Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Askar 80PHQ Full Review and Sample Images - Thoughts after 3 months
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2022
- Hi Everyone,
In this video I give you my thoughts on the Askar 80PHQ telescope that I have been using for the past three months. I share the images that I have been able to capture with this scope, my thoughts on the build quality, stars (edge to edge) and my thoughts on the pro and cons of this telescope.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Image details:
Image 1: Tulip Nebula
Equipment:
* Askar PHQ80
* ZWO Asi 2600mm pro
* Antlia 3nm SHO filters
* Ioptron CEM60
* Asiair pro
* WO 50mm guide scope
* 290mm guide camera
* ZWO EAF
Data:
* HA:13 x 600s subs
* Sii: 14 x600s subs
* Oiii: 15 x 600s subs
* Total: 7 hours
Image 2: Pillars of creation
Equipment:
* Askar PHQ80
* ZWO Asi 2600mm pro
* Antlia 3nm SHO filters
* Ioptron CEM60
* Asiair pro
* f4 mini guide scope
* 290mm guide camera
* ZWO EAF
Data:
* HA:17 x 420s subs
* Sii: 16 x420s subs
* Oiii: 20 x 420s subs
* Total: 7 hours
Image 3: Cygnus Wall
Equipment:
* Askar PHQ80
* ZWO Asi 2600mm pro
* Antlia 3nm SHO filters
* Ioptron CEM60
* Asiair pro
* f4 mini guide scope
* 290mm guide camera
* ZWO EAF
Data:
* HA:16 x 600s subs
* Sii: 10 x600s subs
* Oiii: 12 x 600s subs
Image 4: Elephants trunk (with reducer)
Equipment:
* Askar PHQ80 with 0.76 reducer
* ZWO Asi 2600mm pro
* Antlia 3nm SHO filters
* Ioptron CEM60
* Asiair pro
* WO 50mm guide scope
* 290mm guide camera
* ZWO EAF
Data:
* Ha 21 x 600s
* Oiii 16 x 600s
* Sii 19 x 600s
Did you know I also have a wedding photography business? If you're looking for a wedding photographer in the UK, please check out my website: www.russelldis...
If you need a synta style mounting plate for a guide scope, Askar makes one. It's called the 150mm multi connection finder plate, and the screw holes are 130mm center to center, which fits perfectly on the telescope rings. It's red, so your colors won't match, but most people have red ZWO stuff attached anyway.
I relocated the carry handle to the side and put the Askar mounting plate on top, and everything works great!
Thanks very much Chris. Yes, I have seen these and if I do keep the scope I will definitely pick one up...shame they don't make a green one, but yes, it will match my ZWO gear. Thanks very much for watching.
Thanks to you and Nebula photos I have this scope on the way. Can't wait to get out and try using it. Awesome review!
Thanks Eric, glad you found it useful. I hope you get to use your new scope soon. Any questions let me know, however, it should be nice and easy to get up and running 👍
Some great reviews done by you on this scope, so glad you enjoyed using it… 👍🏻
Thanks Olly, it’s a great scope
Excellent review Russell. The round stars in the corners is very important to me so that's a winner right there. Images you captured with it are all excellent. As for my fav..... I'd have to go with the Tulip (but they are all great).
Thanks very much Logan. It certainly is a great scope. The Tulip is my fav as well. Thanks for watching
Great review Russell.. love the images at the end. CS!
Thank you very much James 👍
Great review, Russell. Thanks so much for being so thorough. You captured some beautiful images using the 80PHQ! I just received my 107PHQ (comes with a case!) and hope I have as good an experience with it as you had with the 80PHQ.
Thank you very much, so glad you enjoyed the review. Everything I've heard about the PHQ has been very positive and that 107PHQ looks amazing. I hope you enjoy it and get some clear skies soon. Thanks for watching 👍
Great Review Russell....The Images are amazing...Definitely, a Great Scope.
Thank you very much
Thanks for the great review. Seems like a great scope. Fantastic final images !!!
I think it would have been helpful if you had at least an image of the scope and camera with the reducer installed so we know how much back focus and rings are needed.
Thanks again, clear skies.
Thank you, when I zoom in on the focused on this video you can see the backspacing needed with the reducer…the reducer was actually installed when I took that image.
I also did a video about installing reducer, I think it was my last video 👍
Great review Russell. It's clearly got excellent image quality especially matched with a mono camera. Given its f7.5 natively I'm guessing the extra sensitivity of a mono camera would help with that ? Excellent images .....tulip nebula looked outstanding.
Thank you Paul, yes it is a fantastic scope. I think the 2600 really helps with the slower f ratio of some. The 2600mm is such a fantastic camera and very sensitive.
Great review! you would have sold me on one but I recently purchased a Williams Optics GT 81. The images are excellent!
Thanks William, glad you liked the images. I’ve heard good things at out the WO GT81, hope you’re enjoying it 👍
Russell great review as always ! great scope !
Thanks Stephen, it is a great scope.
Great review and photos! Thanks
One thing. The esprit 100 does come with the field flattener included
Thank you very much. Glad you enjoyed the video.
Oh really that’s cool, glad you got it included. Are you in the UK? I think it’s an extra £199 in the UK.
www.firstlightoptics.com/esprit-professional-refractors/skywatcher_flattener_esprit_100_20188.html
2:23 😍
He’s great 😍
Fantastic images!!
Thank you
Hi Russell,
Wow, great scope, to say the least. I do have one question ... with all that great glass, is the scope top heavy, and did you have any issues balancing it? The clarity of the images is phenomenal. Of those 4 narrowband images, presented at the end, I was impressed with them all but the one of the Tulip nebula really shows that bowshock from the Cygnus X-1 Black Hole on the lower right. I'm impressed.
Sorry for the slow response, been hectic here recently. I've not found it too front heavy no, probably because I have the big 2600mm and the larger filter wheel on the back. It's been pretty easy to balance. Thank you, the Tulip is definitely my favourite as well.
Very nice review, TY. Read below if you wish. Russell, never mind my request. I found the problem's root cause: the screws are different lengths from the Factory!!! The manual does NOT talk about using the alternative guide scope mounting. So, NO warnings about being careful when switching locations! One could easily mix them up without knowing it if NOT careful. And that's what I did. Never entered my mind that the 2 sets of screws were different; especially being just inches apart. And that, they were engineered that way with NO warnings.
I was a product engineer for many years GMC; and, would have never done that to consumers.
So, just use this as a warning and beware. Sorry, for the diatribe. I hope Askar reads this and helps the next consumer with better DO-Care.
Chuck
I just received mine and had an issue and wondered if you could replicate it? I switched the guide scope bracket to the other side using the screws available with the scope. I thought that would balance the EAF motor and the ASI Air; which I also use. I did this before trying out the scope. When I tried to obtain initial focus; I found that the focus tube would not move enough using the EAF. +_ 1mm maybe. Of course I thought I had made an assembly error with the EAF. Back inside, I disassembled the EAF; and, the focus draw tube still wouldn't move. I applied more manual force using the knobs and it move a little further. Stop and thought a bit and realized I had changed the guide scope bracket. I first loosened the 2 screws that were in the original location and the draw tube moved properly. Extending the tube, I saw gouges from the 2 screws in the draw tube surface. Short ending version. I reassembled, remounted and achieve focus as expected and imaged for 2 hours.
Sorry, for the length of story. I know it's an inconvenience; but can you see if you can replicate my experience???
Thanks. I'm worried about other users having the same issue. My supplier, said I must have changed to longer screws. NO, why would I.
Oh wow, that seems very strange. I'm not sure why they would include different size screws!! I'm glad you managed to solve the issue and you have the scope up and running.
Did the screws case any permanent damage or anything that could impact performance of the scope? Do you mind if pin your comment at the top of this video so other can avoid making this mistake? Seems like it could happen to a few people.
@@RussellsAstrophotography The lengths need to be different so they don't bottom on the draw tube. One length for the bracket side and one length without..Apparently, the use thru holes in the design.
Common knowledge per my supplier.
Hi Russell, excellent review mate! I’m sure many people will consider purchasing this scope now after your review! I also like the petzval design like my Redcat 51. Intriguing Astrophotography news about your garden! I suspect possibly an observatory!!! If so mate check out my last two observatory build vids, in case you didn’t know, I’m building an observatory😀! You might pick up a few tips🤣🤣 Cheers Russell and clear skies!
Cheers Simon, I will check out your videos. I have seen a few. I was planning to build a roll of roof observatory, but I went a different route in the end...should have a video coming out today, so keep your eyes peeled 👍
@@RussellsAstrophotography Excellent mate! I’ll look out for that👍😀
Hi Russell. Thanks for the full review. A question, and a thought or two...
(a) If I recall correctly, one must adjust the back-focus of a reducer/flattener when filters are in the imaging train....and the type of filter does not matter....so LRGB, Narrowband, Light Pollution & Duo-band/Multi-band filters all apply. I think the 'rule of thumb' is add 1/3 the thickness of the filter, so that represents 1/3 of about 3mm (typically), or about 1mm of additional back-focus. So, am I correct in saying that the best back-focus for anyone who uses any type of filter would be 56mm, not 55mm?
(b) I'm going to show my age by getting a bit crusty regarding telescope quality. IMHO, having sharp stars to the edge of an APS-C sensor (with or without flattener/reducer) SHOULD be the norm, rather than something imagers have to celebrate....especially with f/7.5 optics! In fact, at that focal ratio, having visible aberrations with stars in the corners of a truly full-frame sensor (36mmx24mm) should be considered unacceptable. IMHO, none of us should normalize sub-par optics (design, materials, coatings, collimation, etc.) by tolerating dodgy star images anywhere in the field of common sensors (up to 36mmx24mm). [note..I am NOT accusing you of this!]. Yes, it's more of a challenge to design & manufacture optics of that calibre, especially given the unforgiving nature of small pixels in the latest 16bit sensors, but it has been done for years & there's no excuse for manufacturers of today's astrographs & astrophotography-friendly telescopes to (a) not publish theoretical star sizes for their optics, and (b) not deliver the goods with their products as advertized.
Ok..'rant' over! lol
Hi Derek, thanks for watching and for the comment. Yes, I think technically, you do need to take into account filters when sorting back focus. I'm wasn't sure about how you calculate the additional distance needed though. Thanks for the tips about the 1/3 thickness of the filters, I will keep that in mind. I actually had 56mm spacers when I used the reducer as this was as close as I could get to the advertised 55mm, so I guess I accidentally got that spot on...nice when it works that way.
Regarding the stars, I agree, it should be normal for telescopes, especially expensive triplets, to produce sharp stars edge to edge. I know a lot of scope do this, but most of them seem to be very expensive, especially when you consider the additional need to buy field flatteners etc.
Thank you Russell ! 🙂So, now that you're done with the 80PHQ, do you think you could persuade Askar/Sharpstar to send you their new 130PHQ & reducer/flattener?🤔lol. 😀And, since ZWO has been getting so much press lately, perhaps QHY would be willing to send you their 600 mono full-frame camera too? 🙏
@@derekbaker3279 haha I did think about sending Sharpstar a message asking if they fancied sending me their 130phq…that thing looks like a beast 😂
I definitely don’t think ZWO will send me anything after the 2600 leaks videos I posted, so might have to contact QHY 😂
You are building an obsy aren’t you….. waaaaa jealousy over here. Great review Russell!
shush that's for the next video 😉 great guess Simon 👍
Question to achieve 56mm back focus and I do have the reducer. Looking at your setup how are you coming up with 56mm. Looks like you are using the the three adapters that come with the scope (20mm) - an adapter can't see the size the (2mm) M54-M48-2 then the (20mm) wheel and (6.5mm) camera. Very Nice video and I do like this scope. Any help would be appreciated.
Great review Russ, one question, what would it be like with an OSC camera regarding CA with the reducer and without?
Thank you Nik. I would imagine that this would be a fantastic scope for OSC cameras. The images should be very well controlled for CA, vignetting and you should get wonderful stars. Having said that, I haven't actually tested this. Sorry I can't be more help.
Thanks for doing this review. I just bought the ZWO FF80 (similar scope) and noticed that when I push up slightly on the camera, the focuser slightly wobbles. Do you (or anyone else) recall if you noticed anything similar with the PHQ? Thanks:)
Does it come with a visual back? There appears to be one in some of the photos. Have you or anyone used it visually? Cheers - John.
Hi Russell... thank you for this review... but i´m not clear if this scope at F=7.5 is a little bit slow.... and i realize that your images are all of 10 minutes....can you share an image or an impression of 2, 3 or 5 mins... how they would look....... regards
Hi Russel, great info and images. Thanks for posting. I’m imaging with a Canon 5D IV. Will the filter wheel you have work with my DSLR? If not, what additional parts would I need? Thx.
Thank you very much Jibran really appreciate it. I'm not sure of any filter wheels that will fit with a DSLR unfortunately. I might be wrong but I don't think it will work. Thankfully, this scope (and most others) has threads where you can attach a filter, so you will be able to use filters with this scope and your 5D. I hope this helps?
@@RussellsAstrophotography Yes helpful, thanks. I had a call with OPT and they confirmed the same thing about the 2" (I think) threads for filters. Clear skies.
Seems like a good match for the 3.76um pixels on the 2600. Do you think the reducer's faster f ratio, and increased resolution/pixel (and weight) is worth the extra $$ in the long run? Did you find yourself imaging more without it?
I've been very impressed with the reducer yes. Unfortunately I've not used it as much as I would have liked, but the image I did capture with it was fantastic. The pixel size is an excellent match for the scope with or without the reducer. Thanks for watching
Is the Askar 130PHQ good for photographing the planets too? Which is better for photographing then planets, the 130PHQ or the FRA400?
Hi Derek, the 130phq would definitely be better for planets as it has the longer focal length of 1000mm. If you are specifically after a planetary scope though, neither of those choices would be ideal. The 130phq has a FL of 1000mm (the 80PHQ which tested only 600mm), Askar FRA400 is only 400mm. If you’re after a scope just for planetary then something like a SCT or a Maksutov telescope with a longer FL would be great!
I hope this helps
So I have your old ZS73 set up, would you recommend my upgrade route to be the FRA series or PHQ ? 🤔
Hi Chris, this is a tricky one, both are great telescopes. I think I would probably just lean towards the PHQ, I've really loved using it the past few months and the stars that it produces are amazing. I was also really pleased with the results when using the 0.76x reducer. The only downside really is the slower f7.5. If you're happy with a f7.5 scope, then I would go for the PHQ. I hope this helps?
Hi, have you tested this telescope with a full frame sensor? For example with the Zwo 6200? Thanks Herbert
Unfortunately I've not no, sorry Herbert.
Are you running this with the EAF and 7x2" filter wheel? My EAF is struggling with this combo, but I think there may be mechanical binding in the focuser itself
Hi Chris, yes I use the EAf and the 7x2 inch filter wheel. I don’t have any issues at all. Works perfectly. What issues are you having?
@@RussellsAstrophotography The draw tube has some stiction at very specific points, and only in one direction. The extra weight of the 7x EFW makes it worst, and the EAF struggles to move the entire assembly at times. After checking it out, I suspect the mechanism that connects the coarse and fine adjustment knobs is not working properly. The rack itself is free of mechanical defect.
Has anyone tried this scope for lunar, planetary or solar imaging? With and without a Barlow? Curious?
I’ve not used it for Lunar, and I’ve never done any solar imaging sorry. I’m not sure the FL would be long enough for planetary imaging though. You’ll probably be better off with a longer focal length scope. Thanks for watching 👍
I know this is basically an astrograph but can it be used for visual?
It can be used as a visual scope yes. I have no experience with visual astronomy, so can’t really comment on how good it would be. If you’re just planning on using it for visual, then I’m sure there are better options available, but if you want to do photography as well, this might be a good choice. Sorry I can’t be more help. Thanks for watching
@@RussellsAstrophotography the focal length is what caught my eye. There are not many 80mm scopes made for visual and really none that are triplets which is what I am looking for. A petzval is fine especially for that price. A doublet is only a 3 or 4 hundred less. Thanks your your input!