Takahashi's bad focusers

9.31 Ashraf AbuSara ... · view views · 1 like · Share link
Mauricio Christiano de Souza: Timothy Maurer: I wish I'd have come across this thread when battling my Tak focuser. It would have saved me a lot of time and frustration. I too picked up a 2006 Epsilon 180ED on the used market and found the focuser to be absolute trash. Simply unusable with the drawtube slop and rotation when racking in and out. Adjusting the grub screws proved to be useless. AstrOasis sold me a really nice pinion replacement that definitively improved the stability and action but nothing for the slop. Tak America can rebuild/refurb them for $200 but I wasn't confident enough to think the rebuild would be enough to mitigate/eliminate focus issues at f/2.8 with large fine pixeled sensors. Optec's solutions were simply out of my budget. I came across 2047Studio and heard good things about their quality. I picked one up new for $600 on Ali (Star Trip store is great!) and gotta say it is fantastic. Build quality, fit and finish is amazing. I've had zero issues since with the 180ED and highly recommend it. I paired it with the new AstrOasis Rose Electric Focuser and get sub micron focusing steps in a really nice compact unit. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Good to hear that the 2047Studio focuser worked for you as well. I've been using mine and it is quite good to be able to trust the build quality it has, not having to worry about it failing at some point and having to adjust it over again. The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest. Using the three point ZWO tilt plate to fix tilt on a square or a rectangular sensor is a practice in insanity. Kudos to you for even trying to entertain it! I agree I like my player one Zeus a lot. But I wish they put two USB out ports instead of one. Like

9.31

...

· 1 like

Mauricio Christiano de Souza:
Timothy Maurer:
I wish I'd have come across this thread when battling my Tak focuser. It would have saved me a lot of time and frustration. I too picked up a 2006 Epsilon 180ED on the used market and found the focuser to be absolute trash. Simply unusable with the drawtube slop and rotation when racking in and out. Adjusting the grub screws proved to be useless. AstrOasis sold me a really nice pinion replacement that definitively improved the stability and action but nothing for the slop. Tak America can rebuild/refurb them for $200 but I wasn't confident enough to think the rebuild would be enough to mitigate/eliminate focus issues at f/2.8 with large fine pixeled sensors. Optec's solutions were simply out of my budget. I came across 2047Studio and heard good things about their quality. I picked one up new for $600 on Ali (Star Trip store is great!) and gotta say it is fantastic. Build quality, fit and finish is amazing. I've had zero issues since with the 180ED and highly recommend it. I paired it with the new AstrOasis Rose Electric Focuser and get sub micron focusing steps in a really nice compact unit. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Good to hear that the 2047Studio focuser worked for you as well. I've been using mine and it is quite good to be able to trust the build quality it has, not having to worry about it failing at some point and having to adjust it over again.
The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest.

Using the three point ZWO tilt plate to fix tilt on a square or a rectangular sensor is a practice in insanity. Kudos to you for even trying to entertain it!

I agree I like my player one Zeus a lot. But I wish they put two USB out ports instead of one.

5.27 Mauricio Christiano de Souza Topic starter ... · view views · 2 likes · Share link
Ashraf AbuSara: Using the three point ZWO tilt plate to fix tilt on a square or a rectangular sensor is a practice in insanity. Kudos to you for even trying to entertain it! At first it is difficult, but after doing some 50 iterations of adjustments you start to get the hand of it with 3 screws, but yeah, 4 is much easier lol. Ashraf AbuSara: I agree I like my player one Zeus a lot. But I wish they put two USB out ports instead of one. True. Player One should listen to this, if we just had one extra USB port it would be the perfect camera. I don't get how those important details that astro products misses just go under the radar of the designers. Not talking about P1 specifically, but sometimes it feels like they don't even use their own stuff... Edited ... Like

5.27

Mauricio Christiano de Souza

Topic starter

...

· 2 likes

· Share link

Ashraf AbuSara:
Using the three point ZWO tilt plate to fix tilt on a square or a rectangular sensor is a practice in insanity. Kudos to you for even trying to entertain it!

At first it is difficult, but after doing some 50 iterations of adjustments you start to get the hand of it with 3 screws, but yeah, 4 is much easier lol.

Ashraf AbuSara:
I agree I like my player one Zeus a lot. But I wish they put two USB out ports instead of one.

True. Player One should listen to this, if we just had one extra USB port it would be the perfect camera. I don't get how those important details that astro products misses just go under the radar of the designers. Not talking about P1 specifically, but sometimes it feels like they don't even use their own stuff...

Edited ...

8.34 Bill McLaughlin ... · view views · 2 likes · Share link
Mauricio Christiano de Souza: I believe at this point Takahashi should partner with Feather Touch or something like that LS&S, the US distributer, told me they are doing just that for the Epsilons at least. They would not say which focuser maker they are planning to use but that it would be maybe a year or so. That was maybe 4 months ago or so. Like

1.20 David Russell ... · view views · 2 likes · Share link
I have a Takahashi FSQ-106 and I have no issues with the focuser. mine works great manually and also when used with an EAF. I have a Feathertouch 3 inch on my RC10 and to be honest I dont see any difference in performance between the two for AP. I am not budget limited, so my opinion is not influenced by budget in any way. Like

5.27 Mauricio Christiano de Souza Topic starter ... · view views · 2 likes · Share link
David Russell: I have a Takahashi FSQ-106 and I have no issues with the focuser. mine works great manually and also when used with an EAF. I have a Feathertouch 3 inch on my RC10 and to be honest I dont see any difference in performance between the two for AP. I am not budget limited, so my opinion is not influenced by budget in any way. The FSQ-106 has a very different design from the Epsilons and FSQ-85 and many other models. It's one of the few models that actually are good enough to pair with the rest of the OTA. I don't have a clue why they don't make the others similar to the 106 version. Still, many people choose to replace it with something else, usually an electronic and rotator autofocuser (like the MoonLight Night Crawler or PrimaLuceLab Esatto), although it isn't near as bad as the Epsilon. In other models the difference between a Feather Touch and the stock focuser is huge because of the reliability. Like

5.27

Mauricio Christiano de Souza

Topic starter

...

· 2 likes

· Share link

David Russell:
I have a Takahashi FSQ-106 and I have no issues with the focuser. mine works great manually and also when used with an EAF.

I have a Feathertouch 3 inch on my RC10 and to be honest I dont see any difference in performance between the two for AP.

I am not budget limited, so my opinion is not influenced by budget in any way.

The FSQ-106 has a very different design from the Epsilons and FSQ-85 and many other models. It's one of the few models that actually are good enough to pair with the rest of the OTA. I don't have a clue why they don't make the others similar to the 106 version. Still, many people choose to replace it with something else, usually an electronic and rotator autofocuser (like the MoonLight Night Crawler or PrimaLuceLab Esatto), although it isn't near as bad as the Epsilon.

In other models the difference between a Feather Touch and the stock focuser is huge because of the reliability.

1.20 David Russell ... · view views · 2 likes · Share link
Mauricio Christiano de Souza: many people choose to replace it with something else, usually an electronic and rotator autofocuser (like the MoonLight Night Crawler or PrimaLuceLab Esatto), Ok. Good info there. I read the PrimaLucia Labs is actually a modified design based on a Crayford. is that correct ? I think a rack and pinion ( FSQ106) would be less likely to Slip, so if backlash and sag is not an issue should theoretically be better. anyway just documenting that my FSQ106 focuser works very well, and has no problems that I notice. Like

1.20

David Russell

...

· 2 likes

· Share link

Mauricio Christiano de Souza:
many people choose to replace it with something else, usually an electronic and rotator autofocuser (like the MoonLight Night Crawler or PrimaLuceLab Esatto),

Ok. Good info there.

I read the PrimaLucia Labs is actually a modified design based on a Crayford. is that correct ?

I think a rack and pinion ( FSQ106) would be less likely to Slip, so if backlash and sag is not an issue should theoretically be better.

anyway just documenting that my FSQ106 focuser works very well, and has no problems that I notice.

5.27 Mauricio Christiano de Souza Topic starter ... · view views · 1 like · Share link
David Russell: I read the PrimaLucia Labs is actually a modified design based on a Crayford. is that correct ? Yes, correct. David Russell: I think a rack and pinion ( FSQ106) would be less likely to Slip, so if backlash and sag is not an issue should theoretically be better. Probably yes when thinking about high payloads. But I believe the PrimaLuce designers made something capable to work under high payloads as well. If I'm not mistaken, the limit is 5kg, and that is a lot. I also think that the crayford style focusers are good at resisting torque because of the multiple bearings sustaining the drawtube, while all the pressure falls on the rack in a rack and pinion focuser, making it tilt slightly if it has some empty space to do so, as you need to leave some space for the pinion to grip on the rack (not talking about your FSQ, but it is a common problem across other telescopes with poorly designed rack and pinion focusers). The 2047Studio I bought for my Epsilon is a mixture of both designs, it has bearings and a rack and pinion, making it solid like a tank, doesn't slip and doesn't tilt. Like

5.27

Mauricio Christiano de Souza

Topic starter

...

· 1 like

· Share link

David Russell:
I read the PrimaLucia Labs is actually a modified design based on a Crayford. is that correct ?

Yes, correct.

David Russell:
I think a rack and pinion ( FSQ106) would be less likely to Slip, so if backlash and sag is not an issue should theoretically be better.

Probably yes when thinking about high payloads. But I believe the PrimaLuce designers made something capable to work under high payloads as well. If I'm not mistaken, the limit is 5kg, and that is a lot.
I also think that the crayford style focusers are good at resisting torque because of the multiple bearings sustaining the drawtube, while all the pressure falls on the rack in a rack and pinion focuser, making it tilt slightly if it has some empty space to do so, as you need to leave some space for the pinion to grip on the rack (not talking about your FSQ, but it is a common problem across other telescopes with poorly designed rack and pinion focusers).

The 2047Studio I bought for my Epsilon is a mixture of both designs, it has bearings and a rack and pinion, making it solid like a tank, doesn't slip and doesn't tilt.

0.90 t-ara-fan ... · view views · Share link
Mauricio Christiano de Souza: The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest. ZWO makes a tilt adjuster https://www.zwoastro.com/product/m54-tilter/ that has the adjustment screws facing the back of the (ASI2600, ASI6200 and ASI2400) camera. I got this for my Epsilon and ASI2400MC. I haven't worked on adjusting the tilt yet because the tilt isn't too bad. I am curious about differing build quality. What do you see as the difference between ZWO and Player One? Like

0.90

t-ara-fan

...

· Share link

Mauricio Christiano de Souza:

The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest.

ZWO makes a tilt adjuster https://www.zwoastro.com/product/m54-tilter/
that has the adjustment screws facing the back of the (ASI2600, ASI6200 and ASI2400) camera. I got this for my Epsilon and ASI2400MC. I haven't worked on adjusting the tilt yet because the tilt isn't too bad.

I am curious about differing build quality. What do you see as the difference between ZWO and Player One?

1.51 Dan H. M. ... · view views · Share link
Mauricio Christiano de Souza: The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest. ZWO makes a tilt adjuster https://www.zwoastro.com/product/m54-tilter/ that has the adjustment screws facing the back of the (ASI2600, ASI6200 and ASI2400) camera. I got this for my Epsilon and ASI2400MC. I haven't worked on adjusting the tilt yet because the tilt isn't too bad. I am curious about differing build quality. What do you see as the difference between ZWO and Player One? The ZWO one only has three adjustment points. You need 4 to actually adjust tilt using Hocus Focus. I’ve also read it’s been reported to have light leaks. Like

1.51

Dan H. M.

...

· Share link

Mauricio Christiano de Souza:

The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest.

ZWO makes a tilt adjuster https://www.zwoastro.com/product/m54-tilter/
that has the adjustment screws facing the back of the (ASI2600, ASI6200 and ASI2400) camera. I got this for my Epsilon and ASI2400MC. I haven't worked on adjusting the tilt yet because the tilt isn't too bad.

I am curious about differing build quality. What do you see as the difference between ZWO and Player One?

The ZWO one only has three adjustment points. You need 4 to actually adjust tilt using Hocus Focus. I’ve also read it’s been reported to have light leaks.

5.27 Mauricio Christiano de Souza Topic starter ... · view views · Share link
Mauricio Christiano de Souza: The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest. ZWO makes a tilt adjuster https://www.zwoastro.com/product/m54-tilter/ that has the adjustment screws facing the back of the (ASI2600, ASI6200 and ASI2400) camera. I got this for my Epsilon and ASI2400MC. I haven't worked on adjusting the tilt yet because the tilt isn't too bad. I am curious about differing build quality. What do you see as the difference between ZWO and Player One? It wouldn't work for me because I have a 294MM, and this only fits the larger sensor cameras. Apparently there is no solution for the smaller sensor cameras that does not impact backfocus distance, which in my case, at F/3.3, is super critical. Comparing to the ASI294MM Pro: - The Player One camera has a bigger cooler, runs on lower power % to cool to the same temperature as the 294MM, meaning that on warmer nights it should perform better; - Has a very well designed built in tilt plate; - Camera is fixed to the Phoenix Filter Wheel with screws rather than threads (which often doesn't align with the OAG prism, making the sensor to be completely out of alignment); - Cables seem to be very high quality (they are covered in nylon and are thicker than the ones that come with ZWO, giving an impression of higher durability); - Comes with a dust blower, not that it is important, but it is nice to have it included; - This is very personal, but I find the camera design very beautiful, much more appealing to me than the ZWO style; - OAG can be disassembled more easily than the ZWO OAG-L; - The Artemis-M Pro bundled with Phoenix and OAG Max gets the backfocus perfectly to 55mm, while with the 294MM+EFW+OAG-L gives you 54mm (what a stupid idea), which is terrible because you have to use rings in between the threads to get to 55mm, causing a lot of tilt; - At this exact moment (black friday) the Artemis-M Pro + Phoenix Wheel 7x36mm + OAG-MAX bundle costs $1308 ($1778 without discount), the ZWO 294MM Pro alone costs $1152 ($1280 without discount). The only cons is that the USB hub on the P1 camera only has 1 port while ZWO has 2, and that the Artemis-M has more hot pixels than my 294, but that is easily calibrated out with darks. Those are small details but they are relevant to me. I wanted to try it out since it launched and now I don't feel like coming back... ZWO in my opinion needs to start catching up. Like

5.27

Mauricio Christiano de Souza

Topic starter

...

· Share link

Mauricio Christiano de Souza:

The only con I have about it is that the over exaggerated drawtube size of the focuser blocked the access to the allen screws of the ZWO OAG tilt plate (that faces the focuser), which is really important for fine tuning collimation. I solved it by changing the camera train completely to Player One, as they make the cameras with built in tilt plates with the screws facing backwards, being way easier to access and adjust. I know it doesn't have anything to do with the topic, however, I must say that the build quality of the Player One camera is much superior than ZWO and it is a few hundred dollars less expensive, not going back to ZWO to be honest.

ZWO makes a tilt adjuster https://www.zwoastro.com/product/m54-tilter/
that has the adjustment screws facing the back of the (ASI2600, ASI6200 and ASI2400) camera. I got this for my Epsilon and ASI2400MC. I haven't worked on adjusting the tilt yet because the tilt isn't too bad.

I am curious about differing build quality. What do you see as the difference between ZWO and Player One?

It wouldn't work for me because I have a 294MM, and this only fits the larger sensor cameras. Apparently there is no solution for the smaller sensor cameras that does not impact backfocus distance, which in my case, at F/3.3, is super critical.

Comparing to the ASI294MM Pro:
- The Player One camera has a bigger cooler, runs on lower power % to cool to the same temperature as the 294MM, meaning that on warmer nights it should perform better;
- Has a very well designed built in tilt plate;
- Camera is fixed to the Phoenix Filter Wheel with screws rather than threads (which often doesn't align with the OAG prism, making the sensor to be completely out of alignment);
- Cables seem to be very high quality (they are covered in nylon and are thicker than the ones that come with ZWO, giving an impression of higher durability);
- Comes with a dust blower, not that it is important, but it is nice to have it included;
- This is very personal, but I find the camera design very beautiful, much more appealing to me than the ZWO style;
- OAG can be disassembled more easily than the ZWO OAG-L;
- The Artemis-M Pro bundled with Phoenix and OAG Max gets the backfocus perfectly to 55mm, while with the 294MM+EFW+OAG-L gives you 54mm (what a stupid idea), which is terrible because you have to use rings in between the threads to get to 55mm, causing a lot of tilt;
- At this exact moment (black friday) the Artemis-M Pro + Phoenix Wheel 7x36mm + OAG-MAX bundle costs $1308 ($1778 without discount), the ZWO 294MM Pro alone costs $1152 ($1280 without discount).

The only cons is that the USB hub on the P1 camera only has 1 port while ZWO has 2, and that the Artemis-M has more hot pixels than my 294, but that is easily calibrated out with darks.

Those are small details but they are relevant to me. I wanted to try it out since it launched and now I don't feel like coming back... ZWO in my opinion needs to start catching up.

	Distinct awarded users	Total awarded images
Image of the day
Top picks
Top pick nominations

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Deep sky
Solar system
Extremely wide field
Star trails
Northern lights
Noctilucent clouds
Landscape
Artificial satellite

	Image of the day	Top pick	Top pick nominations	Total submitted
Backyard
Traveller
Own remote observatory
Amateur hosting facility
Public amaeteur data
Professional, scientific grade data
Mix of multiple sources
Other
Unknown

AstroBin

AstroBin

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

Takahashi's bad focusers Takahashi Epsilon-130D · Mauricio Christiano de Souza · ... · 34 · 1238 · 25

AstroBin

AstroBin

Image Index:

Contribution Index (beta):

Takahashi's bad focusers Takahashi Epsilon-130D · Mauricio Christiano de Souza · ... · 34 · 1238 · 25

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Sorry

Sorry

Sorry :-(

Sorry

Share this forum post

Post editing not available

Notifications

AstroBin is in READ ONLY mode

Sorry :-(

Sorry :-(

Sorry :-(

Are you really sure?

Warning!

Warning!

Are you sure?

Report abuse

Slideshow settings

IOTD/TP stats (last [x] days)

Distribution of astrophotographers

Distribution of subject types

Distribution of data sources