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

#126 waso29

waso29

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,537
  • Joined: 12 May 2010
  • Loc: Chi-Town, mother earth

Posted 14 March 2017 - 11:02 PM

sharing tak views with different folks in city

Attached Thumbnails

  • fs128 bino outreach @adler.JPG
  • fs128 outreach @adler.JPG
  • fc100dc pi day outreach @adler.JPG
  • fc100dl oureach @adler.JPG
  • lunar eclipse outreach fc100dc @adler.JPG

  • noisejammer, RAKing, Nile and 2 others like this

#127 noisejammer

noisejammer

    Fish Slapper

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,731
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2007
  • Loc: The Uncanny Valley

Posted 14 March 2017 - 11:07 PM

No Astrophysics in the stable?  Is there a reason you aren't supporting the home team?  That's a nice pack of scopes you've got there.

 

So the comment is aimed at waso29 but I can chip it too - I've been the AP large-scope list for more than 10 years. I can't help it if they don't want to sell me one.

 

As for Nikon being "better"- With the TOA series offering a Strehl ratio around 0.99, there's not much space for improvement. However, Takahashi really could benefit by learning how to make or how to buy focusers.

FullSizeRender


  • The Ardent, Ken Sturrock and Cpk133 like this

#128 n2068dd

n2068dd

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Sapporo

Posted 14 March 2017 - 11:40 PM

Early '80s, there were some issues on Takahashi optics than Nikon and Goto optic. It was polish and zonal errors. Takahashi outsourced optics to  Horiguchi optic at that time

till early  '80s. I saw same issues on many Astro physics optic, very rough polish.

I've heard Takahashi high optic standerd and severe contract made them quarrel.  Takahashi changed them to Canon optic and some others. Around late '90s of TOA-130 debet, their optic quality had been greatly updated as Zeiss quality. Especially,on FSQ and TOA, some other major brand optic designer say, ' It's crazy, our company would never do that type of difficult optic design and sever adjustment method.It would takes far more time and effort than normal design. '

Those FSQ and TOA is indeed expensive than Chinese low price optics,but have reasonable reason, everyone in here Japan accept.


  • Kunama, AnakChan and AstroKerr like this

#129 Dwight J

Dwight J

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,457
  • Joined: 14 May 2009
  • Loc: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Posted 15 March 2017 - 02:14 AM

Oddly enough the only Takahashi telescope I looked through or have ever seen in the flesh is their briefly made SCT.  I think that was almost 30 yrs ago.  I do have one of their mounts and I assume they take the same care building their scopes.  Despite the claims of sketching surface detail on Pluto (hyperbole - but not by much) with APO refractors they are limited by their apertures.  The views may be asthetically pleasing and the tube assembly caressable but a 4" is still a 4".  I would buy a Tak refractor though, not just to look through but look at, somewhat why people buy Questars.  I recall threading on the toe saver nut on my Tak mount and noticing just how well that was machined.  Their scopes work as advertised but they do not perform miracles, nor does anyone else's.  Testimonials are just that and are not evidence.  


  • Klitwo, PlanetNamek and AstroKerr like this

#130 caveman_astronomer

caveman_astronomer

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2016

Posted 15 March 2017 - 06:35 AM

.....

 

Expect that APO model price and other Takahashi APO model prices to go up in the future.  So if you're going to buy a new one...now is probably the time.

 

.....

There's always the 60mm version.



#131 daveCollins

daveCollins

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 06 May 2011
  • Loc: Washington DC

Posted 15 March 2017 - 09:23 AM

Oddly enough the only Takahashi telescope I looked through or have ever seen in the flesh is their briefly made SCT.  I think that was almost 30 yrs ago.  I do have one of their mounts and I assume they take the same care building their scopes.  Despite the claims of sketching surface detail on Pluto (hyperbole - but not by much) with APO refractors they are limited by their apertures.  The views may be asthetically pleasing and the tube assembly caressable but a 4" is still a 4".  I would buy a Tak refractor though, not just to look through but look at, somewhat why people buy Questars.  I recall threading on the toe saver nut on my Tak mount and noticing just how well that was machined.  Their scopes work as advertised but they do not perform miracles, nor does anyone else's.  Testimonials are just that and are not evidence.  

My TOA 150, APM 175, and GTX 130 all perform miracles on a regular basis.


  • Rollo and Kunama like this

#132 Klitwo

Klitwo

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,868
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008

Posted 15 March 2017 - 12:15 PM

It would be considered a "miracle"  >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle  if your ultra-expensive TAK APO and others exceeded even once (with hard evidence to confirm it) their Calculated Limiting Magnitude...See the following link for your reference.

 

Klitwo

 

http://www.twcac.org...itude_table.htm


Edited by Klitwo, 15 March 2017 - 03:20 PM.

  • PlanetNamek likes this

#133 caveman_astronomer

caveman_astronomer

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2016

Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:19 PM

 

Oddly enough the only Takahashi telescope I looked through or have ever seen in the flesh is their briefly made SCT.  I think that was almost 30 yrs ago.  I do have one of their mounts and I assume they take the same care building their scopes.  Despite the claims of sketching surface detail on Pluto (hyperbole - but not by much) with APO refractors they are limited by their apertures.  The views may be asthetically pleasing and the tube assembly caressable but a 4" is still a 4".  I would buy a Tak refractor though, not just to look through but look at, somewhat why people buy Questars.  I recall threading on the toe saver nut on my Tak mount and noticing just how well that was machined.  Their scopes work as advertised but they do not perform miracles, nor does anyone else's.  Testimonials are just that and are not evidence.  

My TOA 150, APM 175, and GTX 130 all perform miracles on a regular basis.

 

I was looking at the Takahashi America Website and found no hype.


  • neilbundle likes this

#134 caveman_astronomer

caveman_astronomer

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2016

Posted 15 March 2017 - 03:23 PM

It would be considered a "miracle"  >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle  if your ultra-expensive TAK APO and others exceeded even once (with hard evidence to confirm it) their Calculated Limiting Magnitude...See the following link for your reference.

 

Klitwo

 

http://www.twcac.org...itude_table.htm

The miracle would be finding some skies dark enough.



#135 Klitwo

Klitwo

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,868
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:01 PM

 

It would be considered a "miracle"  >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle  if your ultra-expensive TAK APO and others exceeded even once (with hard evidence to confirm it) their Calculated Limiting Magnitude...See the following link for your reference.

 

Klitwo

 

http://www.twcac.org...itude_table.htm

The miracle would be finding some skies dark enough.

 

When it comes to limiting magnitude of a telescope...here's what Wikipedia has to say about it  >

 

Amateur Astronomy

 

In amateur astronomy, limiting magnitude refers to the faintest objects that can be viewed with a telescope. A two-inch telescope, for example, will gather about 16 times more light than a typical eye, and will allow stars to be seen to about 10th magnitude; a ten-inch (25 cm) telescope will gather about 400 times as much light as the typical eye, and will see stars down to roughly 14th magnitude,[2] although these magnitudes are very dependent on the observer and the seeing conditions.

 

The key words here are "although these magnitudes are very dependent on the observer and the seeing conditions"

 

Klitwo


Edited by Klitwo, 15 March 2017 - 08:38 PM.

  • Oriondk and caveman_astronomer like this

#136 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 44,670
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:21 PM

Very much so

I've reached m.15.6 in an 8" SCT and 17.35 in a 12.5" newtonian, which are far beyond what that chart says.

That is a very conservative chart, and probably works fine for low powers in light-polluted skies with direct vision.

But, add:

--dark skies

--experience

--high altitude of target

--clean optics

--excellent seeing

--averted vision

--high magnification

--good collimation

--a high altitude site

and the limits noted can be radically exceeded.

Indeed, when I plug in the most optimum conditions possible in a Schaeffer-derived limiting magnitude calculator, I see that the actual "limit" of a 12.5" could be as deep as m.17.9

I haven't reached there, but then I haven't spent a lot of my time trying, either.

That chart implies that's a limit for about a 26" scope, so the chart is obviously VERY conservative.

 

Like many other astronomical pursuits, you can get good at doing something if you practice a lot.  Several years of practice with the 8" SCT allowed me to see stars almost a full magnitude fainter

than when I started out.  It's a little like playing a piano.......


Edited by Starman1, 15 March 2017 - 04:26 PM.

  • Starman81 and Kunama like this

#137 caveman_astronomer

caveman_astronomer

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,018
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2016

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:24 PM

 

 

It would be considered a "miracle"  >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle  if your ultra-expensive TAK APO and others exceeded even once (with hard evidence to confirm it) their Calculated Limiting Magnitude...See the following link for your reference.

 

Klitwo

 

http://www.twcac.org...itude_table.htm

The miracle would be finding some skies dark enough.

 

When it comes to limiting magnitude of a telescope...here's what Wikipedia has to say about it  >

 

Amateur Astronomy

 

In amateur astronomy, limiting magnitude refers to the faintest objects that can be viewed with a telescope. A two-inch telescope, for example, will gather about 16 times more light than a typical eye, and will allow stars to be seen to about 10th magnitude; a ten-inch (25 cm) telescope will gather about 400 times as much light as the typical eye, and will see stars down to roughly 14th magnitude,[2] although these magnitudes are very dependent on the observer and the seeing conditions.

 

The key words here are "although these magnitudes are very dependent on the observer and the seeing conditions"

 

Klitwo

 

There's also a statistical factor involved, see near middle of page        http://www.twcac.org...piecedarkly.htm

 

It could be that user experience is involved with some of the the Tak "hype."  More care and patience at the eyepiece might be the cause. 

 

I would rather spend less on a larger telescope and get similar or better results with less effort, or much better results with more effort. 


Edited by caveman_astronomer, 15 March 2017 - 04:40 PM.

  • Starman1 and Lenard like this

#138 ensign

ensign

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,214
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2008
  • Loc: South Georgian Bay

Posted 15 March 2017 - 04:50 PM

 

The enthusiasm for large telescopes is well-founded.  The laws of physics and optics back it up.  Some of the hype surrounding the apo has been misguided.  The laws of physics and optics don't back it up and some of it is anecdotal and subjective.

Mmm... yes... I bet an apo fan could find some science to back up their "side" too. Something about Strehl ratios and RMS wavefront errors etc. And yet sometimes these things are all theoretical and amount to nothing in practice. Sometimes, it's an oversimplification of a complex world.

 

I will 100% agree with you that a lot of this is subjective and opinion-based, not scientific. Unfortunately there is no way to reach an objective assessment of a telescope's real capabilities. Even the cameras are lying to us - what a camera can see is not what the human eye can see. And every human eye is different. Every person is different too. Everyone lives under different skies with different conditions, so what is valid for some person writing a telescope review in Petaluma California may not work out so well for somebody living in Chicago.

 

In other words... Telescope buying is hard.

 

If you have the spare funds, telescope buying is relatively easy.

 

Being satisfied with what you have?  Now that's hard.wink.gif


  • Starman1, CSG, Phil Cowell and 4 others like this

#139 treadmarks

treadmarks

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,049
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Boston MA

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:40 PM

If you have the spare funds, telescope buying is relatively easy.
 
Being satisfied with what you have?  Now that's hard.wink.gif

Tell me about it... As soon as you buy one telescope, it's on to the next one. Despite my feelings towards Takahashis specifically, the value proposition of an apo is quite clear to me and quite tempting. I am well-aware of the flaws of my f/6.5 achromat even if I don't normally see them at the eyepiece. It is afflicted with the curse of chromatic aberration, making any tour of the universe with it more like a walk through a haunted house, and an apo more like a ride on top of a Saturn V rocket, or so the internet would have you believe.

 

I'm going to "soldier on" with it though. It's been relegated to wide-field and lazy views specialist now that the 8SE is here. I actually just got done fixing one of my biggest complaints with it: The Synta glue that holds the rack and pinion together so well it's like they're not supposed to be a moving part.



#140 viewer

viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 950
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2017
  • Loc: 60N, Bortle 8, Helsinki, Finland

Posted 15 March 2017 - 05:48 PM

Think I will not get any more equipment. Don't have any place for redundant telescopes in my apartment. And prefer to get out the max from what I have. Theoretically I'm extremely interested though smile.gif 


  • treadmarks and Binosaurus like this

#141 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,268
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Canberra, Australia

Posted 15 March 2017 - 11:11 PM

Think I will not get any more equipment. Don't have any place for redundant telescopes in my apartment. And prefer to get out the max from what I have. Theoretically I'm extremely interested though smile.gif

Aina on tilaa Takahashille ja jos ei ole niin pitää heittää muut pihalle........



#142 noisejammer

noisejammer

    Fish Slapper

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,731
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2007
  • Loc: The Uncanny Valley

Posted 16 March 2017 - 07:20 AM

Aina on tilaa Takahashille ja jos ei ole niin pitää heittää muut pihalle........

 

Finland Finland Finland, the country where I want to be...

the only language in Europe with more vowels than consonants. laugh.gif


  • Kunama and kkt like this

#143 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,268
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Canberra, Australia

Posted 16 March 2017 - 03:41 PM

 

Aina on tilaa Takahashille ja jos ei ole niin pitää heittää muut pihalle........

 

Finland Finland Finland, the country where I want to be...

the only language in Europe with more vowels than consonants. laugh.gif

 

I grew up there in the 50s-60s......  (translation of the above comment:  There is always room for another Takahashi, and if not, then one should throw the others out to the backyard )



#144 BigC

BigC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,812
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2010
  • Loc: SE Indiana

Posted 18 March 2017 - 10:07 PM

The best almost always costs more.

 

It is easy and tempting to dismiss higher priced goods as overpriced.

 

I,too, thought apo scopes hardly worth the "hype" until comparing a 120/1000 achromat with a 120/900 apochromatic.

Now having seen for myself the apo proponents were correct ,I fully expect the TAK/APM/Etc. are as well.



#145 viewer

viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 950
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2017
  • Loc: 60N, Bortle 8, Helsinki, Finland

Posted 19 March 2017 - 04:38 AM

May have to go to the MAK forum for boosting my self confidence lol.gif

 

People there are even liking the 90 mm regular ones.


Edited by viewer, 19 March 2017 - 04:41 AM.


#146 viewer

viewer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 950
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2017
  • Loc: 60N, Bortle 8, Helsinki, Finland

Posted 19 March 2017 - 05:02 AM

I grew up there in the 50s-60s......  (translation of the above comment:  There is always room for another Takahashi, and if not, then one should throw the others out to the backyard )

...and we ended up on different sides of the planet...such is life...we are following where it takes us...

 

TAKAHASHI for the WIN ?

 

Kyllä (= Yes) !


Edited by viewer, 19 March 2017 - 05:21 AM.

  • Kunama likes this

#147 SeaBee1

SeaBee1

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,052
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2015
  • Loc: Under the DFW light barrier

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:05 AM

Maybe the proper thread title should have been "Why is Takahashi SO expensive?"... and while I have never even been in the same room as one, those who have could probably give a definitive answer to the question properly phrased...

 

My 2 pennies, and worth about as much...

 

CB


  • csa/montana and Phil Cowell like this

#148 dkeller_nc

dkeller_nc

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,546
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Central NC

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:51 AM

Actually, this sounds like a more fundamental debate.

 

It's a debate between the mathematical/physics definition of resolution (and limiting magnitude) vs. a human's perception of both.  Those two things are very different.  Show someone an image that has much higher contrast but much lower resolution versus an image with much higher resolution but much lower contrast, and you'll invariably get the answer that the low contrast image is low resolution, even though the correct answer is exactly the opposite.

 

Similarly, the view through a nearly perfectly color corrected APO vs the view through an achromat of a bright object is likely to be judged as far, far better.  Even though a mathematical representation of the quality of such a view would only be slightly better.


  • James Stanski likes this

#149 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,020
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:17 AM

Maybe the proper thread title should have been "Why is Takahashi SO expensive?"... and while I have never even been in the same room as one, those who have could probably give a definitive answer to the question properly phrased...

 

My 2 pennies, and worth about as much...

 

CB

I would modify it, to why are there so many whiners who would never buys Taks complaining about their price. lol.gif

No one is ever going to get one by saving Corn Flake packet tops. If folks what one well they put on their big person pants and save for one. If they don't want to well turbine impressions don't buy Taks. Same as with an Aston Martin or Maserati. Luxury has its price.


  • RAKing, Kunama and AstroKerr like this

#150 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,020
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 19 March 2017 - 11:21 AM

Actually, this sounds like a more fundamental debate.

 

It's a debate between the mathematical/physics definition of resolution (and limiting magnitude) vs. a human's perception of both.  Those two things are very different.  Show someone an image that has much higher contrast but much lower resolution versus an image with much higher resolution but much lower contrast, and you'll invariably get the answer that the low contrast image is low resolution, even though the correct answer is exactly the opposite.

 

Similarly, the view through a nearly perfectly color corrected APO vs the view through an achromat of a bright object is likely to be judged as far, far better.  Even though a mathematical representation of the quality of such a view would only be slightly better.

And no two humans optical trains are 100% the same so there is that to factor in as well. From the collectors to the organic processoring system.


Edited by Phil Cowell, 19 March 2017 - 11:22 AM.



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