Televue "imaging system"

[johninderby]

Yes you can’t help but think that TV has lost interest in the scope side of the business. The eyepiece side must be a lot more proffitable. 🤔

[883]

5 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Yes you can’t help but think that TV has lost interest in the scope side of the business. The eyepiece side must be a lot more proffitable. 🤔

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.

[Andrew_B]

1 hour ago, 883 said:

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.

Al knows the business reality that there's too much competition for a normal visual doublet like the TV-102 to be able to keep charging the prices they'd like.

By all accounts they're very well made scopes, but at those prices you'd need to be getting optics that were at least as good as the Tak FC-series. The TV-85 is currently retailing for over £200 more than the FC-100DC and almost as much as the DF. Granted you get a case with the TV-85 and a dual speed focuser as standard but when a larger aperture fluorite apo looks like a bargain in comparison, it suggests they're asking a bit too much for it!

[ollypenrice]

On 05/01/2022 at 01:03, 883 said:

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.

I don't know why you say this. None of the 'is' features detracts in any way from the scope's visual performance, so far as I can see. Am I wrong on this? 

Yes, the visual observer gets refinements they don't need but they don't do any harm, either. And, yes, these refinements add to the initial price. However, in terms of resale value, I think they will more than pay for themselves since they open up the imaging market to the vendor, and this makes for a much wider customer base. I had an original Genesis designed purely for visual. Wonderful scope but it did have some false colour. The colour correction improved on successive models to make them far better for imaging but still a little better for visual. A win-win, no?

In the 19th an d early 20th centuries the camera's preferential sensitivity in red did mean that manufacturers made visually-corrected and photographically-corrected versions of a lens and you sometimes see both mounted in parallel on classic old scopes. However, in modern designs I'm not aware of any compromises along these lines (which doesn't mean there aren't any. I'll gladly stand corrected).  My TEC 140 is a visually-optimized design with best focus in green but its correction is so good that it's also a stunning imaging scope.

Olly

[Stu]

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

None of the 'is' features detracts in any way from the scope's visual performance, so far as I can see. Am I wrong on this? 

Nope, pretty sure you are correct on that Olly 👍

[JeremyS]

12 hours ago, johninderby said:

You only have to see the flood of visual doublets hitting the market now to show how out of touch that statement is about there being no market for them.

Dare I raise the subject of TV undercits. 😁

No

🤣

Actually, I’ve solved my TV undercut problem by using spacer rings on all my TV eyepieces, which are otherwise lovely 😊 

[883]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

I don't know why you say this. None of the 'is' features detracts in any way from the scope's visual performance, so far as I can see. Am I wrong on this? 

Yes, the visual observer gets refinements they don't need but they don't do any harm, either. And, yes, these refinements add to the initial price. However, in terms of resale value, I think they will more than pay for themselves since they open up the imaging market to the vendor, and this makes for a much wider customer base. I had an original Genesis designed purely for visual. Wonderful scope but it did have some false colour. The colour correction improved on successive models to make them far better for imaging but still a little better for visual. A win-win, no?

In the 19th an d early 20th centuries the camera's preferential sensitivity in red did mean that manufacturers made visually-corrected and photographically-corrected versions of a lens and you sometimes see both mounted in parallel on classic old scopes. However, in modern designs I'm not aware of any compromises along these lines (which doesn't mean there aren't any. I'll gladly stand corrected).  My TEC 140 is a visually-optimized design with best focus in green but its correction is so good that it's also a stunning imaging scope.

Olly

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. 

[ollypenrice]

2 minutes ago, 883 said:

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. 

Why do you call it a hybrid? It's not a blend of two designs, it is the same very fast F ratio Petzval that it always was, allowing the observer to choose between what is effectively a binocular field of view and a high power planetary one. Very few instruments can do this. The design has simply been modified to add imaging potential without affecting its visual performance at all. The design has not been hybridized or compromised, it has simply been extended. Is that marketing? Obviously it is: TV are looking for a wider customer base for this scope. They have not, however, turned it into an astrograph like the Takahashi FSQ106. It remains what it always was, plus a bit.

I don't presume to know your mind but does your hostility to the new TVis range spring from a hostility towards imaging?  Do you perhaps prefer a telescope which carries a banner, as it were,  saying, 'Only for visual observers?' 

Olly

[883]

13 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Why do you call it a hybrid? It's not a blend of two designs, it is the same very fast F ratio Petzval that it always was, allowing the observer to choose between what is effectively a binocular field of view and a high power planetary one. Very few instruments can do this. The design has simply been modified to add imaging potential without affecting its visual performance at all. The design has not been hybridized or compromised, it has simply been extended. Is that marketing? Obviously it is: TV are looking for a wider customer base for this scope. They have not, however, turned it into an astrograph like the Takahashi FSQ106. It remains what it always was, plus a bit.

I don't presume to know your mind but does your hostility to the new TVis range spring from a hostility towards imaging?  Do you perhaps prefer a telescope which carries a banner, as it were,  saying, 'Only for visual observers?' 

Olly

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

[883]

17 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Why do you call it a hybrid? It's not a blend of two designs, it is the same very fast F ratio Petzval that it always was, allowing the observer to choose between what is effectively a binocular field of view and a high power planetary one. Very few instruments can do this. The design has simply been modified to add imaging potential without affecting its visual performance at all. The design has not been hybridized or compromised, it has simply been extended. Is that marketing? Obviously it is: TV are looking for a wider customer base for this scope. They have not, however, turned it into an astrograph like the Takahashi FSQ106. It remains what it always was, plus a bit.

I don't presume to know your mind but does your hostility to the new TVis range spring from a hostility towards imaging?  Do you perhaps prefer a telescope which carries a banner, as it were,  saying, 'Only for visual observers?'

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.

[johninderby]

One thing I can’t help noticing when a discussion of which high end scope to buy comes up on SGL how rarely anyone mentions Televue any more. They seem to have dropped off the radar for buyers at least in the UK and EU.

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by johninderby

[vineyard]

Fwiw, I'm a v happy owner of a double hybrid TV scope (not just "is" but "iis"😂 - TV102iis).  It's a lovely scope & I can't see what circumstances would make me want to let go of it.  I think only about 100 or so of them were made (based on a CN thread), and its basically the "is" system but with a shortened tube so that you can BV natively (no need for GPC).

I can use it for imaging (with a flattener), monocular (with an extension that comes with it), or native BV.  Its brilliant & what I like most about it is its versatility.    I've even used it as the front end of a solar frankenscope.

Granted I've never looked through a Tak or a TEC or an AP, but tbh I have no complaints about what I see.  Pair it with some Delites or Naglers & its outstanding.  A bit heavy but that doesn't bother me.

I think versatility is a v good thing.  I suspect its like fine wine - I'm sure a rare Barolo is an amazing purist's wine, but would you really turn down a Sassicaia b/c it was originally viewed as a Vino da Tavola?

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by vineyard
typo

[Stu]

1 hour ago, johninderby said:

One thing I can’t help noticing when a discussion of which high end scope to buy comes up on SGL how rarely anyone mentions Televue any more. They seem to have dropped off the radar for buyers at least in the UK and EU.

 

I think it’s because they aren’t that high end any more John. They are very good scopes, I’d still be very happy to own a TV85, but just not the best any more. They absolutely could be if they applied the same focus and design expertise as goes into the eyepieces to the scopes, so it just can’t be a focus for them any more. European pricing is prohibitive too these days, way higher relatively than in the US.

[Stu]

31 minutes ago, vineyard said:

Fwiw, I'm a v happy owner of a double hybrid TV scope (not just "is" but "iis"😂 - TV102iis).  It's a lovely scope & I can't see what circumstances would make me want to let go of it.  I think only about 100 or so of them were made (based on a CN thread), and its basically the "is" system but with a shortened tube so that you can BV natively (no need for GPC).

I can use it for imaging (with a flattener), monocular (with an extension that comes with it), or native BV.  Its brilliant & what I like most about it is its versatility.    I've even used it as the front end of a solar frankenscope.

Granted I've never looked through a Tak or a TEC or an AP, but tbh I have no complaints about what I see.  Pair it with some Delites or Naglers & its outstanding.  A bit heavy but that doesn't bother me.

I think versatility is a v good thing.  I suspect its like fine wine - I'm sure a rare Barolo is an amazing purist's wine, but would you really turn down a Sassicaia b/c it was originally viewed as a Vino da Tavola?

 

I was with you right up near to the end there, but lost you in the last paragraph 🤣

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, 883 said:

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

For me a hybrid instrument is a combination of two designs, such as an SCT with a Hyperstar conversion, a Maksutov-Newtonian, an Optimized Dall-Kirkham or even just a fast corrected Newt. In these cases the hybridization changes the purpose of the instrument and renders it unsuitable or sub-optimal for its original purpose. However, if you went observing with a TV is you would find it absolutely identical to its non-is counterpart and this is why I don't regard it as a hybrid. In the end we are just using terms differently, I suppose.

Olly

An ironic afterthought: Arguably the first Genesis was a hybrid in the sense that the Petzval was designed as a photographic portrait lens and first came into astronomy in the role of astrograph. (E.E. Barnard, etc). Historically, if it's a hybrid it's a camera lens hybridized into a visual scope. The 'is' bit just takes it a step closer to its roots.

This is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petzval_lens

The article seems unaware of TV's use of the design in a visual instrument and of its various incarnations in astro-photographic optics.

Edited January 16, 2022 by ollypenrice

[ollypenrice]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

I think it’s because they aren’t that high end any more John. They are very good scopes, I’d still be very happy to own a TV85, but just not the best any more. They absolutely could be if they applied the same focus and design expertise as goes into the eyepieces to the scopes, so it just can’t be a focus for them any more. European pricing is prohibitive too these days, way higher relatively than in the US.

Agreed. There hasn't been any real innovation at TV for a long time where scopes are concerned. Indeed that's why I'm a bit mystified by the idea that the 'is' scopes are some kind of betrayal or hybridization of the originals. As far as I'm concerned they are almost, but not quite, identical and, if I wanted a 4 inch astrograph, I'd go for an FSQ - as indeed I did.

I still have a TV Pronto for visual and would love another Genesis or TV85.  Actually the 85 is a seriously under-rated imaging scope, the only person I know using one for that purpose being Frans Kroon, who does great things with his.  There is something very nice about the build and feel of TV scopes in the modern age because modern they are not, at least in the way they're built.

Olly

[johninderby]

I wonder how the TV would compare visually with one of FLOs Starfield 102 scopes? Might be closer than TV would like. 🤔

[John]

It is interesting to recall that Tele Vue did collaborate with Richard Day of Skylight Telescopes, London to produce the 101mm F/15 objective that was used in the rather splendid Skylight AR 101 achromat refractor. A pure observers telescope if there ever was one !

[John]

Interesting comparison here of the Tele Vue, Takahashi and Synta (in Vixen guise here) 4 inch refractors:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/100mm_refractors/index.htm

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by John

[883]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

For me a hybrid instrument is a combination of two designs, such as an SCT with a Hyperstar conversion, a Maksutov-Newtonian, an Optimized Dall-Kirkham or even just a fast corrected Newt. In these cases the hybridization changes the purpose of the instrument and renders it unsuitable or sub-optimal for its original purpose. However, if you went observing with a TV is you would find it absolutely identical to its non-is counterpart and this is why I don't regard it as a hybrid. In the end we are just using terms differently, I suppose.

Olly

An ironic afterthought: Arguably the first Genesis was a hybrid in the sense that the Petzval was designed as a photographic portrait lens and first came into astronomy in the role of astrograph. (E.E. Barnard, etc). Historically, if it's a hybrid it's a camera lens hybridized into a visual scope. The 'is' bit just takes it a step closer to its roots.

This is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petzval_lens

The article seems unaware of TV's use of the design in a visual instrument and of its various incarnations in astro-photographic optics.

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

[883]

2 hours ago, John said:

It is interesting to recall that Tele Vue did collaborate with Richard Day of Skylight Telescopes, London to produce the 101mm F/15 objective that was used in the rather splendid Skylight AR 101 achromat refractor. A pure observers telescope if there ever was one !

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

[johninderby]

When Richard ran out of the Carton optics he had to find an alternative source of equivalent optics. Here’s my home built version with the Carton optics. A proper modern classic.

Edited January 16, 2022 by johninderby

[ollypenrice]

17 minutes ago, 883 said:

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

Agreed. An exchange of opinions doesn't have to be an attempt at persuasion. 

Olly

[883]

10 minutes ago, johninderby said:

When Richard ran out of the Carton optics he had to find an alternative source of equivalent optics. Here’s my home built version with the Carton optics. A proper modern classic.

So beautiful!