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

New Takahashi FC-100 DZ F/8 !

  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic

#51 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,499
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 10 July 2019 - 11:55 AM

Is this a fact? Do you have confirmation on that?

It is not stated on the Takahashi page that only a certain number will be made.



#52 donadani

donadani

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 999
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:02 PM

DL was a "limited" run too and is right today availible new… so if limited or not - don´t get nervous ;)


  • 25585 likes this

#53 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,047
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 10 July 2019 - 12:11 PM

I was under the impression that Kyoei was not selling to the US for 2019 because they got their wrist slapped for doing it, or something along those lines. It is a good bit cheaper... I considered it many times. I want some rings for my DF but I haven't reached out to see if they'll sell them to me yet.

Other tempting option would be HK, which seems to be even less expensive than Japan. The risks would be shipping and possible implications for warranty.



#54 aire

aire

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2011

Posted 10 July 2019 - 03:19 PM

Tak is trying to produce the best 100mm that is “the most profitable for them”. That means a “doublet”.

 

The TSA 102’s price was climbing and the TSA 120 was probably eating into sales of the 102 as well. And imagers gravitate to the FSQ 106. So the TSA 102 was most likely losing sales to the TSA 120 for aperture and the 106 to imagers, hence these new lines of 100mm doublets.

 

However, if "ultimate performance" is your “top” priority, the TSA 102 is one fantastic 4-inch apo refractor.

 

There was a clean TSA 102 on AM this morning for around $2,450. No need to wait for any of these doublets. Get that baby and don’t look back.

 

Bob

thanks for the advice bobhen, I already have a 102S.

 

a lower weight is also very interesting for me, but not if they change for lower quality and higher price

for me, a change would be to lose money selling the TSA to lower a small(¿?) step in quality 

 

Now I'm just waiting for Takahashi to start doing the same with the 120s rolleyes.gif grin.gif

but this time I hope that these 120s be cheaper also for us, not only more profitable for them. praying.gif


Edited by aire, 10 July 2019 - 03:50 PM.


#55 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,459
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Canberra, Australia

Posted 10 July 2019 - 03:24 PM

Hi Daniel,

 

I am guessing Matt (Kunama) has his FC-100DZ binoscope sooner than I would smile.gif

 

Takahashi named the new FC-100 "DZ".  

It must be the last, I mean their the best, ultimate FC-100 smile.gif

 

Tammy

Tempting, but no, my 'Refractoritis' is headed for a dose of 'Aperturitis Feveritis' but more on that later.......



#56 pao

pao

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2013

Posted 10 July 2019 - 04:35 PM

Maybe I’m missing something: but do you really think that it’s a big step moving from f/7.4 to f/8? That really a human eye will ever be able to see any difference from DF to DZ? That few cm less in length will transform the DZ in a travel scope? That astro-imagers would sell their instrument or spend more money to purchase a still long scope+focal reducer for a slightly better correction? Surely a high desirable telescope but we really needed it? Don’t know, it seems to me only a marketing move.


  • Starman81, SeattleScott and 25585 like this

#57 StarDust1

StarDust1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 941
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012

Posted 10 July 2019 - 05:12 PM

Maybe I’m missing something: but do you really think that it’s a big step moving from f/7.4 to f/8? That really a human eye will ever be able to see any difference from DF to DZ? That few cm less in length will transform the DZ in a travel scope? That astro-imagers would sell their instrument or spend more money to purchase a still long scope+focal reducer for a slightly better correction? Surely a high desirable telescope but we really needed it? Don’t know, it seems to me only a marketing move.

No, it's not marketing. No, the step from f/7.4 to f/8 is not big, it's very very small, but detectable. If quality is equal, one can see very very small difference on high powers when the seeing is excellent. I see it like this, the slow focal length can take high powers a little easier then a fast scope. Just point these scopes on Jupiter, one of the best target.

 

The biggest advantage of the FC-100DZ over the FC-100DF is the sliding dew shield. At least at the moment, till the first reviews of the FC-100DZ surfaces.


Edited by StarDust1, 10 July 2019 - 05:14 PM.

  • edif300 likes this

#58 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,499
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 10 July 2019 - 06:44 PM

thanks for the advice bobhen, I already have a 102S.

 

a lower weight is also very interesting for me, but not if they change for lower quality and higher price

for me, a change would be to lose money selling the TSA to lower a small(¿?) step in quality 

 

Now I'm just waiting for Takahashi to start doing the same with the 120s rolleyes.gif grin.gif

but this time I hope that these 120s be cheaper also for us, not only more profitable for them. praying.gif

I fear a FC125 would be the end of the TSA120, as the FC100s followed discontinuation of TSA102s. Part of the reason I bought a TSA120 (also having a 120 doublet already).

 

If a FC125 with the same small flattener spot as the 100DZ has, can be made, that will be endgame for TSAs as imagers will be catered for.


Edited by 25585, 10 July 2019 - 06:49 PM.

  • John Huntley likes this

#59 jay.i

jay.i

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,768
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2017
  • Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Posted 10 July 2019 - 08:37 PM

Maybe I’m missing something: but do you really think that it’s a big step moving from f/7.4 to f/8? That really a human eye will ever be able to see any difference from DF to DZ? That few cm less in length will transform the DZ in a travel scope? That astro-imagers would sell their instrument or spend more money to purchase a still long scope+focal reducer for a slightly better correction? Surely a high desirable telescope but we really needed it? Don’t know, it seems to me only a marketing move.

If I had to guess, I'd say they are probably going to consolidate production of three FC-100D models into just one. Sell off remaining stock and then just offer the FC-100DZ. Hopefully this would mean that they are looking to release more products, like an FC-125D/FC-130D for example. I can only dream.


  • John Huntley, Richard Whalen, Tyson M and 1 other like this

#60 Axunator

Axunator

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 23 May 2015
  • Loc: Helsinki, Finland

Posted 11 July 2019 - 01:13 AM

Maybe I’m missing something: but do you really think that it’s a big step moving from f/7.4 to f/8? That really a human eye will ever be able to see any difference from DF to DZ? That few cm less in length will transform the DZ in a travel scope? That astro-imagers would sell their instrument or spend more money to purchase a still long scope+focal reducer for a slightly better correction? Surely a high desirable telescope but we really needed it? Don’t know, it seems to me only a marketing move.

Since the published spot and color correction diagrams indicate tighter performance in DZ at f/8 than even DL at f/9 (see Tyson M’s post on page 1), there must be some additional changes to the lens design than just a new focal ratio (different mating element or wider air gap?).

Whether that translates to visibly superior visual performance over current DF/DC (or even DL), remains to be seen of course.

Given how utterly beautifully even DF works in real life conditions (never looked through DL myself), I guess the gains for visual observers cannot be huge, if any (like from excellent to just a bit excellent-er, in the best of seeing conditions..).

Yet, there is some CA in DF if you really, really go on looking for it (try the infamous ’dark tree branches against bright sky’ test at high magnification if you want to spoil your day...). Is it detrimental *at all* to the visual views at night? I guess it depends, perhaps mostly on the psychology of the owner. I don’t pretend to be immune to psychological factors myself, yet I’ve been able to resist temporary, completely irrational urges to switch my DF to DL, and am glad for it, because DF is so compact, the 3.6 degree wide fields so magical, and in real life observing I don’t notice any CA in focus even at silly high magnifications - I’m too busy enjoying the beautiful views.

I welcome DZ as real product development if it lives up to the expectations (and why would it not?). But until some objective, good user reports start coming out, I’ll keep enjoying my beautiful DF, and perhaps even after them...

Edited by Axunator, 11 July 2019 - 02:48 AM.

  • MortonH, rerun, Celerondon and 2 others like this

#61 balu01

balu01

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 398
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 11 July 2019 - 04:03 AM

Does this count as no color?:

 

I tortured my DL many different ways but can’t get it to give me color. That’s a pretty high intensity industrial bulb about 200 yards down range. 

 

 

81168701-208C-4232-8109-8528C33D29DD.jpeg


Edited by balu01, 11 July 2019 - 04:05 AM.


#62 Axunator

Axunator

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 23 May 2015
  • Loc: Helsinki, Finland

Posted 11 July 2019 - 05:59 AM

Does this count as no color?:

I tortured my DL many different ways but can’t get it to give me color. That’s a pretty high intensity industrial bulb about 200 yards down range.

Looks absolutely CA free to me. I’m not sure if you posted this as a reply to my post above, but nowhere I was suggesting that there would be visible CA in DL (which I’ve never even used, as I also made clear)- on the contrary, I find even DF as a superb visual instrument that exhibits CA only upon ’extreme torture’, not during normal observing it was designed for.

I only posted in response to pao’s post, by indicating that the slight increase in f.l. (compared to 740 mm) cannot be the only optical design change based on the published spot diagrams, and therefore it is too early to speculate whether DZ can be visually (slightly) superior to DF/DC, just because it’s only slightly slower.

If you weren’t replying to my post, I apologize for my rather benign rant...

EDIT: I see now I wrote ”...(or even DL)...” in my first post - actually this of course becomes a moot point if DL cannot be outperformed as it is already *perfect* (can anything be in the real world?) ;-) But if DZ will achieve the same perfection at f/8, I think it is nice and exciting.

Edited by Axunator, 11 July 2019 - 06:26 AM.

  • StarDust1 and balu01 like this

#63 StarDust1

StarDust1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 941
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012

Posted 11 July 2019 - 06:25 AM

I couldn’t detect any CA in the DL at high powers.

The DF is a compromised scope. Priorities was portability.


Edited by StarDust1, 11 July 2019 - 06:26 AM.


#64 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 11 July 2019 - 06:54 AM

Well, the DF is a compromise only up to a certain extent...it has still an excellent level of overall correction.
As typed before, I have both this and the DL: the only way to tell clearly that the DF has some minor faults is to observe with both side by side on a steady night
  • rerun and StarDust1 like this

#65 STEEL

STEEL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 449
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Italy (Genova)

Posted 11 July 2019 - 07:15 AM

Does this count as no color?:

 

I tortured my DL many different ways but can’t get it to give me color. That’s a pretty high intensity industrial bulb about 200 yards down range. 

 

 

attachicon.gif 81168701-208C-4232-8109-8528C33D29DD.jpeg

I also tortured all my telescopes with the halogen headlights of the port (very high power white light).  In these extreme conditions I tested the TEC-140, Vixen FL102s, Zeiss APQ 100 and now the Takahashi FC-100DL.  The only telescopes that are perfectly correct are the DL and the APQ, completely free color.


  • balu01 and 25585 like this

#66 StarDust1

StarDust1

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 941
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2012

Posted 11 July 2019 - 07:27 AM

I tortured my FS-102 and TEC-140 on Jupiter in excellent seeing. Both scopes passed flawlessly and kept both.

 

I tortured the FC-100DF and FC-100DL on Jupiter in excellent seeing. And again both scopes passed flawlessly. But let both go. You really can't go wrong with these excellent scopes. Deciding factors come down to portability and one needs.


  • edif300, payner, dweller25 and 4 others like this

#67 STEEL

STEEL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 449
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Italy (Genova)

Posted 11 July 2019 - 08:28 AM

On Venus and Sirius the TEC-140 ED was the only one of my telescopes that showed color and consequently in the halogen headlight test was the least correct one. They are experimental tests where you go beyond the normal use of the telescope. Tests performed with the Zeiss Abbe II eyepieces. For the visual the DL is an optical reference .. the perfection of the art.
  • balu01 likes this

#68 Bill Barlow

Bill Barlow

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,585
  • Joined: 03 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Overland Park KS

Posted 11 July 2019 - 09:31 AM

I wonder if the new Tak  DZ will come with the MEF-3 duel speed focuser like the second DL run does.  Otherwise this scope will cost quite a bit more than the DL if you want to add it on.

 

Bill



#69 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,499
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 11 July 2019 - 10:18 AM

Where does compromise start for doublets, what is the ideal minimum focal ratio?  There are seemingly always doublet doubters, those who think any refractor with only 2 lenses is a compromise from a triplet, as some imagers regard triplets compared to quadruplets etc.

 

The DL is considered fast by long-&-slow fans. Poor DZ is/will be considered even more that, and probably by wide field fans too.

 

If Takahashi made a FC F6.5 90mm (or 100), that I think would be popular. Borg, Vixen & Baader would have serious competition. Small, short & fast also sell well.



#70 MSWcdavis

MSWcdavis

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2012

Posted 11 July 2019 - 10:28 AM

all i know is this thing looks sweet and is likely a response to the stowaway


  • Starman81 likes this

#71 balu01

balu01

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 398
  • Joined: 04 May 2016
  • Loc: Las Vegas NV

Posted 11 July 2019 - 10:43 AM

.. the perfection of the art.


Well said Steel, the very reason why I acquired the DL, it is my reference scope too.

Edited by balu01, 11 July 2019 - 10:43 AM.

  • 25585 likes this

#72 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 19,530
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 11 July 2019 - 10:46 AM

Where does compromise start for doublets, what is the ideal minimum focal ratio?  There are seemingly always doublet doubters, those who think any refractor with only 2 lenses is a compromise from a triplet, as some imagers regard triplets compared to quadruplets etc.

 

The DL is considered fast by long-&-slow fans. Poor DZ is/will be considered even more that, and probably by wide field fans too.

 

If Takahashi made a FC F6.5 90mm (or 100), that I think would be popular. Borg, Vixen & Baader would have serious competition. Small, short & fast also sell well.

I want to see some F/10's and 12's.



#73 MSWcdavis

MSWcdavis

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2012

Posted 11 July 2019 - 11:03 AM

800mm is perfect focal length for as wide as you need views in my experience

 

i'm one of the fools that had a deposit down on the stowaway but subsequently cancelled

 

i think there is an ED F11 out now iirc

 

in the end 92mm is a teacup (as a fellow astronomer would say)

 

100mm is a teacup too



#74 Axunator

Axunator

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: 23 May 2015
  • Loc: Helsinki, Finland

Posted 11 July 2019 - 11:29 AM

in the end 92mm is a teacup (as a fellow astronomer would say)

 

100mm is a teacup too

Yeah, but look what kind of storms we can raise in these teacups lol.gif


  • MortonH likes this

#75 MSWcdavis

MSWcdavis

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2012

Posted 11 July 2019 - 12:03 PM

I should edit my post

 

with nightvision or a dslr or with double stars, planets and the moon or in the middle of nowhere  100mm DZ is incredible

 

id like one

 

my bad


Edited by MSWcdavis, 11 July 2019 - 12:05 PM.



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