 

For narrow-band, I believe it to be excellent. It is so light and elegant, and I love the large helical focuser with numbered divisions. making initial focusing repeatable for different filters.

 

The Borg 90FL with the Sony IMX 183 sensor, at f/4 is 1.4 arc-sec/pixel.  So it is in a good sampling regime (for the seeing I normally get).

 

Feel free to contact me here or privately.  I have much to say about this scope.  And Ted Ishikawa , the U.S. representative, is a true gentleman, and you can't ask for better support if needed.

 

Steve


Edited by StevenBellavia, 10 January 2019 - 08:55 PM.

  • psandelle likes 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