william optics flt 132 vs takahashi tsa 120 [Archive]

05-08-2018, 06:01 AM

There is no better comparison in terms of image quality than looking at actual images from these instruments. If I was looking at such a comparison I would look to Astrobin images or similar to get an idea of the differences, for similar exposure (and sky, not that you can really control for that, that well)

Best
JA

Andy01

05-08-2018, 03:08 PM

I recently read a thread on Cloudy nights comparing a Tak 120 and a Skywatcher ED 100.
It was an excellent and well documented test.
The final images from both were extremely close in appearance.
That said the Tak stars were a wee bit tighter, but not 3x the price tighter!

Disclaimer: The author also suggested that the best results from these scopes really depends on the image processing skill of the user.
I have often considered selling a couple of my ‘scopes to purchase a Tak,
And one fine day I may do that, having seen the results from users here ilon IIS - but for now I’m pretty happy with my WO, and my marriage remains intact! :lol:

hubble2140

05-08-2018, 06:34 PM

Thanks Andy :)
Do you have the flt 132? And why you want at the end to buy takahashi?
And I compared images and the images of the flt look a little bit better but all the time people tell me that takahashi is the best manufacturer of refractor...
But why takahashi is the best? I heard that William optics are also very good with smooth and sharp images...
Thank you!

05-08-2018, 06:51 PM

Looks like you have your answer. :D

Best
JA

hubble2140

06-08-2018, 12:02 AM

I Guess :lol:
But all the people tell me that takahashi is better! But in images I see a little difference between the scope... and I notice that it is easier to find good photo from the flt than the takahashi...
Thank you!

Bart

06-08-2018, 10:01 AM

I have/had both scopes.

The TSA120 is a very fine piece of kit with great colour and tight stars with a properly adjusted flattener. I decided to get out of imaging and sold all my kit. It had very stable focus even in temperature change and required very little fiddling.

Fast forward 3 years after a break and the imaging bug has bitten again. I tried to get a secondhand TSA120 until a local FLT 132 came along. The FLT is a great scope and star tests very well both sides of focus although as an early model it has an aluminium lens cell (I am led to believe) that is very susceptible to temp change and I need to change focus over an imaging session a lot. Later model units have a steel cell that is more stable.

I am about to change to the same filters I used on the TSA120 with the same camera so I could give you an idea of how they perform (if the weather ever lets me). At this stage I am happy enough with the FLT, it's just a bit more fiddly to set up and get good images out of although the potential is there.

Oh..and the TSA120 is very light for its size, the FLT is a beast.

Try here for photos, not a lot of FLT ones at this stage though.

http://www.pbase.com/grahammeyer/astro_photography

casstony

06-08-2018, 10:36 AM

The TSA120 is a nearly perfect scope, but the most important differences are likely to be price and weight.

hubble2140

06-08-2018, 06:01 PM

Thanks Bart! It was very helpful to hear from someone that had the two scopes! I understand that the TSA 120 can handle temperatures changes more easily than the flt... and I would be happy to see the new images from the flt! It will give good examples with the same rig (camera and object) with different scopes...
But the TSA really sound better than the flt from the comments that people say to me...
Thank you!

gregbradley

06-08-2018, 06:47 PM

I haven't had either scopes but have had a few Tak scopes and one WO.

The WO was a high end APO 90mm. It was poorly made and despite having a nice Lomo lens gave horrendous aberrations. I found out the focuser was way off centre. Poor first experience with a WO. So quality control comes into this.

Tak on the other hand have always been top notch and near or best in class.

What I have found true over the years is that extra level of quality comes at quite a bit higher price. But you don't need to sell at a loss and rebuy the better scope later. So you end up being better off getting the best scope you can afford at the time rather than a series of compromises.

Scopes have several features to consider. Some have already been mentioned.

Price is one, accuracy of optics is another, lens design and materials used (FPL53 or some other lesser grade glass?).

Focuser performance, availability of accessories that actually work (flatteners, reducers).

I would be hard pressed to believe a WO could match a TSA. Perhaps it does but I would bet it doesn't as an imaging package, as to accuracy of the lens (TSA strehl would be over .95 what is the WO?).
Quality control and lack of duds is another and a big one in our hobby.

Greg.

LewisM

06-08-2018, 07:20 PM

I reiterate Greg's words - each WO I have had disappointed me in a few ways. Glitzy finish belying other issues. With the FLT132 (which is NOT fluorite incidentally - it is FPL53, a fluorite enriched glass - they have had legal issues over their falsification of classification), you need to make sure of the year made, as early ones had horrible lens issues that require replacement of the entire objective.

Tak TSA-120...as near to perfect a scope you could imagine. Perfect sharp image, colour correction and classy. Some dislike their focusers, but I personally have no issue with them as I know how to adjust them precisely. Conversely, I never had a WO focuser I liked, nor could correct well enough.

Imme

06-08-2018, 07:50 PM

Ive got a flt132.
Im really happy with it, great pics, solid as a rock focuser.....all round its a quality piece of equipment.

Sure the tsa may be a better scope.....but with the eq6 and a zwo1600osc i don't think the difference is worth the extra $'s

hubble2140

06-08-2018, 08:02 PM

I'm considering to buy the ieq45 pro mount of ioptron and Nikon d810a dslr camera... and the TSA 120 have a dual speed focused right?
More and more answers that I read I conclude that the takahashi is better... :)

hubble2140

06-08-2018, 11:37 PM

Imme can you send some pictures?

hubble2140

06-08-2018, 11:57 PM

And I just saw a nice telescope from TS optics, but my question is does it can compare to the takahashi?
Thanks!

brenchen

07-08-2018, 03:05 PM

There is a reason Taks are superior to a lot of the other brands. Sure you can go and study all the reasons why, or you can spend that time brush up on your editing skills and trust the hundreds if not thousands of tak owners out there - that's what I did and bought a TSA-120, awaiting for its arrival.

I can't vouch for the validity of what I'm about to say, but it's the most satisfactory explanation I heard and chose to believe: Taks are made from Japanese optics - the same type (if not the same manufacturer) of Canon lenses. Japanese craftmanship is very meticulous, very on point, much like the Germans, and they have a very high standard of QA. WO, a Taiwanese company, uses Chinese glass, although they make reasonable glass, the consistency of their products are not always uniform. It won't drift too far away from each other, but the result/influence of Tak speaks for itself.

WO, has very nice design, finish, and has marketed themselves quite well. Taks on the other hand has a very clean and simple design, and doesn't seem to do too much marketing (maybe I just haven't came across any), yet their name is huge in the hobby.

For me, I want something that is going to last, something that I know I'll be getting what I've paid for, even if that means a little bit more for a peace of mind. That's why I got the Tak instead of a WO.

If you're feeling adventurous, I know SkyRover might be something to consider. They claim to use the same glass taks use, except the rest of the parts are sourced from China and assembled in Australia.

Good luck!

Imme

07-08-2018, 03:44 PM

Question......
If I had the same mount, same camera setup, same guiding and same seeing and took a picture with the same exposure times and undertook identical processing then how likely is it that people could confidently say which photo was taken with which scope?

I guess what I'm asking is what the difference is.....large or minute in regards to quality?

hubble2140

07-08-2018, 06:12 PM

wait, where did skyrover come from?:lol:
Does this a good company? Can it compared to takahashi? Do you have skyrover?
Thanks!

Slawomir

07-08-2018, 06:43 PM

That depends on the quality of the mount, camera and processing skills. If the mount guides inaccurately, camera captures little and noisy data and processing skills are at the very early stages of never ending development, then probably there would be very little if any difference between an image captured with a quality telescope and with the one of a lesser optical and mechanical quality.

casstony

07-08-2018, 06:48 PM

hubble2140, you haven't mentioned your level of experience, what mount you have etc. If you're a pernickety pixel peeper you might be best with a Takahashi; if you're just starting out nearly any smaller ED refractor will do.

hubble2140

08-08-2018, 01:55 AM

i Currently have the cpc 1100 sct telescope from celestron on a wedge and want to buy more suitable astrophotogaphy setup... ikind of beginner in astrophotography buy i photographed couple of time so i know my direction...

brenchen

08-08-2018, 01:01 PM

I've wondered the same thing, it's like a camera lens, you will get different quality of detail, sharpness, flatness, colour representation. In regards to how MUCH better, that's a personal opinion and whether or not you're trained to see the difference.

If you do the above for a DSLR kit lens vs a premium flagship lens, I look at the two raw images, it is highly noticeable to me even without pixel peeping. But if you give it to someone who doesn't have photographic experience, they probably can't tell the difference.

brenchen

08-08-2018, 01:04 PM

If he's picky, maybe PlaneWave would be more suitable :lol:

Anyway, jokes aside, SkyRover came from me. Some people swear by it because they've done well for them (130 version), but it doesn't have a big name or reputation, and I'm not all that adventurous, so I didn't take the risk, bit the bullet, and got a tak.

Atmos

08-08-2018, 01:43 PM

The differences in telescope performance can be quite subtle. Using an APS-C DSLR, you may not ever notice a difference. The same goes for a KAF8300 sensor which doesn’t have a high blue QE. If you were using a QHY183 with its minuscule pixels and high blue QE, this is where the TSA will likely begin to shine.

Merlin66

08-08-2018, 02:46 PM

The limited number of Tak tests on this site show pretty good results......but so to does the SW ED80
http://fidgor.narod.ru/Observers/Test/test_71.html

hubble2140

09-08-2018, 03:02 AM

thank you all guys i think i will go with the TSA 120!
thank you very much for the help! i really appreciate it!

brenchen

09-08-2018, 01:26 PM

Good choice, you'll love it! Mine just arrived in the mail today :rofl:

hubble2140

10-08-2018, 01:34 AM

thanks!
What fun for you!!!!!

hubble2140

10-08-2018, 06:59 AM

but something that still bother me is the difference between the quality of the images between the FLT 132 and the TSA 120.
it is look like that in the FLT 132 the images are more Real realistic and Smooth and in the other hand in the TSA 120 the image is more sharp than
real realistic and smooth... it maybe depends on the gear and the camera that used to take the photo? i dont know...

Imme

10-08-2018, 07:09 AM

I posted an m8 in the beginners astro pic section last night. It shows what the FLT can do in the hands of an amateur with fairly short integration (1.5 hours).

In my opinion it is a great scope....or maybe I just have a good one???

hubble2140

10-08-2018, 07:39 PM

what an impressive picture! this is with the new version of the FLT? because i remember that there is early model of it...

Imme

10-08-2018, 08:16 PM

It is the new version lens holder so no issue with cool down and pinching......my understanding is it’s the same design as the current one. It’s approx 5 years old. I purchased second hand

hubble2140

10-08-2018, 08:39 PM

wow! very impressive!
and you didnt thought to buy the takahashi instead?
why this telescope, the FLT?

hubble2140

17-08-2018, 03:12 AM

from anyone in this forum that had/has the takahashi tsa 120 telescope know if i can attach the orion magnificent mini deluxe autoguider package to the telescope as a guider? if yes, do i need to buy something special?
thanks!

hubble2140

17-08-2018, 05:08 AM

hi everyone!
i just saw the TOA 130 that is also from takahashi and wondering which is better mainly for astrophotogaphy, TOA 130 or TSA 120?
thanks!!

casstony

18-08-2018, 06:53 PM

Technically the TOA130 is better but both are good. You can save a lot on Taks by buying used too.

hubble2140

18-08-2018, 09:32 PM

can i get also good results with the TSA 120 like the TOA 130?
because i really want to be happy with the scope that i will buy...
thanks!

casstony

18-08-2018, 10:44 PM

They're both triplets and you'd need to be a very experienced imager to get better results from the 130 versus the 120. The 120 is also quite a bit lighter than the 130.

Respectfully though, if you're needing to ask these questions I honestly think you'd be best to start with less expensive equipment and ease your way into the quite complicated field of Astro-imaging.

For example, you could get fantastic results with a Skywatcher Esprit 80; the short focal length of this high quality apochromat would be much easier to build experience with. The Esprit comes with everything you need to get started - great lens, good focuser, field flattener - no need to figure out which flattener/reducer to buy and which adapters to use them with.

hubble2140

19-08-2018, 12:48 AM

im kind of a begginer in astrophotography... i have a little experience in astrophotogaphy... but i want to go with takahashi because all the reviews that i read was so good on these telescope...

Slawomir

19-08-2018, 06:29 AM

If you really want a Tak and our primary interest is imaging, while not consider dedicated astrographs like FSQ85 or FSQ106?

hubble2140

20-08-2018, 03:08 AM

because i think they are to little to me... now i think maybe explore scientific fcd 100 or ,aybe sky watcher with built in field flattener...

Bart

20-08-2018, 01:29 PM

To be honest, I think your best buy would be the Skywatcher 120 Esprit. It's a good price with good optics and you will get many years of use out of it before you think you need to upgrade. If you can afford it, get the TSA120 although as a beginner it will be a long time before you can discern the difference between the 2.

hubble2140

20-08-2018, 02:17 PM

and what about the explore scientific fcd 100 127 mm?
the esprit are good because the flattener, but what about the explore scientific? it have fcd100 glass...

casstony

20-08-2018, 06:48 PM

ES isn't nearly as good as the Skywatcher Esprit.
You also need to figure out which equatorial mount you will buy before selecting a telescope.
A Celestron Advanced VX or Skywatcxher HEQ5 would be OK with an Esprit 80 for example.
If you want the Esprit 120 you need a heavier duty mount such as the Skywatcher AZ-EQ6 or maybe Vixen SXP(if money isn't an issue).

Most people start out with lesser gear and work their way up to the point at which they are content.

I'm a casual/beginner imager but I have no intention of going beyond my Advanced VX and 4" Apo (Televue NP101is) along with a Nikon D5600 DSLR. If youy want to go the whole hog you'll need better gear, but you need to crawl before you can learn to walk.