Posts Made By: Randy Roy

Jay,

I agree with Wei-Hao on this. I have the TSA102 and a good friend has the FSQ-106. I also have a TOA-130 and have owned several other Tak scopes. The FSQ106 is the superior imaging scope with its wide, flat field, faster F-ratio and larger focuser. It will also give you wonderful wide field views of star clusters, large nebulae and star fields.

However, the TSA102 is much less expensive, requires no extender-Q and gives high contrast views. IMO, it is the superior scope for high power viewing, especially for planetary use. It also gives a large focusing range and all my eyepieces come to focus without changing adapters. As far as contrast is concerned, I doubt that anyone could discern much difference in an FSQ and a TSA (or for that matter a TOA) at the eyepiece. Each scope has excellent contrast which is almost entirely a product of excellent figuring which each Tak scope possesses.

To me, it is a simple matter. If you are interested primarily in imaging with some visual use, go with the FSQ. It is IMO the best 4" imaging platform ever made. If you are interested in primarily visual with some imaging, go with the TSA102. It is lighter, requires no extender-Q for high power, eyepiece friendly, color free and is easily adaptable for imaging when desired.

This doesn't look good:

http://skytonight.com/news/wires?id=96063742&c=y

Many of us were concerned about Meade buying Coronado and I guess only time will tell what will happen to Coronado products.

Hi Ron,

Have you checked out the new Celestron 8 SE? This has to be the most portable 8" cat ever. That and it has enough features to keep you busy even on cloudy nights

Personally, if it were me, I'd sell the 10" Discovery and get the 8". It is about half the weight and still big enough to get great views. Mainly, you just need to drop the 10" and get a scope that will get you out there more often.

Scott,

I have a TSA102S and a TOA130S. The short tube versions are designed to allow plenty of in-focus for accessories such as Binoviewers without the need for a OCA or barlow to move the focus point out (unlike many scopes). This means that some accessories, such as certain barlows as you noted require a rather long extension train to reach focus. I guess the idea is that you can always extend the scope, but cannot make it give more in-focus.

That said, I have not trouble reaching focus with any of the Televue Powermates or the TOA reducer. I did have to use a couple of extensions, however, to get the Tak barlow to come to focus. I sold the barlow. I must say, though, I like the S versions for their versatility.

For the last three years I have enjoyed owning a 16" Starmaster with goto and track. I recently moved to a new house with an observatory and decided to sell the Starmaster and get a TOA 130 and EM200 mount. I love the new scope, but I don't love tearing down my observatory to travel to dark sites. So, I just ordered a 12" Lightbridge for knocking around with the club members and taking to public observing sessions, etc.

It should arrive in a week or so. I don't expect much. I am sure I will have to replace the teflon pads and line the bottom of the rocker box with Ebony Star. I've already ordered a shroud and counterweights as well as collimation knobs, things I did not have to fool with on the Starmaster. But my total investment is about 1/10th of what I had in the Starmaster and I won't have a heart attack everytime someone's kid runs untethered through a dark telescope field at a public event. All this and the aperture will pull in visual objects that can only be imaged or captured on film using the TOA.

If the 16" were available, I would get it and probably will when they are delivered.

I recently purchased a Big, Easy for my TOA130. I liked everything about it except having to unscrew the "barlow" everytime I wanted to change magnification. I just got a single arm Powerswitch and I am very impressed. Everthing is tight and precise. I have plenty of eps, but I can see that the 24 Pans and 9T6's along with the binoviewer will be used pretty much full time in the TOA when I am using it for visual.

Hey, I just tried the TMB 40mm Paragon tonight and was very impressed. In my TOA130, the views of the Veil were the best I've had through that scope. It like having a much lighter, cheaper 41 Panoptic without any sign of kidney beaning or other aberrations. Its the first eyepiece other than a Televue or Pentax that I have been excited about in quite sometime.

Less exciting, but still extraordinary given the price are the 4, 5 and 7mm BO/TMB Planetaries I purchased after reading Floyd's review. I must say that I agree with Floyd in that I would rate them just under the Radians, but perhaps just ahead of the higher power Nagler T6's. I am not trying to start anything here. I think the 9mm and 13mm T6's are superb medium power eyepieces, but for high power planetary use, I prefer Radians, monos and perhaps even the Nagler 3-6 zoom for coaxing out planetary details. For high power views of globulars, the BO/TMB planetaries really perform.

Alan,

I find I can go down to about .4-.5mm before floaters begin to really annoy me. It may be that I am simply tolerant to them, because I do notice them at exit pupils around .7-.8. I am 56 years old.

Bob,

The 90 is smaller, but the 102 is still pretty compact. I had a Sky 90 and it had noticeable color on bright objects, but was still very nice. My TSA had no color and for visual use was as excellent as any 4" APO I have used.

Some buyers are very adept at making a non-commital offer to buy, carefully wording their offer in such a way that you the seller feels committed, but the buyer leaves enough ambiguity to back out at his convenience.

When someone gives me a "non-commital" commitment, I answer back something like, "please let me know when you are ready to make a firm commitment. Until then I will sell to the first firm offer."

Meanwhile, don't worry about it. Your comment on your unfair rating is sufficient.