[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] Tak FSQ-106
George,
If you have Sky&Tel back issues, look up S&T Test Report - Takahashi's
FSQ-106 Fluorite Refractor By Robert Gendler | April 2000, p. 134-135.
I just checked S&T's web site and they now charge $2.95 to download a pdf
article. I remember that Robert Gendler evaluated the FSQ with a Pentax
large format. I was impressed with his article enough to purchase a Tak 106
myself. However, I only use it with 35mm. I love the scope, and it really
performs well, both visually and for astrophotographs. I haven't seen any
"hot spots" in my views with it.
Maybe you should contact Rob for more info.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Whitney" <gwhitney@maine.rr.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:20 AM
Subject: RE: [APML] Tak FSQ-106
> To the Group,
> Are there others out there with experience, pro or con, with the Tak
FSQ106
> and a 6x7 Pentax combo? I am looking into acquiring one and would
> appreciate any feedback regarding the scope. My many thanks.
> George Whitney
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org [mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org]On
> Behalf Of Monte Wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 7:45 PM
> To: astro-photo@seds.org
> Subject: Re: [APML] Tak FSQ-106 (was Humidity effects on E200)
>
> Vignetting? No. I had a relay stuck "on" in my STV last month as a result
I
> only got two pictures that weren't ruined by the mount slewing way off the
> shot. Neither show any vignetting. They are sharp as a tack all the way
> across the shot too. I recall some people saying the FSQ has a "hot spot",
I
> can't see it in my shots but I would like to do some more before I can say
> it with certainty.
>
> Regards Monte
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TEIVA LEROI <leroiteiva@minitel.net>
> To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 8:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [APML] Tak FSQ-106 (was Humidity effects on E200)
>
>
> > Hello Monte,
> > Can you tell me if, with the FSQ106 and a Pentax 67, you have vignetting
> > on the photo?
> > Thank you
> > LEROI Teiva
> > FRANCE
> >
> >
> >
> > >Hi Glenn,
> > > I love the Tak. It is not mine though, it is on loan. It is
> > so sharp. I used it with my STV and when I was focusing, the stars were
> > so small I thought they were hot pixels. I have had no trouble focusing
> > it with a x10 loupe on the ground glass of the Pentax 67. I would like
> > to get a Ronchi for it but as the scope is on loan, I doubt I will throw
> > that much money at the matter.
> > >
> > >It has a rack focuser that is very smooth with no play or shift and the
> > lock is very firm. I hear good reports about Borg and some nice
> > pictures but I have always thought the FSQ looked so good.
> > >
> > >Regards
> > >
> > >Monte
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: GLENN SHAW
> > > To: astro-photo@seds.org
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 12:47 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [APML] Humidity effects on E200
> > >
> > >
> > > Monte:
> > >
> > > Howdo you like the Tak FSQ? How does this instrument focus? Is there
> > a helical focuser? Have you looked at the Borg and compared the two
> > refractors?
> > >
> > > glenn shaw
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Monte Wilson
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:52 PM
> > > To: Astro Mail
> > > Subject: [APML] Humidity effects on E200
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I used a roll of E200 with a Tak FSQ-106 and a 67
> > Pentax. It worked well with the gas being put into the body of the
> > scope. I replaced one of the screws used to hold the finder scope with a
> > customised hollow one and flowed the gas through it. It worked very
> > well and I didn't have to alter the Tak in any permanent way.
> > >
> > > Later that night I decided to do a couple of wide field shots with
> > my 105 f2.8 lens. I hadn't at that time drilled a hole in the camera
> > body and the results without gas were terrible. The film took on an ugly
> > green cast and the contrast was greatly reduced too. With the gas it
> > was beautiful - the colour is what I have expected from E200 but without
> > it was hopeless.
> > >
> > > I have since put a hole in the camera's rear accessory hole and it
> > flows very well. I found I could confirm the performance of the hole by
> > purging the camera with refrigerant gas (non ozone depleting of course).
> > With the lens off the body lay it on it's back, allow the gas to flow,
> > wait a about 20 seconds and tilt the camera upright. If you have gas in
> > the body, you can see it falling out if the front hole by looking into
> > the distance with your line of sight passing through the area at the
> > front of the camera. The gas is heavier than air and looks much heat
> > shimmers so its easy to see when it comes out.
> > >
> > > As a result I found I only need a tiny hole to get the gas into the
> > camera and I certainly only needed to drill beyond the base plate.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Monte
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -- APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/> ---
> > Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
> >
>
>
> -- APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/> ---
> Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>
>
> -- APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/> ---
> Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>
-- APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/> ---
Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>