Re: Celestron 9.25 Vs. Tak 102

IMO, the factors that are involved in this choice, have little to do with
how these scopes compare at the eyepiece on a good night.

I now always consider how the scope will perform on a bad night
weather-wise, and a mediocre night seeing wise. There are a lot more of
theses than there are good nights with good seeing, where I live.

On a good night with good seeing, just about any scope that is (at least)
diffraction limited will perform well. Even my little 80ED shows M51 handily
under a dark and transparent sky, as well as hints of structure in the belts
of Jupiter under very good seeing (I recently observed a shadow transit of
Io with this scope at surprisingly low power, which seemed an impressive
feat here in New England, and the GRS shows as an obvious "blank anomaly" in
the SEB). At times like these, the choice of scope is based primarily on the
mental effort involved in setting up and breaking down. If I am not
motivated on a good night, the 80ED is an excellent choice and I am rarely
dissapointed. On those ocassions when I am dissapointed with the 80ED, my
motivation will also increase and I will simply go back to the garage and
get something bigger, like the 12.5" Dob (hey, why fool around?).

It is easier to choose between my three main scopes on a bad night, than it
is on a good night.

On a bad night, I almost always go for the smallest scope I have. Also, when
the moon is waxing half and on it's way to full when the night air is
pleasing to our human form, I almost always take out the 80ED on UniStar
Light with 24mm Pan, 9mm NT6, Ultima barlow, and the Starbound observer's
chair. I'll look at the moon, and poke around at some doubles, and the
larger planets if they happen to be handy.

Big scopes are great for planets when well acclimated, and for deep sky on
new moon week, but never underestimate the value of a small aperture scope
with very good to excellent optics, for a short trek out back under adverse
conditions.

Everyone who lives in a highly variable climate (and can afford it) should
have one scope in each of the following classes:

3" or 4" Apo or OA from $500 to $800
(if you can't easily afford either, then you shouldn't be considering a
scope this size)

8"-10" Newt, Mak, MNT, SCT from $400 to $3000
(6" to 8" on a GEM if imaging is desirable, 8" Dob if you can only afford
one scope)

12" or larger Dob with any price tag you like from $850 to whatever.

And I'm not just saying that because that's what I have. I'm saying that
because it took 4 years to settle on that spread.

My big dillemna right now is whether to sell the 102EDF9 or the 80ED. They
each have advantages, and one is three times more expensive than the other.
It's not like I couldn't use the money elsewhere. The question is one of
whether the additional 22mm of aperture is really of sufficient advantage
that I'm willing to let my credit card balance stand pat, rather than
knocking it down by a grand. :-)

I have to tell you, side by side the 80ED holds its own against the 102
pretty well. If you can get the Tak 102 used, get it and do the comparison
yourself. You certainly should be able to sell it for nearly what you pay if
you decide not to keep it. That's the beauty of the high end stuff on
Astromart (provided you get a "good" deal).

-Stephen

"Doink" <skyman102a@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:116dd7mp7jqs51d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thanks for the discussion. My point about the cost was that, to me, the
> difference in price (used) is not significant---$1600 Vs. $1100-1200 I
> wanted to eliminate the $$$$ argument from the discussion and just compare
> views. Many did and the discussion has been, mostly, helpful and very
> appreciated.
>
> Doink
>
>
> "CHAS" <CHASLX200@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1113998663.496916.189600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> The Tak 102 is one of the best buys out there for the money, you can
>> find used one's for $1600 or so! The C-9.25 will win everytime for
>> seeing more detail on the planets, and is a better deepsky scope, for
>> that super sharp and snappy focus the FS-102 is the winner.
>>
>> If i had to pick, then the FS-102 is my choice!!!
>>
>> Chas P.
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Laser printer recommendations
    ... But I wouldn't compare it to a top of the line mac pro - ... It's lovely - and no-one's come up with a better analogue 'scope control ... But unless you have instruction on the operating principles, ... Colleges are for learning operating principles, not equipment manuals. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Laser printer recommendations
    ... If you're looking at the price of a BBC Model B, you want to compare it ... It's lovely - and no-one's come up with a better analogue 'scope control ... Engineers need to take the same line that I took - technicians don't. ... engineers are more like experimental scientists than theoretical ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck
    ... > this scope compare to it's logical competition. ... then say NOTHING to the community at large ... > not for solid reviews of products. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Why magazine equipment reviews suck
    ... this scope compare to it's logical competition. ... then say NOTHING to the community at large ... So where are the magazine reviews saying "You don't need to spend ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Antares 127 & 150 "Semi-ED"
    ... I don't have a 5" apochromat or a 5" achromat of another ... design to compare. ... Saturn looks decent as it does in most any scope up to 130x using a 9mm ... I don't know exactly what constitues "Semi-ED", but, IMO, the color error in ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)