Astrodymium

1 hour ago, david_taurus83 said:

Ah I see. The difference will be the glass. The WO has FPL53 which has better colour correction than FCD100 on the Altair. All the models I mentioned above have FPL53. I'm unsure if there would be a noticeable difference when imaging.

How do you know if FPL 53 has better colour correction than FCD 100? Is this a hunch? Or from real experience / data shown online. Because I have already researched this topic myself and have come to no conclusion.

13 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

I've owned a GT71 and now have a Starwave 70 EDQ-R for imaging. I also have a Starwave 102 EDR for observing. All really nice scopes. The WO was excellent. But their never worth the price difference you have been quoted? They are practically the same price here, £1100 for the Altair and £1195 for the WO. I'd go with the Altair if buying again for the rotating focuser.

The Starwave 80 ED triplet travel refractor is less expensive. It's like 800 GBP or something.

Hi,

I have two choices of telescopes to buy (I am located in Canada), the starwave 80 and GT 81.

The new Gran Turismo does not have a rotatable focuser, so I would also have to buy the $175 CAD camera angle adjuster from WO.

---

William Optics

- Gran Turismo 81 + Flat6AIII + Camera Angle Rotator: $1930 CAD + $270 + $175 = $2375 CAD

Altair Astro

- Starwave 80 Triplet Travel Refractor + Planostar 0.8x: $1100 CAD + $180 = $1280 CAD

---

I have heard that William Optics makes good telescopes, but is it really worth a 85% premium over the Starwave? What benefits in image quality can I expect to see with the William Optics telescope?