ICEINSPACE
Most Read Articles
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON Waning Gibbous
89.2%
The Sun Now
Time Zones
Sydney*
8:21 pm
Perth
5:21 pm
Auckland*
10:21 pm
New York
4:21 am
Paris
10:21 am
GMT
9:21 am




Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 05-08-2018, 02:45 AM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
william optics flt 132 vs takahashi tsa 120

hello everyone
any suggestions between these scopes? i dont know what is the best and after a long research i conclude to these telescope. I'm more in the direction
of the takahashi and the william optics but im still not sure…
any thoughts?
thank you!!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-08-2018, 05:01 AM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,247
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
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-08-2018, 02:08 PM
Andy01's Avatar
Andy01 (Andy)
My God it's full of stars

Andy01 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,011
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!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-08-2018, 05:34 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
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!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-08-2018, 05:51 PM
JA
.....

JA is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by hubble2140 View Post
...
And I compared images and the images of the flt look a little bit better
...
Looks like you have your answer.

Best
JA

Last edited by JA; 05-08-2018 at 06:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-08-2018, 11:02 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
I Guess
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!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-08-2018, 09:01 AM
Bart's Avatar
Bart
Don't have a cow, Man!

Bart is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 627
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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2018, 09:36 AM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 3,685
The TSA120 is a nearly perfect scope, but the most important differences are likely to be price and weight.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2018, 05:01 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
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!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-08-2018, 05:47 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14,858
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-08-2018, 06:20 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 8,737
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-08-2018, 06:50 PM
Imme (Jon)
Registered User

Imme is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Kyneton
Posts: 506
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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-08-2018, 07:02 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
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...
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-08-2018, 10:37 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
Imme can you send some pictures?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-08-2018, 10:57 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
And I just saw a nice telescope from TS optics, but my question is does it can compare to the takahashi?
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-08-2018, 02:05 PM
brenchen
Registered User

brenchen is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 21
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!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-08-2018, 02:44 PM
Imme (Jon)
Registered User

Imme is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Kyneton
Posts: 506
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?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-08-2018, 05:12 PM
hubble2140
Registered User

hubble2140 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 28
wait, where did skyrover come from?
Does this a good company? Can it compared to takahashi? Do you have skyrover?
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-08-2018, 05:43 PM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
PI cult member

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imme View Post
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?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-08-2018, 05:48 PM
casstony
Registered User

casstony is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Warragul, Vic
Posts: 3,685
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
SkyWatcher WiFi Adaptor
Advertisement
Interest Free Finance
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher 2018 Catalogue
Advertisement
FLI Cameras and Imaging Accessories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement