13 replies to this topic

[StarChild47]

I require some experienced astrophotographers familiar with ZWO telescopes and/or their comparative equipment brands. 

 

Other than cost what are the advantages and disadvantages of these two size FF's?

 

My desire is to observe and photograph deep space objects like nebulae and some of the closer galaxies. Also, if these are applicable video capture Jupiter and Saturn and get some decent photos of the inner planets and with some luck Neptune and Pluto if that's even possible with these type of telescope.

 

Feel free to critique and correct me as I am coming from 2 decades of owning a 8" Dob with a sun filter cap and taking pics and videos with cell phones and cradle. I've taken great pics and vids of the moon night and day, decent pics of sunspots with said equipment, ok pics of 2 eclipses, somewhat tiny pic of Orion's Nebulae,  even amateurish vids/pics of Saturn's rings. 

 

There's a bundle sale for the ZWO FF80 but I'm thinking the FF107 or the even larger FF130 would do an even better job. Unless I'm wrong.

 

Please HELP asap... there's a Black Friday Sale going on until Dec 2nd!

Edited by StarChild47, 29 November 2024 - 08:08 PM.

[scanner97]

For DSOs, it's good to start with a relatively short focal length, as that tends to be more forgiving.  There are also a ton of nebulae that want a wider field.   A Petzval is nice when you have the budget.  The one downside to the FF80 is that it's relatively slow.  To go faster you could look at something like the FRA 400 or the Apertura 75Q.  

 

What are you planning to use for a mount?  Longer exposures for DSO want good tracking and autoguiding.

 

Camera should also be considered at the same time.  With any of those astrographs, you can easily handle an IMX571 camera if you have the budget. 

[BrentKnight]

I think I would recommend the FF80 out of the three you mentioned.  It is a heavy scope for its size, but it works well on my WarpAstron WD-17 (similar payload capacity to the original ZWO AM5).  I run mine at the native F/7.5 as that is the best way to take advantage of the flat-field capability of the scope.

 

 

I also have the Askar130PHQ and it is better for those smaller targets (like most of the Arp galaxies).  It is a very good scope but it's also very heavy.  I run that one with an iOptron GEM45, but some might want a bit more for it.  Setting it up is at least a two trip job (so I leave it set up in the yard with a cover).  The 80mm on the SWG mount is a one hand affair to move and setup.  Much easier to learn the ropes and to use.

 

When you get to the 130mm range, you have other choices to consider for those small targets.  I have a C8 that I used for DSO and I would say the 130mm comes very close to what that scope could do.  I think other options might present themselves at this size though.  I'm considering going with a C9.25 Edge for a little more reach.

 

The ZWO FF's are rebranded Askar PHQ's.

[StarChild47]

For DSOs, it's good to start with a relatively short focal length, as that tends to be more forgiving.  There are also a ton of nebulae that want a wider field.   A Petzval is nice when you have the budget.  The one downside to the FF80 is that it's relatively slow.  To go faster you could look at something like the FRA 400 or the Apertura 75Q.  

 

What are you planning to use for a mount?  Longer exposures for DSO want good tracking and autoguiding.

 

Camera should also be considered at the same time.  With any of those astrographs, you can easily handle an IMX571 camera if you have the budget. 

here's what the bundle includes for the FF80. I'm not sure if the larger FF's can handle the same equipment.

 

1x ZWO 160mm (~ 6.3") Pier Extension for AM3 & AM5 Mount (1 Extension) # PE160 
1x ZWO TC40 Carbon Fiber Pipe Tripod for AM5, AM5N, and Other Mounts # TC40 
1x ZWO AM3 Strain Wave Drive Equatorial Mount Head 

Edited by StarChild47, 29 November 2024 - 11:56 PM.

[StarChild47]

For DSOs, it's good to start with a relatively short focal length, as that tends to be more forgiving.  There are also a ton of nebulae that want a wider field.   A Petzval is nice when you have the budget.  The one downside to the FF80 is that it's relatively slow.  To go faster you could look at something like the FRA 400 or the Apertura 75Q.  

 

What are you planning to use for a mount?  Longer exposures for DSO want good tracking and autoguiding.

 

Camera should also be considered at the same time.  With any of those astrographs, you can easily handle an IMX571 camera if you have the budget. 

 

here's what the bundle includes for the FF80. I'm not sure if the larger FF's can handle the same equipment.

 

1x ZWO 160mm (~ 6.3") Pier Extension for AM3 & AM5 Mount (1 Extension) # PE160 
1x ZWO TC40 Carbon Fiber Pipe Tripod for AM5, AM5N, and Other Mounts # TC40 
1x ZWO AM3 Strain Wave Drive Equatorial Mount Head 

[charles.tremblay.darveau]

I have the 107PHQ from Askar (equivalent to the ZWO 107, same manufacturer). It's a very good scope for the money (tested with 2600mm). The new SQA106 seems better but is more money.

 

Regarding which one is better for you:

-The 107 will require a slightly more capable mount, but it's still not a super heavy scope. (The 130 is getting in the big scope category and will require a mount with enough weight/torque capacity).

-The 107 will have slightly more reach and is slightly faster.

-Both are portable, but the 80 will be lighter.

 

None of these are dedicated planetary scope, but you can see the rings of Saturn and the bands of Jupiter with a Barlow. Neptune/Uranus will look like blue dots, and Pluto can be a resolvable dot with long enough capture.

 

I recommend using Astronomy.tools or Stellarium and see what the FOV looks like for the camera combo that you are interested in.

Edited by charles.tremblay.darveau, 30 November 2024 - 12:04 AM.

[charles.tremblay.darveau]

here's what the bundle includes for the FF80. I'm not sure if the larger FF's can handle the same equipment.

 

1x ZWO 160mm (~ 6.3") Pier Extension for AM3 & AM5 Mount (1 Extension) # PE160 
1x ZWO TC40 Carbon Fiber Pipe Tripod for AM5, AM5N, and Other Mounts # TC40 
1x ZWO AM3 Strain Wave Drive Equatorial Mount Head 

I would probably recommend the AM5N for the 107. The AM3 is sufficient for the 80

[BrentKnight]

here's what the bundle includes for the FF80. I'm not sure if the larger FF's can handle the same equipment.

 

1x ZWO 160mm (~ 6.3") Pier Extension for AM3 & AM5 Mount (1 Extension) # PE160 
1x ZWO TC40 Carbon Fiber Pipe Tripod for AM5, AM5N, and Other Mounts # TC40 
1x ZWO AM3 Strain Wave Drive Equatorial Mount Head 

You will need the pier extension for the FF80.  The AM3 is probably just fine for that OTA as well.  I don't think I'd recommend that mount for either the 107 or the 130 (especially not for the 130).

 

 

The 130 is heavy and it's very long...

[RogerWabbit]

The smaller scopes you mention are great for nebulae and the larger galaxies. But if your main goal is planetary, it's hard to beat a larger SCT. The Edge 9.25" that Brent mentions is what I use, but even with a native 2350mm focal length, I still use a 2.5X barlow. In fact, the reason I found this thread is I'm looking at maybe getting an 80mm quadruplet from ZWO or Askar. Basically the only difference in them is the name tag. Agena Astro is offering the 80mm ZWO and will include a "free" .76 reducer, so that is looking pretty good to me.

 

There is no one telescope that does it all. MAYBE an exception to that rule would be the 9.25" or 11" Edge scopes with Hyperstar option. The Hyperstar would reduce my 9.25 down to FL 525mm and f2.2, an option that I'm considering instead of the ZWO scope. The price difference would be about $100 less for the Hyperstar.

 

Good luck with your choices!

[BrentKnight]

The smaller scopes you mention are great for nebulae and the larger galaxies. But if your main goal is planetary, it's hard to beat a larger SCT. The Edge 9.25" that Brent mentions is what I use, but even with a native 2350mm focal length, I still use a 2.5X barlow. In fact, the reason I found this thread is I'm looking at maybe getting an 80mm quadruplet from ZWO or Askar. Basically the only difference in them is the name tag. Agena Astro is offering the 80mm ZWO and will include a "free" .76 reducer, so that is looking pretty good to me.

 

There is no one telescope that does it all. MAYBE an exception to that rule would be the 9.25" or 11" Edge scopes with Hyperstar option. The Hyperstar would reduce my 9.25 down to FL 525mm and f2.2, an option that I'm considering instead of the ZWO scope. The price difference would be about $100 less for the Hyperstar.

 

Good luck with your choices!

I haven't ever used the Hyperstar, but I don't think I would want to.  They are a challenge to get working (especially at that low focal ratio).  If possible, I prefer scopes that are easier to work with.  It means having multiple rigs, but (at least for me), I like that I can pull out one of the Askar's and just swap camera's around without having to mess with any spacing or reducers. 

 

I would use the C9.25 Edge at native F/10 just for all those tiny planetary nebulae and galaxies (saving cash on a reducer or a Hyperstar).  For wide-field I'd use the refractors (I have the 80mm and then I have the Askar FMA180 40mm).  Planetary would definitely need the Barlow or a Powermate with the SCT.

 

This is just my personal preference as I prefer trying to keep things simpler...

[StarChild47]

I have the 107PHQ from Askar (equivalent to the ZWO 107, same manufacturer). It's a very good scope for the money (tested with 2600mm). The new SQA106 seems better but is more money.

 

Regarding which one is better for you:

-The 107 will require a slightly more capable mount, but it's still not a super heavy scope. (The 130 is getting in the big scope category and will require a mount with enough weight/torque capacity).

-The 107 will have slightly more reach and is slightly faster.

-Both are portable, but the 80 will be lighter.

 

None of these are dedicated planetary scope, but you can see the rings of Saturn and the bands of Jupiter with a Barlow. Neptune/Uranus will look like blue dots, and Pluto can be a resolvable dot with long enough capture.

 

I recommend using Astronomy.tools or Stellarium and see what the FOV looks like for the camera combo that you are interested in.

Thank you very much for your input. This is giving me so much insight as I take my to the next level.

[scanner97]

here's what the bundle includes for the FF80. I'm not sure if the larger FF's can handle the same equipment.

I would say the 80 is the largest scope I would comfortably try to image with on the AM3.  If you want some upside in load, the AM5N would be the better choice.  

 

I have a heavy 75 on my AM5N, and the full imaging rig is quite portable.   Certainly the AM3 would be as well.

[charles.tremblay.darveau]

The am5 would also proof you for further upgrades, such like a C8 or C9.25. I’ve used mine with a c8 with good success

[EdDixon]

I have an FF107 and it has worked great for me so far!  I also have their FF65 that I use for Solar and a William Optics GT71 I use for wider field targets.  You do need a good mount to hold it and guiding gear for DSO targets.

 

I also have the pier extension which helps as well.  It might be worthwhile to consider a larger mount to handle future scopes and changes.  I have a HEM27, but their AM5 looks good too.  With the AM5, it is unlikely that 3-5 years from now you might say “I bought too much mount”...