[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
RE: [APML] Tak FSQ-106
To all who have helped,
My thanks to all those who have helped me regarding the Tak FSQ and 6x7
cameras. I appreciate the time that you've taken in offering me your
experiences and knowledge about the system. Thank you.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org [mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org]On
Behalf Of Robert Gendler
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:55 PM
To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: Re: [APML] Tak FSQ-106
Hi George,
S&T asked me to review the FSQ106 awhile back because at
the time I was one of only a few using the scope. To be honest
I was using it only for CCD. I took a few chromes with a 6 x 7 Pentax
during daylight which showed no vignetting that I could see. I am no
optical expert and my evaluation was limited to visual observations.
There was no secondary spectrum that I could see on bright stars
close to the center of the field. There was some slight secondary
color off center. I cannot comment on the "hot spot" mentioned since
I did not do any film astrophotography with it. The scope has performed
outstandingly with my CCD and I have many images on my web site taken with
it.
The caveat as you know is that CCD chips are small so performance off
center
was not evaluated. There are others with more experience on the list who can
comment
on the petzval design. The overall design, light weight, fast F-ratio (F5),
and sharp optics
IMO make it a fine astrograph.
Rob Gendler
Email: robgendler@att.net
Web site: http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "westergren" <westergren@netzero.net>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:06 PM
Subject: 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>
>
-- 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>