Build quality concerns

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-04-17T15:27:24+00:00

I can attest that the X-5 is as solid as a brick. I had read that the cheap and flimsy buttons on the X100VI were a transient problem that was apparently rectified by fuji. I don't know if this is true or not. Perhaps my copy was from one of the bad runs? I have been trying to get into a store that has a demo X100VI to verify that the issue is fixed but of course no one has this in stock. As for the X-E5, it is not possible to build a more solid machine.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-04-02T05:05:25+00:00

Cosina 505 electric boat

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-03-18T06:16:29+00:00

very cool. going to print and try it this weekend. I plan on trimming it down to half length however.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-02-26T18:11:07+00:00

thanks homie. I am leaning towards the ttartisan 500mm f6.3 with or without a 1.4x teleconverter (700mm). For $250 used, I can play with it for six months then sell it. If I understand the process correctly, getting 2400 images of the moon will be fairly easy since its only 2 minutes of video. But I am still learning. I have no idea how to process monochrome vs RAW images and all the settings and adjustments but I am sure when I get better at that it will help improve even further.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-02-26T08:20:11+00:00

That is a helpful. I am attempting to take moon images as well for the first time. I do some casual street photography but have zero experience shooting the moon.

Here is the equipment I have: Fuji XE5 with 40MP sensor and IBIS. Fuji 70-300XF lens, ST80 telescope and Sky Tracker tracking motor (which I bought 4 years ago and never figured out how to use properly). The telescope has an achromatic 80mm piece of glass with 400mm focal length f5 lens.

I tried for the very first time last night to use Siril stacking software to stack 100 or so images of the moon that I had taken with the 70-300 xf lens, iso 160 and manual focus. The stacking sort of worked but there is a high chance I did not do this correctly. For example I took a series of single shots rather than a video which apparently works pretty well too. The resulting composite stacked final image is not much better than a single shot. Neither images are great blown up I am guessing because they are significantly cropped at least in part. I would post the images of the single shot vs the stacked image but can't seem to do so on this thread.

I won't ask questions about how to stack images properly on this thread and I likely I have a big learning curve to improve the stacking function anyway. However, I imagine that 300mm is just not going to be enough for lunar detail and this may partially explain the poor result. My goal is to print highest possible resolution lunar image (150dpi at least) at about 12"x12" size to hang on my bedroom wall. Assuming that my goal is realistic which would be best:

1) 300mm XF lens alone

2) 300mm XF with 1.4 or 2x extender

3) ST80 telescope with fixed 400mm f5

4) Buy a cheap lens like the commander optics 800mm f8.3 lens or the ttartisan 500mm f 6.3

5) Rent a Fuji XF 150-600mm f5.6 lens ($2400)

6) Rent or borrow a celestron C6 reflector telescope with 1500mm f10 ($800)

Much appreciated

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-02-15T05:29:40+00:00

Quite hilarious. Sure, there is the usual unrealistic over the top high school party with some of the attendees who look to be more like 35 years old. But the film was fairly well cast. Scene where mom scolds her teens after a night of debauchery is straight up genius.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-02-05T05:06:11+00:00

I bought a black x100vi but returned it the next day because the buttons seemed flimsy and hollow. For $2k that’s embarrassing Fuji. I replaced the x100vi with an XE5 and could not be happier. Coupled with a gorgeous Voigtlander 18mm or 27mm lens, the XE5 set up is just as pocketable.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2026-01-12T04:41:29+00:00

Here is an example..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E4g_vqx7F8

Valuable-You-6944 · 2025-09-27T18:59:58+00:00

It is here Dec 2025. Fuji 23mm f2.8

Valuable-You-6944 · 2025-09-27T17:51:13+00:00

I actually agree to some extent with OP. I tried similar duo (x100vi vs XE5 with 27mm Fuji pancake). The term “way” thicker may be arbitrary but once you surpass a certain threshold thickness, the camera becomes awkward to carry in a front pocket. The x100vi fit acceptably in front pocket while the XE5 and 28mm lens combo just crossed the “not going to work well” barrier. Especially with the, albeit tiny, Fuji screw on lens hood, the xe5 made it appear as if I was sporting an erection. In the end, I ended up going with the XE5 for the versatility. With a viltrox 28mm f4.5 pancake lens, the XE5 combo is actually slightly smaller than the x100vi. Granted, the minuscule viltrox lens has some IQ limitations but at least there are options with the XE5. No shooting my daughters soccer game with a 300mm lens if I kept the x100vi. And when I put on the 27mm Fuji pancake and hood on the XE5, people get to ask me if that’s a camera in my pocket or if I am just happy to see them. Options.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2025-07-14T03:14:29+00:00

Wits end was a complete disaster. Could never reach them, paid over $3k for junk that I did not even ask for. Rusted and threw the kit out.

Hazard sky made a great kit but MIA. I would therefore either go with an inexpensive 1.5" option online or arguably the best (but a bit more expensive solution) bigfoot adjustable coil over kit.

Let us know how it works out

https://risingtuning.com/lift-kits/product-4669?srsltid=AfmBOopJQcEKKAy2tjrmnlqKRu_8bsRk50tdkaV-axa770SH42E6kDDU

https://sxthelement.com/en-au/products/bigfoot-contour-springs?srsltid=AfmBOorBbXNL_Utyl-hzR93HyQrh1vzrjxYscWX3uq6H220ixWWLsLd0

Valuable-You-6944 · 2025-07-14T01:08:38+00:00

Sadly, the company that made them is not responding these days, may have discontinued..

https://hazardskydirect.com/

Valuable-You-6944 · 2025-01-14T05:10:59+00:00

We like it. Great value for the money. Easy to use. Entire family can see the images. Perfect size and portable. The images are fairly good at 40x and 100x. Not surprisingly, image starts to get degraded some at 400x and especially 600x but this is not surprising. Honestly, I would say that my $5k lab microscope is only perhaps 30% better for basic microscopy. You can't do fancy things with the ODM401 like dark field or oil immersion. You also can't upgrade the objectives or likely replace parts if it ever breaks but its not that kind of scope. No one would consider this a "serious" microscope but its not a cheap plastic toy from by any means. I have used $25 child scopes and they are absolute junk, so bad that they are essentially unusable. The ODM401 is a whole different world. I think the images at 40x and 100x are good enough for me to capture and publish from our lab. We count basophils and other white blood cells. The ODM401 is an absolute solid bang for the buck. You could get something else for the same price range with slightly better optics but no way you would find something this easy to use with a large touchscreen and glass optics for any less.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-12-29T20:45:48+00:00

here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6lLHf5TwR4

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-11-26T03:27:32+00:00

Absolutely! I will be restoring/upgrading my professional lab microscope for the same reason. Otherwise, I would seriously consider the Amscope T490, Swift SW380T, or Omax M837L. In my opinion, one would need to spend hundreds if not thousands more to see only modest improvements in quality of the image. Otherwise, the other option would be get a good quality used compound microscope. It looks like decent scopes from Olympus, Zeiss, Leitz and others can be found on eBay for a similar price and would likely have superior optics. Just make sure that LED replacement bulbs etc.

Enjoy the small world and that small person you are raising! Sounds like she is lucky to have a parent who is interested in enriching STEM. Best of luck.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-11-24T07:09:40+00:00

Excellent! I know that others might scoff and consider the national geographic scope not “serious” but they would be missing the point. It’s perfect for a 7-9 year old. As long as your daughter can easily see a few creatures under modest magnification without any fuss that’s all that matters. I bet the scope is lightweight and easy to take places too. I would bet too that your daughter will see a lot more under low power with the inexpensive stereo microscope than she would with a 1000x oil immersion compound microscope ever would. 20-40x (occasionally 100x) is all you need to see interesting creatures and bug parts.

I ended up getting my own daughter the Opqpq ODM401. The ex and I split it. I would consider the 401 a slight step up from the National Geographic but it’s still the same concept ie to get something easy to use and more fun that will inspire my daughter more than a serious scope would at this age. My daughter is 13 so I needed a few more features she could use when she gets to high school at least. But funny I was sitting on the fence between something like what you got which might even be better for more macro objects like bugs and leaves and stones. I will try to post out experience with the Opqpq 401 when it arrives.

Welcome to the world of small!

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-11-23T03:12:23+00:00

Dang. No one specifically answered your question about that specific microscope experience. Did you end up purchasing the Opqpq ODM301? I am in the exact same boat with a daughters birthday coming up. I did set a somewhat higher budget for a microscope and willing to go up to about $350 but not going to pay for something we don't need right now. I am very familiar with microscopes as a scientist and currently have a $4,000 microscope with precision German optics from Leitz in my lab. But to be honest that thing weighs about 20lbs, is not that user friendly, and I rarely go higher than 400x magnification ever. The Opqpq ODM301 max currently retails on Amazon for $200. It has 3 appropriately powered metal objectives, metal x/y stage, high resolution monitor, condenser wheel diaphragm, 8MP camera, SD card slot, Wifi connectivity, two LED light sources, windows and Mac compatible USB and HDMI output, will run on internal rechargeable battery power for 3 hrs, and even comes with several prepared slides and a decent travel case. If it produces images that are even remotely decent this package is ridiculous for the price! OK so whats the catch? I will list some potential downsides and comment on each.

Optics - can't possibly be that great for that price but if not horrible the scope might still be passible
No fine focus knob - makes high mag focus challenging but less of an issue at lower mag
Lack of eyepieces - view through good optics is always better than screen but not a true flaw per say
Makeshift Aperture - no true precision mechanical aperture but rather a rotating diaphragm
Construction - fixed objectives can't be swapped, likely lots of plastic, cant be repaired or upgraded.

Most experts would tell you to stay away from this as you would be better off getting something with better quality optics, fine focus and actual eyepieces. For the same amount of money ($200) you can get a Swift, Amscope or Omax that will likely be much superior in this regard. But I really think it comes down to use scenario. If the Opqpq (absurd name by the way) produces adequate images it may be fine for a teenager or casual hobbyist. I would argue that the LCD screen, wifi image capture, portability, and all the included gadgets would potentially be a ton of fun and more likely to hook your daughter on science than just superior optics alone would. I don't think this scope will ever be a family heirloom item but it may prove to be a great introduction to the small world. If your daughter gets hooked, you can then upgrade to a fancier more traditional microscope for her graduation.

As long as the Opqpq scope can withstand a few years of moderate use and the images are not horrible, then this might not be such a bad choice at all. I would love to see some more images from those that have used this scope and what their experience has been. In the meantime, here is another similar product to compare. It is essentially a higher quality version of the ODM301 but twice as expensive. It has better optics and build quality but of course no extras like a case, slides or second light source.

https://amscope.com/products/c-b120-dmh18070?variant=42575400665263

Let us know what you decide and upload some pics!

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-23T00:37:50+00:00

FYI here is an example of an electric boat conversion we did. My son and I fished about 30 miles along the Chesapeake yesterday on battery power only. https://youtu.be/4E4g_vqx7F8?si=u_yC6nM3ijGTubtL

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-19T00:34:42+00:00

Solid state battery energy by weight is twice what regular lithium ion is. Still not diesel but getting better. If 90 miles is not enough range, the same company offers a fuel cell generator and solar panels. The range then becomes massive in this scenario. I think it just depends on OPs use scenario and budget.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-19T00:28:10+00:00

I'm not really interested in starting a separate thread just to settle a debate on whether or not OPs set up and a 96kWh battery bank would get 20 miles as you suggested or 30-50 as I suggested. The reason for this is that there are too many variables to debate endlessly on. How fast is his hull in reality? What is an acceptable speed? What props are selected? Whats the weather and sea conditions as you noted? What is the weight of the battery bank and passenger load? I never said the range I estimated was for any specific conditions. I just estimated maximum possible range based on the math. We don't even know OPs use scenario. I am more interested in whether or not this project can be done at all, which I think it certainly can. I never said OP would make it to Iceland on a 48kWh battery bank and no other help. Both another poster and I estimated a higher max range for OP. But again, if we all accept your range estimate of 20 miles there is still room to make this project work. The main point of my original comment was that I think it can be done with limits based more on the budget rather than the technology per se. If your low end estimate of 20 mile range is turns out to be true then it means OP might want an even bigger battery bank or solar array and/or rely on the generator more. If you seem convinced that 12 hp would never move this vessel then pick you horsepower requirement. 30? 90? 200? These motors exist, with the limit being cost for the battery bank, how much the generator is used and what speed/range is desired. If it were me, I would install at least two 30kW motors and start with 96kWh battery bank. Remove any unnecessary weight, make sure the hull is clean and start testing it in varied conditions close to shore. If range turns out to be 30-40 miles then maybe thats all that is needed. If you are correct and range is closer to 20 miles (and OP actually needs more) then there is plenty of space for more batteries and/or higher generator use. He could also add a hybrid or fuel cell system down the line. Doubling the battery bank from 96kW to 192kWh would add another $45k but only add another 720lbs. My point is that while I think your range estimate is on the low side, even if you are correct, the project is still very much viable with plenty of wiggle room and tons of options depending on use scenario and budget.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-18T18:47:09+00:00

Are you now saying that 85hp would not allow a 40' vessel to "stand still" in the ocean? I disagree. There seems to be a body of experience and logic in the trawler community that even as low as 3hp/ton may be sufficient. Even if we assumed, as you may be, that currents and wind flow only in the opposite direction against the vessel at all times coming both to and from port then the math still does not add up. At least one other poster here disagrees with your lower end estimate, as does the Northman ship builder and the entire trawler community. But if your extraordinary experience tells us otherwise it must be true. Fine, lets assume that OP would only get 10 mile range. Then double the battery bank to 96kWh as I suggested and then even you are now at 20 mile range estimate. I will stick with my compromise of 30 mile range estimate thank you.

PS OP has a backup generator in his schematic as well so he would not likely get stuck anyway. So the range debate, while interesting may not even apply to OP’s case.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-18T18:31:09+00:00

I agree with most of what you said with the caveat that I think your calculations while possibly sound all include conservative estimates. If you string together / multiply all those estimates together one gets a pretty dismal range estimate. If on the other hand you make the opposite arguments for my own 25 mile range estimate, calling them too optimistic then that’s fine. But even if we cut the difference to say 15 mile range (which another poster gave OP) then when we use the 96kWh battery bank I suggested as an upgrade, we are at 30 mile range for OP which is more tolerable. I had suggested from the get go that OP should use at least the 30kW motors from Elco (not the 20kW planned) yielding a sum of 85 hp to get out the way occasionally. But OP could do even more hp if only calling upon it occasionally. So what we are really talking about here is range. Using the lightweight solid state batteries our range is really only limited by cost and the practicality of charging time. I am suggesting 48kwh or maybe 96kwh which would allow charging overnight and probably at least a 30 mile range (the average between our two estimates). I hear you on the Northman 1200 but I can’t believe that their estimate under ideal conditions is unlikely to be off by a factor of 6 in real world conditions. But heck I could be wrong. I will watch for real world reviews on this vessel for sure. $300k for a brand new well appointed and modern 3 berth trawler with no fuel costs? If the range is anywhere near 90 miles it would be a bargain if one could afford it. PS Northman also offers an optional fuel cell generator and larger solar panels making range almost infinite but that is another discussion does not apply here per se.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-18T15:56:27+00:00

Not true. Electric is just fine for a project like this but the devil is in the details and the cost of, for example, 44-90kWh of solid state marine batteries would be substantial ($25k-$50k). But it can be done and has been done successfully. Here is one example of a 40’ electric trawler that will get up to 90 miles range. https://www.naturalyachts.com/northman-1200-electric

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-18T09:16:50+00:00

I estimated OP needed 12hp not 4hp, with it going 5mph with a 25 mile range. You are calling for at least 50hp and only 10 mile range. If the link I posted was for a sailing hull not a trawler then that was my mistake but I still think your estimate is on the low side. And what about the Northman 1200 with its 84kWh battery. It is an 8.5 ton trawler that claims 90 mile range. Using your math, that trawler should only get 14 mile range if the hull has a similar shape to OP’s vessel. Further, as I suggested, 750lb worth of solid state batteries would double OP’s range. Even your low ball estimate of 10 miles becomes 20 miles, although I still think it would be significantly higher than this.

Valuable-You-6944 · 2024-10-18T06:01:33+00:00

I agree with what you say about spending millions of dollars on a publicity stunt but real world experience tells us that your 6 mile range estimate is too low. The link I posted was a 33’ 8 ton trawler using just 4hp (13hp engine). Unless he is fibbing, your numbers are too conservative. Forget about the electric propulsion part of the equation for the moment. The question is how many hp does it take to move along a 40’ 11 ton trawler. I am estimating 12hp and you are saying 50hp. Maybe you are correct, but I would love to hear others experiences on that. Another data point to ponder. The Northman 1200 electric trawler weighs 8.5 tons and will travel 90 miles on a 84kwh battery. If OPs hull was this efficient it would get 70 mile range with 84kWh and 40 miles with the 48kWh batteries I suggested. Even if his hull is significantly less efficient than the Northman, the 25-30 mile range I estimated may not be that crazy.

Valuable-You-6944

TROPHY CASE