FSQ-85 vs FSQ-106 are these a big different for AP ?

Hi, i just wanna ask this, for astro imaging is this a big different between FSQ-85 and a FSQ-106 ? the price to take the FSQ-106, i could take a FSQ-85 and a TSA 120, i just want to ask is it relly worth to buy an FSQ-106 ? and if i buy a FSQ-85, should i buy any more adapter to connect my female M42 ZWO 533 ?

The biggest advantage of FSQ-106 over Baby-Q is the huge declared 88mm corrected field. While it was designed for larger pixel cameras, it still shows pinpoint stars even on a modern small pixel full-frame sensors like IMX455. (though 1.01x flattner on 85 is also nice) Also variety of focal reducers, including 645QE and F/3, are available only for FSQ-106, not 85.

Other than that it's basically just another 21mm of aperture.

Hello,

Hi, i just wanna ask this...

The shortest questions often lead to the most complex answers

and mine is not even an answer but more a question: what do you want to achieve? From what you're writing, it seems you already have some equipment and don't start from scratch. What are you planning to change? Is it FOV? Do you "simply" want to upgrade to a higher quality optics? Which optics would match your current imaging hardware better.

CS!
Björn

It depends. 55% more aperture and longer focal length is nothing to sneeze at. In the end is just a matter of throwing more money at it…

The biggest advantage of FSQ-106 over Baby-Q is the huge declared 88mm corrected field.

i think an APS-C sensor size is enough for me :|

It depends. 55% more aperture and longer focal length is nothing to sneeze at. In the end is just a matter of throwing more money at it...

yeah, you r right

The FSQ-85 in my experience is a wonderful wide-field scope with superb optics. It's also readily airline transportable, if that matters. I once took mine to Chile for a week of imaging.

CS, Bob

If you are going to use a 3.76um sensor with the FSQ-85 then you will have to use the flattener with it. That’s irrespective of sensor size. In my mind that negates the whole Petzval design that you are back having to get your backfocus exact. The flattener does work quite well though up to ASP-C at least. Not tried it with a full frame but I expect full frame and small pixel won’t work well together. Optically the FSQ-106 is in a deferent league in my opinion. The FSQ-85 is not a scaled down version. I'm hopeful that Takahashi will update the reducer at some stage for it to work better with small pixel sensors.

I think if you are planning to get one or the other, just get the FSQ-106. If you buy the FSQ-85 you'll end up selling it down the line.
The FSQ-106 will handle any chip you put behind it.

Looking at your AB gallery i see that you already have FSQ106 and also 130NFB, so why you are thinking about FSQ85 or 106 again? You should get a reducer for that 106 and you will be kicking …

Tareq Abdulla:
Looking at your AB gallery i see that you already have FSQ106 and also 130NFB, so why you are thinking about FSQ85 or 106 again? You should get a reducer for that 106 and you will be kicking ...

I asked before i bought them, actualy i bought all of them, fsq-85 fsq-106 and toa-130nfb, just sold fsq-85 for my friend

Tareq Abdulla:
Looking at your AB gallery i see that you already have FSQ106 and also 130NFB, so why you are thinking about FSQ85 or 106 again? You should get a reducer for that 106 and you will be kicking ...

I asked before i bought them, actualy i bought all of them, fsq-85 fsq-106 and toa-130nfb, just sold fsq-85 for my friend

Ah ok, it was an old question then, i didn't check out the starting date, thank you and luck you

Related discussions