Why I swapped a Takahashi for a Skywatcher….😮😮 

Thanks And your welcome 👍 Thanks for subscribing

Your very welcome, and glad I could be of help in your decision….👍🏻

Thanks Richard….👍🏻

Thanks very much, and thanks for the tip too, it was my mistake as I thought UK was 60 hz, and not 50…

Thanks, yes I see so many people enjoying these highly regarded scopes….thanks for subscribing…👍🏻

Glad you liked the flats panel idea, let me know how you get on if you do something similar…..CS…👍🏻

Thanks for the comment, well it nearly put me off when I thought I had bought my dream scope, and turned out to be a nightmare…I nearly threw the towel in while trying to sort it out…

Thank, yes although to be fair, it was still noticeable without too much pixel peeping…but yes, it can get in the way sometimes…👍🏻

Thanks, yes I had the chance to review that scope, but the timing was not good so had to refuse Also was busy trying to sort the Tak out, but we all now know how that ended ☹️

Thanks Luke, yes I am very happy with it , and keep up the great work on your Chanel to, I do look forward to your videos…👍

Thanks Simon, love you Chanel to, loved watching your observatory build videos 👍

@@Astro_Shed Many Thanks, I’ve subbed to your channel 👍

@@SimonsAstro much Appreciated thanks Simon I am new to all this YT stuff 😂

@@Astro_Shed I’ve been doing RU-vid just over a year and hit 1k subs last weekend😀

@@SimonsAstro congrats 👏 well I have been doing for about the same and this video has really done well and doubled my subs and had over 4K views in just over a week So onwards and upwards 👍

Well, i did the same, i bought a scope from TS Optics [their new series CF, 90mm], paired it with RisingCam IMX571 and dedicated, it was that much good that i ordered second 90mm and IMX571, i don't think i can beat that with Takahashi, so instead of one high end scope i bought two and added a second camera, to me this is a better wiser decision than getting a name reputation.

Thanks for the comment, I do understand that, but they need to accept that there is an issue, and stop over promising and under delivering, how many other scopes out there need 2 flatteners to work, and even the work poorly, none….☹

Thanks for the comment, I tried binning, and it helped, but only ever so slightly, it was barely noticeable TBH,, 👍🏻

Thanks for the comment. Yes, so did I when I bought it…and how wrong I was. I got them from a guy on enay selling them here in the U.K.

Hi, It’s not pitched optics, it’s deffo astigmatism if the star shapes are the same as mine in the video, the proper name Sagical and tangical aberration, I might have spelt those wrong…you can have one or the other or if you have very good collimation, then both, which cause the cross like stars shapes… I hope you get it sorted…👍🏻

Hello and thanks Well funny you should ask this as I just swapped from the intel NUC to a Mele 3, as the Mele is much smaller and lighter and I got it secondhand for a very good price Yes most of the older NUC will run fine on anything from 12-19v I used 12v without issue 👍

Why are you not happy with the Mele 3 as they are very popular for imaging rigs ?

@@Astro_Shed Well, mine sometimes freezes in the graphics, so the computer luckily keeps running but the view that I get sometimes freezes. And after a minute or so it comes back. So I guess the graphic card is not so good in these Quieter3 mini pc's

Thanks for your comment… I was using the older Starlight Xpress SXVR M25c CCD camera with 8 micron pixels, and it was superb…and I totally think it’s wrong to spend this type of money on a scope with its built in flattener, to then have to add another flattener and then, as you say deal with back focus issues…it’s just wrong…IMHO

@@Astro_Shed fully agree. Modern options are just too close in performance, but what kills the interest for me was always the dark wedge stars on fsq from the virtual field stop optical vignetting of the back doublet. Two dark wedge diffraction in too many stars that are unsightly, and show more on the smaller pixels even on small chips. Flattener adds salt to a wound...but I love the physical design of the scope, and antidote to loud primary colours and racing car design of the modern alternatives. CS 😊

Hi, thanks for the comment, not sure about this issue with a Newtonian, could it be that you need a coma corrector for it..? As for binning, yes it does help, but in my case it did not help enough for me to be happy with the scope…it made a difference but just not enough…☹

@@Astro_Shed I have the corrector which came with the scope. The idea with the binning came as I wrote the text ... 😉

Thanks for the comment Yes I would love a Stellarvue scope I really would but they are so rare here in the UK I am enjoying the Esprit it’s far better than the Tak I had

@@Astro_Shed love your channel. Always good information.

@@dasimcoes thanks very much for that, really appreciate it 👍

Thanks for the comment, yes they are not all they are cracked up to be, and it’s very hit and miss whether you get a good one or not, and for a premium scope it’s not really acceptable. Clear skies 👍🏻

Yes, I have heard that pinched optics can be an issue, with the Esprit’s, but I don’t get many nights at -5 or below, so will worry about that if it happens…an extra dew strap I guess…. Yes, I don’t think I would buy another Tak, even the FSQ106 which is supposed to be superb, as there is a 2 year wait list, and it does not even come with a test or optics report…😮

@@Astro_Shed Taks are great but are so overpriced these days and the chinese made scopes are now really good if you get one with a test report I got mine from Altair Astro, really pleased with it. There is a bit of snobbery with regards to glass type in this community. I am speaking from experience. I seen no detectable difference when imaging with an Esprit vrs a cheaper Chinese made FK61 or FPL51 made scope. The quality of camera is IMHO much more important.

@@desbarry8414 yes, it was ironic really as I had the Tak and thought it was a forever scope, decided to get a better more modern camera , the QHY268c and then that showed all the flaws on the optics of the tak, so I either went back to the old CCD camera or sell the tak and get a scope that worked with modern small pixel cameras….so went with the new scope….

Thanks, Well, it started off as an extra, when they first were on the market, as that is how I got mine, then they put the price of the scope up by £300, and added the flattener into the package…go figure

@@Astro_Shed As mentioned, the Esprit is (was?) sold with a flattener in the US. In Europe it is sold without a flattener for less...go figure. Both have there pro's and cons. If I use the Esprit for visual, I don't need a flattener (aka I don't want to pay for a flattener). If you don't sell with a flattener, you have the choice regarding the SW branded one or maybe the Starizona 0.77 flattener/reducer...

@@MGralike I’m sorry, but i was talking about the Tak and the flattener in the video, and not the Esprit, you are confused, and maybe need to watch the whole video….🤔

​@@Astro_Shed I saw the whole video, I just wanted to point out that there is a apples to oranges comparison going on in this post (although I understand the emotion about "a lot of money (tak)" and not "up to expectancy") with or without flattener. Therefore my point, the SW Esprit 100 without the flattener is also just not good enough for astrophotography. So why would be an old design like the FSQ85 from a era with different kind of sensors, be on par still without an flattener. The excuse that Takahashi is too expensive is not relative. Anyone knows that (aka don't talk about it, I got two, it hurts)..

@@MGralike yes, but my whole point is that the Tak is still pretty useless WITH the two flatteners that it has, one built into the scope as it’s a Petzval quadruplet design, and the new one they bought out to combat the issue, so even with 2 flatteners, yes 2, it’s still very poor….how many other scopes do you know of that need 2 flatteners and is still not up to par….none….

Thanks for the comments, I was considering the Pegasus motorised focuser as they do the adapters to fit to the esprit 100, and that would give zero issues, but TBH the stock focuser is not bad, as long as you keep the draw tube protruding to a minimum, I only have the tube out 20mm and use spacers to take up the rest…👍🏻

You are very lucky then, hang on to it…👍🏻

Thanks for the tip, i use a GoPro, I recorded in 1080p and 60 fps, and uploaded at 30 fps, what frame rate should I record in to stop the flicker…?

@@Astro_Shed the flicker is caused by the power source. if it is being powered from the mains it will be 50hz and ideally you would match the fps to the power hz so if mains powered 50 fps.

@@lulzguy2501 there is a mains power brick down to 12v for the LED lights…👍🏻

Hi, yes only the 85 The 60 is fine I have one of those and it’s all Good 👍

Check out my website for images of the build, link is on the home page, www.astroshed.co.uk, there is also a video on here of the obs, it’s quite small but perfect for my needs…not much else to show really..

No, not at all, it’s just the FSQ85. It’s to do with the dated optical design and the low focal ratio of this scope, the 106 is fine AFAIK Thanks for the comment…

Thanks But watch the full review and you will see my issues are with that flattener you mention and it does NOT make the stars perfect at all it’s pretty poor flattener and makes about 15% better

I think you have missed the whole point of the video, I did mention the new 1.01x flattener, that’s what the while video was about, you should watch it all maybe, before commenting..🤔the point was that the flattener you mention does not work as it should and does not make the strs perfect at all, I have used this flattener all the time since the purchase of it, and it does not work as it should and so even with 2 flatteners in this scope it still pretty rubbish, poor design scope and useless with modern small pixel cameras…

@@Astro_Shed- Thanks for the update. That is not my experience with that same equipment. Possibly the scope was misaligned in some way? But I understand and respect your experience, of course. Clear skies and best regards.

Thanks

Sorry my last reply was cut short, thanks for the kind words, bear in mint this was a review of my issues with the Takahashi FSQ85 and not the skywatcher I have replaced it with….👍🏻

um, maybe re watch the video he is talking about issues with the Tak not the skywatcher

Hi, you will always get issues with the 85 because the optics were not designed to work with small pixels My scope was not really any worse than other 85’s, even some older scopes work fine with modern sensors due to a better optical design

@@Astro_Shed I don’t. I like big scopes. Smallest one 4” duplet and no issue. But, many other, who have it, don’t. They are using 294mm with bin 1:1. If Tak know that there is an issue, they will stop production. Now, almost no one use CCD. I understand you read some issues on CN. On CN, people often complain. Even about Paramount mounts, Veloce scopes, etc.

Tak do know there is an issue, that why they bought out another extra flattener for the scope that already has one built in, would they have done that if there was no need to….of course they would not, and now it’s supplied with the scope, that have admitted there was an issue….I am not making this stuff up you know…

@@Astro_Shed Ok.

@@Astro_Shed Amazingly, you are right. Takahashi USA is here in Texas. They didn’t recommend 85 scope. But, they recommended TOA130mm, which has some incredible parameters - 1um star test!

Hi, You are very lucky if you scope is that good, and with over 7000 views and more than 200 comments, you are the first person who has actually said that you disagree and your scope is good, I was expecting many more people to say this by now, so I guess the problem is as bad as I first thought…you have a good scope, so hold onto it. Tak themselves brought out the extra flattener and published themselves the reason why the pixel size is the issue, I can assure you that it is as I used an SX camera for a while with this scope and the stars were perfect corner to corner, without the new extra flattener. At the end of the day when you pay a high premium for a flat field Petzval quadruplet scope scope such as this, then you don’t expect to have to add another flattener straight away to the back of it, Tak supply the flatter er with the scope now in the box, would they really do this if they did not need to..? It’s the only scope on the market that needs 2 flatteners to work properly…go figure… Take an image with your scope with and without the extra flattener and blow to 3:1 and check the corner stars, if yours are perfectly round, then great, but I very much doubt they will be… Clear skies…👍🏻

Well I agree to disagree, if you watch the full video you will see what it did, and I am not the only one either, with modern small pixel cameras, and the old design optics of the TAKFSQ85 it was an issue, also having to use 2 flatteners on the scope is a joke, one built in and the extra one they now supply as standard with this model, and it’s still pretty awful…happy new year…👍🏻

@@Astro_Shed instead of the SW I would go for a Vixen VSD90SS. This would beamy dream optical system for photography. (I’m using a TeleVue NP101…)

I was limited financially, I just wanted a decent scope that worked out of the box, and this does really well, but I hope in the future to get a good “forever” scope…👍🏻

Totally agree….if and when they do, it will de value all the FSQ85 scopes out there, but according to what I have heard they have no intention of re designing the optics, hence them bringing out the extra flattener….👍🏻

Yes, they over promise and under deliver, at least with the FSQ85 👍

@@Astro_Shed and yet they command a premium price and have a cult following! 😱

A fantastic brand. The FSQ106 is legendary. The add ons are very pricey though. Finding a nice used one at a discount is a good deal.

@@marklindsey1995 well not so fantasies really as my video shows, they over promise and under deliver, and not worth the premium at all…☹ as fat as the FSQ85 goes anyway…

Wouldn't be a solution for him, because you would be oversampling, but agree, brilliant scope ;-)