Just like to see how many Takahashi FCT owners there are here in Australia, and add you all in to the global FCT poll - we have VERY VERY VERY few reported still so far! Please let us know your full serial number to add to the list.
I know there is at least an FCT-150 here, unless it went overseas again (it was in North QLD, then sold via Claude). I own an FCT-100, recently imported from the USA, and I know of ONE other FCT-100, that sadly disappeared after the death of the owner (his wife gave it to his friend, and now who knows where it is).
The FCT series are fluorite triplets. The FCT-100 in particular is an astonishing piece of optical craftsmanship - Roland Christen (AstroPhysics founder, owner and master optician) will even tip his hat to the FCT-100 acknowledging even he could not surpass it. The FCT series were basically Tak custom telescopes, though did appear in their catalogues as purchase items, though even in 1990, an FCT-100 cost $3700 US - a LOT for a telescope back then.
The FCT series :
FCT-65
FCT-76
FCT-100
FCT-125
FCT-150
FCT-250 ()
My FCT-100 was imported directly from the USA from a close friend of Art Campiani (US Tak dealer) - this one was hand selected by Art and kept in his own collection, before he sold it to Brian S, who sold it to me (I had actually enquired about a signed TSA-102 he had advertised on Astromart, when he mentioned the other Taks he had - my heart missed a beat when I read FCT-100. I thought nothing ventured, nothing gained, and asked if he would sell it, and after some negotiation, the rest is history). As some may recall, I sold my ENTIRE collection of scopes to afford it, but it was worth EVERY sacrifice. Yes, I am finally satisfied enough with a telescope.
Yeah, but the NJP is green too, and I don't fancy repainting THAT. MAYBE just the clamshell and foot extension.
The FCT-100 is f/6.4, with dedicated FR reduces to f/4.5 (faster than the FSQ-106N). The FR - IF you can ever find one - costs more than the new TOA reducer, and yet it's 30 years old... sheesh! I will be trying my Vixen FL FR reducer on it (which was even hard enough to find!)
Lewis, I read with interest your FCT adventure here and on Cloudynights. I did a bit of research into these and there seems to be a few links about them.
Dear IIS team,
The unit Lewis is referring to has been sold to myself.
I will be holding onto it long term, it is a very nice telescope.
PS: Technical - the FCT100 is a Canon Optron, Japan manufactured lens with an air spaced design with a 640mm focal length.
It is as all Tak refractors are a standard air spaced design, this one being an air spaced triplet, very similar in design to many triplets today (such as the Canon Optron triplet lenses used by Vixen & Sky Rover).
The FCT100 also includes a Fluorite lens element as the central lens element. It also uses Canon's premium manufacturing processes enabling a very capable optic, this unit is much better than any of the other Taks I have owned. It also uses Canon's class leading multi coatings, which are exceptional, as good as available commercially globally today.
This FCT100 optic I took to Carl Zeiss Germany when I visited them last year and had tested - it enabled a Strehl of 0.95, the highest Strehl the head of the Metrology Department at Zeiss has achieved in a Tak in his 35 years with Zeiss
Takahashi never made oil spaced refractors. Takahashi have always and only ever used Canon lenses - and Canon do not do any oiled's.
On to oiled's : Oiled's have higher resolution that aired's, optical physics demands this.
Are there are oiled's available today, Yes :
1. Carl Zeiss (used 2nd hand) - they always cost a lot, but they are much more than merely exceptional, they beat everything in their aperture class in performance. You should expect a price for a good condition APQ100 oil spaced fluorite triplet of around the $14k at today's costings plus import costs (appreciating in the future as they always have since manufactured). You need to see through an APQ to appreciate what an APQ is, those that haven't do not know what they are missing, seriously, there is no comparison. Many guess, and many talk about APQ's - not trying to upset you here guys - but if you haven't seen through an APQ you are unable to comment as you haven't achieved the summit of Everest and do not "know" the view
OR
2. CFF : today you have one bespoke hand crafting manufacturer - this is CFF - who currently manufacture fully oiled triplets. The Aust distributor delivered a brand new CFF 160mm f6.5 to a keen enthusiast in Perth last week, a hand crafted fully oiled - test certified Strehl 0.992, same as my CFF 140mm f6.5 also test certified 0.992, and also same as my Carl Zeiss APQ100 test certified 0.992, these are all documented test certified optics. Yes test certified "real" documented certification.
OR
3. TEC USA do one (only) model which is "semi" oiled, between one pair of lens elements, not both. IMHO this is not a design I would personally pursue from my decades in optometrical metrology - if you are doing an oiled you do the whole thing oiled, or leave it at the less costly and much easier to manufacture air spaced. IMHO it's a bit like getting in a car, you do not stop with the door open, you either get in or you don't.
TEC (and most telescope manufacturers) do not have test certification available. They do not have access to the necessary test equipment, same as Takahashi. Where you see quoted TEC, Tak, TeleVue, AP and many others quoting Strehl's these are not test certified and should be viewed with extreme caution as they are not measurements and are often guesses or sellers trying to keep up with offers from those that actually do have the test equipment - as example the test equipment at Officina Stellare was an investment of many hundreds of thousands of EUR. Those that do have tested certified optics usually have telescopes on offer with much greater quality, thereby justifying the investment in the metrology system with which to measure their optics. There are only a few manufacturers that have/ have access to test certification, they are the only test data that should be trusted, as everything else is heresay.
Last edited by Astromelb; 07-04-2018 at 11:39 AM.
Reason: Grammar
Dear IIS team,
The unit Lewis is referring to has been sold to myself.
I will be holding onto it long term, it is a very nice telescope.
PS: Technical - the FCT100 is a Canon Optron, Japan manufactured lens with an air spaced design with a 640mm focal length.
It is as all Tak refractors are a standard air spaced design, this one being an air spaced triplet, very similar in design to many triplets today (such as the Canon Optron triplet lenses used by Vixen & Sky Rover).
The FCT100 also includes a Fluorite lens element as the central lens element. It also uses Canon's premium manufacturing processes enabling a very capable optic, this unit is much better than any of the other Taks I have owned. It also uses Canon's class leading multi coatings, which are exceptional, as good as available commercially globally today.
This FCT100 optic I took to Carl Zeiss Germany when I visited them last year and had tested - it enabled a Strehl of 0.95, the highest Strehl the head of the Metrology Department at Zeiss has achieved in a Tak in his 35 years with Zeiss
Takahashi never made oil spaced refractors. Takahashi have always and only ever used Canon lenses - and Canon do not do any oiled's.
On to oiled's : Oiled's have higher resolution that aired's, optical physics demands this.
Are there are oiled's available today, Yes :
1. Carl Zeiss (used 2nd hand) - they always cost a lot, but they are much more than merely exceptional, they beat everything in their aperture class in performance. You should expect a price for a good condition APQ100 oil spaced fluorite triplet of around the $14k at today's costings plus import costs (appreciating in the future as they always have since manufactured). You need to see through an APQ to appreciate what an APQ is, those that haven't do not know what they are missing, seriously, there is no comparison. Many guess, and many talk about APQ's - not trying to upset you here guys - but if you haven't seen through an APQ you are unable to comment as you haven't achieved the summit of Everest and do not "know" the view
OR
2. CFF : today you have one bespoke hand crafting manufacturer - this is CFF - who currently manufacture fully oiled triplets. The Aust distributor delivered a brand new CFF 160mm f6.5 to a keen enthusiast in Perth last week, a hand crafted fully oiled - test certified Strehl 0.992, same as my CFF 140mm f6.5 also test certified 0.992, and also same as my Carl Zeiss APQ100 test certified 0.992, these are all documented test certified optics. Yes test certified "real" documented certification.
OR
3. TEC USA do one (only) model which is "semi" oiled, between one pair of lens elements, not both. IMHO this is not a design I would personally pursue from my decades in optometrical metrology - if you are doing an oiled you do the whole thing oiled, or leave it at the less costly and much easier to manufacture air spaced. IMHO it's a bit like getting in a car, you do not stop with the door open, you either get in or you don't.
TEC (and most telescope manufacturers) do not have test certification available. They do not have access to the necessary test equipment, same as Takahashi. Where you see quoted TEC, Tak, TeleVue, AP and many others quoting Strehl's these are not test certified and should be viewed with extreme caution as they are not measurements and are often guesses or sellers trying to keep up with offers from those that actually do have the test equipment - as example the test equipment at Officina Stellare was an investment of many hundreds of thousands of EUR. Those that do have tested certified optics usually have telescopes on offer with much greater quality, thereby justifying the investment in the metrology system with which to measure their optics. There are only a few manufacturers that have/ have access to test certification, they are the only test data that should be trusted, as everything else is heresay.
I don't wish to get into a longwinded trade off on barbs but some of the mis leading quotes on this post need to be corrected so people can make a balanced judgment:
The first obvious misleading statement is Strehl of 0.95 being the highest Tak Strehl ......this might have actually been the case for that particular unit for that test facility ......but one has to ask how many Tak samples they actually test ???
Especially when other Tak scopes have tested 0.992 and higher for the TOA series.
Also can you PLEASE clarify who the CFF and OS distributor is for Australia ??
Is is not the fact this this is your business run from your home lounge room ?? That business being Astronomy Alive??
The important consideration for this being clarified is that Resellers/Vendors/Distributors will often make what seem to be impartial statements but are actually statements that are misleading and designed to promote the products that they sell and disparage alternative products.
Also what qualifications and experience do you actually have for making all of the claims you make here?? especially since you claim many decades in "optometrical metrology"
On a recent visit to your "Showroom", I actually saw this FCT unit you mention sitting face down on its dew shield covered in dust, and you claimed multiple times during the visit (in the presence of another well know honest and reliable IIS member) that you were:
1. The Head Optical Designer for Takahashi: This claim was so extraordinary that I contacted Takahashi Directly to verify and they deny this completely
2. A Part Owner and Silent Partner of Takahashi Japan: Again an extraordinary claim that was refuted by Takahashi
3. Head Optical Designer for Stellarvue: Another Extra Ordinary Claim so I contacted Stellarvue to confirm. Vic Maris replied to me directly and has refuted this claim as well.
Both Manufacturers have authorised me to release a copy of their email communications proving this.
Going back to your claims of decades of experience, one has to ask about the quality and accuracy of this experience.
If I take a recent example of a CN212 scope that you advertised being in excellent condition after being in your care for some time, then one might assume the quality and accuracy is not very high at all.
The CN212 in question was prior owned by Kunama in Canberra. After being in your care the following problems were found:
1: The Starlight Instruments micro focuser was incorrectly adjusted. This was discovered in your office and had to be adjusted before I took possession of the scope.
2: The Secondary Spider had been adjusted so far off centre that it could not be collimated
3: The Newtonian Secondary was completely out of collimation
4: The Cassegrain Secondary was completely out of collimation
5: The Newtonian Turret had been moved and misaligned
6: The Tak Finder Illuminator had been replaced with a cheaper unit
So based on the condition as delivered the scope was completely unusable and definitely NOT in the claimed excellent condition as it was sold to you in.
Dear IIS team,
The unit Lewis is referring to has been sold to myself.
I will be holding onto it long term, it is a very nice telescope.
PS: Technical - the FCT100 is a Canon Optron, Japan manufactured lens with an air spaced design with a 640mm focal length.
It is as all Tak refractors are a standard air spaced design, this one being an air spaced triplet, very similar in design to many triplets today (such as the Canon Optron triplet lenses used by Vixen & Sky Rover).
The FCT100 also includes a Fluorite lens element as the central lens element. It also uses Canon's premium manufacturing processes enabling a very capable optic, this unit is much better than any of the other Taks I have owned. It also uses Canon's class leading multi coatings, which are exceptional, as good as available commercially globally today.
This FCT100 optic I took to Carl Zeiss Germany when I visited them last year and had tested - it enabled a Strehl of 0.95, the highest Strehl the head of the Metrology Department at Zeiss has achieved in a Tak in his 35 years with Zeiss
Takahashi never made oil spaced refractors. Takahashi have always and only ever used Canon lenses - and Canon do not do any oiled's.
On to oiled's : Oiled's have higher resolution that aired's, optical physics demands this.
Are there are oiled's available today, Yes :
1. Carl Zeiss (used 2nd hand) - they always cost a lot, but they are much more than merely exceptional, they beat everything in their aperture class in performance. You should expect a price for a good condition APQ100 oil spaced fluorite triplet of around the $14k at today's costings plus import costs (appreciating in the future as they always have since manufactured). You need to see through an APQ to appreciate what an APQ is, those that haven't do not know what they are missing, seriously, there is no comparison. Many guess, and many talk about APQ's - not trying to upset you here guys - but if you haven't seen through an APQ you are unable to comment as you haven't achieved the summit of Everest and do not "know" the view
OR
2. CFF : today you have one bespoke hand crafting manufacturer - this is CFF - who currently manufacture fully oiled triplets. The Aust distributor delivered a brand new CFF 160mm f6.5 to a keen enthusiast in Perth last week, a hand crafted fully oiled - test certified Strehl 0.992, same as my CFF 140mm f6.5 also test certified 0.992, and also same as my Carl Zeiss APQ100 test certified 0.992, these are all documented test certified optics. Yes test certified "real" documented certification.
OR
3. TEC USA do one (only) model which is "semi" oiled, between one pair of lens elements, not both. IMHO this is not a design I would personally pursue from my decades in optometrical metrology - if you are doing an oiled you do the whole thing oiled, or leave it at the less costly and much easier to manufacture air spaced. IMHO it's a bit like getting in a car, you do not stop with the door open, you either get in or you don't.
TEC (and most telescope manufacturers) do not have test certification available. They do not have access to the necessary test equipment, same as Takahashi. Where you see quoted TEC, Tak, TeleVue, AP and many others quoting Strehl's these are not test certified and should be viewed with extreme caution as they are not measurements and are often guesses or sellers trying to keep up with offers from those that actually do have the test equipment - as example the test equipment at Officina Stellare was an investment of many hundreds of thousands of EUR. Those that do have tested certified optics usually have telescopes on offer with much greater quality, thereby justifying the investment in the metrology system with which to measure their optics. There are only a few manufacturers that have/ have access to test certification, they are the only test data that should be trusted, as everything else is heresay.
All I hear is circus music...organ grinders...caged apes...
Why the pretence? The entire astronomy community knows who AstroMelb is, so why talk in whispers and subterfuge? Be honest and upfront - PLEASE! "CFF dealer"...yes, Astronomy Alive aka AstroMelb aka Cris Ellis. No secret.
And why was a long-dead 4 year old thread SUDDENLY brought up again??? Yes, the FCT was good, but it's contrast is NO WHERE near as good as modern Taks, AP's or probably even CFF. I can guarantee it is MUCH sharper than any CFF, but the CFF will show better contrast due to the more modern coatings. The FSQ-106N I had had better contrast (NOT as sharp).
As far as I have been told, my former FCT-100 now has the useless Feathertouch add-on, it's standing on it's dewshield covered in dust and potentially going to fall over into something. Probably had shoddy flocking paper added into the dewshield as I have seen too often. What high regard for a $4000 4" scope...
Quote:
Originally Posted by issdaol
I don't wish to get into a longwinded trade off on barbs but some of the mis leading quotes on this post need to be corrected so people can make a balanced judgment:
The first obvious misleading statement is Strehl of 0.95 being the highest Tak Strehl ......this might have actually been the case for that particular unit for that test facility ......but one has to ask how many Tak samples they actually test ???
Especially when other Tak scopes have tested 0.992 and higher for the TOA series.
Also can you PLEASE clarify who the CFF and OS distributor is for Australia ??
Is is not the fact this this is your business run from your home lounge room ?? That business being Astronomy Alive??
The important consideration for this being clarified is that Resellers/Vendors/Distributors will often make what seem to be impartial statements but are actually statements that are misleading and designed to promote the products that they sell and disparage alternative products.
Also what qualifications and experience do you actually have for making all of the claims you make here?? especially since you claim many decades in "optometrical metrology"
On a recent visit to your "Showroom", I actually saw this FCT unit you mention sitting face down on its dew shield covered in dust, and you claimed multiple times during the visit (in the presence of another well know honest and reliable IIS member) that you were:
1. The Head Optical Designer for Takahashi: This claim was so extraordinary that I contacted Takahashi Directly to verify and they deny this completely
2. A Part Owner and Silent Partner of Takahashi Japan: Again an extraordinary claim that was refuted by Takahashi
3. Head Optical Designer for Stellarvue: Another Extra Ordinary Claim so I contacted Stellarvue to confirm. Vic Maris replied to me directly and has refuted this claim as well.
Both Manufacturers have authorised me to release a copy of their email communications proving this.
Going back to your claims of decades of experience, one has to ask about the quality and accuracy of this experience.
If I take a recent example of a CN212 scope that you advertised being in excellent condition after being in your care for some time, then one might assume the quality and accuracy is not very high at all.
The CN212 in question was prior owned by Kunama in Canberra. After being in your care the following problems were found:
1: The Starlight Instruments micro focuser was incorrectly adjusted. This was discovered in your office and had to be adjusted before I took possession of the scope.
2: The Secondary Spider had been adjusted so far off centre that it could not be collimated
3: The Newtonian Secondary was completely out of collimation
4: The Cassegrain Secondary was completely out of collimation
5: The Newtonian Turret had been moved and misaligned
6: The Tak Finder Illuminator had been replaced with a cheaper unit
So based on the condition as delivered the scope was completely unusable and definitely NOT in the claimed excellent condition as it was sold to you in.
I’ve been awaiting this release of information with bated breath for too long. And I don’t even have to add anything.
I heard the EXACT claims re Tak and SV from 7 different and isolated persons. 7!!!!!!!!!!!! Including some that have been in this arena longer than myself and know a LOT better than the claimant.
The comment was to correct Lewis.
His comments on this thread gave the impression he still owns the unit. His comments were out of date, he no longer owns this telescope, I do. Or is that not permitted ?
Plus:
Problems with the CN212 eh ?
This thread isn't about a CN212, is it about a FCT100, what the ?
The CN212 was used "once" when first received from Kunama and then left on an Eq - and then onsold - as is. Like many Tak products I wasn't as impressed as I hoped I would be, I am used to better gear such as Questar & Quantum, and Officina Stellare.
The buyer asked about documentation after buying and nothing more, so these "problems" you now claim - are all brand new, where did they come from, and now they surface - a year later, what a joke.
If you had questions of a technical & performance nature you should have requested assistance immediately following purchase, not claim "new issues" and criticise the seller a year later. Bad form mate, you are a bully
Congratulations on being so inappropriate.
Get a life
The comment was to correct Lewis.
His comments on this thread gave the impression he still owns the unit. His comments were out of date, he no longer owns this telescope, I do. Or is that not permitted ?
Plus:
Problems with the CN212 eh ?
This thread isn't about a CN212, is it about a FCT100, what the ?
The CN212 was used "once" when first received from Kunama and then left on an Eq - and then onsold - as is.
The buyer asked about documentation after buying and nothing more, so these "problems" you now claim - are all brand new, where did they come from, and now they surface - a year later, what a joke.
If you had questions of a technical & performance nature you should have requested assistance immediately following purchase, not claim "new issues" and criticise the seller a year later. Bad form mate, you are a bully But this webpage applauds bullying, has for a long time
Congratulations on being so inappropriate.
Get a life
Cris, look at the DATE I posted that thread, and does it matter who owns it NOW?
Dog chasing it's tail...
Yes, I, along with Matt "Kunama" witnessed the issues with the CN212 - issues that would not present themselves without actually using the "Unit" (gawd I hate the word "UNIT" - sounds so tosh!). It was so GROSSLY out of spec.
Cris, look at the DATE I posted that thread, and does it matter who owns it NOW?
Dog chasing it's tail...
Yes, I, along with Matt "Kunama" witnessed the issues with the CN212 - issues that would not present themselves without actually using the "Unit" (gawd I hate the word "UNIT" - sounds so tosh!). It was so GROSSLY out of spec.
The comment was to correct Lewis.
His comments on this thread gave the impression he still owns the unit. His comments were out of date, he no longer owns this telescope, I do. Or is that not permitted ?
Plus:
Problems with the CN212 eh ?
This thread isn't about a CN212, is it about a FCT100, what the ?
The CN212 was used "once" when first received from Kunama and then left on an Eq - and then onsold - as is. Like many Tak products I wasn't as impressed as I hoped I would be, I am used to better gear such as Questar & Quantum, and Officina Stellare.
The buyer asked about documentation after buying and nothing more, so these "problems" you now claim - are all brand new, where did they come from, and now they surface - a year later, what a joke.
If you had questions of a technical & performance nature you should have requested assistance immediately following purchase, not claim "new issues" and criticise the seller a year later. Bad form mate, you are a bully
Congratulations on being so inappropriate.
Get a life
Hi Chris,
I note you selectively did not address any of the questions related to your claims and experience.......a very convenient oversight.
As for the CN212 .......You claimed on your add that it was in Excellent Condition as sold to you by Kunama....which it clearly was not.
As it was a second hand purchase and you clearly and no idea about how to service and maintain such a scope ....Kunama and I fixed all of the issues together ourselves.
Kunama being a friend of mine .....can verify that the condition sold to you was Excellent (as new) which you claimant in your add......he can also verify that the condition as sold to me was completely unusable.
Also your recollection of events is incorrect ...it was only in the latter half of 2017 that you sold the CN212 not a year later ....again more misleading and dishonest statements from you.
Also the IIS member that visited your showroom with me to pick up the CN212 was actually Kunama ..........At the time you claimed you had met him and that he was a great friend of yours ....however you didn't even know that he was standing right in front of you in your own lounge room
As to the relevance of these comments with regards to the original thread:
They are to as stated to clarify the Experience and Expertise you claim in your original post (as well as clarifying your status as the owner of Astronomy Alive and therefore not impartial) so other IIS members can judge the relevance and veracity of your claims for themselves.
I note you selectively did not address any of the questions related to your claims and experience.......a very convenient oversight.
As for the CN212 .......You claimed on your add that it was in Excellent Condition as sold to you by Kunama....which it clearly was not.
As it was a second hand purchase and you clearly and no idea about how to service and maintain such a scope ....Kunama and I fixed all of the issues together ourselves.
Kunama being a friend of mine .....can verify that the condition sold to you was Excellent (as new) which you claimant in your add......he can also verify that the condition as sold to me was completely unusable.
Also your recollection of events is incorrect ...it was only in the latter half of 2017 that you sold the CN212 not a year later ....again more misleading and dishonest statements from you.
Also the IIS member that visited your showroom with me to pick up the CN212 was actually Kunama ..........At the time you claimed you had met him and that he was a great friend of yours ....however you didn't even know that he was standing right in front of you in your own lounge room
As to the relevance of these comments with regards to the original thread:
They are to as stated to clarify the Experience and Expertise you claim in your original post (as well as clarifying your status as the owner of Astronomy Alive and therefore not impartial) so other IIS members can judge the relevance and veracity of your claims for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by issdaol
Also the IIS member that visited your showroom with me to pick up the CN212 was actually Kunama ..........At the time you claimed you had met him and that he was a great friend of yours ....however you didn't even know that he was standing right in front of you in your own lounge room
