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

#176 noisejammer

noisejammer

    Fish Slapper

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

Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:45 PM

I doubt we would ever see an FSQ130ED bino due to it being primarily an astrograph. Now a  TOA150 .......... oh yeah.

 

Oh, I've been tempted to try this more than once....

Sanity prevailed - at least for now. :D

 

A friend in Oregon had a TOA130 binoscope. Amazing instrument.


  • Phil Cowell and CounterWeight like this

#177 Starman81

Starman81

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 3,713
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Metro Detroit, MI, USA

Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:13 AM

 

How is the resale value of Takahashi APO refractors?

Though I have bought some Takahashi apochromats new from the dealer, most have been bought on the used market.  I buy only extremely well kept examples and consider the price.

I am happy to pay a bit more for perfect examples.  To date this has worked out well for me as with the price of new ones going up, the used scopes values have also risen.

By buying and selling wisely I have made a little bit of profit along the way.  ( in fact enough to completely cover the cost of my current TOA130NFB)

 

 

Can you manage my investment portfolio please??

 

I'm sure Taks are worth it. One day I will look through one!



#178 Raginar

Raginar

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,436
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Pensacola, FL

Posted 02 April 2017 - 11:36 AM

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


This. I didn't really appreciate it until I looked through one. The image is bright and the fov is deep. Is it better? I dunno but it's definitely worth it to me. I don't expect to ever sell my tak.
  • Phil Cowell likes this

#179 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Star walker

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,959
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: PDX, OR.

Posted 02 April 2017 - 02:43 PM

I am now strictly visual, and yes I have done some serious imaging, but not with the scopes in my sigline.  Many thoughts crossed my mind while reading through this thread and Ill put them below.

 

The disposable income question is too individual to answer as far as relative cost.  In my way of thinking we here with telescopes and internet access and food within reach and roofs over our heads are a very miniscule fraction of people on earth that can afford such a luxury.  We are living the dream, I try to never loose sight of that, and why I invite anyone around that might want to have a look to do so for as long as they wish.

 

Anyone interested can cruise the web and read marketing material and reviews and "spec's" and make conclusions based on them, but that is as far from the experience of using the scope as it can get.  It is information until you do it for yourself.

 

I have been in and out of the hobby all my life, more in than not, from that I feel any telescope has a personality.  Might need cooling down, might need collimation, dew control, how the aperture works in my typical seeing, ... these are scope and location specific. Add to this my individual visual acuity and eye health... I just want to say that any scope can only perform within the environment it is used in, and principal there is - climate and seeing conditions.  As aperture increases it is possible to own a scope in a location where it may never be able to achieve it's design optimals.  That does not make it "a bad scope".

 

What I always wish we could get away from is the idea that saying something good about one scope is to somehow say something bad about another scope.  How to really like something and keep a balanced approach to it?  Simple really.  It does what it does as well as I can expect, where and when I use it.  Not to say something else does not, would not, or cannot.

 

Why do I own 3 Tak's?  Mostly because I can't own four (yet).

 

I set them up with my 14" Dob/Newt nearby.  I enjoy all of them for what they do well, and each is different.  When you do the matrix hopscotch of field of view and exit pupil and object and seeing conditions, it's possible to have very different great views of a single object.  My Tak's uniformly give me faultless visual performance in their 'windows of usefulness' for whatever object, but then I know from experience what to expect.  I'm sure it is daunting, all the information out there and all the reviews and opinions for someone new to the hobby.

 

I'm very impressed with the views I get from my Dob/Newt.  It does have it's personality and limitations like my Tak's.  Surprisingly good optics, and a very capable observing tool within what it can do well.  Does it do as well as I can expect? I believe so.  Could I spend more money and achieve reliably better? Very possibly spend more money (as it has GOTO and tracking) but I'm happy enough.

 

I managed to say all this without challenging the laws of optics, yea!

 

This is not meant as hype, it is my personal experience, not taken from other threads or reviews.  I have taken time and effort to obtain my opinion, and try to avoid excess in validating it.

 

The usability of any scope.  If you can leave it set up and just remove covers or roll an observatory roof out of way that is best of all worlds.  If you set up and tear down each time, there can be many considerations.  If it is sensitive to collimation that adds a very important consideration, as I also feel over the years my scopes that did need collimation each had their personality about it. The same can be said for acclimation.

 

My Tak scopes require little acclimation and nothing else, in my climate not difficult in that respect.  Set out at evening dusk and by the time twilight is getting along I am good to go, depending on time of year it can be ready well before.  Good to go with 'as good as I can expect' from the optic, and that expectation is very high.  Very high, but not "unrealistic", as in - "No it wont splash the center of M13 all around my wide field eyepiece like the Dob/Newt can under good seeing conditions", but then I don't expect to.  Will my Tak give me a very high quality image of M13 'hanging in space"?  Absolutely... every time. Is it visually measurably better than a SkyWatcher 120pro? My opinion is yes but it is not a slap in the face difference even to an experienced eye all depending on what you are looking at, the SW 120pro is a fine scope! Highly recommended as are so many others.

 

I feel my Tak scopes are not overpriced or overly expensive.  Getting more true as time goes on is that you can get very close to their performance for less coin, and you can spend more money on some scopes than a Tak at about the same aperture depending on where you live and import / export and all that. 

 

To own one over a few years and use it season after season put's all in perspective.  My FC 100DL and TSA 120 still need a few years as they are recent acquisitions.  From my initial impressions I have high expectations, not unreasonable ones.

 

I'll borrow a quote here.

 

"To those who believe no proof is necessary. To those who do not believe no proof is possible"

Stuart Chase

 

My recommendation is to avoid 'belief systems' in our hobby and see for yourself if at all possible, judge on merits, draw your own conclusions.  Understand the importance of where it is being used and what can be reasonably expected for the conditions.

 

There is enough science behind telescope optics that I like to think leaves no room for belief systems.  If someone says they did this with their scope and etc. in this location I have no reason to doubt.  Most experienced observers are careful to include that critical information, and how they rate the seeing for that place at that time. In many respects it is critical to know that data of "where", this "where" aspect of observing is as far from one size fits all as is possible.  This again and too takes experience... what is decent seeing where you live? might take a good amount of time to discern that, especially if days of fantastic seeing are exceptionally rare as in where I now live. 

 

So many times I've had folks look through these little scopes and said "wow, I didn't know a little telescope could do that", this even with the big Dob/Newt on the same target, here I apologize for the only anecdotal part of this, but again, it is my experience, folks speaking the evidence of their own eyes, some lifetime owners of larger aperture or just other scopes than mine, some never looked through a telescope before.  Not perfect seeing conditions but reasonably good for here.

 

Hope the above is helpful.

.


  • spencerj, Raginar, bunyon and 1 other like this

#180 ojingoh

ojingoh

    Explorer 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2016

Posted 02 April 2017 - 07:15 PM

I think Takahashi makes telescopes people like talking about. I think that we telescope nerds love to listen to people talk about Takahashis. This is an essential ingredient in this little known consumer behavior called demand.

When the supply is restricted to one distributor in the US, but there is a million ways to find information about Takahashi, you will get higher prices.


Edited by ojingoh, 02 April 2017 - 07:15 PM.


#181 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

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

Posted 02 April 2017 - 08:29 PM

Given the first rate and expensive glass and materials,  and the skilled labor and time to construct a Tak,  why shouldn't they be expensive ?


  • Rollo likes this

#182 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 02 April 2017 - 08:45 PM

Given the first rate and expensive glass and materials,  and the skilled labor and time to construct a Tak,  why shouldn't they be expensive ?

Craftsmanship comes with a cost. They do make fine telescopes. 


  • Rollo and walt99 like this

#183 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Star walker

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,959
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: PDX, OR.

Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:12 AM

 

I doubt we would ever see an FSQ130ED bino due to it being primarily an astrograph. Now a  TOA150 .......... oh yeah.

 

Oh, I've been tempted to try this more than once....

Sanity prevailed - at least for now. laugh.gif

 

A friend in Oregon had a TOA130 binoscope. Amazing instrument.

 

If your friend is named John and lives in the SW area of the state might be the fellow I sold my TOA to back in '09?, I remember he was going to use it to make a bino-scope, otherwise there is more than one waytogo.gif



#184 Rollo

Rollo

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 842
  • Joined: 16 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Florida

Posted 16 April 2017 - 11:19 AM

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.

Top quality stuff has always been expensive.   I would venture to say this,  if you could find a 8in. SCT of the same quality in optics and build quality of a Takahashi refractor,  it might cost in the neighborhood of $10,000 instead of only $1,000.   Top quality stuff can cost 10 times as much as average quality.

 

Hope this helps you !  waytogo.gif


Edited by Rollo, 16 April 2017 - 11:23 AM.

  • Phil Cowell likes this

#185 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 31,893
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 16 April 2017 - 11:50 AM

I have been an active amateur astronomer for about 17 years.  That makes me seem super experienced to some and just a newbie to others.  I have bought and sold more than a few telescopes over the years and now, I have what I have.  My most used scope is a Takahashi TSA 102.  I bought it used.  It has fantastic optics.  The view through the scope makes me remember why I love the night sky.  

 

The scope has only 4" of aperture.  It is not capable of breaking the laws of physics.  It doesn't show fainter galaxies than a 36" Newtonian or open up worm holes to other universes.  It just puts up fantastic views of whatever I point it at with very little fuss.  That is it.  These days, I have a 4 year old and a 4 month old at home.  6-hour weekday observing sessions at a dark sky site with a large Newtonian are not an option.  Instead, it is more the unplanned 1 hour sessions whenever I get the chance.  

 

This Saturday night, I got out for about an hour and a half in my backyard.  I watched the shadow of Io move onto the face of Jupiter.  I saw it as a sharp, perfectly-defined, partial circle as the shadow transit started.  The edge of Jupiter's disk was sharply defined against the perfect black backdrop of the sky.  There was zero light scatter.  Detail inside and on the edges of the equatorial bands sharpened up and faded away with the seeing.  I just sat there breathing in the clean night air, mesmerized by the show for over an hour.  I would have stayed out longer, but the real world calls.  By the time Io was completely on the face of Jupiter and I could see a perfect separation of the shadow and the limb, it was 1:30 AM.  My 4 year old gets up at 6.  I packed up the Tak as easily as I set it up and went to bed with those beautiful images of Jupiter still fresh in my mind.  

 

You don't need a Takahashi Apo to enjoy the night sky.  But just because someone owns a Takahashi Apo doesn't mean they don't enjoy the night sky.  We all choose what we choose for whatever personal reasons we have.  Sometimes we would be better to just leave it at that.

I could have almost written this myself (except my child is now a teenager, and I'd have to replace TSA-102 with FS-102 or FS-128).  But the sentiments are the same. :ubetcha:


  • Cpk133 likes this

#186 Klitwo

Klitwo

    Surveyor 1

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

Posted 16 April 2017 - 11:57 AM

Whether it's a $500 Celestron >  http://www.opticspla...ctor-21088.html   or a

 

$2,440 Takahashi  >  http://www.takahashi...-telescope.html  ....a 4-inch refractor is

 

a 4-inch refractor in terms of light gathering power  >  http://www.shannonsi...erture_help.htm

 

P.S.  Whether you have a Takahashi or another...it doesn't take a so-called expert to figure it out.  "No telescope can form a perfect image. Even if a reflecting telescope could have a perfect mirror, or a refracting telescope could have a perfect lens, the effects of aperture diffraction are unavoidable. In reality, perfect mirrors and perfect lenses do not exist, so image aberrations in addition to aperture diffraction must be taken into account."  >  Wikipedia.org

 

The bottom line is:  If you think your telescope of any aperture...whether it be a Takahashi or another somehow stretches, twists or breaks the known laws of Physics (either by devine intervention or some other means)...especially the laws of Physics that govern Optics...then you're in the perfect forum to prove it....

 

Personally it doesn't matter what kind of telescope you have to observe the heavens with....whether it's a Takahashi, Celestron or any other.  If you're satisfied with it's performance regardless of how much you paid for it...then that's all that counts...right?

 

Klitwo


Edited by Klitwo, 16 April 2017 - 09:33 PM.

  • Rollo and Binosaurus like this

#187 Scott in NC

Scott in NC

    Refractor Fanatic

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 31,893
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2005
  • Loc: NC

Posted 16 April 2017 - 05:36 PM

 

The bottom line is:  If you think your telescope...whether it be a Takahashi or another somehow stretches, twists or breaks the known laws of Physics (either by devine intervention or some other means)...especially the laws that govern Optics...then you're in a perfect forum to prove it....

I'll be the first to admit that my Takahashi scopes aren't perfect.  But they're as perfect as I could possibly hope for within the range of what I can afford and/or wish to spend for what is essentially an expensive adult toy. ubetcha.gif


  • Kunama likes this

#188 noisejammer

noisejammer

    Fish Slapper

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

Posted 16 April 2017 - 06:26 PM

The bottom line is:  If you think your telescope of any aperture...whether it be a Takahashi or another somehow stretches, twists or breaks the known laws of Physics (either by devine intervention or some other means)...especially the laws of Physics that govern Optics...then you're in a perfect forum to prove it....

I don't think you'll get many takers. :)

 

I've used a fair number of scopes - my Tak's not perfect but its optics are very close to perfect. It puts 99% of the light where it is supposed to go which means it only puts 1% elsewhere. Compare this with a budget instrument that puts 80% of the light in the right place and you may begin to understand why high end instruments deliver such astonishing image quality. It's all about contrast....


  • Rollo, walt99 and Kunama like this

#189 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 44,562
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 16 April 2017 - 07:27 PM

The perfect scope puts 84% of the light in the Airy Disc and 16% in the rings.

A Strehl of 1.0 is required to do that.

A 1/4 wave scope (0.80 Strehl) puts 67.2% in the Airy Disc.

And other factors (miscollimation,diagonal mirror, tilt, etc.) reduce it even further.

As Suiter said, it's a wonder we see anything at all.lol.gif


  • Scott in NC, noisejammer and Redbetter like this

#190 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

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

Posted 16 April 2017 - 07:38 PM

I've been following this thread about 'contrast' :

 

https://www.cloudyni...t/#entry7826820

 

From what I've gathered, contrast isn't well understood.  It's not just the glass,  it's also the way the human eye works.  And not everything is known about that.

 

I've seen things no camera could capture because of the much greater range of contrast the human can deal with.  For example,  bow waves on comets and the heart of the Orion Nebula.

 

There is still some mystery in our understanding of 'contrast'.  It may be that this mystery will disappear with further scientific study.  But as of now,  I'm sticking to my story that fluorite and minimum glass can sometimes produce 'magic' at the eyepiece.  I can't explain it, and no one else can either, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.



#191 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 16 April 2017 - 07:56 PM

It also takes ownership not just a look here and there to understand what a good high end scope can do. 


  • Rollo and CounterWeight like this

#192 BigC

BigC

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,808
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2010
  • Loc: SE Indiana

Posted 16 April 2017 - 09:18 PM

It  costs a lot more the closer the tool approaches theoretical perfection. Most of us would like to have such tools but few can easily afford them.The SW120ED is popular for those like myself  only dream of Taks .

 

By the way millions  of people spend well over $100 for tickets to an hour or two of entertainment at a concert or ballgame. But think the cost of owning a premium scope that can be enjoyed dozens of times every year for decades is  a waste of money. If one views one hundred hours per year for twenty years that is two thousand hours at a cost of  a few dollars per hour.Despite the fact that the scope will have retained much of its value.


  • Dave Mitsky, Scott in NC, CSG and 4 others like this

#193 CSG

CSG

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,293
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Dark Sky, Idaho

Posted 17 April 2017 - 01:58 AM

BigC, you understand.



#194 Starkid2u

Starkid2u

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,238
  • Joined: 15 May 2013
  • Loc: East Syracuse, NY

Posted 17 April 2017 - 02:55 AM

Well, I don't care what anyone says. I'm very fond of my SCT and wouldn't trade it for an APO. I think that every scope has a niche and I don't believe there's an overlap between the APO's and SCT's, so I'm keeping my SCT. Taks are good at what they do, though. No doubt about that...

 

STARKID2U


  • Rollo likes this

#195 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 88,630
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 17 April 2017 - 02:00 PM

How does $49,000 grab you? wink.gif

 

http://www.buytelesc...efractor-146565

 

A 10" TEC APO250VT triplet apochromat at this year's NEAF...
 

Dave Mitsky

Attached Thumbnails

  • 1-IMG_8469-001.JPG
  • 1-IMG_8470-001.JPG

  • Joe Bergeron, Rollo, Oriondk and 1 other like this

#196 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 88,630
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 17 April 2017 - 02:12 PM

Merely for humorous comparison purposes...

 

https://www.astronom...ope_p16608.aspx

 

Dave Mitsky

Attached Thumbnails

  • 10-inch S-W Dob IMG_7332-001 CN 640.JPG
  • 10-inch Sky-Watcher Collapsible Dob First Light.JPG

  • Rollo, walt99 and Cpk133 like this

#197 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 44,562
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 17 April 2017 - 04:06 PM

Don't know whether they still do, but Takahashi used to offer a 10" observatory refractor with mount for $277,000.00

I think that may be the most expensive refractor and mount combo I've ever seen.


  • Rollo likes this

#198 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

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

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:17 PM

Don't know whether they still do, but Takahashi used to offer a 10" observatory refractor with mount for $277,000.00

I think that may be the most expensive refractor and mount combo I've ever seen.

But Don, 10" Tak Apo at a dark sky site in a permanent observatory. 

That's the same price as an Aston Martin Vanquish, and it doesn't get you tickets. The land and observatory would be on par with insurance for a year. grin.gif


  • Starman1 likes this

#199 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 88,630
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:38 PM

Don't know whether they still do, but Takahashi used to offer a 10" observatory refractor with mount for $277,000.00

I think that may be the most expensive refractor and mount combo I've ever seen.

Yes, I remember seeing a picture of that scope.

 

Here's another 10" apochromat that's no longer available.

 

http://apm-telescope...com/item/363132

 

Dave Mitsky



#200 noisejammer

noisejammer

    Fish Slapper

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

Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:44 PM

Don't know whether they still do, but Takahashi used to offer a 10" observatory refractor with mount for $277,000...

Can anyone spell binoscope? :D




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