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

Comparison: W.O. FLT 110 and Takahashi FSQ 106

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Bob Kimball

Bob Kimball

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012

Posted 19 February 2019 - 02:56 PM

I have been an astrophotographer for 6 years.  I currently have a William Optics FLT 110 with a flattener/reducer.  The scope fill my 8300 sensor with round stars and I like the effective focal length of 540 cm.  On the other hand, I'm an equipment junkie and can't resist thinking about upgrading to a Takahashi FSQ 106.  

 

Here is my question:  Would there really be a significant difference if I upgraded?  

 

Bob


Edited by Bob Kimball, 19 February 2019 - 04:48 PM.


#2 dhaval

dhaval

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1490
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Round Rock, TX

Posted 19 February 2019 - 04:25 PM

Given that you're a self proclaimed equipment junkie, I am sure after you've bought the FSQ106, you will next want to buy a 16803 camera with 65mm square filters to ensure you are covering the full image circle that the FSQ provides. Good times! 

 

I haven't used either scope, although I do have a couple of imaging buddies who use the FSQ106. They are generally very impressed by the scope and the star colors that they get. I tend to agree with them and their quality of images show all that is nice about the FSQ. The newer FSQ106s are all made from FPL-53 lens, unlike an older generation of FSQ scopes that were made from a flourite element. These buddies of mine do have the older version of FSQ106, one of them does have the flourite element version not sure about the other one though - maybe that contributes a bit to the wonderful star colors and sharper images, I am not sure. Not that the FPL-53 lens is a slouch, but still. 

 

Having said all that though, what is nudging you to buy something new? Just the "equipment junkie" aspect of it? Not that it is a bad thing, but trying to figure out what got you started in the first place.

 

CS! 


  • psandelle and Gene3 like this

#3 RogeZ

RogeZ

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2004
  • Loc: Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Posted 19 February 2019 - 06:35 PM

Bob:

 

If you are going to stick with a 8300 sensor, the improvement will be minimal.

 

What the FSQ does very well indeed is open the door to much larger sensors and make it look easy!


  • Jim Waters and psandelle like this

#4 rockstarbill

rockstarbill

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5660
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2013
  • Loc: Snohomish, WA

Posted 19 February 2019 - 09:22 PM

I have been an astrophotographer for 6 years.  I currently have a William Optics FLT 110 with a flattener/reducer.  The scope fill my 8300 sensor with round stars and I like the effective focal length of 540 cm.  On the other hand, I'm an equipment junkie and can't resist thinking about upgrading to a Takahashi FSQ 106.  

 

Here is my question:  Would there really be a significant difference if I upgraded?  

 

Bob

Yes, there will be a significant difference. The FSQ is better corrected, has a larger imaging circle, and has available reducers to really speed it up, if you so desire. Just be sure to get the ED model and not the -N model, as the -N model is the Fluorite one and the reducers will not work with it.

 

You will also feel lighter, as your wallet will weigh you down less. grin.gif


  • Salacious B Crumb likes this

#5 Bob Kimball

Bob Kimball

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2012

Posted 20 February 2019 - 01:19 PM

Thank you all for your input.  I think I'll just stick with my W.O. FLT 110 as long as I keep my Atik 383L camera.  



#6 Gene3

Gene3

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 513
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Del Mar, CA

Posted 20 February 2019 - 01:38 PM

Given that you're a self proclaimed equipment junkie, I am sure after you've bought the FSQ106, you will next want to buy a 16803 camera with 65mm square filters to ensure you are covering the full image circle that the FSQ provides. Good times! 

 

I haven't used either scope, although I do have a couple of imaging buddies who use the FSQ106. They are generally very impressed by the scope and the star colors that they get. I tend to agree with them and their quality of images show all that is nice about the FSQ. The newer FSQ106s are all made from FPL-53 lens, unlike an older generation of FSQ scopes that were made from a flourite element. These buddies of mine do have the older version of FSQ106, one of them does have the flourite element version not sure about the other one though - maybe that contributes a bit to the wonderful star colors and sharper images, I am not sure. Not that the FPL-53 lens is a slouch, but still. 

 

Having said all that though, what is nudging you to buy something new? Just the "equipment junkie" aspect of it? Not that it is a bad thing, but trying to figure out what got you started in the first place.

 

CS! 

Hi Dhavel,

If one were to "invest" in the 16803 for the FSQ106, then the pixel size goes to 3.5 arcsec/pixel (FOV 239 x 239)

In your opinion is that large pixel size a drawback in any way? Are you limited to really big targets where detail/resolution is not super important?

Thanks,

Gene


  • hahied likes this

#7 dhaval

dhaval

    Vendor

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1490
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2008
  • Loc: Round Rock, TX

Posted 20 February 2019 - 03:46 PM

Hi Dhavel,

If one were to "invest" in the 16803 for the FSQ106, then the pixel size goes to 3.5 arcsec/pixel (FOV 239 x 239)

In your opinion is that large pixel size a drawback in any way? Are you limited to really big targets where detail/resolution is not super important?

Thanks,

Gene

I am no expert when it comes to matching cameras, telescopes and targets. From my limited understanding of the subject, people use that combination when they are really after large FOVs, I don't believe they are after detail in that situation. 

 

I would imagine, at 530mm FL using a 3.8um camera under good seeing (between 1" and 2"), you are already very close to being undersampled suggesting that you may already be giving up resolution (not to mention a 4in telescope has a theoretical limit of how much it can resolve). So, when you do use 9um camera, you are obviously giving up resolution and seriously limiting yourself to larger targets. 

 

CS! 




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