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

TV NP101is or Orion EON 104mm ED-X2 APO Triplet?

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#26 astrophile

astrophile

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013
  • Loc: NoVA Yellow Zone

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:02 PM

And OBTW, if you elect to spring for the Televue, do consider the used market. For some reason the NP101 takes a huge depreciation hit and you can find excellent secondhand ones for far less than new.
  • doctordub and mikeDnight like this

#27 rodb

rodb

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 19 May 2008
  • Loc: MD, USA,

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:13 PM

If this is the same scope as the Orion, it gets a pretty good review here:

 

https://www.primaluc...fractor-review/

It seems it's the same scope - same specs, as I'm quite familiar with them. Good review, but by someone who says he's not a "visualist," but more an AP guy. And used cheap EPs and diagonal. Still this reviewer exclaims the virtues of this system.



#28 rodb

rodb

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 19 May 2008
  • Loc: MD, USA,

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:41 PM

Here's another opinion just to help you out But it's my honest one... as a former NP101 owner.

First, on aperture. I would challenge anyone, shy maybe of Stephen J. O'Meara, to identify a difference in view between 104mm vs. 101.5. Please.

That said, optical quality being equal (and I have no idea about the Orion), I'd stick with the Orion. 3.5" of added length is going to degrade mounted portability more than a couple of pounds. Plus, as others have said, the NP-101 will shine visually under dark skies. If your yard is under even moderate LP, not as much.

So in fact, unless you find the EON's optics less than excellent, or relish the widest flattest field available, I think the Orion is the better choice.

All good points. Marty has said that length is as  much a determinant as weight for stability, as you've also said. So one for you.

 

And I have to say that I'm under almost the worst skies - the grey penumbra circling the white nucleus of downtown DC. Still, on the best nights, I can see Alcor ~ mag 4. (When I and my eyes were much younger (sigh!) in better suburban skies I could count nine stars of the Pleiades, especially knowing where those three other mag five stars were located. That was about 40 years ago. Boy have the skies gotten so much worse.)

 

So, in my reality, the NP101is sadly does not seem the best fit. I was excited about researching no less trying out that TV, as much because I love chasing equipment - what's called the G.A.S. attack - Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I have not yet observed other than the the sun today, the area being in a rather rainy period for many days. And since I hate the cold, the one night that was clear in the few days I've had the scope I didn't go out. I know my refund period will run out before it warms up enough for me to stay out and put it through its paces. C'est la vie; c'est la guerre (especially the latter wink.gif)

 

Worse comes to worse, I'll still have by all accounts a good scope and can always sell it back to C-7 for a good return (I've done a couple times before).

 

Much regards to all and thank you very much for weighing in on my issues. I'm always surprised how many replies are generated by my seemingly simple thread.

 

Rod



#29 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:44 PM

With rings, two dovetails, and diagonal my NP101is comes in at 13.5 lbs. This is mine on the Skywatcher AZ-GTi. It will be about as close to grab and go as you can get with this size APO.

 

24720607048_db4f604f1f_z.jpg

 

Here is the mount, EP's, Diagonal, and scope in the TV case.

 

26834912859_b82db985dd_z.jpg

 

I use the second vixen rail as a handle. The rings and rails are Prima Lucie Lab's. They are the lightest rings and rails I could find.

 

However the NP101is is $3,795 to $3,995 depending on the shop. That is just the scope and case. The Takahashi FC-100DF is $2,440. A substantial difference in price. The DF is also about 4-5 lbs lighter. The DF will take a 2" diagonal. It also has no false color in focus with only a little outside or inside of focus. On a very bright star like Sirius at very high power you might see a small bit of CA. The only reason I don't have one is I am very sensitive to CA and it drives me nuts. To the point where if I can detect it I will be so distracted I end up hating the observing session. 

 

The DF plus Takahashi 2" diagonal, Tele Vue Panoptic 24mm, and a set of Tele Vue Nagler 11mm and 3.5mm eyepieces will be the same price as the NP101is by itself. Add an additional $450 for the AZ-GTi (you have to buy it from overseas and one of the good options for doing so is First Light Optics out of England) plus the same rings and dovetail I used will run about another $500. Throw in a Telrad for $40 for alignment and you are still $618 under what you would pay for the NP101is system with EP's at $4,932.

 

The AZ-GTi is an amazing GOTO as well as free moving G&G mount. GOTO works with your SmartPhone but you also have the option of buying a Synscan hand controller and using it. The mount runs on 8 AA batteries. Here is a video of it slewing my NP101is.

 

24720606358_9b86eea4d8.jpg


  • Erik Bakker, North of Sixty and jay.i like this

#30 tonyt

tonyt

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,183
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Australia

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:46 PM

My NP101is is 6 kg/13 pounds as pictured with the wide dovetail plate and ES handle. It's not really a lightweight. It is a gorgeous scope though and suitable for low/high power visual and imaging. The case is a work of art too: well designed, very protective and lightweight.

 

IMG_0790.JPG

 

 


  • North of Sixty likes this

#31 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:46 PM

Follow up. Since you are having some seeing issues and some seeing in LP issues the Takahashi FC-100DL at f/9 may be a better option. It is about $200 more than the DF. But it is a planet killer and will really bring DSO in though limited to a 4" APO. I would get the 24 Panoptic, 13mm Nagler, and 5mm Nagler as the EP's to go with it instead of the 11mm and 3.5mm EP's. 



#32 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,859
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 12 February 2018 - 07:51 PM

Doctor, how stable is it with a decent 2" eyepiece, maybe 1.5lbs making for a total of around 15lbs? Does the AZ-GTi actually keep it secure? The single locking screw would make me a little nervous with that amount of weight.



#33 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,440
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 12 February 2018 - 08:07 PM

I know from reading this forum, Jon Isaacs, among some others, has practical opinions on this scope and I would love to hear what he has to say.

 

 

Rod:

 

If you haven't read it,  I suggest reading my comments on the Orion 85 versus the TeleVue 85.  While the telescope specific comments may not apply,  the general comments are very applicable. 

 

https://www.cloudyni...5/#entry8393110

 

- 104 mm versus 101.6 mm.  If you're splitting hairs,  you might as well split the right hairs.  The NP-101 is a full 4 inches.  I verified this with TeleVue after I was using some refractors to calibrate my laser aperture test procedure and measured the NP-101 as closer to 102 mm than 101mm.  In any event,  the difference between a 104 mm scope and a 4 inch is inconsequential. 

 

- 4 pounds is not inconsequential. I mentioned this in your previous thread.  My NP-101 weigh 12.0 pounds with the Everbrite diagonal,  clamshell and dovetail,  all ready to go.  

 

- You can mount a 50 mm RACI finder to the NP-101 clamshell. 

 

- Kevin Legore (Skyward_eyes)  was very eloquent in his appraisal of the NP-101.  Kevin is a vendor,  he works for SkyWatcher USA which has no connection with TeleVue.  Kevin is also heavily involved in outreach.  If you ever buy a Skywatcher product and there's an issue.  Kevin will make it right.  He's the man for Skywatcher. 

 

-You and the NP-101, Me and the NP-101.

 

For me,  the NP-101 is the perfect 4 inch refractor.  It is as at home in my San Diego backyard splitting double and viewing the planets as it is out under dark clear skies wandering around the Nebulosity of the Milky Way,  taking in the entirety of the North American Pelican complex with the 31 mm Nagler and an UHC filter. 

 

There are other 4 inch refractors that also excel at high magnifications but what sets the NP-101 apart are the incredibly perfect, low power views,  big,  wide and bright with tight round stars right to the edge.  For a visual scope in this arena,  it has no competitors other than the even more expensive,  heavier Takahashi 106FSQ which is really an Astrograph. 

 

So,  the NP-101 is the perfect 4 inch for me because I spend one to two weeks a month out under dark skies where the NP-101 shares eyepiece time with some large Dobs. 

 

The question is, is it the right scope for you?  I think that depends on how often you will spend time out where the skies are dark and clear because that's where it stands alone. 

 

5560437-NP-101 Portamount Houston Fearless CN.jpg
3925365-TV NP-101 at Jewel Valley.jpg
 
Jon

  • doctordub, Erik Bakker, turtle86 and 7 others like this

#34 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,124
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 12 February 2018 - 08:27 PM

The NP-101is while designed for imaging is a spectacular visual instrument for both low power as well as high power viewing. The fact that it is a Petzval design also provide a flat field which is a nice added bonus as well. Also, when it comes to weight 4lbs can make a difference, especially for rigidity of the mount and balancing. 

 

When talking about light loss we are talking something like 6% difference between the 104 and 101. This is nothing to worry about in reality so I wouldn't fret over such a simple thing. 

 

In the end this is your money and your time. You need to find what best suits your observing needs and desires. But from personal experience, the NP-101 is one of the finest refractors available. 

Now THAT is A recomendation.    If you want the TV Rod, get it.  It is as nice as you imagine.  Don't look back.

 

jmd


  • alnitak22 and jay.i like this

#35 epsiloneridani

epsiloneridani

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2011

Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:58 PM

Hi,

 

Novice observer here, but I went through similar analysis-paralysis phase a few months ago. On paper the NP101is seemed the ideal all-in-one visual/imaging scope given its low power flat field views, but based on threads such as:

https://www.cloudyni...ue-101is/page-3

https://www.cloudyni...n-cost-televue/

 

I concluded that quality control seemed rather hit or miss--multiple reports of pinched optics, long and ineffective intervals "in the shop", plus the Petzval design's potential susceptibility to miscollimation. Those lucky observers/imagers with a good unit are clearly very pleased.

 

I ended up purchasing a Takahashi FC-100DF. Mechanically less complex, which hopefully translates to better reliability and, as the good doctor notes, substantially less expensive, particularly since I managed to catch the last of their holiday season discount.

Still patiently awaiting my TEC APO140FL, which is probably what I'll use most in my backyard, but the DF seems quite portable.

I will likely have some regrets on the absence of flat fields--in early observation with the FC100DF (which I received just a few days ago), I do see field curvature in an Ethos 21mm eyepiece. I'll probably add on the MEF3 2-speed focuser, investigate motorized focusing, and eventually purchase the (expensive) reducer/flattener when venturing into imaging. Tak's extender-Q, which effectively converts the DF to an f/11.8 scope, is an interesting device, but observers seem to feel that it's not substantially better optically than a good "image amplifier" such as a Powermate. At high magnifications, the limiting factor for me would be the tiny exit pupil (with its distracting floaters).

 

Best of luck with your decision,

Derek



#36 jeremiah2229

jeremiah2229

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Illinois, USA N 37° W 89°

Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:02 PM

Just my greatly "biased" opinion...

 

If someone tells me 3mm is going to make a difference... I'll turn and walk away. No, it will not.

 

So with that said I'd also like to share "keep your eye open for a decent TV-102". One of these can be had for less than the NP101 and deliver very nice views. Won't get that wide flat field like the NP but still I'd not turn my nose up to one. My sample here is a treat to use and I can't imagine replacing it.

 

 

Peace...


  • Jon Isaacs and Will_S like this

#37 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:39 PM

Doctor, how stable is it with a decent 2" eyepiece, maybe 1.5lbs making for a total of around 15lbs? Does the AZ-GTi actually keep it secure? The single locking screw would make me a little nervous with that amount of weight.


I don’t use it with 2” EP’s. As it is on the stock tripod after a slew there is 1-2 seconds of jitter. And about 1/2-1 seconds when focusing. However I am over the rated weight for the mount. But I knew that going in and was willing to deal with it for the form factor and weight of the mount. I haven’t tried vibration suppression pads yet so that may change. Ditto for a beefier tripod.

The screw keeps it firmly in place.

#38 Aleko

Aleko

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,184
  • Joined: 01 Aug 2010
  • Loc: AZ/WI

Posted 13 February 2018 - 03:35 AM

I don't quite understand why people seem to be saying the NP101 will do worse than other scopes in light polluted skies.  Given equal magnification, it should handle the bright skies similar to any other 4-inch scope. The fact that it really excels in dark skies for wide flat views doesn't make it a dog in the city.  The skies in suburban Atlanta are pitiful, but the NP101 is still my most used scope at home.  

 

Alex


Edited by Aleko, 13 February 2018 - 03:42 AM.

  • doctordub, la200o and City Kid like this

#39 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,908
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:03 AM

For medium to high powers, at 4", a Tak FC100 is hard to beat. But the flat wide fields the NP101 can provide at low powers are wonderful. Follow your heart, choose whichever appeals most to you.



#40 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,440
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:55 AM

I don't quite understand why people seem to be saying the NP101 will do worse than other scopes in light polluted skies.  Given equal magnification, it should handle the bright skies similar to any other 4-inch scope. The fact that it really excels in dark skies for wide flat views doesn't make it a dog in the city.  The skies in suburban Atlanta are pitiful, but the NP101 is still my most used scope at home.  

 

Alex

 

Alex:

 

The NP-101 is a fine scope under urban skies. 

 

But what you're buying with your $4000 is a short focal length,  very fast refractor that's fully corrected for field curvature.  These virtues are very useful under dark skies but at least for me,  not particularly useful from my red zone backyard . I rarely use the 41 mm Panoptic or the 31 mm Nagler from my backyard with mine , wide field/richest field viewing is not a red/white zone activity .

 

From an urban backyard,  i spend the vast majority of my time at moderate and high magnifications. For this, it's short focal length and fast focal ratio are liabilities rather than advantages.  To reach high magnifications , very short focal length eyepieces are required , i often use the 3.5 mm Nagler with a 2x Barlow. 

 

Additionally, with its flat field and fast focal ratio , it is not forgiving in terms eyepieces,  eyepieces that are quite decent at F/7 show their flaws in the NP-101.  TeleVue eyepieces and the NP-101 are literally made for each other.  This means a large additional investment to really get the views the scope is capable of . I have the Naglers,  Panoptic and Ethos eyepieces for my fast Dobs but for someone observing from a bright urban setting , they represent an additional expense that can be avoided with a slower telescope .

 

So I think for a scope that will be used almost entirely from an urban backyard,  a slower , less expensive scope that's optimized for high magnifications is a better choice . 

 

Jon


  • Erik Bakker, Aleko and jay.i like this

#41 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,124
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:18 AM

Hi,

 

Novice observer here, but I went through similar analysis-paralysis phase a few months ago. On paper the NP101is seemed the ideal all-in-one visual/imaging scope given its low power flat field views, but based on threads such as:

https://www.cloudyni...ue-101is/page-3

https://www.cloudyni...n-cost-televue/

 

I concluded that quality control seemed rather hit or miss--multiple reports of pinched optics, long and ineffective intervals "in the shop", plus the Petzval design's potential susceptibility to miscollimation. Those lucky observers/imagers with a good unit are clearly very pleased.

 

I ended up purchasing a Takahashi FC-100DF. Mechanically less complex, which hopefully translates to better reliability and, as the good doctor notes, substantially less expensive, particularly since I managed to catch the last of their holiday season discount.

Still patiently awaiting my TEC APO140FL, which is probably what I'll use most in my backyard, but the DF seems quite portable.

I will likely have some regrets on the absence of flat fields--in early observation with the FC100DF (which I received just a few days ago), I do see field curvature in an Ethos 21mm eyepiece. I'll probably add on the MEF3 2-speed focuser, investigate motorized focusing, and eventually purchase the (expensive) reducer/flattener when venturing into imaging. Tak's extender-Q, which effectively converts the DF to an f/11.8 scope, is an interesting device, but observers seem to feel that it's not substantially better optically than a good "image amplifier" such as a Powermate. At high magnifications, the limiting factor for me would be the tiny exit pupil (with its distracting floaters).

 

Best of luck with your decision,

Derek

Tak makes fine instruments, and anyone that gets one will likely be happy.  In the same spirit, I know many more people that are happy with their televue scope than not.  Same could be said explore scientific and skywatcher, for that matter.  On the other side, if you look hard enough you can find a few critical reviews of taks, TEC and even even the venerable AP.  Every company has the potential for QC issues, which is why you should look at a company's reputation for customer service. When buying.  Televue is excellent in this regard, as others have attested too.  If you want a 4inch refractor, with a short focal length , flat field  that also excels at higher magnification, then the np101 fits the bill. And likely the only one around that does.  

 

Jmd


  • Jon Isaacs and alnitak22 like this

#42 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 87,440
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:44 AM

I concluded that quality control seemed rather hit or miss--multiple reports of pinched optics, long and ineffective intervals "in the shop", plus the Petzval design's potential susceptibility to miscollimation. Those lucky observers/imagers with a good unit are clearly very pleased.

 

 

In my humble opinion .. From what I seen in person and read,  the QC and service for TeleVue scopes is top notch.  It doesn't take luck to get a good one. There are literally thousands of NP-101 out there. 

 

As far as collimation , it comes with the territory , petzvals are sensitive to miscollimation , the FSQs are the same way. Doublets like yours ard not only mechanically simpler but also optically much simpler.  Collimation issues with doublets of any manufacture are rare. 

 

Jon


  • doctordub and alnitak22 like this

#43 starbob1

starbob1

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,074
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2007
  • Loc: IN

Posted 13 February 2018 - 08:45 AM

The televue is a great scope' but overpriced new same as a Tak. I got my Tak FC100 FOR $1800 used '  Which is just a killer scope' but does not have a flat field for imaging. I like scopes that have a great resale value. Televue Tak AP are the bests' The Orion not so much.



#44 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,859
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:56 AM

 

Doctor, how stable is it with a decent 2" eyepiece, maybe 1.5lbs making for a total of around 15lbs? Does the AZ-GTi actually keep it secure? The single locking screw would make me a little nervous with that amount of weight.


I don’t use it with 2” EP’s. As it is on the stock tripod after a slew there is 1-2 seconds of jitter. And about 1/2-1 seconds when focusing. However I am over the rated weight for the mount. But I knew that going in and was willing to deal with it for the form factor and weight of the mount. I haven’t tried vibration suppression pads yet so that may change. Ditto for a beefier tripod.

The screw keeps it firmly in place.

 

bigshock.gif How could you avoid using the incredible Ethos line or the longer Naglers in such a well-corrected widefield scope!? I don't know if I would use 1.25" eyepieces for anything but the sun, the moon, and planets...

 

Good to know though, honestly better than I expected.


Edited by jay.i, 13 February 2018 - 09:56 AM.


#45 dr.who

dr.who

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15,313
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2012

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:47 AM

 

 

Doctor, how stable is it with a decent 2" eyepiece, maybe 1.5lbs making for a total of around 15lbs? Does the AZ-GTi actually keep it secure? The single locking screw would make me a little nervous with that amount of weight.


I don’t use it with 2” EP’s. As it is on the stock tripod after a slew there is 1-2 seconds of jitter. And about 1/2-1 seconds when focusing. However I am over the rated weight for the mount. But I knew that going in and was willing to deal with it for the form factor and weight of the mount. I haven’t tried vibration suppression pads yet so that may change. Ditto for a beefier tripod.

The screw keeps it firmly in place.

 

bigshock.gif How could you avoid using the incredible Ethos line or the longer Naglers in such a well-corrected widefield scope!? I don't know if I would use 1.25" eyepieces for anything but the sun, the moon, and planets...

 

Good to know though, honestly better than I expected.

 

 

The short answer is weight, space, and cost. The long answer is the NP101is is my G&G scope that rides with me. I can't afford a second set of Ethos to carry in the car, the TV case won't fit Ethos with all the other stuff I have packed in there, and large Ethoi on that mount would make things more shaky than they already are.



#46 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,446
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:01 PM

Emotion gets the best of us when we spend thousands of dollars sometimes. I agonized over whether or not to return my Borg 90FL within the 30 day window and the choice was not purely logical. There was some emotion there too, some subjective preference. Even if OP hasn't star tested the optics, other things can seem more appealing like the resale value, or the excellent support, or a better focuser, or a lighter weight. The optics aren't the only thing that matters, though I would argue they are the most important. Still, great/decent optics can be outweighed by the aforementioned things, at least for me.

You returned the Borg you bought when you didn't like the optical performance. You may have purchased it not knowing that Borg tends to push the limits of a telescope design, but your decision to return it was based on data. For me, optics do need to reach a certain level, as well. Once they do, I can put up with a lot. There is something special about crisp, high powered views of the moon and planets.



#47 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,446
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:23 PM

I don't quite understand why people seem to be saying the NP101 will do worse than other scopes in light polluted skies.  Given equal magnification, it should handle the bright skies similar to any other 4-inch scope. The fact that it really excels in dark skies for wide flat views doesn't make it a dog in the city.  The skies in suburban Atlanta are pitiful, but the NP101 is still my most used scope at home. 

A well done, longer focal length triplet, or doublet may do slightly better than the Televue in the contrast department on medium to high power, though the difference is likely too small to matter. What you spend the money on (an extra $1200 in the case of the OP) is the low power, flat field capability. If you travel regularly, like Jon, to darker skies, the Televue makes sense. If you're not going to do that, it's hard to justify the price. That said, the Orion scope in question has more in common with the Televue than it has differences. It's an f6.25, and has a focal length of 650mm. It will show field curvature, but not much visually. It can do low power, wide field. Where it has better potential is with color correction and contrast, provided the optics are OK.



#48 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,446
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:35 PM

To Peter B: You say I'm the perfect candidate for a fleece job. Who is fleecing me?! I don't appreciate your accusation or your denigrating, barely hidden superior tone. Wisdom is the antithesis of superiority.

You are trying to decide on spending an extra $1200 based on ... what? Until you test properly what you have, you cannot make an informed decision. Are you going to base a decision on how much you like, or don't like the guy at Company 7? Are you going to listen to people who say, "follow your heart," as the justification to spend still more money? That seldom ends well. Remember that those who make recommendations aren't spending the money. You are.


Edited by Peter Besenbruch, 13 February 2018 - 02:43 PM.

  • IMB likes this

#49 Crow Haven

Crow Haven

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,513
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2009
  • Loc: S.Oregon Coast USA

Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:17 PM

Just get the TV NP-101.  It may not be "justified" by your sky conditions or etc., etc., but all that matters in the end is what you think of it.  No one else is really going to care about your telescope, so find the best deal you can on the TV NP-101 and give it a whirl. 


  • doctordub, turtle86, alnitak22 and 1 other like this

#50 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,859
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:25 PM

 

Emotion gets the best of us when we spend thousands of dollars sometimes. I agonized over whether or not to return my Borg 90FL within the 30 day window and the choice was not purely logical. There was some emotion there too, some subjective preference. Even if OP hasn't star tested the optics, other things can seem more appealing like the resale value, or the excellent support, or a better focuser, or a lighter weight. The optics aren't the only thing that matters, though I would argue they are the most important. Still, great/decent optics can be outweighed by the aforementioned things, at least for me.

You returned the Borg you bought when you didn't like the optical performance. You may have purchased it not knowing that Borg tends to push the limits of a telescope design, but your decision to return it was based on data. For me, optics do need to reach a certain level, as well. Once they do, I can put up with a lot. There is something special about crisp, high powered views of the moon and planets.

 

I knew plenty of the potential risks of a fast focal ratio doublet. I know you think I don't based on several of your past posts but you must have missed mine where I said something like "knowing that, I still want to see if this defies expectations". Unfortunately it did not.




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