883

Great telescope, what a marvel!

So beautiful!

Wonderful telescope, wonderful craftsmanship. I have never heard of Richard Day since a long time. Hope he is still in the business.

As usual, I respect every opinion, even when I disagree. And I certainly don't insist on trying to convince others.

You remember me some guys on CN. Once I wrote a topic on CN about the lack of innovation of TV in the last years and I was accused to be an hater or a troll just because I said that. Again, I love TV but I don't like and don't understand the IS brand. This was the meaning of this thread. I'm not a fanboy nor a hater. I'm just a visual purist. And yes, if TV decide to produce a telescope with a banner "only for visual observers" as you said, I would like it very much.

Zero hostility. Please read what I wrote. It's just my opinion. For me a visual/imaging instrument is an hybrid instrument.

Never thought that a Televue IS telescope is a bad telescope. I love Televue. Just don't like an hybrid scope. As said, for me, the pleasure to use a pure visual Takahashi FC is long way better than a hybrid one. Just my opinion. But if IS is identical to a non IS, why don't call it just TV NP101, like in the origin? The answer is: marketing. Leaving the IS suffix opens a much wider number of potential purchasers. And we all know that now imagers rule the market of high quality refractors.

Telescope business has now much more competition. There are so many decent quality brands now with very affordable prices. In my opinion Televue should quickly raise the bar of their telescopes if wants to remain competitive. Otherwise the alternative is to remain simply a niche. Or exit, in a short time, the telescope market. I can't see anything different from that. Hope they can follow the first option.

Yes, I would be one of them. But only in case of some "fresh projects", something new. TV prices are, at least here in Europe, terribly high. But if they were a little more innovative and, let me say, "courageous", I should be there...

Also in my opinion the answer of Al Nagler was incredible. But that was exactly what he said. Again, I think that TV is now focusing only on eyepieces and imagers. For visual purists there is only Takahashi IMO. AP and TEC are too expensive and with too long waiting lists, TAK FC series is instead affordable.

I remember some time ago (I think early 2000s) an interview with Al Nagler. When asked what he preferred for pure visual observation between the TV102 and the TV 101 he answered the TV102 (less glass, better view). I was surprised about that statement (so 4 elements are too much ?) but I think that it is true. Also, in a recent interview in Binomania web site, he also said that TV will never offer again such type of scope (visual doublets like the 102) just because there is no market for that type of instrument. Sad news.

Hi Doctor Strange, thank you again for sharing your experience. I just can say that if you have the chance, try the Tak FC100DL, truly amazing. It is a bit long, yes, but it is quite light and, most importantly, viewing through this scope is a real experience... Native fluorite f/9 optic, wonderful! Surely the TV is a good telescope but an hybrid instrument it's just not for me, for this reason I went to Takahashi. And I'm absolutely enthusiast with it. Hope that TV can return to offer truly visual telescopes in the range of 100+ mm. Maybe with some optical innovation, who knows... I could get one!

Thank you for sharing your experience. I have no doubt that TV telescopes are very good but I'm a visual purist and so I prefer to use a visual optimized telescope like many wonderful Takahashi (and yes, I disagree about Tak doublets, FC 100 DL, for example, is much better than many other famous telescopes from other very famous producers.... IMO of course). It's just a shame, in my vision, that amatorial astronomy is now totally dominated by imagers, and so producers are all going to that direction. It's painful for me seeing so many companies changing approach and philosophy. Just my opinion.

ETX-125 EC

Thank you for sharing. Well, I always thought this was the real reason. despite what televue claims, for the visual observer it is not the same thing (and the same pleasure) to use a refractor optimized for photography. it is a compromise, and for the price with which it is sold in my opinion it is not acceptable. it seemed to me a "downside" decision and a sort of "betrayal" of the basis of the televue philosophy which has always been dedicated to the visual experience. For this reason I went to Takahashi instead Televue. It's quite a shame.

One time there was the NP and the NPis. One could choose. Then, suddenly, the NP disappeared and only the IS version remained. Wasn't it better to leave the original name? I think that amateur astronomy is now only dominated by imagers. And this choice seems prove it.

I always wondered why televue renamed NP101 and 127 to NP101is and 127is. Why did they want to include the term "imaging system" in the name of the long lived NP scopes at all costs? Why call "imaging system" a refractor like NP that has always had a visual vocation? Wasn't it better to leave the original name without referring to the imaging "world"? Is the NP is only a photographic telescope and not so suitable for observation?

Thank you

Hi john, is necessary a counterweight on the other side of the mount even when you are using a relatively light refractor like the DL? I should need one with a 90 mm? Thanks

Thanks!

Beautiful! Is this mount available in europe? That would be perfect for me.

Very interesting, thank you very much for the informations!

Thank you. It seems very similar to the Vamo Traveler mount. That was one of the possibilities.

Hi, I’m looking for a good alt/az mount for my new 90 mm refractor. I love panning the milky way at low power with my naglers and I no more need a motorized mount. I need just a light and trasportable mount but I cannot find the one good for me. The perfect one would be the stellarvue M2 but it is not available in europe. I checked also the possibility of a video head but I’m not sure it will work. what do you recommend? thank you

Hi all, I have a question: do you think that a 12.5” F/4.5 Newtonian Dobson would be a good compromise between portability/wide field view (my primary goal) and image quality (of course using a good coma corrector)? Or do you think it’s better to go to a slower solution (F5-6 for example) to have a good result? I would like to purchase a 12.5” Dob but I’m not sure which of the above solution is better. I want the best portable and compact instrument possible but also I would like to have a good image quality scope. So which compromise? Thank you 883