Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
I understand your point of view.
With the extender I am not sure it is 2" or bigger to maintain your imaging circle. It might be worth a check.
Yes the FSQ106 and STL11L have been mated together several times and acquired fantastic results. If you can image at 1.65" per pixel this is better than 2.47", just for sharpening value alone. It is all really just a guide but like others have said getting the 106 would be better in the long run.
This is all just current thinking and so long as you don't get blocky stars it really does not matter which sensor you go with. Experts such as Peter Ward, Martin Pugh, Mike Sidonio and Greg Bradley will have more definitive answers for you. They are all members here and I urge you to contact them via PM.
Best of luck with your decisions
|
The 106, might, indeed be the better long term scope. However, at what cost and for what? For an extra $1000, I will gaining: focal length and image scale. The image scale, without the extender, will be 2.1"/sec (up from 2.47")... but at a cost of $1000. Sure, I get aperture as well, but its the F-Stop that counts and the difference is very small; 85EDX is F5.3 and the 106EDX is F5.
I am already buying the ST8300 and Baader 2" HaLRGB Filters. This comes upto about $3000. If I take advantage of the QHY9 offer these days i.e $2000 for camera, filterwheel and LRGB filters, I save about $1000 and I could essentially use that money for the FSQ-106. But, nothing comes for free and the SBIG comes with great software. Secondly, I don't know what the quality of the QHY9 filters is - what's the point of buying a telescope like the FSQ-106EDX, only to use it with average filters?
Why not instead, after gaining some experience with the FSQ-85ED + ST8300M and learning for at least a year, buy a AstroTech RC8, which has a focal length of 1625mm and costs about $1395?
What is your opinion?