Takahashi CCA-250, HOW MUCH??!!

[DaveGarland]

I've just read the review of the above scope in this months S&N magazine and just can't believe the price. £13,079!!! Ok it's got some gadgetry built in and it's carbon fibre blah blah, but seriously, how does a 10" scope need to cost that much? Just how much better than a Skywatcher can it really be? Ok the stars are round right to the very edge.... But £13,079!!!!

I often think people just spend stupid amounts of money just to convince themselves they really have the very best. Like champagne that costs £30,000. Just how good can something really taste? Honestly for that kind of money I'd want a "wow" moment so big that sparks would shoot out my ears!

Your thoughts?

[jambouk]

I wanted to know how big the central obstruction was; it looked massive.

There will always be people who want the absolute best; cars, holidays, suits, hair cuts, meals out....

James

[DaveGarland]

Umm, I think it said 5" which is half the size of the primary! Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I wouldn't like one. It's just that I'm questioning if it's really WORTH that much. Surely you can get a lot more for that?

[jambouk]

If there are people out there willing to buy it, then it is worth it to them. Not to me or you, we are slumming it with skywatcher

James

[steppenwolf]

The central obstruction of the CCA-250 is actually 58%. For comparison, the typical glass obstruction of, say an R-C instrument, is about 40% but with the shrouds and mountings, this rises to around 50%.

[Earl]

Some people drive Ford, others Bently, all things are relative

[John]

I like to have the best quality equipment I can afford, as long as there is evidence that it does deliver really excellent performance. We have members of this forum who have bought such equipment as the scope mentioned and I'm sure they did lots of research and thought long and hard about making the investment and good luck to them

There is nothing wrong with aspiring to own fantastic quality equipment just as there is nothing wrong with pursuing the hobby on a much smaller budget. Fortunately its a hobby that can provide enjoyment for a wide range of people in a wide range of different ways 

[foundaplanet]

I think it is good that there are still companies in this age that still aspire to make the very best of what possible. That will come at a cost, even more so when when they are products for a limited market and they do have research and initial costs to recoup. I don't think it is expensive for something that is at the top of it's game and hand built.

[DaveGarland]

I like to have the best quality equipment I can afford, as long as there is evidence that it does deliver really excellent performance.

That's basically my point though. Does it really have £13k worth of performance or can you match its performance with a cheaper scope? Perhaps I shouldn't have made the point about people being willing to pay x amounts. If people are happy spending then that's fine with me. It's just the relative value of the scope against others I'm questioning.

[steppenwolf]

Strange old hobby astronomy - the telescope that has given me the most pleasure was my Sky-Watcher ED 80. I have 'better', more expensive instruments now but they have each only represented a small move forward rather than a giant leap......... Would I ever spend £13,000 on a telescope? I doubt it very much but then I didn't think I'd ever spend £2,000 on one either but, so help me, I did :shocked:

[John]

It just doesn't work like that Dave. My Tele Vue Ethos eyepieces don't perform 5x better than £80 ones or show me 5x more things but I've no regrets about buying them. 

My best scope is the one I'm looking though at the time !

[astronymonkey]

........Like champagne that costs £30,000. Just how good can something really taste? .......

I find it tastes best when served out of an upturned Takahashi CCA-250 used as a wine bucket. 

[DaveGarland]

Very good

[ollypenrice]

WhIle you seem to be addressing one point I think you're really addressing three. £13K is a phenomenal price for a small telescope. The psychological motivation behind such a purchase.  Whether the scope in question good enough to be worth £13K. So taking those in turn,

1) I agree.

2) I don't presume to know other peoples' motivations. I'm a Tak owner and I sometimes get irritated by claims that Tak owning is status driven. In my case it isn't. I use the FSQ because it does what I want it to do and it's the only scope that I believe can do it, bar one which is no cheaper! I've just ordered a Skywatcher EQ8 because I think it will do the job we have in mind for it. I'd get more status from a Paramount but I'm not into status.

3) I don't know, but I doubt it. How much better will it be than a Skywatcher? SW don't make anything remotely comparable. This scope can cover the largest chips and work at three useful focal lengths, the fastest being F3.9. But it will be a lot better than an MN190. I still doubt that it will be worth 13K. It replaces the Baker RC and, to be honest, I found nothing in the Baker RC images that I've seen to be all that remarkable given the cost of the scope. Slightly underwhelming, really. For me a vastly better investment of £13K would be two FSQs and a second CCD camera, so the dual scope would work twice as fast. However, if you asked me whether the FSQs are worth three or four times the price of the budget apos I'd say, in the end, yes. No doubt about it, for a number of reasons.

Olly

[Zakalwe]

That's basically my point though. Does it really have £13k worth of performance or can you match its performance with a cheaper scope? Perhaps I shouldn't have made the point about people being willing to pay x amounts. If people are happy spending then that's fine with me. It's just the relative value of the scope against others I'm questioning.

Its ever decreasing circles though. It's probably relatively easy to get to a certain level (mass production, wide tolerances and so on) but to get the next 10% improvement costs a lot more. The next 10% even more. You may be able to match the performance with a cheaper scope in some circumstances (depending on how you define "match") but not in all circumstances all of the time.

At the end of the day, it's not the cost of production that sets the price, its what the manufacturers can get away with charging.

[ollypenrice]

At the end of the day, it's not the cost of production that sets the price, its what the manufacturers can get away with charging.

...though if they can't charge more than the production cost they won't produce it, which would be a shame. 

We're lucky in astronomy that we can buy small top quality items. This isn't always the case. Nobody makes a really nice small motorbike, for instance. Something like a 250 six. And Eriba caravans have stopped making the tiny Puck, of which we have an oldish example. Too expensive to make or, at least, no cheaper to make than bigger ones.

Olly

[jambouk]

I'm sure there is some reverse snobbery too. I bet there are some folk (with limited budgets and bog standard kit) who think anyone who owns a Tak is partially after the prestige. I have to say, i think this about most people who drive porches, but i've never driven one and i am honestly happy with my 11 year old golf (apart from the rotting alloys, and faulty secondary air injection system...). I struggle, looking from the outside, to step away from the opinion that most people drive a porche because they want to look "cool". I can't help the way i think. But i don't have the same opinion about expensive telescopes, partly because i can appreciate that the optics are superior, the carbon fibre body helps with changes in ambient temperature and weight, that a flat field at f/3.whatever is impressive... But i've never looked through a tak, but have probably been impressed by the images taken through them on the forums and in magazines and on the net.

Itms a fascinating discussion though.

James

[Zakalwe]

...though if they can't charge more than the production cost they won't produce it, which would be a shame. 

We're lucky in astronomy that we can buy small top quality items. This isn't always the case. Nobody makes a really nice small motorbike, for instance. Something like a 250 six. And Eriba caravans have stopped making the tiny Puck, of which we have an oldish example. Too expensive to make or, at least, no cheaper to make than bigger ones.

Olly

[/thread drift]

KTM are doing some interesting stuff. The 125s and 390 that they are making are pretty cool.

Of course, nothing comes close to Gouy Coulon's handmade 6 cylinder 300cc... I mean, just listen to it!

[DaveGarland]

Here's a thing. I have a Delos and a Nagler. Both the same price (pretty much). Now in terms of pleasing views I find the Delos much nicer to look through. Yes the Nagler has a wider afov but the eye relief for me seems quite restrictive so I enjoy the Delos much more. I'm guessing that as the Nagler is much more compact that it's a little more expensive to produce hence the similar price. But based on personal experience in the future I would spend my £250 on Delos. So my question I guess is, could £13k be much better spent?

[John]

The Delos does put up slightly better images than the Naglers I believe, as do the Ethos. If it's a Type 1 Nagler then the difference is a bit more pronounced. Small differences though and all 3 probably seem very expensive to someone struggling to justify £50 for an eyepiece. A <£50 10mm Baader Classic ortho was recently judged slightly better than a 10mm Delos on deep sky objects in big scopes so great optics need not cost a fortune

[Scott]

is it 13 times better than a £1000 scope....probably not, but you're not just paying for the scope, you're paying for the ones that didn't cut the mustard. quality control comes at a cost .

[Scooot]

There's a lot of research and development that goes into producing the best. It provides the incentive for others to follow. It costs a lot and its good that some people have the means and are prepared to bare the expense for what might seem modest improvements in performance.

[Rainmaker]

There is no question the Takahashi scopes are beautifully made with excellent optics.  They cost much more than the Chinese clones because Takahashi have to pay for the research and development of these fine instruments.

The Skywatchers et al often do not have the research and development costs as they usually just reverse engineer the Japanese and American equipment, often at a much lower level of quality control, thus they can sell them at a much lower price point.

Having owned Skywatcher, Celestron, Carton, Meade, Vixen and Takahashi scopes, there is no doubt in my mind which is best quality.

Yes it comes at a price and no, you don't ten times the quality for ten times the  $$$, but you do get a very noticeable difference.

Yet still my 140 year old Berry & Mackay brass refractor provides enjoyment my more modern scopes cannot.  There is something nostalgic and magical about looking through very old glass.

[Joves]

I really think it comes down to what you can afford. It's all relative. To some people, $13k is their entire life savings (or, often even more) whilst to others, it's a drop in the ocean. The comparison between the Golf and the Porsche is a good one, but kinda works against itself. Like Olly pointed out in a previous post concerning a similar topic, the fact that two cars effectively do the same thing does not mean you can pretend they ARE the same thing. I don't think anyone in their right mind could begin to argue that a Golf is just as good a car as a Porsche. It's simply not. And to be honest, like many people, I don't even like Porsches. However, as lovely a car as the Golf may be... It's simply NOT a Porsche. If practicality was the only determining factor in life, we'd all be walking around in Heshen sacks. Does a $20,000 Rolex tell the time 200 times better than a Swatch? Doubt it... But that's life!

I do realise this post isn't about Porsches and Golfs, btw...

[nicks90]

£13k is a lot of brass buttons for a scope - but why not if you can afford it!

Same goes for those binoculars and spotting scopes you see for £1000, whereas my 10x50 cost £25. Do they deliver 40 times the viewing pleasure, probably not. But they offer the best view you can possibly get, in the best made package you can possibly get for the size and use. So if bird watching and digiscoping is your thing, then why not get the best if you can afford it? Same goes for cars, telescopes, houses, computers etc

Having a skilled craftsman hand making your optics is not cheap. Think how many hours it will take him to hand figure the mirrors to whatever fantastic wavefront accuracy they claim. £40 per hour for someone of that experience and skill....... plus the factory equipment and overheads....plus the components.....plus 20% vat..... plus shipping....then a profit for the factory....profit for the retailer....

You would be surprised at how many 'premium brands' actually dont make any money at all, instead they use them as loss leaders to raise their brand profile, so their cheaper products lines sell more, which gives them a profit. A lot of car manufacturers dont make any money on some of their higher end cars, even though they cost £100k. But because they are sooo good, people associate quality and performance and hence they shift tonnes of their normal cars.