Takahashi scopes???

[TareqPhoto]

11 minutes ago, gorann said:

One reason that professional observatories use Tak when they need smaller teleskopes could be that money is not an issue for them (especially when they buy small scopes) and they go for the brands they know about and used before. I doubt they read threads on forums like SGL before they buy such scopes or read tests where Esprit and Vixen have been compared to more expensive brands. What I try to say is that you are more likely to get the best advice from forums like SGL and Cloudy Nights than from seeing what professional observatories happen to use.

Cloudy Nights forum is the best forum full of Takahashi, they have that thread only for Takahashi, and i spend time there too, and i can see why they moved to Takahashi, nice help hahahaha

[gorann]

So I assume you seen this side by side testing of Tak vs Esprit on Cloudy Nights:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/480805-tak-fsq106-vs-sw-esprit-100/

[johnturley]

23 hours ago, steppenwolf said:

What you are seeing here is honest opinion which is surely what you were asking for? In my earlier thread I said " No reason not to buy a Tak and for imaging, I would recommend the FSQ 106 as it is such a good, reliable all-rounder. " That was because you clearly wanted a Tak and in my opinion, the FSQ 106 is the best of the bunch - note that I did NOT recommend the FSQ 85!

I run from an observatory and produce reasonable images and I don't have a Tak in sight but I do have a William Optics FLT 98 (the best telescope WO ever made) and an Esprit 150, the latter being my 'telescope for life'. We (and that includes me) are not at all anti high end things but we tend not to just throw money at brand names if there is a proven case for a lower cost option that does essentiality the same job. I am VERY fussy about my equipment choices as I want to produce fine images but I know that for example, an Esprit 100 will take images all but indistinguishable from those taken with an equivalent Tak FSQ 106 so personally, I would by the Esprit 100 instead. I am not in the least brand conscience, I buy the correct tools for the job at a sensible cost, no more, no less. I suspect that others are making the suggestions that they are for the same reasons?

Hi Steve

Interesting that you have a high opinion of the Esprit 150, I was thinking of getting one as an upgrade to my ES 127, and I would pay the extra to have it checked and adjusted (if necessary) by Es Reid, whom I know personally. I have contacted Es  regarding this, and in his opinion they are almost as good optically as the TAKs. There is however a huge price difference between them, £13,000 for the TAK 150 as opposed to £4,000 for the Esprit, and although if pushed I could just afford the TAK, from what I have read I could not justify the extra cost. If I was going to spend £13,000, then I would be more inclined to go for the TEC 160. Interestingly there was a comparison done a few years ago on Cloudy Nights between the TEC 160 and the Esprit 150, and I think the TEC only came out marginally better despite costing about 3 times as much (in the UK), although for some reason Esprits are more expensive in the USA than in the UK, the 150 costing around $6,000, but to import a TEC it costs about the same in pounds as it does in US dollars.

John

[gorann]

4 minutes ago, johnturley said:

Hi Steve

Intersting that you have a high opinion of the Esprit 150, I was thinking of getting one as an upgrade to my ES 127, and I would pay the extra to have it checked and adjusted (if necessary) by Es Reid, whom I know personally. I have contacted Es  regarding this, and in his opinion they are almost as good optically as the TAKs. There is however a huge price difference between them, £13,000 for the TAK 150 as opposed to £4,000 for the Esprit, and although if pushed I could just afford the TAK, from what I have read I could not justify the extra cost. If I was going to spend £13,000, then I would be more inclined to go for the TEC 160. interstingly there was a comaprison done a few years ago on Cloudy Nights between the TEC 160 and the Esprit 150, and I think the TEC only came out marginally better despite costing nealy 3 times as much, although for some reason Esprits are more expensive in the USA than in the UK, the 150 costing around $6,000, but to import a TEC it costs about the same in pounds as it does in US dollars.

John

John, I did exactly that in April, upgraded from ES127 to Esprit 150, although I kept the ES127. Stars now look significantly better in my images. In fact, I found the Esprit to be such a nice scope that I recently also bought an Esprit 100 that is now sitting side by side with its big brother.

[steppenwolf]

18 minutes ago, johnturley said:

Interesting that you have a high opinion of the Esprit 150, I was thinking of getting one as an upgrade to my ES 127, and I would pay the extra to have it checked and adjusted (if necessary) by Es Reid, whom I know personally.

Hi John, I elected to have mine checked by Es Reid as it represented a huge expenditure for me but it has a sublime set of optics and I have not regretted my choice. I decided that as this was my 'telescope for life' I would also buy the Feathertouch focuser (identical to the one on my FLT 98) and this has also worked out very well although having taken delivery of the telescope (2 years ago) I have to say that the OEM focuser supplied was much better than I had anticipated so the extra cost may not have been fully warranted BUT a Feathertouch is the best focuser on the market and I believe my Esprit 150 deserves the best! If you do decide to upgrade to the Esprit 150, I'd be tempted to try the standard focuser as I suspect that it may be all the focuser you will ever need.

A very nice pairing Göran - they look great!

[swag72]

Having read this entire thread.... Here's my thoughts.....

Believe it or not, it's not all about the equipment....... With the best equipment in the world you could still produce a mediocre image. In my opinion the majority of the  making of the final image is in the processing. It seems to me that too much is being made in this thread of top class equipment without any such consideration for how the actual image is produced.

[Big Jim Slade]

5 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Having read this entire thread.... Here's my thoughts.....

Believe it or not, it's not all about the equipment....... With the best equipment in the world you could still produce a mediocre image. In my opinion the majority of the  making of the final image is in the processing. It seems to me that too much is being made in this thread of top class equipment without any such consideration for how the actual image is produced.

This is a great point. I recently went for the Esprit over the Tak, precisely because I felt that I didn't yet have enough experience with acquisition and processing to exploit any extra quality the Tak might have.

[R26 oldtimer]

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I use two old model FSQ106Ns and rate them highly. However, unless you are going to use  a very large chip you will be spending a fortune to obtain a flat field which you won't be using.

I believe that most people say what olly says above. Of course a F1 race car is better than a standard supercar. But to understand how better it is you 'll need a racetrack and a pro race driver. Out on a highway, and with myself behind the wheel, the F1 car will be slower.....if I get it to start first!

[Scott]

26 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Having read this entire thread.... Here's my thoughts.....

Believe it or not, it's not all about the equipment....... With the best equipment in the world you could still produce a mediocre image. In my opinion the majority of the  making of the final image is in the processing. It seems to me that too much is being made in this thread of top class equipment without any such consideration for how the actual image is produced.

This is true, however, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear

[swag72]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

This is true, however, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear

Sure you can't - But I am a firm believer that you can give a good 'processor' mediocre data and they will produce a better final image than someone with no idea but with top equipment. My worry with the development of this thread as I've read it is that the OP seems to think that the best stuff will give him the best images..... I don't think that's true and it should be noted to prevent disappointment.

[TareqPhoto]

22 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Sure you can't - But I am a firm believer that you can give a good 'processor' mediocre data and they will produce a better final image than someone with no idea but with top equipment. My worry with the development of this thread as I've read it is that the OP seems to think that the best stuff will give him the best images..... I don't think that's true and it should be noted to prevent disappointment.

It is noted, and i have to tell you, i will never be disappointed with a Tak scope if i buy it, processing is another level itself, i never forget this part at all, that is why i bought 2 different processing software so i can try both, but i definitely like to have a very nice high quality data anyway to do processing, all scopes can do that but to certain amount or level one scope can do better than another one, so if i use a Tak it doesn't mean i will produce Hubble like results immediately, but i know that a Tak has a capability over another affordable scopes, and that can come into something later one day, and one of those things we talked about the image circle, after all, if i suck with a Tak then i will suck with a Esprit, and if i will shine with an Esprit then i will shine more with a Tak, it is so simple as this really.

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

It is noted, and i have to tell you, i will never be disappointed with a Tak scope if i buy it, processing is another level itself, i never forget this part at all, that is why i bought 2 different processing software so i can try both, but i definitely like to have a very nice high quality data anyway to do processing, all scopes can do that but to certain amount or level one scope can do better than another one, so if i use a Tak it doesn't mean i will produce Hubble like results immediately, but i know that a Tak has a capability over another affordable scopes, and that can come into something later one day, and one of those things we talked about the image circle, after all, if i suck with a Tak then i will suck with a Esprit, and if i will shine with an Esprit then i will shine more with a Tak, it is so simple as this really.

Completely agree with you, as long as you understand what level of improved performance you will be getting at certain cost and you can justify that.

[Scott]

59 minutes ago, swag72 said:

Sure you can't - But I am a firm believer that you can give a good 'processor' mediocre data and they will produce a better final image than someone with no idea but with top equipment. My worry with the development of this thread as I've read it is that the OP seems to think that the best stuff will give him the best images..... I don't think that's true and it should be noted to prevent disappointment.

As I said earlier Sara, I agree with this mostly and I believe anyone with minimal experience with AP would be ill-advised to spend silly money on equipment. That said, I also don't believe a good processor would take a second look at 'mediocre' data. Of course, very good data can be achieved without spending tak money. I would be surprised if 10%-20% of imagers would have the processing skills to get the most out of a high-end scope. I certainly don't believe they would get any more out of a Tak than an Esprit.

[Skipper Billy]

2 hours ago, swag72 said:

Sure you can't - But I am a firm believer that you can give a good 'processor' mediocre data and they will produce a better final image than someone with no idea but with top equipment. My worry with the development of this thread as I've read it is that the OP seems to think that the best stuff will give him the best images..... I don't think that's true and it should be noted to prevent disappointment.

Well said Sara.  I saw a similar thread on Cloudy Nights a few years ago where against 99% of the advice offered the chap went ahead and bought all top brand way over the top gear and spent maybe twenty thousand dollars - then spent 6 months asking really basic questions - 6 months after that the whole rig was advertised for sale. If he had kicked off with a HEQ5 and an ED80 he would probably be turning our decent images by now. Trying to run before you can walk springs to mind!

[TareqPhoto]

2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Completely agree with you, as long as you understand what level of improved performance you will be getting at certain cost and you can justify that.

Indeed, after all I never buy anything without so much questions and researches and whatever, so I know enough how to use and when or where or what, after all I don't expect that all my items I buy I must use it at %100 full potential, but I have to be happy with any gear I buy as long I researched and decided so far.

[TareqPhoto]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

As I said earlier Sara, I agree with this mostly and I believe anyone with minimal experience with AP would be ill-advised to spend silly money on equipment. That said, I also don't believe a good processor would take a second look at 'mediocre' data. Of course, very good data can be achieved without spending tak money. I would be surprised if 10%-20% of imagers would have the processing skills to get the most out of a high-end scope. I certainly don't believe they would get any more out of a Tak than an Esprit.

This will rise a question of: Why people buying AP or TEC or Tak scopes then if cheaper is not that much far behind? why people waste/spend $$$$ ;like doubles if it is only 5-20% difference? answer me so I want to know what are those people thinking when they bought so expensive gear then, here are few in this site also did the same.

[TareqPhoto]

37 minutes ago, Skipper Billy said:

Well said Sara.  I saw a similar thread on Cloudy Nights a few years ago where against 99% of the advice offered the chap went ahead and bought all top brand way over the top gear and spent maybe twenty thousand dollars - then spent 6 months asking really basic questions - 6 months after that the whole rig was advertised for sale. If he had kicked off with a HEQ5 and an ED80 he would probably be turning our decent images by now. Trying to run before you can walk springs to mind!

So you think all people are like that, are you putting me in same attitude of those? so I will buy thousands$$$$$ and in less than 1 year I go cry and sell my gear?

I have full disappointment with ST80 and I will never sell it, I know on Cloudy Nights one guy who bought QHY163M which I have and he started a thread talking about how so disappointment he is with camera because of issues he faced. I hade issues more than him with same camera and I am so happy with the camera, I hope people don't assume if I buy a Tak scope then I can't get out 20% of its real potential then I will decide to sell it, so even before I buy it people assuming I won't do anything much with it because of something cheaper is so capable too, so I will be happy with Esprit then and not happy with a Tak scope? funny really.

[ollypenrice]

I think I have the qualifications the OP is asking for in that I use a TEC140 and two older Tak FSQ106Ns. I don't believe I can significantly improve on these and am not in the market for an 'upgrade' to a new FSQ 106 EDX because I don't think that, overall, it's as good and I think Tak QC has slipped. The owner of one of the problematic new FSQs I met was advised, when it was returned, not to use the capstan wheel rotator. This is, frankly, disgraceful. I use the perfectly good old style rotator all the time.

I agree with Sara that the big deal in imaging is processing. Can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? I'll say this: you can have a damned good try.

Olly

[tooth_dr]

@TareqPhoto Sara and David are giving you good advice above. Both are very accomplished imagers. Not to mention all the others on this thread.

Have you not been looking for scopes for a few years now? I remember you were looking at a 200pds. Did you ever buy it? Research works up to point but nothing beats getting stuck in.

Good luck. 

[Scott]

3 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I think I have the qualifications the OP is asking for in that I use a TEC140 and two older Tak FSQ106Ns. I don't believe I can significantly improve on these and am not in the market for an 'upgrade' to a new FSQ 106 EDX because I don't think that, overall, it's as good and I think Tak QC has slipped. The owner of one of the problematic new FSQs I met was advised, when it ,, not to use the capstan wheel rotator. This is, frankly, disgraceful. I use the perfectly good old style rotator all the time.

I agree with Sara that the big deal in imaging is processing. Can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? I'll say this: you can have a damned good try.

Olly

2

And clearly you decided it's not worth the effort only to fall short or you would not own the scopes you have quoted. To be clear, I'm not saying you need a TEC or Tak to achieve good images

[TareqPhoto]

7 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

@TareqPhoto Sara and David are giving you good advice above. Both are very accomplished imagers. Not to mention all the others on this thread.

Have you not been looking for scopes for a few years now? I remember you were looking at a 200pds. Did you ever buy it? Research works up to point but nothing beats getting stuck in.

Good luck. 

I didn't buy 200PDS because I made another mistake, which is buying 8" F5 from Meade which is actually 200mm anyway, same like 200PDS specifications, I found it brand new for $200, so I couldn't really miss this offer at all even if it is not good, and I got it delivered to me on February this year, and only I took it out from the box this month [November], had a headache to collimate it for first time, it was only the secondary mirror that made it so much difficult, primary mirror isn't difficult to adjust, only I can't reach, but I managed with primary in seconds, but the secondary mirror which I have to adjust it first with my Cheshire eyepiece collimator it was a nightmare, but finally I collimated it, but I don't know yet as I didn't go out, my coma corrector couldn't connect to my filter wheel so I can't image without that, I ordered the adapter for that and I have to week maybe 1 week until I go it, so yes, I bought a 200mm scope but jot Skywatcher 200PDS in particular.

[TareqPhoto]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

And clearly you decided it's not worth the effort only to fall short or you would not own the scopes you have quoted. To be clear, I'm not saying you need a TEC or Tak to achieve good images

So I want to see his images from Tak or TEC and from Skywatcher [if he has it] to see why getting a Tak/TEC scopes then

[tooth_dr]

5 minutes ago, TareqPhoto said:

I found it brand new for $200, so I couldn't really miss this offer at all even if it is not good

I don’t really understand this?

[Scott]

1 minute ago, TareqPhoto said:

So I want to see his images from Tak or TEC and from Skywatcher [if he has it] to see why getting a Tak/TEC scopes then

Olly's images are among the best you will ever see. He is one of the few imagers who can pull out all the detail the data has to offer. This is why he can justify owning the scopes he has. I think you have plenty of information to make an informed opinion. Now's the time to decide if it's for you or not.
I have nothing more to offer here

[TareqPhoto]

2 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

I don’t really understand this?

What I meant is, that maybe because I've got is so cheap I got cheated with it or it is not a Brand new actually, I don't know, it was inside the box sealed and all wrapped and clean as they are never used, I don't know why it was at that much low cost, I never found anywhere that 200mm f5 Newt for $200 brand new anyway of any brand, so I said even if it is not good for any reason I should be happy because of the price, now I just hope it is really GOOD and my guess is wrong.