Hi,
I like trying new telescopes and now I am convinced to try a Takahashi telescope. I am thinking between FSQ106 and Epsilon 180.
I understand that they’re different breeds altogether. But if you were to choose one of these two, which one would you buy? And why would you buy it.
I am trying to hear thoughts why people prefer one telescope over the other.
*This is an open ended question and I am not looking for a verdict. |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
If it was me, it is not even a contest. I am going for the Epsilon-180. It is cheaper, it has a bigger aperture, and it has a faster focal ratio. The FSQ-106 is legendary of course for being a chunk of glass that maintains a very high quality even when reduced down to F/3 but you pay a hell of a premium for it.
For a lot of people they can take or leave diffraction spikes, but I have noticed that they can sometimes save an otherwise dull looking part of the sky!
That being said, I see based on your pictures you are a refractor guy. Once you get into reflectors you have to deal with collimation and starting off at F/2.8 is a heck of a way to be thrown to the wolves!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I don't have the FSQ but I really love my Epsilon 160. It's held collimation extremely well since I got it earlier this year (unlike any SCT, RC, I've owned). The Epsilon 160 is great at 530 FL, but I also have the extender that takes it up to 750ish and seems to almost be sharper.
I'd simply assume that this was just the behavior or Tak premium scopes, but the Epsilon even battles my TOA-130 often for nebula details.
I see you are doing some great images with that Esprit 150 already. Are you hunting for a more portable setup? That would make a huge difference in the selection I think.
There's also the issue of availability. Unless you have some trick, the FSQ could take 1-2 years to be available. (the Epsilon seems to be half that time or less typically)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have a FSQ85 and a E-160ed. Not the scopes you are talking about, but I would say both are fantastic, the best choice may be related with your priorities and typical use.
If you travel a lot with your scope, I think the fsq106 may be better suited, as it is lighter and you don’t have to deal with collimation (although my E-160ed holds it’s collimation exceptionally well). Otherwise I would choose the E-180ed (unless you don’t like the spikes). More aperture, more speed, and probably sharper if well aligned.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
The 180ED any day. You'll want to spend on upgrading the focuser and investing in some device to correct tilt.
The 160ED has a corrector suited to today's small pixels, not 100% sure that's true of the 180 and 130 which have older correctors I believe. The 106 can do f/3 but I don't think people are happy with the optical quality at f/3 on large sensors with small pixels.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
That being said, I see based on your pictures you are a refractor guy. Once you get into reflectors you have to deal with collimation and starting off at F/2.8 is a heck of a way to be thrown to the wolves! Thanks for your inputs. You're right. Though I prefer refractors, I wanted to try reflectors and get familiar with the idea of collimation, diffraction spikes and handling tilt. I purchased an Sharpstar 15028HNT, another hyperbolic newtonian at f2.8 as a lesser expensive way of experimenting. So far I am happy with what it is producing and considering an Epsilon as a potential upgrade. (which as Nick said, is not going to be available anytime soon. But I'll keep waiting). Nick Grundy:
I see you are doing some great images with that Esprit 150 already. Are you hunting for a more portable setup? That would make a huge difference in the selection I think. Nick, Thanks for your inputs. I am looking at a wider and faster setup. I am not looking to image with longer FL in the near future.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I'd say that it depends on what you plan on attaching to it. I had the FSQ106N, sold it for the E-180, yes, built like a tank, but don't plan on using the stock focuser. Sold it and got another FSQ 106N, sold it, got an E-210, again, sold it, the spider was so thick that on the larger stars, they were on the square side.
Now from what I see, the E-180 only has about 56mm of back-focus, not much room to deal with and only a 44mm image-circle. The FSQ-106xxx has 178mm of back-focus and an 88mm image-circle, what works better for you?
As for getting an FSQ 106, depends on who you talk to. At one time there may have been a long wait time, but I just placed an order for an FSQ106EDX4 last month and am expending it by late December or early January.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
@Deepan Vishal I was in a similar situation. Previously my only reflector was an edgeHD8” and all my best experiences were with refractors. The epsilon has really been great. (At f3.3 the 160 has been nice) I would note a couple of items though that you may have thought through already - youll likely want to replace the stock focuser. There’s tiny light leak issue and even if you can deal with that, just using an EAF wasn’t enough. I ended up with the optec kit and it’s perfect. (Add another 1500-1800)
- tilt was a real issue on the full frame sensor so I tend to favor the AP’s-c. There are a ton of resources on here though and if you got through the sharpstar hnt, you would be able to work it out. You will likely want to get a serious tilt device though. (Asg photon cage or whatever)
the big question is 180 vs 160
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I ll recommend to get an 160 and replace the stock focuser.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
A year ago I was in the same situation as you. I chose the E160 based on image quality and the fact that I like diffraction spikes. I recommend that you look at images from both scopes to help you decide. This image convinced me to get the Epsilon, https://www.astrobin.com/q3wjw8/B/My gallery has a few E160 images taken with a full frame sensor, https://www.astrobin.com/users/Hellbender/. Dan
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
To me the backfocus of the epsilon would be a problem. Not much you can do with 55mm.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I would buy the FSQ. It’s because I love refractors. The weight with a camera is more even balanced.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
It depends on your dedication! The Epsilon is a pain to learn how to collimate and then you have to deal with tilt. It has to be adjusted out. The Epsilons definitely need a replacement focuser over the stock one. Most people use the Optec LEO (me included).
I would recommend the
Epsilon 160 over the 180 due to the spot sizes. The 160's corrector is made for today's smaller pixel size cameras.
I have a 160 at a remote remotin New Mexico and it has produced anazing results so far.
I also own a FSQ106EDX4 and it is a great scope. The images from the Epsilon just look better to me. Pluse you are imaging at f/3.3 (or 2.8 with the E180) without the need of any reducer.
The Epsilon series does require a lot of work (A LOT) but that was part of its appeal for me. The results I am getting are much more rewarding.
I had to adjust for tilt with the FSQ as well so tilt isn't something that you have to worry about with the Epsilons. This is especislly true if you shoot full frame.
The most recent images in my gallery are shot with my Epsilon 160.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
They are both great scopes I believe.
The FSQ or any refractor will be more "plug and play".
The Epsilon, being a fast reflector, will need some work.
I have also worked with Optec and other Epsilon users to develop solutions for the Epsilons with Optec's Leo focus which has tilt correction as well.
Also, a lightweight mounting cage that consists of carbon fiber FDM rings and accessory top dovetail and CNC aluminum bottom dovetail.
You get a good amount of aperture in a compact and lightweight package.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Cage  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Here is Nick's setup, his input was instrumental. He later added the Leo focuser to the setup  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Daniel Carter:
It depends on your dedication! The Epsilon is a pain to learn how to collimate and then you have to deal with tilt. It has to be adjusted out. The Epsilons definitely need a replacement focuser over the stock one. Most people use the Optec LEO (me included).
I would recommend the
Epsilon 160 over the 180 due to the spot sizes. The 160's corrector is made for today's smaller pixel size cameras.
I have a 160 at a remote remotin New Mexico and it has produced anazing results so far.
I also own a FSQ106EDX4 and it is a great scope. The images from the Epsilon just look better to me. Pluse you are imaging at f/3.3 (or 2.8 with the E180) without the need of any reducer.
The Epsilon series does require a lot of work (A LOT) but that was part of its appeal for me. The results I am getting are much more rewarding.
I had to adjust for tilt with the FSQ as well so tilt isn't something that you have to worry about with the Epsilons. This is especislly true if you shoot full frame.
The most recent images in my gallery are shot with my Epsilon 160. I second that. If you are willing to spend some time and effort, go to Epsilon. Or, if you want something more “plug and play”, and still with great results, go to the FSQ route. I think it’s a matter of what your priorities are.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
The Epsilon 160 should be around 2,5 times faster compared to the fsq at native focal length.
but I never really understood if one can compare the f ratio of reflectors and refractors.
lens vs lens is easy but in case of an reflector there is a loss of contrast, the obstructed area etc.
would be interesting to see an comparison of the two side by side same target, same night, same place, same camera etc.
what I can say is, I tend to like the fsq images a bit more.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Anderl:
The Epsilon 160 should be around 2,5 times faster compared to the fsq at native focal length.
but I never really understood if one can compare the f ratio of reflectors and refractors.
lens vs lens is easy but in case of an reflector there is a loss of contrast, the obstructed area etc.
would be interesting to see an comparison of the two side by side same target, same night, same place, same camera etc.
what I can say is, I tend to like the fsq images a bit more. I have both a FSQ106 and an Epsilon 160. In my opinion I haven't noticed any difference in any loss of contrast. If anything, I've found my images from the Epsilon tend to be better and easier to process. Part of that is my Epsilon is at a dark site in New Mexico. However, I think that my epsilon.produced better images here at home before I sent the scope out west. I have the same camera and same filters in both systems so the comparison is based on the same camera systems. I haven't done an A B comparison on the same target side by side on the same night though.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Daniel Carter:
I have both a FSQ106 and an Epsilon 160. In my opinion I haven't noticed any difference in any loss of contrast. If anything, I've found my images from the Epsilon tend to be better and easier to process. People say that reflectors result in a loss of contrast. There is no doubt true that a refractor will be superior to a comparable aperture reflector. But the problem is that it is usually impossible to easily obtain a comparable aperture refractor, certainly when you get to the 160mm range and up. When comparing a 106 to 180, I'd say that the huge difference in aperture matters much more than the loss in contrast. Certainly, I consider the images taken with my 200 mm reflector to be far superior to what I can get with a 92mm refractor.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I don't think you can go wrong with either. As others said, the Epsilon will require a bit more work. I started on that platform getting the 130D and got hooked so bad that I also purchased the 160ED. Get the 160ED, it has amazing image quality; the corrector on that model is much better than the other two models. You will need a tilt device (Octopi, Photon Cage) to get that last 5-10% dialed in perfectly in the corners. I think people exaggerate how difficult it is to put these together, it is a series of steps and if you take one at a time you will be very satisfied. Also FWIW I run both Epsilons with the stock focuser + Pegaus Focuscube and they work fine for me; just don't expect to be able to rotate the focuser without introducing tilt and throw off the collimation. I can't compare against an FSQ because I don't own one, but my impression is that the image quality on the Epsilon is superior. But at this level I honestly think the limiting factor is probably going to be something else (data acquisition, sky quality, processing….). Also if you can't make up your mind, just get both!!  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I have had an FSQ 106N for many years and it is a great scope.
The thing is that these days the trend is toward faint objects and background nebulosity where you need all the speed you can get.
I also presently have an SVQ-100 (Stellarvue FSQ "clone") at a dark remote site. I will be replacing that with the smaller Epsilon 130 next summer (the larger 160/180s are just a bit too heavy for the dual mounted system and my L-350).
If the 130 works out at the remote site I will be getting an E180 for at home and selling my 10 inch iDK that presently sits there.
Be aware that you will need special narrowband filters for the fast optics of the Epsilons.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Bill McLaughlin:
Be aware that you will need special narrowband filters for the fast optics of the Epsilons. The MaxFR filters made by Astronomik work well with the Epsilon. I have the 6nm Astronomik filters and they have worked really well. You don't necessarily need to get crazy expensive filters for fast systems for the Epsilon. If I recall the Astronomik filters work down to f/3.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I will say the E160 was a lot of work to get to the functionality I desired. Some of the things I designed and built; quick detach mount for camera, heated dew shield, fan heater, ota balance shaft, mounts for computer, usb hub, focus control, power distribution box, two dc - dc converters, and a lot more. What I prefer to do is rotate the ota for framing and position the camera in two positions at 90 degrees. This allows me to orient the diffraction spikes the way I want. All these mods would have been very difficult without my machine shop and professional background. The FSQ would have required much less time to set up. Dan  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Bill McLaughlin:
I have had an FSQ 106N for many years and it is a great scope.
The thing is that these days the trend is toward faint objects and background nebulosity where you need all the speed you can get.
I also presently have an SVQ-100 (Stellarvue FSQ "clone") at a dark remote site. I will be replacing that with the smaller Epsilon 130 next summer (the larger 160/180s are just a bit too heavy for the dual mounted system and my L-350).
If the 130 works out at the remote site I will be getting an E180 for at home and selling my 10 inch iDK that presently sits there.
Be aware that you will need special narrowband filters for the fast optics of the Epsilons. We were able to remove a lot of weight from an existing E160 on the L350 Before:  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
