Hello,
I am looking for input from imagers who have experience with the Esprit 120 and the TOA 130. I am looking to purchase a new refractor solely for imaging, and am aiming for this to be a long-term scope. Here is some context for my use case:
Imaging location: backyard observatory in the city, with semi-annual trips to Bortle 1. United States.
Targets: Nebulae, no interest in planetary or galaxies (except apparently large galaxies).
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Camera: ASI183MM Pro, plan to upgrade to ASI2600 or ASI6200 in the future.
I understand that the Takahashi is optically a superior scope to the Esprit, but I am wanting to get a sense of if the difference in optical quality is really going to make much of a difference for an imager who doesn’t have world class seeing conditions. Additionally, if I purchase the Esprit 120, I will be adding a 3.5” nitecrawler, thus taking any focuser considerations of the Esprit out of the equation.
Can anyone offer their opinions/recommendations between these two options for my use case? If the Esprit + nitecrawler can offer 95% the imaging performance of the TOA 130, I will go with that option. Additionally, if another option comes to mind that you feel would be relevant to consider, I would welcome that input.
Thank you
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Buy a Stellavue with a nitecrawler already attached as part of the package so you’re not wasting a focuser by swapping it out after purchase.
I think stellavue is also better than a mass produced Skywatcher telescope.
Also, go wider for nebula objects such as 100mm. If staying with skywatcher, look at 100mm esprit at f5.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Big fan of Esprits here, I'd go for the Esprit 120 with the optional reducer as well. That will bring you down into similar focal length as a 100mm like Greg suggested. I own two Esprit 100's and I love them. I've seen FWHM's as low as 2.1 arc second in narrowband, and 2.4 in broadband. I'm without a doubt seeing limited and the scope proves that. Esprits do seem to suffer from a little bit of red bloat, but it's easily correctable in processing and hardly noticed. I'd buy another esprit any day over a Tak. That being said, if the chance came to move up to an SVX, I'd jump on it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I have a TOA130, previously a WO FLT110 and a SKywatcher ED120. The difference between them all was huge, but the step up from the WO to the Tak was enormous. Tiny, sharp stars and a joy to use.
I'm bortle 6 at home and travel regularly to a friend's Bortle 2-3 property.
I also have a moonlight nightcrawler. You can see it in situ here.
That being said, it's a heavy beast, which may be an issue when travelling. 
You can also compare differences between results on my Astrobin gallery collections, where some of the early works are still to be seen.
Hope that helps!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Greg McCall:
Buy a Stellavue with a nitecrawler already attached as part of the package so you’re not wasting a focuser by swapping it out after purchase.
I think stellavue is also better than a mass produced Skywatcher telescope.
Also, go wider for nebula objects such as 100mm. If staying with skywatcher, look at 100mm esprit at f5.
Thanks for the input Greg. I see your point with Stellarvue telescopes having the nitecrawler as an option.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
Big fan of Esprits here, I'd go for the Esprit 120 with the optional reducer as well. That will bring you down into similar focal length as a 100mm like Greg suggested. I own two Esprit 100's and I love them. I've seen FWHM's as low as 2.1 arc second in narrowband, and 2.4 in broadband. I'm without a doubt seeing limited and the scope proves that. Esprits do seem to suffer from a little bit of red bloat, but it's easily correctable in processing and hardly noticed. I'd buy another esprit any day over a Tak. That being said, if the chance came to move up to an SVX, I'd jump on it.
Sounds like Esprit’s have been high performers for you! In your view are the optics in the SVX just a big step up from the Esprit? I am really attracted to them being made in the U.S. from a serviceability standpoint.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Andy 01:
I have a TOA130, previously a WO FLT110 and a SKywatcher ED120. The difference between them all was huge, but the step up from the WO to the Tak was enormous. Tiny, sharp stars and a joy to use.
I'm bortle 6 at home and travel regularly to a friend's Bortle 2-3 property.
I also have a moonlight nightcrawler. You can see it in situ here.
That being said, it's a heavy beast, which may be an issue when travelling.
You can also compare differences between results on my Astrobin gallery collections, where some of the early works are still to be seen.
Hope that helps!
I am actually familiar with your setup already, Andy  Seeing one of your images is what put the TOA 130 on my radar as a potential option!
Yeah, the Nitecrawler is an absolute unit.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Zack Padgett:
Hello,
I am looking for input from imagers who have experience with the Esprit 120 and the TOA 130. I am looking to purchase a new refractor solely for imaging, and am aiming for this to be a long-term scope. Here is some context for my use case:
Imaging location: backyard observatory in the city, with semi-annual trips to Bortle 1. United States.
Targets: Nebulae, no interest in planetary or galaxies (except apparently large galaxies).
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Camera: ASI183MM Pro, plan to upgrade to ASI2600 or ASI6200 in the future.
I understand that the Takahashi is optically a superior scope to the Esprit, but I am wanting to get a sense of if the difference in optical quality is really going to make much of a difference for an imager who doesn’t have world class seeing conditions. Additionally, if I purchase the Esprit 120, I will be adding a 3.5” nitecrawler, thus taking any focuser considerations of the Esprit out of the equation.
Can anyone offer their opinions/recommendations between these two options for my use case? If the Esprit + nitecrawler can offer 95% the imaging performance of the TOA 130, I will go with that option. Additionally, if another option comes to mind that you feel would be relevant to consider, I would welcome that input.
Thank you
I've owned a Esprit 120 and a Takahashi 120 and the Takahashis are not superior. I own several takahashis and they are nice and costly but not "superior". Esprits are very nice scopes and are as good as anything else out there. The only thing you might get with a takahashi is less derogetory comments because its japanese and not chinese.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I have an ESPRIT 120 and didn’t have a lot of success with a full frame. Actually you will probably have more fine tuning with any full frame re tilt.
As such, it’s less trouble to stay with APS-C (and way cheaper on filters as 50mm filters are expensive compared to 36mm - 2” will vignette too much)
I’m in Australia so had to pay very high shipping with Stellavue but still went with them due to non mass production and focuser option.
I’ve seen friends with TAKs and they seem to have a very large image circle so probably fewer issues with the larger full frame sensor, particularly if using a reducer which usually reduces the image circle.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Zack Padgett:
Brian Puhl:
Big fan of Esprits here, I'd go for the Esprit 120 with the optional reducer as well. That will bring you down into similar focal length as a 100mm like Greg suggested. I own two Esprit 100's and I love them. I've seen FWHM's as low as 2.1 arc second in narrowband, and 2.4 in broadband. I'm without a doubt seeing limited and the scope proves that. Esprits do seem to suffer from a little bit of red bloat, but it's easily correctable in processing and hardly noticed. I'd buy another esprit any day over a Tak. That being said, if the chance came to move up to an SVX, I'd jump on it.
Sounds like Esprit’s have been high performers for you! In your view are the optics in the SVX just a big step up from the Esprit? I am really attracted to them being made in the U.S. from a serviceability standpoint.
SVX would not be a huge step up from an Esprit, but they are hand made and well corrected, tuned. They are without a doubt better out of the box. The jump is not a substantial one though. The average person probably won't see a difference. Some shops will tune Esprits as well and get them on the nearly the same performance and strehl as an SVX.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I have the 130NFB (with the 4” stock focuser), and use the zwo eaf with it. My imaging train holds the 645 flattener, zwo 2600 mm, 7x36 efw and oag.
My previous scopes have been the edge hd 9.25”, the skywatcher mak-newt 190/1000 and an askar 400, so cannot directly compare to the Esprit but perhaps directionally helpful.
Compared to these, the image quality is far superior:
- there is 0 light fall off, so no vignetting with the apsc sensor
- stars are fantastic, right upto the corners, and very tight. Even when imaging from bortle 5-6, all my subs have an hfr of <1.8 and eccentricity <0.4 (my mount with encoders definitely helps)
I almost pulled the trigger on the nitecrawler, but with budget constraints and real life performance of the zwo eaf, decided against it.
Happy to answer any other questions
CS
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I am going through this exercise right now myself. I ended up getting a second hand TOA-130NS and a TOA 35 0.7x reducer all for an incredible price. I plan to only image with it. f/7.7 is way too slow for my taste so I will probably be sticking to the reducer. I am hoping it will be well corrected for a full frame sensor. Now working on figuring out which focuser to get and getting it all together. Hopefully will be imaging with it in a few weeks.
My other OTA was an AT130EDT which I have long sold. I am primarily imaging currently with the AG Optical FA12.
We shall see.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Andy 01:
I have a TOA130, previously a WO FLT110 and a SKywatcher ED120. The difference between them all was huge, but the step up from the WO to the Tak was enormous. Tiny, sharp stars and a joy to use.
I also used to have a TOA 130 and also with a Nightcrawler (3.5). It is a great combo and the quality on both is top notch. I have since sold the Tak but still have the Nightcrawler (now on a CDK 14). As mentioned, the only downside is both are heavy so you need a decent mount (mine was on a Paramount ME). It is hard to beat the Taks but they are spendy, usually heavy, and not generally available off-the shelf.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Ashraf AbuSara:
I am going through this exercise right now myself. I ended up getting a second hand TOA-130NS and a TOA 35 0.7x reducer all for an incredible price. I plan to only image with it. f/7.7 is way too slow for my taste so I will probably be sticking to the reducer. I am hoping it will be well corrected for a full frame sensor. Now working on figuring out which focuser to get and getting it all together. Hopefully will be imaging with it in a few weeks.
My other OTA was an AT130EDT which I have long sold. I am primarily imaging currently with the AG Optical FA12.
We shall see.
Off topic but Fyi- after exhaustive testing, my findings were that the TOA-35 0.7x reducer does not produce an image circle sufficient to cover the full frame sensor of my Atik APX 60. Nor are the stars well corrected at the corners of the frame.
This wasn’t an issue with my former QSI 6162 as it had an APS-H size sensor, but the Sony IMX455 is a much wider format.
I’ve tried everything, even swapping out my 2” mounted filters for 2” un-mounted filters, moving the camera forward closer to the FW and replacing the OAG with a wider aperture OAGL but to no avail.
As such, I’ve reverted to using the Tak 67 Flattener - slower yes, but it covers the frame perfectly.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I currently am using the Esprit 100 which I whole heartedly think is a great scope. I’m probably the odd ball here in that the Stellarvue scopes I was not impressed with. I originally bought the 102 SVX CF Raptor as it was supposed to be their flagship insturment and had nothing but problems with. I don’t want to go into the whole feasco but it went back 3 times and I finally called it quits and bought my Esprit 100 and haven’t looked back. I know that I’m probably an odd case but that was my experience with them. BTW I bought it for the very same reasons you mentioned above but my experience wasn’t anything like I would have thought.
This is off topic from your Tak consideration but here is a thread I read recently over on CN about the SW150 and an AP160 EDF Starfire if your interested. There is some debate there but when you look at the price verses performance I think its pretty clear and I’ll let you make that decision.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/?hl=%20ap160
Dale
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Zack Padgett:
Hello,
I am looking for input from imagers who have experience with the Esprit 120 and the TOA 130. I am looking to purchase a new refractor solely for imaging, and am aiming for this to be a long-term scope. Here is some context for my use case:
Imaging location: backyard observatory in the city, with semi-annual trips to Bortle 1. United States.
Targets: Nebulae, no interest in planetary or galaxies (except apparently large galaxies).
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Camera: ASI183MM Pro, plan to upgrade to ASI2600 or ASI6200 in the future.
I understand that the Takahashi is optically a superior scope to the Esprit, but I am wanting to get a sense of if the difference in optical quality is really going to make much of a difference for an imager who doesn’t have world class seeing conditions. Additionally, if I purchase the Esprit 120, I will be adding a 3.5” nitecrawler, thus taking any focuser considerations of the Esprit out of the equation.
Can anyone offer their opinions/recommendations between these two options for my use case? If the Esprit + nitecrawler can offer 95% the imaging performance of the TOA 130, I will go with that option. Additionally, if another option comes to mind that you feel would be relevant to consider, I would welcome that input.
Thank you
*** I find it very tricky to do a like for like comparison between scopes for astrophotography unless you can hold every other variable constant that affects the quality of the final image and often you cant.
Manufacturers also don't always specify or publish the same performance metrics or data either on optical performance making any kind of benchmarking exercise somewhat tricky.
My two cent worth, I have an Esprit 100 and it's a superb scope for imaging. I expect the 120 to be much in the same bracket in terms of optical performance.
Taks are the Rolls Royce of the amateur telescope market but at $$$. I guess you get what you pay for but whether it's worth the extra few thousand dollars or not is hard to answer.
***
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Dale Penkala:
I currently am using the Esprit 100 which I whole heartedly think is a great scope. I’m probably the odd ball here in that the Stellarvue scopes I was not impressed with. I originally bought the 102 SVX CF Raptor as it was supposed to be their flagship insturment and had nothing but problems with. I don’t want to go into the whole feasco but it went back 3 times and I finally called it quits and bought my Esprit 100 and haven’t looked back. I know that I’m probably an odd case but that was my experience with them. BTW I bought it for the very same reasons you mentioned above but my experience wasn’t anything like I would have thought.
This is off topic from your Tak consideration but here is a thread I read recently over on CN about the SW150 and an AP160 EDF Starfire if your interested. There is some debate there but when you look at the price verses performance I think its pretty clear and I’ll let you make that decision.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/?hl=%20ap160
Dale
Biggest problem with these comparisons is processing hides a lot of flaws. Also if the seeing conditions are not measured, bad or even average seeing can hide a lot of optical flaws. To minimize that effect the comparisons really have to be done under the best skies.
I wish the OP just posted the unprocessed stacked images of both scopes. Maybe just an auto stretch and a background extraction. But that's it. Then check FWHM in arc seconds and eccentricity, and image flatness.
But you could argue, since many of us, even the ones with with an Astro-physics OTA are not imaging remotely or under the best skies in Chili, is it really worth it getting a Tak or AP vs Esprit?
If you don't hate collimation, a cheaper (read: not cheap) Newtonian will beat all of them by miles, assuming your mount is good for that.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Ashraf AbuSara:
Dale Penkala:
I currently am using the Esprit 100 which I whole heartedly think is a great scope. I’m probably the odd ball here in that the Stellarvue scopes I was not impressed with. I originally bought the 102 SVX CF Raptor as it was supposed to be their flagship insturment and had nothing but problems with. I don’t want to go into the whole feasco but it went back 3 times and I finally called it quits and bought my Esprit 100 and haven’t looked back. I know that I’m probably an odd case but that was my experience with them. BTW I bought it for the very same reasons you mentioned above but my experience wasn’t anything like I would have thought.
This is off topic from your Tak consideration but here is a thread I read recently over on CN about the SW150 and an AP160 EDF Starfire if your interested. There is some debate there but when you look at the price verses performance I think its pretty clear and I’ll let you make that decision.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/?hl=%20ap160
Dale
Biggest problem with these comparisons is processing hides a lot of flaws. Also if the seeing conditions are not measured, bad or even average seeing can hide a lot of optical flaws. To minimize that effect the comparisons really have to be done under the best skies.
I wish the OP just posted the unprocessed stacked images of both scopes. Maybe just an auto stretch and a background extraction. But that's it. Then check FWHM in arc seconds and eccentricity, and image flatness.
But you could argue, since many of us, even the ones with with an Astro-physics OTA are not imaging remotely or under the best skies in Chili, is it really worth it getting a Tak or AP vs Esprit?
If you don't hate collimation, a cheaper (read: not cheap) Newtonian will beat all of them by miles, assuming your mount is good for that.
Yes I agree, Ashraf,
I just posted it for reference like I said its not a Tak its an AP. Which I own an AP160 EDF Starfire. I just found it very interesting how close they actually were. And yes I totally agree if you were going to compare something like this it should be done under the best skies possible.
Even the gentleman stated that he did the best he could do under the skis he was in.
A side note, my friend just bought that Esprit 150 that was used as the comparison.
In the end I agree that at least for me I'd be seeing limited and for either scope. IMHO I would not pay the extra $$$ for a Tak/AP when they are that close in comparison. To me it becomes money wasted unless it was put under pristine skies.
Dale
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Dale Penkala:
Ashraf AbuSara:
Dale Penkala:
I currently am using the Esprit 100 which I whole heartedly think is a great scope. I’m probably the odd ball here in that the Stellarvue scopes I was not impressed with. I originally bought the 102 SVX CF Raptor as it was supposed to be their flagship insturment and had nothing but problems with. I don’t want to go into the whole feasco but it went back 3 times and I finally called it quits and bought my Esprit 100 and haven’t looked back. I know that I’m probably an odd case but that was my experience with them. BTW I bought it for the very same reasons you mentioned above but my experience wasn’t anything like I would have thought.
This is off topic from your Tak consideration but here is a thread I read recently over on CN about the SW150 and an AP160 EDF Starfire if your interested. There is some debate there but when you look at the price verses performance I think its pretty clear and I’ll let you make that decision.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/?hl=%20ap160
Dale
Biggest problem with these comparisons is processing hides a lot of flaws. Also if the seeing conditions are not measured, bad or even average seeing can hide a lot of optical flaws. To minimize that effect the comparisons really have to be done under the best skies.
I wish the OP just posted the unprocessed stacked images of both scopes. Maybe just an auto stretch and a background extraction. But that's it. Then check FWHM in arc seconds and eccentricity, and image flatness.
But you could argue, since many of us, even the ones with with an Astro-physics OTA are not imaging remotely or under the best skies in Chili, is it really worth it getting a Tak or AP vs Esprit?
If you don't hate collimation, a cheaper (read: not cheap) Newtonian will beat all of them by miles, assuming your mount is good for that.
Yes I agree, Ashraf,
I just posted it for reference like I said its not a Tak its an AP. Which I own an AP160 EDF Starfire. I just found it very interesting how close they actually were. And yes I totally agree if you were going to compare something like this it should be done under the best skies possible.
Even the gentleman stated that he did the best he could do under the skis he was in.
A side note, my friend just bought that Esprit 150 that was used as the comparison.
In the end I agree that at least for me I'd be seeing limited and for either scope. IMHO I would not pay the extra $$$ for a Tak/AP when they are that close in comparison. To me it becomes money wasted unless it was put under pristine skies.
Dale
Esprits seem to be fine scopes. Some of the best images on AB seem to be acquired by them. The more processing centric and now AI centric post processing becomes, the less and less perfect optics matter to an extent.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Matthew Proulx:
Zack Padgett:
Hello,
I am looking for input from imagers who have experience with the Esprit 120 and the TOA 130. I am looking to purchase a new refractor solely for imaging, and am aiming for this to be a long-term scope. Here is some context for my use case:
Imaging location: backyard observatory in the city, with semi-annual trips to Bortle 1. United States.
Targets: Nebulae, no interest in planetary or galaxies (except apparently large galaxies).
Mount: EQ6-R Pro
Camera: ASI183MM Pro, plan to upgrade to ASI2600 or ASI6200 in the future.
I understand that the Takahashi is optically a superior scope to the Esprit, but I am wanting to get a sense of if the difference in optical quality is really going to make much of a difference for an imager who doesn’t have world class seeing conditions. Additionally, if I purchase the Esprit 120, I will be adding a 3.5” nitecrawler, thus taking any focuser considerations of the Esprit out of the equation.
Can anyone offer their opinions/recommendations between these two options for my use case? If the Esprit + nitecrawler can offer 95% the imaging performance of the TOA 130, I will go with that option. Additionally, if another option comes to mind that you feel would be relevant to consider, I would welcome that input.
Thank you
I've owned a Esprit 120 and a Takahashi 120 and the Takahashis are not superior. I own several takahashis and they are nice and costly but not "superior". Esprits are very nice scopes and are as good as anything else out there. The only thing you might get with a takahashi is less derogetory comments because its japanese and not chinese.
On a full frame the Taks are definitely superior (reducer sucks though). There's also a difference between the TSA 120 and the TOA 130, different design.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Ashraf AbuSara:
Dale Penkala:
Ashraf AbuSara:
Dale Penkala:
I currently am using the Esprit 100 which I whole heartedly think is a great scope. I’m probably the odd ball here in that the Stellarvue scopes I was not impressed with. I originally bought the 102 SVX CF Raptor as it was supposed to be their flagship insturment and had nothing but problems with. I don’t want to go into the whole feasco but it went back 3 times and I finally called it quits and bought my Esprit 100 and haven’t looked back. I know that I’m probably an odd case but that was my experience with them. BTW I bought it for the very same reasons you mentioned above but my experience wasn’t anything like I would have thought.
This is off topic from your Tak consideration but here is a thread I read recently over on CN about the SW150 and an AP160 EDF Starfire if your interested. There is some debate there but when you look at the price verses performance I think its pretty clear and I’ll let you make that decision.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/478771-ap-160-vs-sw-150-esprit/?hl=%20ap160
Dale
Biggest problem with these comparisons is processing hides a lot of flaws. Also if the seeing conditions are not measured, bad or even average seeing can hide a lot of optical flaws. To minimize that effect the comparisons really have to be done under the best skies.
I wish the OP just posted the unprocessed stacked images of both scopes. Maybe just an auto stretch and a background extraction. But that's it. Then check FWHM in arc seconds and eccentricity, and image flatness.
But you could argue, since many of us, even the ones with with an Astro-physics OTA are not imaging remotely or under the best skies in Chili, is it really worth it getting a Tak or AP vs Esprit?
If you don't hate collimation, a cheaper (read: not cheap) Newtonian will beat all of them by miles, assuming your mount is good for that.
Yes I agree, Ashraf,
I just posted it for reference like I said its not a Tak its an AP. Which I own an AP160 EDF Starfire. I just found it very interesting how close they actually were. And yes I totally agree if you were going to compare something like this it should be done under the best skies possible.
Even the gentleman stated that he did the best he could do under the skis he was in.
A side note, my friend just bought that Esprit 150 that was used as the comparison.
In the end I agree that at least for me I'd be seeing limited and for either scope. IMHO I would not pay the extra $$$ for a Tak/AP when they are that close in comparison. To me it becomes money wasted unless it was put under pristine skies.
Dale
Esprits seem to be fine scopes. Some of the best images on AB seem to be acquired by them. The more processing centric and now AI centric post processing becomes, the less and less perfect optics matter to an extent.
Yes I think your right and it actually could be a way out for the scope manufactures to let some “not so good” optic sets through in which case no one wants to be on the receiving end of that! I just hope the “good” companies continue to put out quality optics in there scopes!
Dale
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
You might also consider the 130phq. I've seen full frame data from that scope and it's very good.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Thanks all for the input! Great info to consider.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
0.00
0.00
8.78
11.25
6.06
0.00
6.96
5.21
15.85
5.96
2.41
20.43
