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

FSQ-85ED astrophoto performance? user's feedback? please...

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#26 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1611
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:29 AM

balu01: to make some relevant comments on an image, please pick some and I will tell you my opinion on that particular image... if you are interested... NOTE: there are some that are really georgeous and even I, a critically looking guy, have nothing (or not much) to comment laugh.gif (but none of them was AFAIK made by the BabyQ)

 

lucam: yes, I googled her pages and the images looks good... probably her images are best of a BabyQ user as I haven't seen any better, so far...

 

the problem with BabyQ is that not many use it with say at least KAF-16200 size chip (few do), as also the new 1.01x flattener is out on the market for some year and something for now...

 

BTW I have, today, paid for the BabyQ, so I will be also a Tak user. I have few modifications in progress on the scope so as it delivers (hoping with fingers crossed) good images on the large, full format chip...


Edited by Konihlav, 15 April 2019 - 05:31 AM.

  • CounterWeight likes this

#27 AnakChan

AnakChan

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 718
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2014

Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:54 AM

the problem with BabyQ is that not many use it with say at least KAF-16200 size chip (few do), as also the new 1.01x flattener is out on the market for some year and something for now...


#1 congratulations on the purchase of your FSQ85ED. I hope it serves you well.

 

About your statement above, unless the setup of the FSQ85ED with a KAF-16200 sized chip is used in a condition where there's really bad seeing, then maybe you don't see a lot people not using that configuration 'cos it undersamples. Something like a 4 micron pixel sized or smaller may be more suitable for the FSQ85ED?

 

Just my 2 yen worth.



#28 balu01

balu01

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 276
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:58 AM

Konihlav congrats on your new scope, the FSQ85 is my next purchase , please let us know how you like the scope, don't forget to show some pics !


  • Konihlav likes this

#29 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Star walker

  • *****
  • Posts: 10471
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: PDX, OR.

Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:42 PM

When I was imaging, I tried a few imaging rated refractors in 90mm and less range, with associated reducers where applicable.  I think if you hold the pixel size /image size across apertures and focal ratios you find sampling pretty significant / critical if you want to enlarge an image.  To me, one thing Tak has going for it is their advertised spot size across a field.  Not many companies release this type info when they are making claims on the imaging turf. 

 

 

The exercise when buying and using one of the Tak imaging scopes is to pair with the better resolution over possible field with the sensor.  There was one fellow using the 106 with a full frame (I think some Finger Lakes offering, larger pixel than my 8300M) that was getting amazing wide field but they did not imo hold up really well enlarging for detail.  The two pairing had imo dramatically different 'what they were good at.  No question IOM the 106 with the larger sensor captured far more imaging real estate. If you want to search look for images of the Heart or Soul or Pac man nebula as the have some complex bright multi star clusters, in these clusters look for detail and any figure eighting. 

 

Another tack where I found the 85 superior was it lack of scatter / blooming / haloing around bright stars it was for its time and cost superior  That made a huge obvious difference in some images.

 

But... even at it's native f/5.x, mm's matter when it comes to focuser orthogonality. And this when I was active where all the complaints came from.  Some folks insisting futile without a computer assisted motor focus.  I found that not necessary.  Do not make the mistake of thinking it is plug and play.  Far superior imo to getting a scope and reducing it to ~f/5.x in every way but not plug and play.  I cant imagine trying to go full frame with an 85, the 106 to me makes far more sense there, I felt it plenty difficult with the 8300M, even though within it's advertised flat image circle, but again that is with the CCD I was using at the time, the 8300M.


Edited by CounterWeight, 15 April 2019 - 11:53 PM.

  • balu01 likes this

#30 balu01

balu01

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 276
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:14 AM

CounterWeight , what do you think the results would be on a full frame with the flattener that they offer for the 85 currently to make the field work on FF sensors. Do you think it would be managable with the flattener?
I am leaning towards the 85 , for its long back focus for visual wide field and also , the 106 is not that far off from the TOA when the TOA gets reduced. So i am playing with the idea of the 85 as a pair for the 130.

#31 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1611
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:20 AM

the reason I go for FSQ-85 is - I need a pocket size/small/lightweight imaging scope for my trip to Chile. I never considered FSQ-85 in last 10 years because of its poor, very poor performance on large (full frame) chips... but since Tak introduced the new/added flattener in late 2017, this suddenly become an option... I will do some modifications to the scope for real reasons and I will later post a review on my blog and some images too (expect all this to happen in next 6 months on my blog page).

 

ad sampling - no. I do not care. If I was given two scopes, one better than the other (both short focal lengths) and was given two CCD/CMOS cameras, but one with much better specs (QE, noise, but different pixel size) would I be an idiot to choose the worse scope and also the worse (old, obsolete, low QE, noisier) camera instead of the better one, just because "in sampling theory" it looks a bit better - no way, stupid case.

 

All experienced imagers do have a large aperture astrograph for detailed images and later (like I do now) seek for a small companion for e.g. more widefields or (my case now) just the need for portable (airline) imaging setup... that's all :D

 

last comment - in general - If we do all own the same equipment (I hate the, simply silly, sampling theory) and same FOV and produce all the same images... who would like them? If you want something special (results) you need to be different than the 99% of the mass. Difference matters :D otherwise the World would be boring...

 

cs to all



#32 edif300

edif300

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1175
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Basque Country

Posted 16 April 2019 - 03:38 AM

In fact, the scopes does not produce a final image. Even if there was only one scope available to purchase on all around of the world... all images will be different.

 

IMO, the main concern into making astrophotography is the hability into *search* a final image to be displayed. In this way, hardware are not so relevant and the astrophotographer gives a ultimate 'differenciator' factor in the way to final image.



#33 neomonks

neomonks

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2013
  • Loc: South Florida

Posted 16 April 2019 - 09:24 AM

There's no other scope comes close to Tak FSQ85 for wide field imaging, do yourself a favour and go to astrobin and search for images with FSQ85 against whatever you are considering.



#34 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Star walker

  • *****
  • Posts: 10471
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: PDX, OR.

Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:44 PM

Khonihlav,  "I don't care about sampling" is a pretty odd statement when it comes to imaging and I find it difficult to consider constructive or reconcile with the larger body of imaging wisdom / experience - but I'll leave that to the imagers forums.  Calling anyone here 'ridiculous' or 'silly', or worse that spent years imaging with a scope and not having youself used the scope yet is to me maybe acceptable somewhere else, but completely out of place. Anything there to me specious and speculative.

 

Balu01, The reason I mentioned the 106 is that it natively has a larger imaging circle than the 85, this can be easily looked up. This has nothing to do with sampling (pixel size) but everything to do with what imo are reasonable expectations when it comes to sensor size.  As far as the new flattener for the 85 and a full frame sensor, I have not used it and will reserve for anyone that has. 

 

It is all too easy to speculate, and that I avoid. So just sharing my experience and NOT saying what to buy.  For buying I exclusively go by what I have seen works, PM'ing or emailing folks using what I want to use and going by their time in the saddle and specific experience with it.  There is a very expensive gulf between speculation and experience.  Unfortunately speculation is the easier and more often posted.

 

The 106 also has reducers for it and I have not used any of that system, my data I referred to was from comparing real world results with a talented imager on this site.  The net result or tradeoff between the 85/8300M and the 106 with the larger sensor with larger pixels being in ways obvious, you cannot later add resolution not in the data to begin with, and cannot add field that is not there to begin with. But you can make mosaic to add field size, which was the route I took.

 

At the end of the day it is about the images you want to make and what you expect from them.  I am just talking about my own experience.  For what I used the 85 was a great little imaging lens for my 8300M and i was happy with what it produced, routine good data that did not require much processing but a lot of imaging time to capture.


  • balu01 likes this

#35 Konihlav

Konihlav

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1611
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 17 April 2019 - 08:37 AM

Jim, I do not know what your problem is, but I haven't said anything wrong, without any direct relation to any other user here on the forum (and AnakChan is actually my "friend" as he intends to use FSQ-85 with a D810 chip). I just told my opinion and that shall be respected (I respect other users too). I said what I think and even told why... I do not see anything personal in my comment. I think everyone shall have its own opinion and shall not be scared or worried for saying it.

 

I doubt you have only 1 instrument for photography and that you believe that with 1 instrument you can do everything. Everyone here has more specialized gear for special tasks... I need, now, for instance, something < 4kg so I do not care what my sampling is :D because I need also a strong-wind-guts-and-potential-guiding-issues-protection solution, that may allow me imaging even under adverse conditions or bad seeing... And my other point - even totally undersampled images can be georgeous - look at all the RBA's mosaic work :D

 

If I got you wrong - then sorry for that. I wish we do stay on topic as much as possible to help others as well...




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