#41  
Old 07-11-2014, 09:52 AM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
What was the problem with that focusor Greg? I have that model but not noted any issues with the focusor yet.
Some people had trouble with orthogonality of the focuser with heavy imaging gear, Paul.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:16 AM
pmrid's Avatar
pmrid (Peter)
Ageing badly.

pmrid is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cloudy, light-polluted Bribie Is.
Posts: 3,665
Curious that Tak persists with the R&P focuser paradigm. That said, I would cheerfully donate the proverbial leftie for one of these babies. I suppose it will mean a rush of 106s onto the market (wishful thinking of course).
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:21 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,388
Actually Peter, MANY scope manufacturers are leaving the Crayford behind. Stellarvue is going mostly R&P (now that FT is making them again) and a few others. R&P is the best for imaging because of the weight it can hold without any form of slip, whereas a Crayford takes some efforts to make work really well for imaging - the Moonlite clutch pinion lock (which I have read reports of still slipping with any imaging rig over 3kg) and FT going R&P ans also additional tensioning locks on their Crayfords.

The Crayford design is basically just an R&P with the engagment teeth removed - smooth steel and ball bearings rubbing on (hopefully) flat surfaces to provide the friction required. Smooth, yes, "solid", not always.

I prefer the R&P by far over a Crayford. When you fit the MEF unit to a Tak, the focus precision is as good as a Moonlite, and close to a FT. The Tak standard focuser will hold a 5kg+ imaging load without any slip at all, at zenith angles.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 18-05-2015, 05:44 PM
Hans Tucker (Hans)
Registered User

Hans Tucker is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,449
I see Anacortes Telescope & Wild Bird, via Astromart, have advertised the first two FSQ-130ED up from grabs in North America.....the price.....$12,795.00..and that is in USD.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 19-05-2015, 08:59 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
What was the problem with that focusor Greg? I have that model but not noted any issues with the focusor yet.
Missed this one.

Flex. It seems the fix was to tighten the little screws under the focuser to tighten it up. They used a Teflon pad on the drawtube and the latest model switched to a metal pad. I guess the Teflon could compress.

I didn't have a problem with my one but there were quite a few complaints on the Tak uncensored Yahoo Group.

The focuser lock also was a step backwards compared to the FSQ06N. The 106N was a simple screw that you tightened. The 106ED has a lever. If you manually focus that lever is a liability as when you engage it the focus shifts wrecking your focus that you just did. If you partially engage it then focus then fully engage it there was no problem. So poorly implemented.

Not an issue if you are using a Robofocus or some other focus unit.

Greg.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 19-05-2015, 09:03 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese View Post
What was the problem with that focusor Greg? I have that model but not noted any issues with the focusor yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Tucker View Post
I see Anacortes Telescope & Wild Bird, via Astromart, have advertised the first two FSQ-130ED up from grabs in North America.....the price.....$12,795.00..and that is in USD.
Ouch. It will be interesting to see the initial images though. It could be an interesting scope.

The focal length is not massively different over the 106 from 530 to 650mm which is still very widefield. The extra aperture though should pick up more faint detail in less time and better resolution of stars which can be a bit vague on 106ED widefield images.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 19-05-2015, 09:15 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Here is the link to the FSQ130 price.

http://www.buytelescopes.com/takahas...omat-refractor

So that makes it around AUD$19,000 landed including GST and no doubt that may not include the clamshell or mounting rings.

Add extra for the reducers and the 1.6 extender Q and the complete system is going to be about $21-22K, most likely. Wow. It'd have to be spectacular.

Greg.

Last edited by gregbradley; 20-05-2015 at 08:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 20-05-2015, 04:23 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Makes the AP140 look like a bargain, Greg
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 20-05-2015, 06:13 PM
Hans Tucker (Hans)
Registered User

Hans Tucker is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,449
I was contemplating the FSQ-130ED until I saw the price...now I am revisiting the idea of a TOA-150NFB with reducer which should perform as well as the FSQ.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 20-05-2015, 06:29 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,937
Those prices are stupid for an extra inch of aperture over the 106. I certainly will not be going down that rabbit hole. Surely those prices will come down in time. An 8" RH would be cheaper and produce better results so long as you don't try to hang a massive camera off the back. It is only 9-11K landed in Australia too.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 24-05-2015, 10:04 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Makes the AP140 look like a bargain, Greg

With the TCC its like a 140mm FSQ.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 25-05-2015, 05:15 PM
AnakChan (Sean)
Registered User

AnakChan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Perth
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Tucker View Post
I was contemplating the FSQ-130ED until I saw the price...now I am revisiting the idea of a TOA-150NFB with reducer which should perform as well as the FSQ.
Aren't the FSQs meant to be for photography though providing flat fields for medium/large format, whereas the TOAs are more for visual? I'm not certain if one can be an alternative to the other rather than compliment each other?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 25-05-2015, 05:38 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post
Aren't the FSQs meant to be for photography though providing flat fields for medium/large format, whereas the TOAs are more for visual? I'm not certain if one can be an alternative to the other rather than compliment each other?
This image was taken through a TSA102 (the baby version of the TOA) which is probably also considered a visual scope by Takahashi and possibly a few people out there.

In short the answer to your question is no, all the TOA's are good for imaging. Just one scope is a Petzval which has a field flattener incorporated into the scope and TOA's require flatteners or reducers to obtain a flat field for imaging. They can be used for visual work and imaging.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 25-05-2015, 05:55 PM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Registered User

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: North Queensland
Posts: 3,240
That is certainly a gorgeous image Paul.

One never gets tired of looking at it...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 25-05-2015, 06:08 PM
AnakChan (Sean)
Registered User

AnakChan is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Perth
Posts: 371
Ditto. That is a nice image. Very nicely done.

NB: Mind you though I did say "...flat fields for medium/large format".
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement