Stu1smartcookie

12 minutes ago, lawsio said:

Is still feel like I need a wide-field refractor in my setup, I'm just not really sure why! What sort of observing do you do with them? The apertures all seem very small so I guess nothing too difficult when it comes to DSOs? Are they similar to use as binoculars?

Thinking a StarTravel 102 at some point, spec seems legit and they're quite cute 🤔 😃

 

I get the "not sure why " bit ... but , once you put that little scope on a small mount and sit outside under a clear sky you will know why . You can lose yourself for a few hours in a sea of stars . 

I like this thread   

So , heres my little Starwave 70ED sitting on a lovely 112 Berlebach . 

12 hours ago, PatientObserver said:

I will start by saying that I do not currently have aperture fever. I also started this hobby this year (though I researched scopes for about a year before buying) and have limited experience, so my opinion may change over time.

That said, having used both my scopes for several observing sessions now, I am glad I ignored the advice of many to buy a dobsonian as my first scope, and bought the FOA-60Q instead. The FOA-60Q is a pleasure to use. So much so that I find myself using it over the AT102EDL the majority of the time. It is not that the AT102EDL is a bad scope; it is not. It is a great scope. The added aperture of the 102 mm produces a larger more detailed image. The build quality is good. The carry handle makes it easy to mount and unmount. The focuser is excellent (better than the focuser on my FOA-60Q). Yet when I am observing, I am drawn to the FOA-60Q. The image is smaller, but still full of detail. Does the Takahashi produce a better image? Not to my eye in my current seeing conditions. However, if I had to choose, I would take the Takahashi over the AT102EDL.

Note: Some of the draw might due to the Takahashi Turret. It is such a pleasure to switch eyepieces by simply rotating the turret. I originally had it on the AT102EDL, but it feels like it belongs on the FOA-60Q.

Honestly, the only reason I have not sold the AT102EDL is that I want a scope I can take camping that is more easily replaced should something happen in the wilderness. That and it really is a great scope for the money.

 

Thank you for your input here ... its a really useful insight . This is the "sort of" experience i was hoping to read about when posting the thread . 

Just to add my experience ... my Sony 1 iv worked fine but now i cant even use the camera with the app.. however my iphone has no problems and works . I think there may have been an android glitch caused by a security update . 

Hi Lorenzo , Welcome to the forum .. and congratulations for living in a lovely part of the world

It’s certainly an achievement.. no doubt but it’s questionable . Having said that , look at the USA … a mass of poverty with many living on the streets and the worst debt in the world . 

7 minutes ago, michael8554 said:

The Prime Minister's speech hinted at sharing information.

A great achievement, but I wonder at the message it sends to the poor masses.

Michael

Absolutely .

14 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

Small enough to put in a drawer.

However, the box it comes in is the size of an 8" Newt 😜

I presume thats to hold all the clouds that will be evenly distibuted throughout the land ! 

IF , i am to buy one it will be the 60mm , with the extender ... i really begrudge paying for the cradle , but ces-la-vie . 

Already making up excuses as to "why" i need it .. 

1 Research 

2 Easy to Store 

3 AstroBiscuits description of the "best small scope " 

Not sure if any of those will wash ... but at least its small enough to hide 😃

15 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

I'm a short drive from RVO. That's where I got my old blue tube 10" Newt from. Nothing wrong with them but these days I'd rather but from FLO.

The one thing i will say about FLO is that you can instantly see if something is in stock . With Rother Valley you constantly need to send enquiries which takes up their time to answer.... sometimes it takes a fair time for them to answer . Also i had a good "chat" with Chris at FLO the other day regarding a scope and i was really appreciative of his helpfulness . I can get that with Widescreen too though as i know Simon ansd Elena very well . 

27 minutes ago, johnturley said:

If I decide to get one, I would probably go to Rother Valley Optics who are nearby so that I could pick it up the scope in person, and avoid the risk of any damage or mis-collimation due to rough handling by the courier. I might also ask whether they would do a trade-in with my CPC 9.25 (which I purchased from them), although I suspect that any trade-in price would not be very good compared to what I could sell it for privately. 

I picked up my Esprit 150 direct from Es Reid after he had checked it over, so that I could be sure that this did not happen.

John 

Living only 5 miles from  Widescreen Centre i agree with you . Mind you when i was living in hertfordshire i started at 5;30 am , drove to Rother Valley and then returned to Ely cambs before 10am . The things we do for astro gear !

5 minutes ago, IB20 said:

It is a highly tuned and calibrated scientific instrument after all, not a toy as my wife likes to call it. 😒

thats put a dampner on it ... hmm the inevitable "unnecessary Toy" response . 

6 minutes ago, IB20 said:

I don’t even think Taks are that expensive. They will last a lifetime of observing if you’re into visual astronomy. They don’t become obsolete like a £2500 MacBook or depreciate like a brand new (any) car does.

That is very true , and something i will use when trying to explain to my wife when i want to buy one

( Saw your post after i had written mine , but i suspect it will be the holy grail in excuses and reasons to buy astro stuff)

9 minutes ago, The60mmKid said:

Yes, exactly. And, if you had to choose between your BMW and my Prius, would you be equally content with either? I wouldn't care because I don't care about cars. But I wouldn't be equally content with a Starwave (which I am not criticizing) and a Takahashi.

It's the psychological bit...

I will let you into a little secret,  BMW is overated  😃. Whereas i doubt the Taks are 

Just now, bosun21 said:

There’s also no point in buying a Ferrari if you then find you have no money left for petrol.

TBH i wouldnt want one anyway lol

11 minutes ago, The60mmKid said:

I think that most telescopes made today are excellent. And I think that many observers can discern a difference when using a premium telescope vs. an excellent non-premium telescope. What isn't acknowledged enough, on my opinion, is the psychological aspect of our decision making processes. What I am getting at is that, if you want a Takahashi, I question whether a Starwave will satisfy you... not because it lacks optical quality, but because it isn't a Takahashi.

I currently use two telescopes and own a few more, intending to gradually sell off the ones I don't use. The two that I use are optically phenomenal. There are other telescopes that may be quite similar and that would satisfy others to the level that my two satisfy me, but I don't care because these two do it for me. I don't have to keep buying and selling, which I'd be tempted to do if I had other telescopes.

I think it's more about me and my idiosyncrasies than the telescopes and their attributes, at the end of the day. It probably all boils down to, "Know thyself."

When i started this thread my intention was to gauge opinions on one scope in particular ( as i love small fracs) it wasnt intended to be a "what is better" post but it may have been interpreted as such . Maybe i gave that impression . Anyway , my question was answered in a lot of different ways , but i still haven't looked through a Tak . 

I love my Starwave ... its a fine scope . I can view the planets with it through my 3-8 Zoom Ep and the views are clear and sharp although of course small . But there is a reason why people gravitate to Takahashi . 

I've always been in the camp that believes , like you , that there is a great choice of fine scopes out there . And i doubt there is a massive difference between a lot of them . 

But , if i can use this analogy ... I drive a BMW , but i would love a go in a ferrari 

19 minutes ago, philj said:

I have had an fs60c for just over a year now and although I use it primarily for imaging, i do enjoy taking it out for a bit of visual. I have had many scopes over the years and this little scope has impressed me. It may be a 60mm but the views are crisp and clear. As a wide field visual scope its good but I have the extender which makes it a bit more versatile.

Lol stop it !! That looks a great little set up !  

18 minutes ago, John said:

I have a Starwave 70.  I've been very impressed by what it can do. Taks show you everything that the given aperture can show and their images are very, very refined. They are still subject to the constraints that aperture brings though in terms of light grasp and resolution. 

I bought a Tak 100mm F/9 a few years back, probably for reasons similar to those you might have - curiosity being the main one. It has turned out to be exactly what I hoped and expected - a truly superb 100mm refractor for visual use (which is what I do). No more, no less 🙂

My Skywatcher ED120 goes fainter, splits tighter double stars and shows a little more planetary and lunar detail than my Tak 100, but then it should with 20mm additional aperture to play with.

My whole Starwave 70 outfit (scope, finder, diagonal, fitted case) cost as much as the focuser upgrade that I put on my Tak, which is sometimes a sobering thought !

Hi John , I think you nailed it ..even if it’s something I didn’t particularly want to read  lol . I think the last paragraph summed it up . The 70mm starwave is , a great little scope and just as important… for £379 including the visual pack makes it a third of the price of the 60mm Tak ( including the tube clamp and finder) . I feel like a drunk who’s finally sobered up lol . Yes I still want to buy a Tak … but , not at the expense of my 70mm starwave !  Itch scratched for now … hmmmm but what about a larger Tak … er , nope … not now ! 
Thank you everyone that posted . If I go back to the first reply @JeremyS had it right . And @Johnconfirmed it . 
I still want one … I WILL GET ONE . But the basket is empty at FLO . Yes , even after your post @Nicola Fletcher  

6 minutes ago, YogSothoth said:

I have a Stellamira 80mm F10 and can confirm that it is a great scope. Well engineered and nice optics (FPL-53 and Lanthanum), which show no CA as far as I can see. I use mine mainly for solar white light. It’s not a small scope though at a FL of 800mm and is longer and heavier than my Tak FC100 D. It does only take 5 mins to set up in my back garden though.

Thanks for the reply , I think that scope looks soooo nice . But , more importantly the reviews suggest it's a fine scope . I went a little off track when I mentioned it , but it's on my list for sure 

Stu 

39 minutes ago, The60mmKid said:

I have this friend, and we keep buying and selling astronomy items between us. I think we've owned the selfsame pair of 8x42 binoculars three times each. Apparently, there's a name for such behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux

I think its more common ... especially in our Hobby 

15 minutes ago, bosun21 said:

You are not alone with your way of thinking. I to have been looking at the small Tak scopes to be a part of a quick G&G set up. As you say the set up, bring it back in fiascos are starting to wear thin with me as well. I am contemplating either a TOA 60Q or a 76mm version for this purpose.

And our purchases have mirrored each other on more than one occasion mate 

1 minute ago, The60mmKid said:

I'm curious whether you're more interested in an optically outstanding, smaller telescope (which is how I am interpreting your original post) or a larger scope that shows you more (which some of the replies seem to suggest). To my mind, they aren't the same. If you're after the former, I think an FS-60Q or (better) FC-60 or (best) FOA-60/FOA-60Q would fit the bill. If you're after a larger scope that would show you more, then I think the previous replies are pointing in good directions.

I've owned a couple 100mm Taks but now mainly use my FOA-60Q... not because it shows more, but because I like it more. I see them as different tools.

I agree with you 100% ... my main question was whether the Tak would be optically superior to my existing 70mm Starwave , which Jeremy answered . I am curious enough to want to buy one of those scopes . Having said that i could , for the same money buy a longer FL frac ( which is where i went a bit off track lol) . With our weather and our "set it up bring it in ",all  within 20 minutes i seem to be leaning towards smaller gear (AGAIN) . 

7 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

It works fine with 1.25". I haven't tried it with a 2" yet apart from the 2" 45° erecting prism. That was a disappointment. I had to return one prism because I couldn't get any eyepiece to focus with it; the only one I can get working is this nasty (suffers from CA at moderate powers) Antares. That allows the 1.25" nosepiece to slide down into the internal collar allowing the LVWs to be used in 2" mode. 

Thanks for the answer . Michael

3 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

The Starfield 102 looks like great value for money and I read that it was very close in performance to a 4” Takahashi.

Would that be too big for you @Stu1smartcookie ?

These days i am looking to " lighten " the load but its a nice scope .

7 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

The one I have is remarkably sharp for such a small aperture.

Of course the key word here is 'small'. That's the main attraction, quality optics in a package that will go anywhere. Seen here in 'birding' mode.

The 45° erecting prism here is naff, but the only one that works (with an LVW stuffed down inside it); the focuser is very limited in range of movement. The 1.25" Tak prism works perfectly for astro though.

It looks so good , is that a gear head its sitting on?  Is there problems achieving focus with some diagonals /EPs ?