Emperor!Takahashi!

Indeed, a uniquely splendid instrument. I was fortunate to own one for a period, and I'm pleased that a new owner appreciates it now.

I think it's important (and sometimes difficult) to identify what you'd like to accomplish with the scope. Once you know what you want to do, that helps to choose the instrument that can do it. You will unquestionably be able to get more than 150x out of an FC-76DCU. The FC-76DCU will perform as an outstanding 76mm telescope. It won't perform as a 6" scope. But maybe you don't need it to. I don't ask this question to be disrespectful or to cast doubt on your knowledge, but only because it's relevant... Are you familiar with thermal acclimation and collimation? I don't think C6s tend to be mushy unless they aren't cooled and/or collimated. I'm getting the sense that you want a portable telescope that's a good all-rounder, has excellent optics, and doesn't require much prep (i.e., cooling and collimation). Would you say that's correct? If so, an FC-76DCU (or FC-100DC, if you don't need to travel with it) would be a good choice if you're specifically interested in Takahashi. There's also a unique FC-100DL in the classifieds right now. I'd buy it if I didn't own an FS-102.

If you listen closely, you can hear them say, "If you name me, you negate me."

Thanks for posting this. This OTA has piqued my interest since 6" f/8 reflectors can be excellent visual scopes and aren't so commonly sold anymore. I look forward to your impressions of how it performs.

I think they all go to CloudyNights. It's basically Vegas for used eyepieces.

Or maybe the 10x50 so that you and a certain someone can do a nice comparison... 😁

I admit that your chimney joke flue right over my head. 😑

Sometimes, when a binocular and telescope love each other very much...

I was just being intentionally obtuse. That aside, I agree that the long-focus refractors can be wonderful observing instruments. I think older long-focus reflectors are also undervalued these days. It's nice when such instruments are rediscovered by those who can appreciate them.

I'm glad I went with the Tak. I get disappointed when roof chimneys lack even a little contrast or sharpness.

Here are some of the potential disadvantages, as I see them... The focuser has limited travel, so you may or may not need to use adapters to accomplish your goals. The holes used to attach the finder are spaced at a distance unique to Takahashi, so you would need to use the Tak finder or use an adapter that enables attaching a typical finder. The focuser is single-speed, and not everyone like Takahashi focusers. Tube rings (e.g., More Blue) and the Takahashi tube cradle tend to be comparatively expensive. The visual back that comes with the FS-60CB is for 1.25" accessories, so you would need to buy an additional thing or two to use 2" accessories. And while the FS-60CB is a very nice telescope, I think that there are other, less expensive telescopes of that size that will offer nearly the same optical quality. Here are some of the potential advantages, as I see them... The FS-60CB is a very nice telescope, which will offer views that, in my experience, are visibly sharper and more contrasty than other, less expensive telescopes of that size. You can use the extender to make it into the FS-60Q, which is an even better (in my opinion) visual observing instrument, and being able to switch between CB mode and Q mode gives you versatility. Takahashis are beautifully made, and so are their relatively expensive accessories. I think choosing an FS-60CB may require buying a couple of accessesories that you might not buy otherwise, but I don't think it requires a lifelong commitment to Takahashi. That's what an FS-102 is for 😉

That was related to another thread that I started on another astronomy forum. I shared a link earlier. But it was a departure from the topic of this thread. To get us back on topic, I'll share information on the Nikon CFIUW 10x/25 microscope eyepieces that I mentioned earlier. According to the limited information I've found online, these are Nikon's high-end "ultra-wide" (that's what the UW in the name means) microscope eyepieces. The AFOV is approximately 55°. I've used them in a few scopes now, so I can comment a little on their performance. I find the eye relief totally comfortable, and the construction of the eyepieces results in the "floating effect" that is most commonly associated with the Edmund 28mm RKE. Some observers (including me) love this, and some don't and prefer eyecups for a more "contained" view. At the center of their FOV, these are extremely sharp... so much so that after a brief comparison of these vs. the 100° XWA eyepieces I owned, I posted the latter for sale. The difference was obvious, not subtle. In comparison to the XWAs (which are highly regarded eyepieces), these Nikons displayed more pronounced star points and diffraction rings, higher contrast, and brighter/more intense colors. The view through the XWAs, while impressive due to their AFOV, looked slightly muddy (as though one is looking through a thin layer of water in the dirty dish sink) in comparison to what these little Nikons showed. That probably sounds too harsh, and I'll add that I loved the XWAs... until I compared them to these. In an f/5.5 instrument, the center 60% of the FOV is sharp, and then there's gradually increasing astigmatism to the edges. But I don't find it obtrusive, and it's much, much cleaner than the currently produced Masuyama eyepieces that I've used. In an f/10 instrument, the center 90% of the FOV is sharp, and there is only slight astigmatism at the edges. At f/12, 100% of the FOV is sharp. You can easily unscrew the field stop on these eyepieces, but I've found it doesn't make much of a difference to the AFOV... maybe just adding ~3°. But what's nice is that unscrewing the field stop does not result in fuzzy edges when looking through the eyepiece. The edges are still crisply defined. Now here's another thing I love about these... They're so easy to adapt to 1.25". Initially, I added aluminum tape to accomplish this. And that works very well. I've used them up to 600x in my binoviewer, and the images merge perfectly. So, there's no need to make further modifications. But you can if you're inclined to 🙂 The individual eyepieces have built-in diopters. One only needs to unscrew the barrel (at the center of the picture above), unscrew the diopter ring (on the left in the picture above), and the housed lens assembly (on the right in the picture above) fits perfectly into a thin 1.25" barrel. The barrel in this picture was taken from an old prism diagonal, and it's longer than I'd like to use, so I ordered a few more simple 1.25" barrels from someone who sells such things. I'll rehouse my CFIUW pair once they arrive. Finally, I'll note how tiny and light these are. I have pairs of 25mm plossls and 24mm Brandons on the way, and a friend has agreed to lend me a pair of Leica HC Plan S 10x/25. So, stay tuned to see who emerges victorious from this clash of tiny titans.

Major points for cuteness 👍👍

🌛🔭

I routinely mention "in passing" the many scandalous vices on which I could be spending the money 😇 The list is so long. And then it seems so lovably benign when another telescope just shows up 😁

I have a pair of the 30mm Ultimas on the way 🙂 An issue with the 35mm is that it requires lots of backfocus, just like @Louis D stated above. And they also vignette. I owned a pair and loved the views but didn't love how I had to refocus so much when using them. I'm confused by online reports on the 30mm. There are people who state they're well corrected in their fast scope, and there are others who say the opposite. So, I'll try it and see how it goes!

One of these binoculars is 50mm, and the other is 70mm 🤔

Would you like a svelte and feathery Astroluxe? It is possible. All you need to do is hold the WX for a few minutes 😄

Such a useful comparison. Huge thanks!

A quandary is that there really don't seem to be any longer focal length (i.e., 25mm and longer) 1.25" astronomy eyepieces that are well corrected for faster scopes. See: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/929461-well-corrected-35mm-28mm-125-eyepiece/ If the HC Plan S 10x/25 is better corrected than a Plossl and as sharp as the best orthos, that's a pretty big deal... I would really love to see the comparisons that you mentioned.

Extremely helpful! Many thanks 🙏

I'm curious whether the ~45° microscope eyepieces are sharp to the edges. I know that's not what's prioritized in microscope eyepieces, but I'd be grateful to hear from those who use them. The ~55° Nikons I use are sharp to ~65% of the field at f/5.5 and sharp to ~80% out at f/10.

I also keep a few Celestron and Meade items around so that I can mingle with the commoners. (This ☝️ is meant as a joke.) And welcome to SGL!

This is a departure from the topic, but I really appreciate FLO, too. Especially coming from the US, where I didn't encounter any retailer that is so customer-focused. I bought something from basically every astronomy supplier there, and the spectrum of treatment spans from indifference to thinly veiled disdain, especially if you are a visual observer and aren't interested in the imaging gadgets that seem to be their most profitable items. If I wanted another telescope of Japanese origin, superb optical quality, with a color scheme that I can gaze at endlessly, and that doesn't rhyme with "Shmixen" ( 😇), I'd buy it through FLO.

😉😇🙃