Anyone with experience witha TV np101is?

[Bolts_Tweed (Mark)]

gday

Through a disaster and associated insurance claim I have recently ordered a Televue np101 is . Does anyone have any experience with them photographically? I mean I know the quality of Nagler optics etc and a very good optical tech in Sydney (hows that for praise if you read this D.. ) has reccommended it as a replacement. I do not doubt it is all that is written and I eagerly await its arrival but my question was related to the intricacies of owning a scope and things like the necessity for a field flattener etc in prime focus mode. I will order one now if required. I suppose it is bit like asking if a Merc requires a tune up in its class.

Any comments?

MB

[jase (Jason)]

Mark,
The Nagler Petzval design has an inherent flat field based on its design. Typically there is no need for additional field flatteners with these scopes. Though the np101 is an exception - for big chip imaging it is recommended to install a LCL-1069 Large Field Corrector. The "is" series provides a turn key style wide field imaging set up given they also have digital read out on focuser steps as the rack the focuser in and out. In short, they're a nice scope. It is certainly a premium scope along with its bigger brother the np127is. All that being said, for close to the same aperture and focal length, its hard to beat - the proven modified petzval design of the Takahashi FSQ.

np101 - 540mm FL @ F/5.4
FSQ - 530mm FL @ F/5

Clearly, not much between them, but you need to look at the specifics. The np101 has a 3" draw tube which tapers down to a 2.4" fitting. In comparison, the FSQ has a full 4" draw tube. No need for an additional correctors with the FSQ. Its FOV is flat and wide as they come with its huge 88mm image circle. I would estimate that the FSQ would have come in cheaper too. This aside, I'm sure you'll take great pleasure in using the np101is when it arrives. Its a nice visual instrument, whereas I don't know many people that actually look through their FSQ, they usually have a camera hanging off the back of them, though can also be used visually.

[Bolts_Tweed (Mark)]

Gday Jase

Thx for the reply. I had heard of the Large Field Corrector and your posting confirms this requirement. I have just gone from DSLR to Orion StarShoot Pro 2 with the big chip and I will probably need the corrector.

This scope actually replaces a Tak (an FS102) that met an early demise (it was discussed in the classified section - but I went over a rottweiler on an internal set of stairs and suffice to say the flourite element is no longer intact - far far from it). I was imaging with the Tak and had just got the focal reducer for it with all the other accessories required which have now gone to good home in Perth.

I decided to give TV a crack this time - several reasons that are probably only relevant to me. I was exceptionally happy with the Tak however and I agree that if everything was equal the FSQ would be right up there. A mate here on the Gold Coast has one now (Gday Mr Trimachi) and he is raving about it - I eagerly await the publication of his results.

Anyway thx for the reply - I will investigate the corrector.

MB

[Phil]

The star in the background of this shot where taken with my NP101mm which i have had for about 4years now. I love the scope. The camera was the STL-11000m which was put straight on the focuser. I did find with the big chip camera there was a bit of vignetting on the photos. But with NP101is the focuser is bigger which fixed that problem. You should be very happy for many years with this scope.
Phil

[Bolts_Tweed (Mark)]

Thx for the reply Phil

The stars look pretty damn good to me. Waiting for this thing to turn up is like having Xmas presents wrapped under the tree when I was a kid and all I can do is talk about them while I wait for Xmas to arrive.

Very nice image mate - the talent of people on this list amazes me sometimes. I also just checked out Jasons web page.

I keep telling people that astrophotography is more akin to golf than a game of football. Being the winner isnt as impotrant as lowering your handicap is - but geez the quality of images around keeps you on the practice range.

Thanks again for the reply mate

MB

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Someone lock this thread quick. I have been struggling for weeks now, trying to resist Bintel's special deal on the NP 101is, and here are all you people torturing me with fantastic images and extolling the virtues of what may well be the perfect wide-field refractor.

Seriously, will someone PLEASE say something negative about this scope? Tell me it takes ages to cool down. (Actually, how long, really?) Visually, is the contrast noticably worse, what with it having four elements and all? Has anyone ever had a dud 101? Come on, the smallest defect is more telling and more useful than all this unmitigated praise. Besides, I can't hold out much longer...

And how much is an FSQ, anyway?

Cheers,

Brian.

[GrahamL]

Seriously, will someone PLEASE say something negative about this scope?

When you place your order Brian you'll notice its a little pricey

[Bolts_Tweed (Mark)]

Gday Brian

Your comment was my thinking exactly. I know these things are good and probably everything written is true. Not even Angelina Joile is perfect - she probably cant cook . Looks like the TV is probably capable of whipping up a nice Lamb Roast as well.

Claudio has a FSQ106 on his web site in stock at $6995 OTA only. Compare to Bintels special at $5699. Makes the TV look appealing with the focusmate included. As an ex Tak man myself I do know the Japanese quality but there will always be a Ford / Holden argument and I dont even want to go anywhere near that

I suspect the only way to evaluate them is to compare results instead of name which I am in the process of doing (The TV is ordered anyway).

Here we might say - yeah but its not a Tak but in the US the inverse might be heard.