Re: Equatorial mount for TeleVue NP101 ?

On 1 Dec 2003 13:19:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (clyde crewey) ...reflected:

>Alan W. Craft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:47:20 GMT, Richard DeLuca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...reflected:
>> 
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >I've been looking for a good small refractor for some time, so while at 
>> >Chiefland last week I sprung for a TV NP101.  
>> 
>>         Please forgive, but why the TeleVue NP101 @ $3595 when you 
>> might've had a Takahashi FS-102 @ $1895 instead, that is, if you 
>> bought the TeleVue new?  Also, if the TeleVue possesses some 
>> clear advantage over the Takahashi, that I do not see so readily,
>> is it still worth the extra $1700?
>> 
>
>Alan,
>
>These scopes are different animals.  You'll note the poster stated
>he'd been looking for a good "small" refractor.  While only a 4"
>scope, the Tak 102 is hardly small.  It's huge for a 4 incher, easily
>bigger than the TV102 and much bigger than the NP101.  The NP101 is a
>much faster scope  and according to Alan Dyer, shows zero color.  Both
>the Tak 102 and TV 102 will show slight color, though certainly not
>enough to bother me.  

       I've yet to see any false color in my FS-102, but I also haven't
observed with it long enough to perhaps eventually notice, and 
that combined with my not being a skilled observer to begin with
leaves me no choice but to acquiesce in your favor; well, almost.

>I've used a friend's Tak 102, though only once.  Great scope and I 
>loved it,  And while it bested my TV85, the margin was not nearly as 
>large as I would have thought.  

       Ah, so you had been pre-seduced by the magic that is...Takahashi!
For when it comes right down it, one is nonethemore an 85mm and the 
other a 102mm, and regardless of brand or marketing.

>We were both
>surprised when my $350 6" f/8 Dob clearly beat the Tak on Saturn,
>though  Jupiter was too close to call.

       Isn't that the way?

>Clyde

Alan