Re: Why the very long wait list for an AP?
- --- In UncensoredTakGroup@y..., "otocycle" <ottocycle@e...> wrote:
> Hmmm...has anyone mentioned the weight of the FCT-150? We get topay
> twice as much for the OTA and then have to provide a rated mount toin
> handle the weight. I'm sure it's a splendid scope in all respects,
> but AP has given me slightly better than FS152 doublet performance
> a lighter package for far less money. That's worth waiting for.the
> Since the FCT-150 is discontinued, will used prices go nuts like
> AP scopes? Or do owners take a bath on resale as in the FS152 orWell Mr Otto the very few FCT scopes I've seen on Astro-mart
> CS - Otto
the owner did take a loss of about 3k now this was with one FCT not
much to go true but. . . On the otherhand just about every AP 155
I've seen on Astro-mart have have always sold for more than the
original owners have paid or at least they broke even.
Now the weight of the FCT-150 vs the AP-155 that I really don't
recall I do know that you can mount the AP-155 on an AP 400 mount for
pure visual and the same goes using a Losmandy G11 as opposed to
using a Tak NJP mount for the FCT, We have one Astro-Club member who
owns and FCT he also takes pictures with his FCT as well. We have
another Astro-Club member who owns an FS-152 and a Tak 200 mount. He
has never brought his setup to a Star Party I guess he really does
not want to compare against my AP 155, oh well. I already know the
outcome. The AP will win! :-)
How do I know this, Cause I've already compared an AP 155 F7
and an FS-152. The AP corrects for all colors so objects appear like
that of a Newtonian without the spider of course. Where as the FS
does not focus the blue end of the spectrum rendering objects
slightly yellowish. Comparing the image of Jupiter in the FS-152 vs
the AP 155 F7 is best for noting this. BTW I also own a Tak FS-78,
the yellow is in that scope as well as the FS-102 which I have had
the opportunity to view with on many occasions as well as the FS-152.
The Tak FS-128 I've never looked through but friends of mine have
confirmed what I have already suspected.
As far as AP being run as a hobby is concerned. I really don't
get were someone can get this idea. The folks at AP are all full
timers. As far as Tak being more expensive here in the US than
elswhere I think has more to do with the Importer of the Tak scopes
than anything else.
To the queston of why AP only makes a limited number of lens
assemblies I think has more to do with the fact that there are not
many people in this business that have the talent to turn on out the
consitancy that Roland is able too. Of the six or seven people I know
personally who might be able to pull it off three have already died.
Two are designers who would never think of attempting the amatuer
market and another has his own life.
As far as the field flatners being better suited for film rather
than CCD in my mind is rediculous why should one be preferable over
the other especially when the imaging area is microscopic compared to
say the 6 x 7 film format, which is 4 times the image area of 35mm,
which in turn is almost 4 times the image area of lets just say and
ST-8 or ST-10 for that matter. Have you looked at Gleason's imaging
taken with an ST-10 using an AP-130, I don't really know if he even
uses a field flatner.
Dwight L Bogan
- Thank you Ron, for this measured and reasonable sounding way of
comparing several very good telescope brands. It is much more
convincing than the more excited discussions on some other groups,
and more informative than a pure visual comparative where people see
some minor differences after hours...
(What is the mean time that an average amateur is looking at a
Messier object? 10 minutes? 5?)
Your images made with a sky 90 were the for me decisive arguments to
buy myself a sky 90 too. I received it today, and my very first
impressions are realy nice.
This, plus the new way of imaging a comet (from your website) makes
me more and more curious on the book you are writing!
--- In UncensoredTakGroup@y..., "Ron Wodaski" <ronw@n...> wrote:
> Another thing to consider is not just how flat the field is, but
> it is. A refractor designer has the option of gaining a little
> sacrificing linearity. One of the most noticeable examples of this
> of design tradeoff are the Nagler eyepieces. As you move the scope,
> clear that there is some geometric distortion in the Nagler. By
> astrometric reductions on images taken with various refractors, you
> that many refractors gain their flat field at the cost of some
> distortion -- off-axis stars are not quite where they should be.
> triplets are about the best at keeping the field geometrically
> the FSQ is virtually perfect in this regard.
> As an experiment, try overlaying an AP image on a professional
> performing as astrometric reduction, and note just how severe this
> I thought seriously about an AP triplet for my imaging needs,
> price is very attractive. But when you put all the pieces together -
> some of them are quite subtle -- you begin to realize just how many
> the Tak engineers have taken into consideration, how many problems
> solved, and how well-designed the scopes are for imaging.
> As an aside, it's the introduction of CCD imaging that has shown
> built and designed many mounts and telescopes actually are. I have
> conversations with several well-known and extremely well-regarded
> manufacturers who have seen their products in a new light because
> higher resolutions made available by small-pixel CCD cameras.
> just did not matter for film (such as small geometric distortions in
> refractors, or small sudden periodic movements in mounts, are
> and center when imaging with a small-pixel CCD camera. And issues
> contrast transfer, baffling, and so on also would need to be
> you are going to look at the full picture. In most areas, the Tak
> designers made subtly better choices
> On the other hand, if you own a Tak scope and mount, there aren't
> surprises. The scopes and the mounts have always been built to a
> is suitable for CCD imaging. To put in bluntly, I could have any
> wanted because manufacturers are very eager for an author to use
> products. I have had the opportunity to image with most of what's
> today, and what I choose to use for imaging is and FCT-150 and a
> (although if it were not for my desire to use a super-light wide-
> scope, the FSQ-106 would be my first choice for wide-field).
> To his credit, Roland has been building better and better scopes
> But the evidence, based on my research, is that the Tak scopes are
> better-balanced overall in the trade-off department for imaging.
> Hey: some folks like BMW, some like Mercedes, and some want a
> want a Ford or Chevy pickup. There's a scope out there for
> Ron Wodaski
> author of The New CCD Astronomy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kevinbm13 [mailto:_kevin1231@e...]
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 8:59 AM
> To: UncensoredTakGroup@y...
> Subject: [UncensoredTakGroup] Re: Why the very long wait list for
> I would have to disagree with earlier comments. I aggree that the
> differences are nominal. Several of the highest authorities on
> scope optics have rated the AP a better scope. Second, the focal
> lengths are shorter on many of the models, making them more
> portable. I personally have seen the minor color fringing on the
> tak doublets and its not intrusive in any way but its there. The ap
> has absolutely none. Period.
> Now the triplets (or is it "triplet") are a whole other story. The
> APs are a better value, and hense the demand. Why is the list so
> long? Scalpers.
> I will investigate the field flattness issue though as that is
> fairly important. But One thing I don't understand is it seems as
> if its flat for film, it would be flat for CCD since the fov is
> smaller for the latter.
> --- In UncensoredTakGroup@y..., "Ron Wodaski" <ronw@n...> wrote:
> > The biggest difference for me is that AP doesn't sell a flattener
> > than the 0.75x reducer) that works with most CCD cameras. My FCT-
> 150 is flat
> > to the corners with whatever CCD camera I put on it, as are most
> of my other
> > Tak scopes (and I have owned a bunch). The AP scopes I've used
> > elongated stars in the corners and the need for a flattener is
> obvious. But
> > only a film flattener is available; nothing for CCD.
> > The Sky90 requires a flattener for really large chips, but there's
> plenty of
> > back focus to reach the correct metal back distance, including
> color filter
> > wheels and some motorized focusers, too.
> > It's really hard to beat a Tak for imaging. _Really_ hard. <g>
> > Ron Wodaski
> > The New CCD Astronomy
> > http://www.newastro.com
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gene [mailto:genehorr@t...]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 10:19 PM
> > To: UncensoredTakGroup@y...
> > Subject: Re: [UncensoredTakGroup] Why the very long wait list for
> an AP?
> > canarsie_ll wrote:
> > > But is an equivalent size AP better than a Tak?
> > Well, it depends. The Tak Triplets are IMO noticeably better
> > than the AP units. On average all of the Taks are better than
> > the older AP units. The units currently being produced, though,
> > are definitely just as good as the Tak doublets (the FS-series).
> > On side-by-side camparisons for high power visual use you'll
> > be very hard pressed to tell any difference. Supposedly the
> > APs will be .000001% better <g>, but it is hard to separate
> > any optical edge from the slightly larger apertures.
> > I know Art is cringing over this, but for visual use there isn't
> > a material difference between the latest APs and the Tak doublets.
> > They are both top-end products. The Tak Triplets, though, are
> > in a class by themselves. But they are also far higher in
> > prices.
> > Now, for photography Takahashi has the edge. Their instruments
> > are designed for photography first, and it is just a side effect
> > that they are also good visual instruments. APs appear to be
> > the opposite. Roland at least until recently was primarily a
> > visual user and his 'scopes are designed initially for visual
> > use, with photography added as an extra. For CCD or even to
> > a certain extent 35mm there isn't that much of a difference,
> > but with medium format the differences start appearing.
> > Gene Horr
> > genehorr@t...