Astro-Physics Traveler 105 EDFS


 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Switch to Subject View
Post Message



Page 1 of 2 Next


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.148.159)
Date: 08/01/2001 01:34:54 pm PDT
I agree except the TMB scopes are just as good in performance and in mechanics. These are both great companies and I would be thrilled to own any of their scopes.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.221.74)
Date: 08/02/2001 01:03:03 pm PDT
you are right, but the AP scopes seem to hold their value better, maybe because they are harder to get and everyone wants one. my ultimate dream scope would be a very large TMB permanently mounted in my very own observatory under dark skies. but its just a dream, i dont have that kind of cash. if i win the lotto you know what it will be buying.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.105.24)
Date: 11/22/2001 12:03:37 pm PDT
i have been on the waiting list for two years now, i hope to be included in the next production run. and yes two years goes by quickly.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.17.174)
Date: 11/24/2001 07:26:32 pm PDT
I too, have been on the notification list for exactly 2 years this month. I don't mind the wait since I've been busy imaging and observing thru my Tak 106.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.198.174)
Date: 02/04/2002 02:49:15 pm PDT
I think it might be wise to let many of those of you who might or are considering a Traverler....A well known optical designer and expert...(whom I can't name) has told 3 of us that he just tested 10 of these for optical quality...only 4 passed out of 10 scopes. All of the remaining 6 have to go back for refiguring.
His Quote "APs are the most overrated refractor on the premium market" "They consistently fail optical quality tests, and are greatly surpassed by Takahashi, TMB, and even Vixen". YES you heard right...Vixen!
I used to own APs and sold them all...finding that it is mostly hype and not superb imaging for the money...
I had to send one back myself, because it was half wave!
This is all true....


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.89.244)
Date: 02/05/2002 05:56:29 am PDT
in response to last comment, its really sad that idiots like you have nothing better to do than to make up stupid stories thinking that any of us who have used any of the AP scopes would believe you.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.205.69)
Date: 02/12/2002 01:31:20 pm PDT
An idiot is someone who doesn't do his research...since I do.. I don't have to resort to name calling. If in doubt...publish your email address and I'll tell you who now does the testing for AP. Then you can email him or ask him yourself. AP's scopes went up $300 because they are coming out with interferograms now.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.200.29)
Date: 02/22/2002 06:06:13 am PDT
As a note only....not to be directly critical...but, Roland Christiansen has lately desputed the accuracy of Suiters star test as a measure of optical quality on several owner web sites do to the recent backlash of owner optical star tests that fail to meet the diffraction limit. Why the 180 degree turnaround? For what you pay for an AP of any kind, it makes you wonder why there isn't an interferagram with them.
Just one more thing to think about.....


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.105.187)
Date: 02/23/2002 07:06:18 am PDT
I believe that Scopes should be compared on a cost comparison, not strictly on like aperture. It's unfair to compare a $300 4" Newt to a $2900 4" refractor, even though many of them come pretty close in image quality. All my reflectors have handily beaten any 5" or less APO on planetary and deep sky detail. The only 2 saving graces for the smaller refractors is that they have quick cool down and can be used for extreme widefield use in excess of 3 degrees field of view. I owned 2 APs (Traveler and a 130) as well as 7 Taks (2 FS78, 3 FS 102s, and 2 FS128s), None even matched the performance of any reflector over 7-8" I owned regardless of make or manufacture, be it an SCT, Newtonian, or a MakNewt, whether on planets or deepsky. The price/performance ratio doesn't even come close. Many fail to remember that the most important consideration is aperture. As an example, even the 3 8" SCTs which I used to compare to two 5" Taks (these scopes were owned for nearly a year and directly compared side by side with the same premium eyepieces) beat out all these refractors on planets and deep sky detail, even in average seeing. I have never once seen more contrast or detail in the smaller scope, except when the seeing was exceedingly poor. Which was only about 20- 25% of the time.
If you consider that you can get a C9.25 with excellent optics with a computerized GP-DX mount for about $3300, it's a major value compared to about $2900 for just a Traveler optical tube. And it does beat it handily on all objects, except for those over 1 degree in size. But even then the intraobject detail is much higher and apparent in the larger aperture. As for ease of setup, it is about the same for both except that the Traveler can also be used on a large photo tripod for quick use.
I am absolutely convinced that refractors are perceived to perform better than reflectors because of: 1) Smaller aperture gathers less background light, and have darker backgrounds as a result...this is mistaken for higher contrast, particularly by novices and gives an aesthetically more pleasing image. The image contrast is higher in a larger telescope. 2) High quality refractors cool faster, and give excellent images within a short amount of time...large reflectors need a lot of cool down time, and are often not fairly evaluated at star parties because they did not reach thermal equilibrium 3) Comparisons are usually with reflectors that are not properly collimated, or cleaned 4) Most reflector owners of the cheaper dob and SCT variety use less than premium eyepieces, where a Tak or AP owner wouldn't even consider using less than premium ones on such an expensive instrument. Premium eyepieces can even improve a dept. store scope!!! 5) Lastly, the comparisons are made to less than premium instruments. An EL11, costs about $2600 shipped, mount and all. Add a dob driver and computer and your at about $3600. Considerably less than the $7000 for a premium refractor setup. And the 11 beats it handily on every object under 1.5* in size.
I love all telescopes and still own a 4" Tak, and it is a great scope...but the truth about performance has to be told...If I had to keep ONE scope it would be my EL12.5. Why, aperture wins.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Moved Message
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.89.141)
Date: 02/23/2002 07:42:16 am PDT
hey everybody i know the worlds greatest telescope tester and he said that if you buy a telescope from anyone that it wont be any good. i had to send back 10,000 telescopes last year due to poor optics, they only tested at 1/2 of 1/2 of 1/2 wave.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Page 1 of 2 Next

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!