Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Why is Takahashi overly expensive?

  • Please log in to reply
268 replies to this topic

#1 PlanetNamek

PlanetNamek

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 233
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Detroit

Posted 11 March 2017 - 09:54 PM

Just wanted to know why a 8 inch Celestron SCT OTA is $999 but a 5 inch refractor OTA from Takahashi is $6,300?? Does this brand do something different that no one else does with their telescopes? I've never used one so I don't understand the hype.

 

Thanks.


  • Rollo and CQDDEMGY like this

#2 overnight

overnight

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:06 PM

There instruments are triplets with APO coatings, and 5in objectives and other lenses are OVER THE TOP expensive. The coatings and hardware that go into such instruments are also expensive. Decent refractors in general are expensive, which is another reason I stick to newts.


  • Stephen Kennedy and caveman_astronomer like this

#3 viewer

viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Helsinki, Finland

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:21 PM

There's always a high end. That extra 10 percent which may cost you tenfold. I'm used not to jump on that train. Somehow it feels smarter (with my assets, that is)


Edited by viewer, 11 March 2017 - 10:23 PM.

  • Rollo, Nile, theApex and 4 others like this

#4 havasman

havasman

    Cosmos

  • ****-
  • Posts: 9965
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:23 PM

For the same reason a box of Betty Crocker cake mix is $1.12 at Walmart yet a custom wedding cake from Dallas Affairs can cost you $28000.

 

They are not apples and oranges. They are some petrochemicals that cause your brain to sense that it smells an orange and a Rene Magritte painting of a man whose face is a green apple.

 

There are different ways to execute the astronomy mission. Owners value their gear for different reasons. If folks have huge cash reserves they're likely to care less about the prices of their hobby gear.

 

They are not overly expensive. They are expensive. They sell all of them that they make.


Edited by havasman, 11 March 2017 - 10:29 PM.

  • Catapoman, GeneT, Cpk133 and 3 others like this

#5 Max Power

Max Power

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 775
  • Joined: 28 Jul 2014
  • Loc: retired roving transient.

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:43 PM

Once you get a superb optical quality scope you will not go back to average again.
  • 3 i Guy, FirstSight, Rollo and 4 others like this

#6 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • *****
  • Posts: 12129
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:45 PM

It's because the parts are sand cast in the old way, practically hand-made, and the optics are extremely carefully figured and matched and there is very expensive fluorite glass in it. A garden variety SCT has mass-produced optics made from common glasses and each unit receives a minimum of detailed attention. You can buy a 5" achromatic doublet refractor for less than the SCT, but it will not perform anywhere close to the Tak. What you are buying with Takahashi is basically a guarantee that your optics and mechanics will be perfect for the life of the scope.

 

-drl


  • 3 i Guy, payner, Phil Cowell and 4 others like this

#7 GJJim

GJJim

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2006
  • Loc: más y menos

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:47 PM

When you get the chance to do it, take a look through a Tak refractor -- you will begin to understand.


  • 3 i Guy, FirstSight, Rollo and 6 others like this

#8 sink45ny

sink45ny

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Joined: 08 May 2014
  • Loc: Pennsyltucky

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:52 PM

A "premium" refractor demands a premium, one which some people are willing to pay. 



#9 coopman

coopman

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5538
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2006
  • Loc: South Louisiana

Posted 11 March 2017 - 10:53 PM

Superb optical and mechanical quality costs much more than the average mass-produced telescopes.  Aperture is not everything.   


  • Daniel Mounsey, Rollo, Phil Cowell and 3 others like this

#10 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30116
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:10 PM

Just wanted to know why a 8 inch Celestron SCT OTA is $999 but a 5 inch refractor OTA from Takahashi is $6,300?? Does this brand do something different that no one else does with their telescopes? I've never used one so I don't understand the hype.

 

Thanks.

Well if you've never used one, you don't know whether there's a basis for the price difference or not, and therefore have no grounds for calling the price difference "hype".  Also there are many, many, many similarly priced 5 to 6 inch refractors.  So your statement that Takahashi alone is priced high is incorrect.

 

I don't think there's any hype, but rather well made triplet 5" to 6" refractors cost more to make than SCTs and do things that many astronomers desire, that no SCT is capable of doing. 

 

Regards,

 

Jim


Edited by jrbarnett, 11 March 2017 - 11:12 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs, RAKing, CounterWeight and 1 other like this

#11 Littlegreenman

Littlegreenman

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4688
  • Joined: 08 May 2005
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:12 PM

I've owned Fords, a Mercury Meteor, a Toyota Camry, a Lancia Beta Coupe (1975), and now I have a Hyundai. The Lancia hugged the road better than all the others, combined.

 

One day I made the mistake of accepting a friend's offer to take his BMW for a spin.

 

bawling.gif


  • jrbarnett, GeneT, Ken Sturrock and 3 others like this

#12 Klitwo

Klitwo

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1868
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:17 PM

Here is one of the reasons....See the following link.

 

Klitwo

 

http://www.astrosurf...telescopes.html


  • Rollo and Lord Helmet like this

#13 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17079
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:28 PM

Because the optical quality is far better, the Tak gives a much sharper, much higher contrast image.  This is like asking why a Porsche costs more than a Miata.

 

It's also that the SCT is really cheap.  A breakthrough invention let the guy who founded Celestron make corrector plates by machine cheaply.  That allowed him to use spherical mirrors which are also cheap.  The design has inherent optical weaknesses, so no one is tempted to build a high end SCT, there are fundamentally better designs for high end telescopes.  Everything on an SCT is designed for low cost.  Shoving the mirror back and forth for focus has issues, especially for imaging, but it's a cheap way to go.  The Tak focuser is a precision machine by comparison.

 

A refractor is a fundamentally better optical design than an SCT, but it costs more to manufacture 6 precise optical surfaces, with glass in between that has no flaws.  Grinding a spherical mirror or two is a piece of cake, and the glass underneath doesn't need to be high quality.


Edited by bobzeq25, 11 March 2017 - 11:37 PM.

  • havasman, James Stanski, Cortland and 2 others like this

#14 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79575
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:29 PM

There are SCTs made to the highest standards that are very costly..   They're rare but they exist.. 

 

http://www.astromart...ified_id=920118

 

Typically a high end cassigrain will be a Maksutov..  Try buying a used 10 inch Astro-Physics Mak. 

 

Jon


  • Jim Nelson, Rollo, n2068dd and 2 others like this

#15 bobzeq25

bobzeq25

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17079
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2014

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:48 PM

There are SCTs made to the highest standards that are very costly..   They're rare but they exist.. 

 

http://www.astromart...ified_id=920118

 

Typically a high end cassigrain will be a Maksutov..  Try buying a used 10 inch Astro-Physics Mak. 

 

Jon

They made eight, back in the 90s.  Takahashi took a run at making quality SCTs also.  Same result.  There's no market for high quality SCTs, because the optical design has inherent weaknesses.  Its virtue is that the design can make for a pretty good compact scope with a long focal length, very cheap.  Big market for those.

 

But people who want the best quality typically go for Corrected Dall Kirkhams or Richey Chretiens.  It turns out making mirrors with complex shapes has real optical advantages, compared to spherical ones with a corrector plate, no matter how perfectly the SCT is made.  Which is why they make those complex mirrors, even though it's more expensive.


Edited by bobzeq25, 11 March 2017 - 11:53 PM.

  • GeneT and Nile like this

#16 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Mount Aerial, Kentucky

Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:12 AM

Where I live there aren't that many nights that are really good for observing.   When a good night comes along I want to make the most of it,  so I want the best scope I can afford and handle in the field.

 

My  Tak FS 128 is about as heavy as I want to deal with.  When I take  out the Tak,   I know that,  for its size,  I will get about as high quality views as possible.  

 

And sometimes the contrast provided by the 5" inches of fluorite breaks into the magical.


  • RAKing, Oriondk, PlanetNamek and 1 other like this

#17 dr.who

dr.who

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 14321
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:40 AM

For $501 USD more than the Celestron you can get a good quality  5" APO from Explore Scientific. For $1,001 USD you can get a very good quality FC100 glass based 5" APO from Explore Scientific. Both will do very well for you both visually and for imaging without spending the money for a Takahashi.

 

However the performance gain in the TOA 130 (I am assuming it's TOA based on the price) is very noticeable once you compare it to the other APO's that are not a Takahashi. Specifically in the color correction. That is where Tak's shine and why you will pay that much for it.  


  • CounterWeight and Nile like this

#18 n2068dd

n2068dd

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Sapporo

Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:41 AM

Hi,

 

I lives in japan. When I was young, several telescope company was running in Japan. Nikon, Goto optic, Mitaka, ASKO,Pentax.....

so many. Each of them was more expensive than Takahashi. Nikon, Goto and Pentax was far more expensive than Takahashi.

Zeiss is much much more... For me and those of amateurs in Japan, Takahashi looked low price telescope company.and still is.

If Zeiss or Nikon will come back,  the'll be beyond our budget. it's certain.

Recently, so many low price telescope is there from China. Although They all have so many variations on optic, bad to excellent,if getting better in these days. It looks hand selected Chines telescope is not low price, rather almost equal to Takahashi.  It's same on Russian telescope. Intes-Micro or STF Mak is far more expensive than Takahashi. A telescope with craftsmanship will always be expensive.

I think comparing SCT and refractor is 'balk'.

 

Regards


  • deSitter, matthisk, Mak2007 and 13 others like this

#19 dr.who

dr.who

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 14321
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 12 March 2017 - 12:48 AM

I forgot to add that the Celestron scope is a great scope at its price point as well. And well worth working with.


  • CounterWeight, graffias79, bunyon and 2 others like this

#20 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79575
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:26 AM

I forgot to add that the Celestron scope is a great scope at its price point as well. And well worth working with.

 

With all the fine words for Takahashis and refractors in general,  it's worth noting that a 8 inch Celestron SCT is, in many ways,  a more capable telescope than a 130 mm apochromic refractor. 

 

Resolution is inversely linear to aperture so the 8 inch will split doubles not possible with any 5 inch.  Fine scale 

/planetary contrast is also a function of aperture so despite the presence of a central obstruction,  an 8 inch SCT can have an advantage there. 

 

And there's the light gathering to be considered.  Despite the reflective losses and area lost to secondary,  an 8 inch SCT captures 90% more light than a 5 inch refractor,  no matter how perfect it might be.. 

 

Point the SCT at a globular and those capabilities with be seen... 

 

An 8 inch SCT has it's own issues,  thermal management is always a challenge... 

 

Jon


  • payner, Jaimo!, GeneT and 6 others like this

#21 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79575
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:31 AM

Each of them was more expensive than Takahashi. Nikon, Goto and Pentax was far more expensive than Takahashi.

 

But other than Pentax who made a limited number of apochromats and none I know of that were comparable to the "modern" triplets,  did any of these manufacturers venture into the ED/apo market? 

 

Jon



#22 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79575
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 12 March 2017 - 03:49 AM

 

There are SCTs made to the highest standards that are very costly..   They're rare but they exist.. 

 

http://www.astromart...ified_id=920118

 

Typically a high end cassigrain will be a Maksutov..  Try buying a used 10 inch Astro-Physics Mak. 

 

Jon

They made eight, back in the 90s.  Takahashi took a run at making quality SCTs also.  Same result.  There's no market for high quality SCTs, because the optical design has inherent weaknesses.  Its virtue is that the design can make for a pretty good compact scope with a long focal length, very cheap.  Big market for those.

 

But people who want the best quality typically go for Corrected Dall Kirkhams or Richey Chretiens.  It turns out making mirrors with complex shapes has real optical advantages, compared to spherical ones with a corrector plate, no matter how perfectly the SCT is made.  Which is why they make those complex mirrors, even though it's more expensive.

 

 

Bob:

 

My post was not a comment on yours,  we were typing simultaneously.  My point was that high quality SCTs are expensive to make.

 

That said,  the Opticons have very small central obstructions and were designed as visual planetary instruments rather than imaging instruments.  Larger aperture planetary instruments are the realm of the Maksutov and the Newtonian.  Typically small manufacturers or custom builders prefer not to tackle the challenges of the aspherical corrector plate. Rik her Horst seemed interested in showing just how good an SCT could be. 

 

I am not sure how many other Opticons we're built,  Apparently there were some 5 inchers as well as at least one 8 inch F/25 with a slower than normal primary ratio and a 20% CO..  These were clearly a labor of love by a talent optical professional who made his living elsewhere and wanted to show what an SCT could be.  Rik's 30mm solid SCT is quite remarkable.. 

 

Jon



#23 n2068dd

n2068dd

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Sapporo

Posted 12 March 2017 - 04:30 AM

 

Each of them was more expensive than Takahashi. Nikon, Goto and Pentax was far more expensive than Takahashi.

 

But other than Pentax who made a limited number of apochromats and none I know of that were comparable to the "modern" triplets,  did any of these manufacturers venture into the ED/apo market? 

 

Jon

 

Goto optic made 80mm ED and fluorite triplet with long tube for sure. Each of those telescope was very expensive than Takahashi. Most of amateur could not buy it including me. I've heard their optic was excellent than Takahashi but little selling.Goto fluorite F12.5 triplet was sold 3? they say.Last apo was mx2 ED12.5cm.This AD was in next page of Takahashi FC-50. Maybe,mx2 ED12.5cm was expensive than Takahashi FCT-150 or near. It was compared and reviewed with Pentax ED(later replaced SD) 150mm long tube whitch was best selling larger APO.I saw several at amateur observatory in my town and very crisp images than ED100-HF or ED F4 . At that time, We saw their ( Pentax,GOTO ) AD every monthly astronomy magazine in several years.

http://www.ricoh-ima...f/telescope.pdf

Nikon made ED100mm F12 and ED65mm F12.  Later add ED80mm F6 quadruplet for amateurs. Nikon ED100 was sold so many with very high reputation.Recently, I can see often in auction and used market.

http://nikonfan.coco...04/05/65mma.jpg

http://nikonfan.coco...01/03/10cma.jpg

http://nikonfan.coco...11/30/80mma.jpg

ED150 and 200 for professional.ED was option on this line.

http://nikonfan.coco...2/20cm15cma.jpg

Unitron made 125mm fluorite doublet much expensive than Takahashi FC-125 JP.

 you can see Takahashi is not expensive rather cheap comparing in these telescopes both price and looking.These telescopes was not exported, maybe most of foreign person outside Japan don't know.


Edited by n2068dd, 12 March 2017 - 10:49 AM.

  • Jon Isaacs and patta like this

#24 Delta608

Delta608

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 19 May 2008
  • Loc: Tampa Bay Florida

Posted 12 March 2017 - 08:01 AM

 I've never used one so I don't understand the hype.

 

 

 

 Nuff said....Telescope.gif


  • havasman, cosmo823 and overnight like this

#25 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 975
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 12 March 2017 - 09:18 AM

I am curious about the APO hype. I would love to do some side-by-side comparisons someday, but not for $6300. I've looked through every kind of telescope at this point, except for an APO. I must say, so far the only thing that has ever really moved the needle for me is sky conditions. The differences between telescopes all seem pretty subtle to me. Being generous, I suspect it would take a well-trained eye to tease out the differences between an APO and an "equivalent" scope. You may need to know exactly what to look for to see any difference.

 

However I am also aware of a phenomenon in the audiophile community, where people buy gold-plated audio cables for hundreds of dollars and swear that it sounds so much better and they're worth every penny. So I approach "premium" products with a grain of salt.


  • stevek, AustinAstronomer, Alan Grant and 4 others like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics