Takahashi FS-128


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



Page 1 of 1


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.195.47
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.42.10)
Date: 02/09/2004 05:51:30 pm PDT
Will the pig who keeps butting into these reviews with his "aperture wins" nonsense please get a life and stick to reviewing the products at hand instead of preaching his cult propaganda, (or better yet, refrain from writing anything at all)? He has no clue what the circumstances are for the person considering this scope. For some folks, a high quality APO just makes more sense for their lifestyle, personal health, family situation, storage space, etc, etc, etc. Folks considering the Starmasters, SCT's or anything else are welcome to click over to those reviews and read away. How childish.

>Now to the nitty gritty. I've been doing some comparisions, side by side with many other scopes I've owned and those owned by friends and other club members. First, I'll tell you that, this refractor is a marvilous instrument and against like apertures of other designs it wins quite handlily on image quality. But, I've discovered as I've suspected all along that quality aperture wins.
>In less than perfect skies the 5" seems to beat larger aperture Newtonians and SCT's on planetary detail, but when the skies are steady they BEAT the 128 on resolution and CONTRAST as well. The scopes I've compared to it are as follows: C8, C9.25, Meade 10"SCT, 8" Dobsonian (F6), 10" Starmaster, 11" Starmaster, and a 15" Obsession, all were well collimated and had 1/5 wave or better optics. When the seeing allowed the others won out over the TAK. Granted, 75% of the time the Tak would outperform these others, but when seeing allowed, aperture won.(In Fact it's an aperture related thing, bigger the aperture the better the image)


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.195.47
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.29.12)
Date: 09/17/2004 06:07:44 pm PDT
OSSERVO DA DUE ANNI CON IL TAKA,TUTTE LE NOTTO MI SOGNO SATURNO A 500 X.
QUELLA NOTTE SONO STATO IN PARADISO...........
MESSAGE FROM ITALY



>The FS128 is as perfect a 5" aperture instrument as can be. The optics are superb, with perfect star test in and out of focus and excellent high contrast images in focus. Performs quite well on deep sky objects, even with the limited aperture. Performs on deep sky about equivalent to a 7" reflector.
>The tube is hefty, well built and has been mistaken by many to be a 6" refractor. Although it looks heavy, it isn't, weighing in at 16lbs, it is very manageble for portability sake. It is the epitome of the optical craft, and is as pleasant to look at as look thru. The focuser is incredibly smooth and accurate. Holds focus dead on, even with heavy eyepieces. As for the finder, it's comparable to a 60mm apo in optical quality. You can actually see the airy disc and diffraction rings in it. The same goes for the polar scope. Quality optics through and through. My only pet peeve is the price. A bit expensive when compared to other 5" apos.
>The EM200 mount is as smooth and solid as they get. Polar alignment is simple and positively perfect. The tracking in RA is MUCH better than rated and comes in at about 2-3 arcsec of periodic error. Widefield prime focus photos can be taken virtually unguided! For up to 20 minutes with NO star trailing. INCREDIBLE! It's almost a waste to have an autoguider port on it! The only criticizm I have for the mount is that it is much heavier than it has to be and is almost overkill for this optical tube. I now have an EM10 mount under it, and it is plenty stable and enhances the portability of the setup. I use the whole setup for visual use anyway. But, I feel it will hold up when used photographicly as well.
>Now to the nitty gritty. I've been doing some comparisions, side by side with many other scopes I've owned and those owned by friends and other club members. First, I'll tell you that, this refractor is a marvilous instrument and against like apertures of other designs it wins quite handlily on image quality. But, I've discovered as I've suspected all along that quality aperture wins.
>In less than perfect skies the 5" seems to beat larger aperture Newtonians and SCT's on planetary detail, but when the skies are steady they BEAT the 128 on resolution and CONTRAST as well. The scopes I've compared to it are as follows: C8, C9.25, Meade 10"SCT, 8" Dobsonian (F6), 10" Starmaster, 11" Starmaster, and a 15" Obsession, all were well collimated and had 1/5 wave or better optics. When the seeing allowed the others won out over the TAK. Granted, 75% of the time the Tak would outperform these others, but when seeing allowed, aperture won.(In Fact it's an aperture related thing, bigger the aperture the better the image)
>As for deep sky, when it was at a dark sky site, there was NO CONTEST, the Tak lost handily.
>The reasons that many percieve that refractors have better contrast and tighter images are several. I will list some of them: 1) Smaller apertures are less affected by atmospheric turbulence and cut through bad seeing better 2) they also aren't affected by light pollution as much and don't take in as much ambient light, because of their smaller apertures. This darkens the sky background and is percieved to be better contrast. But, this is not the case when looking at the object itself. (i.e. planets). 3)The smaller aperture images a larger airy disc, which looks like a tiny circle, and is easier to see. 4) Reflectors, need periodic maintanence and collimation to produce high contrast images. Many are not maintained by there owners properly and often image poorly as a result. 5) The folded light path of reflectors give tube currents (caused by temperature differences), more opportunities to degrade the image. There are other reasons, as well.
>My conclusion with all of this side by side testing is that, there is NO BEST telescope. All designs are excellent if properly made and maintained. That is why I own several. At least one of each type. This is the reason for a 9 rating. YES, I'm a proud owner of a TAK! But, if I could only keep one scope, it would be my C9.25. Why? Because aperture WINS!
>


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.195.47
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.174.173)
Date: 01/04/2006 04:00:10 pm PDT
>The FS128 is as perfect a 5" aperture instrument as can be. The optics are superb, with perfect star test in and out of focus and excellent high contrast images in focus. Performs quite well on deep sky objects, even with the limited aperture. Performs on deep sky about equivalent to a 7" reflector.
>The tube is hefty, well built and has been mistaken by many to be a 6" refractor. Although it looks heavy, it isn't, weighing in at 16lbs, it is very manageble for portability sake. It is the epitome of the optical craft, and is as pleasant to look at as look thru. The focuser is incredibly smooth and accurate. Holds focus dead on, even with heavy eyepieces. As for the finder, it's comparable to a 60mm apo in optical quality. You can actually see the airy disc and diffraction rings in it. The same goes for the polar scope. Quality optics through and through. My only pet peeve is the price. A bit expensive when compared to other 5" apos.
>The EM200 mount is as smooth and solid as they get. Polar alignment is simple and positively perfect. The tracking in RA is MUCH better than rated and comes in at about 2-3 arcsec of periodic error. Widefield prime focus photos can be taken virtually unguided! For up to 20 minutes with NO star trailing. INCREDIBLE! It's almost a waste to have an autoguider port on it! The only criticizm I have for the mount is that it is much heavier than it has to be and is almost overkill for this optical tube. I now have an EM10 mount under it, and it is plenty stable and enhances the portability of the setup. I use the whole setup for visual use anyway. But, I feel it will hold up when used photographicly as well.
>Now to the nitty gritty. I've been doing some comparisions, side by side with many other scopes I've owned and those owned by friends and other club members. First, I'll tell you that, this refractor is a marvilous instrument and against like apertures of other designs it wins quite handlily on image quality. But, I've discovered as I've suspected all along that quality aperture wins.
>In less than perfect skies the 5" seems to beat larger aperture Newtonians and SCT's on planetary detail, but when the skies are steady they BEAT the 128 on resolution and CONTRAST as well. The scopes I've compared to it are as follows: C8, C9.25, Meade 10"SCT, 8" Dobsonian (F6), 10" Starmaster, 11" Starmaster, and a 15" Obsession, all were well collimated and had 1/5 wave or better optics. When the seeing allowed the others won out over the TAK. Granted, 75% of the time the Tak would outperform these others, but when seeing allowed, aperture won.(In Fact it's an aperture related thing, bigger the aperture the better the image)
>As for deep sky, when it was at a dark sky site, there was NO CONTEST, the Tak lost handily.
>The reasons that many percieve that refractors have better contrast and tighter images are several. I will list some of them: 1) Smaller apertures are less affected by atmospheric turbulence and cut through bad seeing better 2) they also aren't affected by light pollution as much and don't take in as much ambient light, because of their smaller apertures. This darkens the sky background and is percieved to be better contrast. But, this is not the case when looking at the object itself. (i.e. planets). 3)The smaller aperture images a larger airy disc, which looks like a tiny circle, and is easier to see. 4) Reflectors, need periodic maintanence and collimation to produce high contrast images. Many are not maintained by there owners properly and often image poorly as a result. 5) The folded light path of reflectors give tube currents (caused by temperature differences), more opportunities to degrade the image. There are other reasons, as well.
>My conclusion with all of this side by side testing is that, there is NO BEST telescope. All designs are excellent if properly made and maintained. That is why I own several. At least one of each type. This is the reason for a 9 rating. YES, I'm a proud owner of a TAK! But, if I could only keep one scope, it would be my C9.25. Why? Because aperture WINS!
>
More resolution with a 15" scope than a 5"? I am in awe of this man's capacity to state the obvious. (By the way how much of a geek would you need to be to waste so much time posting these excruciating pseudo-lectures all over a site that is supposed to be for equipment reviews?)


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Page 1 of 1

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