12.64
#...
·
·
9
likes
|
|---|
|
Here is an initial test of the new Tak QB0.73x reducer to be used with a full frame camera on the Baby-Q. This converts the scope to a 330mm FL, f/3.9 system. 1 hr - Antlia Ha (3nm) filter with an ASI6200mm on a Tak FSQ-85 EDX Despite thin clouds throughout the 1 hr imaging session, the reducer worked like a champ following a couple of nights of tilt and backfocus adjustments using the ASG Photon Cage and NINA Aberration Inspector. A nice widefield with multiple objects such as IC405, NGC1839, M38, among others. There is great potential to produce magnificent widefield images with this setup.  |
2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
hi amazing image , i have the same takahashi FSQ-ED85EDX ,zwo 6200 mm pro .and chroma 50mm filters im using it with the flattener 1.0x. and i love it where i can buy the reducer , im Miami FL thank you |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Brian Thank you. I ordered mine from Takahashi America. Search: 2 results found for "qb0.73x" | Takahashi America Bruce |
|
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
|
thank you clear skies |
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Thanks for the heads-up! I was going to sell my FSQ-85 because the FOV with a full frame is too similar to my FSQ-106. But this reducer makes it unique and it's more portable than the 106. Did you use BXT in your image to correct for astigmatism/coma? If so, how were the original subs? Also what is the backfocus for this? I see that Tak USA is selling it but they have no system diagrams or back focus numbers on it. Again thanks so much for posting this. |
7.58
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Can you show an aberration inspector image? |
8.30
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bruce Donzanti: Very nice indeed Bruce, I've been keeping an eye out for this in the UK and 2 are currently available. I'm very tempted to invest in one having sold my older version which was never good in the corners despite many hours of messing with tilt adjustment. |
|
8.30
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Mark Petersen: According to the listing on FLO the back focus is 72.2mm (same as the old version I believe?) |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Mark Petersen: Hi Mark To address your questions: 1- The backfocus (BF) is 72.2mm according to the instructions. I tried a range from 71.5-72.8 (due to the filters) but I settled on 71.6 based on NINA and visual inspection of the stars. A diagram is included with the reducer to indicate where you measure from to reach the BF. They also recommend you buy the CA-35 (Sky-90) spacer to help in the setup and to maintain the 54mm required for the full frame camera. 2- I did use BXT and it helped a bit but I tried to get the edges as best I could without it. You might be able to do a better job than me as I have to do this from a safety ladder over 5 feet high above my observatory floor. A real challenge. 3- If you maintain the required 54mm opening, then there is very little astigmatism/coma. No big deal at all. Take a look at the revised image I just posted as it is a better image to observe: https://astrob.in/a827ap/G/ I hope this helps and feel free to ask any other questions. Bruce |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bray Falls:  But this is after I used BXT in the linear phase. I did get the corners as best I could prior to processing it using NINA (I forgot to save these images) and they were pretty good without BXT. I am sure others can do better but this is the best I can get it for now. |
|
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bruce Donzanti:Mark Petersen: Thanks Bruce. This is very encouraging. I'm keeping my FSQ-85 now and just ordered the reducer! |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
One more example from last night. Here is 5 hours of Sh2-261 in Ha. It isn't perfect, and others might be able to get results than me, but I am satisfied with the results.     |
5.73
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thank you Bruce, for posting these results. I saw your post on Cloudy Nights and it encouraged me to follow through with a purchase of a used FSQ85EDP (Japan version). I also came across an bought a used QB 0.73x reducer, since it seems to be out of stock. I have investigating refractors for wide field imaging in the 250 to 350 focal length. I looked at the Sharpstar 60EDPH III and the Askar FRA300. Those scopes live up to their low price in my openion, based on post on this site. Too many inconsistencies in the focuser, color aberation and low cost mounting. But good value for the price. I have a FSQ106ED. I bought used and the best purchase I've made other that the Mach1. I had considered the FSQ85EDX overpriced having viewed images over the internet. Those outer bright stars with butterfly spikes bothered me. I don't see any of those in your images. I'm hoping the QB 0.73x reducer has solved that. Also the 455 mm focal length with the 1.01x flattener does't offer munch in wide field today. The QB 0.73x 320mm FL at F3.91. is very appealing. Testing using Ha filter and BlurX deconvolution is not a conclusive test IMO. Even though encouraging. I will be using the scope primarily at a dark site with a ZWO ASI2600MC. Which will be less demanding than full frame, but more demanding in regard to color aberations. If you do produce any RGB imaged with the OB 0.73x reducer, I would be very appreciative of you posting them here. Even if it is only short exposures for star color. Lynn K. |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Lynn Thank you for your feedback. I greatly appreciate it as it is how we continue to learn and share experiences. To address/comment on a couple of your valid points: - I actually have the Askar 300 as a travel scope that I pair with an ASI2600MC. However, I have only used it twice so I can't speak on a vast amount of experience, but it does seem to work extremely well and friends of mine who own one really like it. I considered replacing my Baby Q, which is currently piggybacked on my C11 in my observatory with the Askar, but when I saw the new reducer become available, I immediately changed my mind. I was hoping, of course, that it would work as advertised. Also, I just think the FSQ85 is an overall better built scope. - As far as the testing goes, it was initially all done (as it should be) with only a starfield and a luminance filter- not a Ha filter. NINA was used, along with an ASG Photon Cage, to adjust both the tilt and backfocus. The idea was to get as close as possible with only those tools while working with live 20s images, redoing focus in between each minor change in either backfocus or tilt. It is a slow and finicky process, and it took two full precious clear nights to get it to an acceptable level. I then took and processed the Ha images you are seeing and checked them out before using BXT on them. They were reasonable acceptable to me but by no means perfect. I doubt they ever would be. Of course, BXT helped them out in a couple of corners but the scopes with the reducer during the initial testing that was the heavy lifter in getting the images nicer- not BXT. BXT is not a miracle cure for tilt. It works best on good data. The final images I am producing here are with a Ha filter and with BXT because I primarily image in NB due to my LP and BXT is now part of the normal processing workflow. So, to me, it is the definitive test as this would be the final image I want to see and share- not one without using BXT. Anyway, I see your point and I guess we can disagree on this but that is fine. I also learned from all of this is that you should do not always trust the numbers. Look at the images on the laptop as you are testing as the visual is the final determining factor. To your point, I will post when I do RGB. I usually only do them for color stars to add to a NB image but I can post them, nonetheless. Your situation is way different than mine as I am at Bortle 7- not a dark site where you will be. - I know what you mean about the butterfly spiked stars. They are annoying and I am fearful that they probably still exist. Time will tell. Hopefully, you will have success at your dark site and I would like to hear how it goes for you. Again, that you for your opinions and feedback. Bruce |
|
12.64
#...
·
|
|---|
Bruce Donzanti: Hi Lynn Thank you for your feedback. I greatly appreciate it as it is how we continue to learn and share experiences. To address/comment on a couple of your valid points: - I actually have the Askar 300 as a travel scope that I pair with an ASI2600MC. However, I have only used it twice so I can't speak on a vast amount of experience, but it does seem to work extremely well and friends of mine who own one really like it. I considered replacing my Baby Q, which is currently piggybacked on my C11 in my observatory with the Askar, but when I saw the new reducer become available, I immediately changed my mind. I was hoping, of course, that it would work as advertised. Also, I just think the FSQ85 is an overall better built scope. - As far as the testing goes, it was initially all done (as it should be) with only a starfield and a luminance filter- not a Ha filter. NINA was used, along with an ASG Photon Cage, to adjust both the tilt and backfocus. The idea was to get as close as possible with only those tools while working with live 20s images, redoing focus in between each minor change in either backfocus or tilt. It is a slow and finicky process, and it took two full precious clear nights to get it to an acceptable level. I then took and processed the Ha images you are seeing and checked them out before using BXT on them. They were reasonable acceptable to me but by no means perfect. I doubt they ever would be. Of course, BXT helped them out in a couple of corners but the scopes with the reducer during the initial testing that was the heavy lifter in getting the images nicer- not BXT. BXT is not a miracle cure for tilt. It works best on good data. The final images I am producing here are with a Ha filter and with BXT because I primarily image in NB due to my LP and BXT is now part of the normal processing workflow. So, to me, it is the definitive test as this would be the final image I want to see and share- not one without using BXT. Anyway, I see your point and I guess we can disagree on this but that is fine. I also learned from all of this is that you should do not always trust the numbers. Look at the images on the laptop as you are testing as the visual is the final determining factor. To your point, I will post when I do RGB. I usually only do them for color stars to add to a NB image but I can post them, nonetheless. Your situation is way different than mine as I am at Bortle 7- not a dark site where you will be. - I know what you mean about the butterfly spiked stars. They are annoying and I am fearful that they probably still exist. Time will tell. Hopefully, you will have success at your dark site and I would like to hear how it goes for you. Again, that you for your opinions and feedback. Bruce |
|
5.73
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Bruce, thanks for the clarification on your processing. I too live in Bortle 7 skies. I also do primarily narrow band imaging (FSQ106ED, AP130GTX in a Pod). I only get to my dark site (Cherry Springs State Park) during the summer months. It's a 500 mile round trip pulling a trailer. It is a registered dark site supported by the Pennsylvania Park system. It gives me an opportunity to do LRGB and RGB. I can image Galaxies there which are difficult from my backyard. But, I'm interested in obtaining wide field images with the FSQ85EDP. I fully understand your processing approach and the use of a Ha filter and BlurX in order to determine the OB 0.73x performance for you own situation and needs. I would do the same. I was just referring to the fact that in order to FULLY evaluate the OB 0.73x reducer's performance, color aberration has to be considered and a Ha filter can be more forgiving and especially with deconvolution is applied. I did not intend to criticize your post. Quite the contrary, I am very appreciate of it. As I will use the FSQ85EDP primarily and maybe only at Cherry Springs, I struggled with putting out 4 times (even used) the expense over an Askar FRA300. Most of the images I found using the Askar used a dual or tri band filter. So, most of the images were HOO images and more forgiving of any color aberrations. When I did fine a LRGB or RGB there were considerable blue color aberrations around the brighter stars. The Askar users referred to the color aberration as minor. For me, it is more than minor, and I didn't want to travel 500 miles, put in two nights on an image and come home to fight with stars. However, the coma always seemed very minimal and hard to determine the effects of tilt. I hope I made the right decision in investing in the FSQ85EDP plus reducer, rings etc. at 4 times the cost of ready to go Askar FRA300. Your post encourages me to think I did. Thank you. Lynn K. |
|
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
|
hello everybody here is my first master light ( HA ) 50x300s chroma filter 3nm 50mm, zwo 6200 mm with my new TAKAHASHI FSQ-85EDX BABY Q with Flattener 1.0x the pattern on the two largest stars( propus and tejat ) catches my attention , does anyone have that same pattern or have seen it before i would appreciate any comments thank you  |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Brian yes- that is the classic lighthouse/hourglass effect the scope has on very bright stars. The reducer also produces this effect but not as prominently as the flattener. There is not much you can do to remove it other than not stretching the stars so much. Frankly, I don’t see this as a big deal. Bruce |
|
2.11
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
hi, Bruce thank you so much for you help .i was worried about that . clear skies |
|
12.64
#...
·
|
|---|
Here is a RGB 1.5 hr image (30 mins per channel; 60 s subs) that I took to use the stars for an image I am working on. The channels were combined, followed by SPCC, BXT (correct only) and STX (stars removed and stretched separately with a slight color boost added before being added back in). Not too bad. Very little tilt. The hourglass/inverted lighthouse effect is still noticeable on a couple of very large/bright stars. I think for a very widefield image, these are very acceptable, especially since the focus is mostly on the nebulosity.  |
2.71
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Do the "hourglass" stars remove fully with StarX/Starnet? I'm thinking if people don't want them in their images, perhaps someone could design an aperture mask to capture round stars separately and screen them onto the full-aperture image. |
|
12.64
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi Dan Funny you suggest this as I was thinking the exact same thing, that is, develop a mask to remove them. Or a way to manipulate them to round them. BXT does not change them at all. And, yes, SXT does remove them completely. |
4.06
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I tried the new reducer on a full frame camera yesterday. The results were underwhelming. The stars were not good as what 1.01x flattener produces. But I think this is the best available reducer for this scope. To confirm my results, I'll be dropping an email to Takahashi to check if that results are normal and expected. |
