--- In Stellarvue@y..., "starman1142001" <Tull1996@a...> wrote:

> ...am hung up on which to get,,,the 1010, the 102D OR
> even the 80 f/9.4......If I go for the 1010, I can get it fully
> loaded for 995 (plus a few odds and ends that probably aren't
> included), close to that for the f/9.4,,,,for the 102D, that same
> outlay will get me the scope.


Please indulge me, and let me play the Grinch for a second here. The
scope you should buy is the one with the biggest... wallet!

The Stellarvue Carry-on Case is said to be able to hold either the
AT1010, or the 102 scopes. So portability is not an issue, as far as
these two scopes, but rather, which can you afford (considering the
cost of a "fully-loaded" system)?

If you can afford the 102, then the issue becomes, the 80/9 or the
102, right?

Well, lemme tell ya sumthin', kid, that 80/9 is a wiry, tough
fighter, but his vision is kinda limited, ya know what I mean?

Whereas the 102, well now, we're talking possibilities, if ya get my
drift... Plus, there's a lot more money ridin' on it.

(All in jest, right?)

GLB

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "wmrroy" <wmrroy@y...> wrote:
>
> I started to post a joke about looking at the other newsgroups and
> noticing how many "losers" don't have anything better to do on New
> Year's Eve than post on the Internet.


We spent New Year's Eve with my friend Joe, who had set up his scope
in the backyard, and kept trying to drag us out there for a view of
the stars. (No way in this cold!)

Then we got a post-midnight call from our friend Julius, who had been
out observing the great view of the planets (without a scope!).

This enthusiasm seems contagious! (Sorry about those who caught the
flu.)

GLB

Hi All!

Well, I guess the time has come to see the calendar flip to another
page...

2002. I still can't believe it! I remember as a kid wondering what it
would be like in the 21st century - now I know! Pretty much the same
thing as later in the last century, with a few added goodies, toys,
and perhaps a touch more personal wisdom (though some may say that
I'm pushing it!) ;-]

All that aside, I hope all our membership have a superb 2002. Thank
you to all our members for making this group so wonderful - and
apparently, so popular! I am just elated with the stuff on here;
great reading, and interesting stuff, folks! Let's keep the momentum
rolling into this year... Vic, thanks for "doing it right"! I can't
wait to see what you come up with for 2003, 2004 and 2005! [wonders
never cease!]. Can anyone imagine what the SV catalog will look like
for 2010? ;-)

Well, It's been dreadfully cold this year here. -22C overnight; still
potentially good viewing weather, but we have been getting an
overabundance of chilly winds and hoar frost - not great times to be
taking your optics out! For those unfamiliar with this term,
basically hoar frost is sublimed ice that deposits on surfaces due to
the winds being saturated with super-cooled air. This dew can form in
needles, or worse yet, rather thick layers - rather quickly. A real
pain for astronomy, let me tell you! I don't even bother to go out
with anything when these conditions prevail - just not worth it. I'd
bet a dew remover would have a time of it, too! Even clear objectives
aside, you'll find your EPs getting a nice layer rather rapidly - not
much fun...

So, I've been doing a fair bit of 1x viewing lately; THe penumbral
eclipse was average here - a bit of upper level ice clouds to mush-
out the finer contrast on the moon. I wish that the conditions would
have allowed my AT1010 to be out there...

Nick - you too? Darned little bugs have gotten the best of me also.
Hang in there... Say hi to Denise from me, too.

Well, that about wraps it up. I'm looking forward to those warmer
evenings when I have to worry about shaking off a different kind of
bug...

I wish everyone again all the best for 2002 - may your skies be
clear, your temperatures mild, your RH low, and most of all, your
wallets full [after getting all your SV toys, that is!].

Happy New Year!

Darren, your humble moderator.

Hi All! First, I want to wish everyone a Happy 2002, and also thank
everyone who responded to my first question.  Each answer that I got
was very helpful.  I appreciate that everyone who answered actually
seemed to put some thought into it and not just give the newbie a
hard time! ;)

Anyway, that being said, I am looking at some of the accessories
listed and am not sure on a couple items.  First,,,as a beginner, and
having no previous eyepieces or anything,,,is it really a good idea
to go for the 2" diagonal?  Also, what is the difference with
the "enhanced" diagonals (they come in both 1.25 and 2 inch models)
from the "standard" diagonals?

Second, is the aluminum tripod that is standard with the M4 mount(any
words on the M4?) good enough?  I notice that there is a "stablelok"
tripod.  I am not planning on doing any photography at present, so
will the aluminum be a good choice? (It'll save 200 bucks, but if the
aluminum tripod isn't that good, I'd be willing to do it..)

Third (I know,,,this is going on forever!)does anyone use the motor
drive?  Is it anything that I'll be kicking myself in the face about
if I DON'T get it?  I've read several posts in the last few days, and
nobody (that I have noticed) has mentioned it..

I have a few more small questions, but don't want to inundate the
group and become a pain in the a**!

Thanks again all.  So far, I have been very impressed by the members
in this group and it makes me very glad that I have decided on a
Stellarvue!

I have a question: On planets, can we push the APO more than the EDT
version without breakdown the image? if it is so,how much?

George

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "starman1142001" <Tull1996@a...> wrote:
> t.   Any opinions from people who have
> actually used all three? (or any of them for that matter!)
>
> Thanks!

I would recommend getting the 102D.  The extra light gathering
and transportability make it hard to beat>  In my opinion its
a Best Buy.

Regards,
Wes

Thanks for the 2002 greetings;  same to you and all in group.  My
experience is with 8" Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain since 1985, and my
brand-new AT1010M4 from Vic last week.  I am just trying the 2"
eyepieces, but have a problem with the fit of the 2" diagonal;  Vic &
I are working on that.  I am anxious myself to see how they work.
Meanwhile, it seems to me that 1.25" is considerably less expensive
and much more variety available.  I need 20" of eye relief
(astigmatism can't be "focussed out") so use Lanthanum eyepieces.
Just got a 8-24 zoom Lanthanum with which I am presently
enamored.  "Upgraded" Diagonal:  difference is in the percentage of
light transmitted by the reflector;  the more you pay the more light
you get. M4 tripod:  Is "adequate" for general viewing but I question
its use with photography.  Motor drive:  I debated (myself) about
this, too, finally got the motor and like it.  One can view anything
without the hassle (and vibration) of repeatedly turning the knobs.
Also, I can set up a view and call my wife or friend or grandchild to
come look -- and the view is there when they arrive without my having
to re-locate it.  Problem is adjusting the motor clutch to allow
manual control without loosening the clutch rendering the motor
ineffectual.  I am not sure the motor is adequate for photography,
however, since I have discovered the need for motor control in both
axes.  Perhaps with CCD camera and short exposure times this would be
less critical.  Good hunting!  JDH
--- In Stellarvue@y..., "starman1142001" <Tull1996@a...> wrote:
> Hi All! First, I want to wish everyone a Happy 2002, and also thank
> everyone who responded to my first question.  Each answer that I
got
> was very helpful.  I appreciate that everyone who answered actually
> seemed to put some thought into it and not just give the newbie a
> hard time! ;)
>
> Anyway, that being said, I am looking at some of the accessories
> listed and am not sure on a couple items.  First,,,as a beginner,
and
> having no previous eyepieces or anything,,,is it really a good idea
> to go for the 2" diagonal?  Also, what is the difference with
> the "enhanced" diagonals (they come in both 1.25 and 2 inch models)
> from the "standard" diagonals?
>
> Second, is the aluminum tripod that is standard with the M4 mount
(any
> words on the M4?) good enough?  I notice that there is
a "stablelok"
> tripod.  I am not planning on doing any photography at present, so
> will the aluminum be a good choice? (It'll save 200 bucks, but if
the
> aluminum tripod isn't that good, I'd be willing to do it..)
>
> Third (I know,,,this is going on forever!)does anyone use the motor
> drive?  Is it anything that I'll be kicking myself in the face
about
> if I DON'T get it?  I've read several posts in the last few days,
and
> nobody (that I have noticed) has mentioned it..
>
> I have a few more small questions, but don't want to inundate the
> group and become a pain in the a**!
>
> Thanks again all.  So far, I have been very impressed by the
members
> in this group and it makes me very glad that I have decided on a
> Stellarvue!

I don't mean 20" -- I mean 20 mm -- of eye relief!  JDH
--- In Stellarvue@y..., "starman1142001" <Tull1996@a...> wrote:
> Hi All! First, I want to wish everyone a Happy 2002, and also thank
> everyone who responded to my first question.  Each answer that I
got
> was very helpful.  I appreciate that everyone who answered actually
> seemed to put some thought into it and not just give the newbie a
> hard time! ;)
>
> Anyway, that being said, I am looking at some of the accessories
> listed and am not sure on a couple items.  First,,,as a beginner,
and
> having no previous eyepieces or anything,,,is it really a good idea
> to go for the 2" diagonal?  Also, what is the difference with
> the "enhanced" diagonals (they come in both 1.25 and 2 inch models)
> from the "standard" diagonals?
>
> Second, is the aluminum tripod that is standard with the M4 mount
(any
> words on the M4?) good enough?  I notice that there is
a "stablelok"
> tripod.  I am not planning on doing any photography at present, so
> will the aluminum be a good choice? (It'll save 200 bucks, but if
the
> aluminum tripod isn't that good, I'd be willing to do it..)
>
> Third (I know,,,this is going on forever!)does anyone use the motor
> drive?  Is it anything that I'll be kicking myself in the face
about
> if I DON'T get it?  I've read several posts in the last few days,
and
> nobody (that I have noticed) has mentioned it..
>
> I have a few more small questions, but don't want to inundate the
> group and become a pain in the a**!
>
> Thanks again all.  So far, I have been very impressed by the
members
> in this group and it makes me very glad that I have decided on a
> Stellarvue!

I don't mean 20" -- I mean 20 mm -- of eye relief!  JDH
--- In Stellarvue@y..., "starman1142001" <Tull1996@a...> wrote:
> Hi All! First, I want to wish everyone a Happy 2002, and also thank
> everyone who responded to my first question.  Each answer that I
got
> was very helpful.  I appreciate that everyone who answered actually
> seemed to put some thought into it and not just give the newbie a
> hard time! ;)
>
> Anyway, that being said, I am looking at some of the accessories
> listed and am not sure on a couple items.  First,,,as a beginner,
and
> having no previous eyepieces or anything,,,is it really a good idea
> to go for the 2" diagonal?  Also, what is the difference with
> the "enhanced" diagonals (they come in both 1.25 and 2 inch models)
> from the "standard" diagonals?
>
> Second, is the aluminum tripod that is standard with the M4 mount
(any
> words on the M4?) good enough?  I notice that there is
a "stablelok"
> tripod.  I am not planning on doing any photography at present, so
> will the aluminum be a good choice? (It'll save 200 bucks, but if
the
> aluminum tripod isn't that good, I'd be willing to do it..)
>
> Third (I know,,,this is going on forever!)does anyone use the motor
> drive?  Is it anything that I'll be kicking myself in the face
about
> if I DON'T get it?  I've read several posts in the last few days,
and
> nobody (that I have noticed) has mentioned it..
>
> I have a few more small questions, but don't want to inundate the
> group and become a pain in the a**!
>
> Thanks again all.  So far, I have been very impressed by the
members
> in this group and it makes me very glad that I have decided on a
> Stellarvue!

> Anyway, that being said, I am looking at some of the accessories
> listed and am not sure on a couple items.  First,,,as a beginner,
and
> having no previous eyepieces or anything,,,is it really a good idea
> to go for the 2" diagonal?  Also, what is the difference with
> the "enhanced" diagonals (they come in both 1.25 and 2 inch models)
> from the "standard" diagonals?

The 2" eyepieces are only advantageous for premium widefield
eyepieces of 22mm and longer focal lengths. Small fast refractors
like the Stellarvue excell at widefield, and in my opinion it's worth
it, eventually you will want to get one of these premium widefield
eyepieces but they are expensive investments in and of themselves.
31Nagler=$600, 22Nagler=$460, 35Panoptic=$380, 27Panoptic=$360,

> Second, is the aluminum tripod that is standard with the M4 mount
(any
> words on the M4?) good enough?  I notice that there is
a "stablelok"
> tripod.  I am not planning on doing any photography at present, so
> will the aluminum be a good choice? (It'll save 200 bucks, but if
the
> aluminum tripod isn't that good, I'd be willing to do it..)
>
> Third (I know,,,this is going on forever!)does anyone use the motor
> drive?  Is it anything that I'll be kicking myself in the face
about
> if I DON'T get it?  I've read several posts in the last few days,
and
> nobody (that I have noticed) has mentioned it..

One thing I have learned is not to skimp on mounts. They are fully
half of your "Observing System" and you should be willing to spend at
least as much on a mount as on the scope. Your scope will be much
less usable and enjoyable if it's on a shakey, course, difficult to
use mount. Unfortunately there's a big, unfilled gap in quality of
mounts between the Aisian GP knock-offs like the M-4 & M-5 and a true
quality mount like the GM8. I'm hoping somone like Vic will address
this soon, but till that happens,  Vic's M-4 is lighweight, but
basicly stable enough for visual use of one of his short scopes, the
aluminum legs are probably the weekest link in the mount system
promoting instability. Stablelock tripod is an answer to this. Most
anyone who's upgraded their tripod legs to quality wooden legs will
tell you it's worth every pennie to do so. The M5 is more stable, but
a good deal heavier as well. It's dovetail mounting system also
allows one to quickly swich scopes atop the same mount. Personally, I
perfer it to the M4 but I'm a healthy young man in my mid-thirties,
and don't mind carrying the extra few pounds of weight. Dual axis
Drives and clutches are a modern luxury, most of us have gotten by
just fine without them, but now that I have them, they sure are nice!
It's very convienient to be able to find somthing, walk in the house
to use the bathroom, or get my wife to come look, and come back out
and not have to find it again. Also very nice if you want to study an
object for long periods, or at starparties when people are standing
in line to look through your scope. Vic does some special stepps when
installing these drives, and if you ever plan to get them, get them
when you order the mount. Personally, I don't think you'll regret
spending a little more on your mount, and if you know you intend to
do astrophotography, just suck it up, and get a full blown Vixen GP-
DX, or a GM8 now, and save yourself a lot of frustration.
>
> I have a few more small questions, but don't want to inundate the
> group and become a pain in the a**!
>
> Thanks again all.  So far, I have been very impressed by the
members
> in this group and it makes me very glad that I have decided on a
> Stellarvue!

Your questions cover a lot of territory, and their are a lot of
diffrent oppinions, and room for debate about the answers. I've tried
to give the quick and dirty answers, that I thought you would
appreciate most as a beginner. For Visual only, I consider the 102D a
best buy, that's why I bought it. If you got the extra bucks, go for
an EDT but don't scrimp on your mount to do so! If you're rich, you
have more choices, take a look at the competition, Tak, AP, TMB, TV-
NP101, and of course the Stellarvue, pick the one that has the
features you want most, and forget about a few hundred bucks one way
or the other. In that price range, it shouldn't matter! Personally if
I had that kind of money to blow on another scope, I'd forget the 4"
refractors, and start looking at Teleports, and Starmaster EL's.
Hope this helps!
JDBraddy

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Stellarvue
group.

   File        : /TerrestrialPhotos/squirrel1.JPG
   Uploaded by : jareister <jareister@...>
   Description : Squirrel through the AT1010 and Olympus D-510 zoom digital
camera.  Handheld afocal projection.

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Stellarvue/files/TerrestrialPhotos/squirrel1.JPG

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

jareister <jareister@...>

Pardon me for rehashing an old thread, but since I wasn't around
then...

Before purchasing my AT1010, one of the scopes that initially
appealed to me, aperture and portability wise, was the f5 Orion
(Synta) 120.  Unfortunately the reviews seemed to indicate that it
was optically unacceptable.  And then there is the AP Traveler, oh
man what a beauty, but 3K AND three years?  Doesn't sound do-able.

So my vote is for the Stellarvueization of a 120-130mm, short and /
or long focal length scope.  Who knows, maybe I won't be able to
afford it anyway, but I figure I have a better chance than an AP or
Tak.

In a related vein, I find myself not that interested in the SCT's
that the local dealers seem intent on shoving down my throat (one of
em anyway seems particularly intent on that end), although, I admit,
the C-8, or C-9.25 seem like pretty good bang for the buck. I'm not
sure I'm going to have the budget to be a true refractor snob :).
Comments?

Happy New Year,

Eric

Hi!

Well, I'm one of the few that went for the 80mm f/9 version. My
reasoning:

1. Apart from air travel, there isn't really a meaningful portability
issue between the f/6 and f/9. Both are very light, small scopes.

2. I have not directly compared the 80mm f/6 and f/9 scopes; but, as
they are achromats, it is guaranteed that the f/9 will have better
color correction. This is not only an issue of visible false color
fringing. Better color correction means also slightly better
planetary contrast and slightly fainter stars are visible.

3. While the f/6 makes possible a wider field, the f/9.4 is still
capable of almost a 3.5 degree field, which is pretty wide! A 40mm
eyepiece gives about 19X in that scope; anything lower than that is
sort of in binocular range anyway.

4. The longer focal length will be more forgiving of inexpensive
eyepieces at wide fields and low magnifications; and that is just the
range where eyepieces are most expensive.

Of course, when I made my selection, the 102D was not yet available.
That throws a wrench into the whole thing! No question, the 102D will
handily outperform either 80mm scope. There is only the cost issue.

Best of luck!

Mike

>
> In a related vein, I find myself not that interested in the SCT's
> that the local dealers seem intent on shoving down my throat (one of
> em anyway seems particularly intent on that end), although, I admit,
> the C-8, or C-9.25 seem like pretty good bang for the buck. I'm not
> sure I'm going to have the budget to be a true refractor snob :).
> Comments?
>
> Happy New Year,
>
> Eric

Eric,

As with most things in this hobby, it all depends. True, Meade and
Celestron have turned out some real stinkers, but overall the quality
of SCTs has improved dramatically over the last 10 years. I recently
sold an excellent C-8 and acquired an excellent C9.25. The star test
on the 9.25 is textbook perfect, as is the startest on my AT1010. You
just can't beat the SCT in terms of light grasp, portability and in my
case planetary detail for the price.

Would I rather have a 4" APO. No. But only because I have a SV85mm APO
coming. How about an excellent SV 133+ APO? Yes. But it's not because
I think a 5-7 inch APO will "blow" the 9.25 away. I would still have
to sacrifice some light grasp for the improvements in contrast you get
with an excellent refractor. I would also have to give up some
flexibility in terms of all the accessories made for SCTs. That's not
a big deal, except I have a bit invested in this.

At some point, I hope to have two scopes. One for exquisite views and
portability. The SV85-F8.8-APO will give me that. And one for light
grasp and enduring quality. Right now my big telescope strategy is
built around the C9.25, but who knows--perhaps Vic will make a big
honkin' affordable APO/ED refractor in the future. That'll be the one
for my retirement observatory :>)

Randy

Mike,

I agree with your main thesis and in fact decided on the longer
focal length SV85APO based on most of what you say here. In the
interest of debate, however, I would add a bit to your points
--- In Stellarvue@y..., "mikedche" <mikedamato@s...> wrote:
>
> 1. Apart from air travel, there isn't really a meaningful
portability
> issue between the f/6 and f/9. Both are very light, small scopes.

If you are planning to use an alt/az mount like the Telepod, the extra
10 inches of tube will make a difference. It's still certainly doable,
but you'll find the difference in height between viewing at the zenith
and at the horizon to be quite noticeable.


> 2. I have not directly compared the 80mm f/6 and f/9 scopes; but, as
> they are achromats, it is guaranteed that the f/9 will have better
> color correction. This is not only an issue of visible false color
> fringing. Better color correction means also slightly better
> planetary contrast and slightly fainter stars are visible.

Actually, if the lenses are really excellent on both, the only
difference is the wider view of the faster scope. I agree that its'
easier to achieve color better color correction with longer focal
lengths, but it ain't necessarily so that it is guaranteed. That is
why there are excellent F6APOs on the market today. Even a well
corrected shorter focal length achromat with excellent optics can
outperform a longer focal length achromat that is not as well
corrected. This of course, is the source of much bitter debate on some
of the other newsgroups. I don't know know about seeing fainter stars
in a well corrected scope, I thought that was a functions of light
grasp, but I certainly agree with you about planetary detail.


> 3. While the f/6 makes possible a wider field, the f/9.4 is still
> capable of almost a 3.5 degree field, which is pretty wide! A 40mm
> eyepiece gives about 19X in that scope; anything lower than that is
> sort of in binocular range anyway.

You can drive a Mac truck through 3.5 degrees, huh?
>
> 4. The longer focal length will be more forgiving of inexpensive
> eyepieces at wide fields and low magnifications; and that is just
the
> range where eyepieces are most expensive.

That's one of the best reasons to go with the F9.4 IMO.

Anyway these are just my opinions. Others vary and I respect and
frankly enjoy that. That's how I learn.

Randy

Thanks for the response Randy.  Hopefully not wandering too far OT
here but, a couple of questions re: the C8 and 9.25...

How did you know you were getting a good one, just pays yer money,
take yer chances? These scopes have a good reputation, so that
wouldn't surprise me.

I make several trips a year to a fairly remote desert location, that
requires a 4 hour car trip, and some pretty bumpy dirt roads at the
end.  Is this a concern, and how difficult is it to learn to
collimate one of these guys properly?

And, just interested, what are you mounting the 9.25 on?

I can see that the next scope purchase will be a difficult decision.

Thanks,

Eric

Just wanted to let you all know that on the spur of the moment I
bought a used TV102. I decided I really wanted an apo and F8 or F9 is
fine and TV like Stellarvue is top flight. Sometime down the line I
may want a faster smaller scope but right now I'm more into lunar and
planetary observations and the longer focal length of the TV is
easier to work with and more forgiving of my orthoscopic and konig
eyepieces. I do regret that I won't have that marvelous two speed
focuser. But since I'm strickly a visual user it's not as critical
for me. Best regards to all. I'll drop by from time to time to see
what's up.

Tom.

> How did you know you were getting a good one, just pays yer money,
> take yer chances? These scopes have a good reputation, so that
> wouldn't surprise me.

It's more luck I think than anything. The C-8 was actually an Ultima
2000 8" SCT. Until Tasco bought Celestron and then discontinued the
U2K in favor of the Nexstar, the U2K was Celestron's flagship scope.
You were pretty much guaranteed getting good optics, but of course at
a pretty high price (over $3K with the case and wedge).

I took a chance on the C9.25 OTA. I bought it from a guy who bought it
new and owned it 3 weeks when he had a financial reversal and sold it
to me. It never had a dovetail plate connected and was never mounted.
He also had a custom made softcase made that is a piece of art. When I
got it the collimation was so far off, you literally could not find an
object in the sky. I performed the standard 3 step collimation with
the last step adjusting the airy disk at about 500-600X. It was a
beautiful white disk surrounded by a perfectly circular ring.
BTW--I believe one of the reasons SCT's get a bad rap with some is
that 99% are not collimated correctly. Most folks rack theirs out off
focus at about 100X, get a symmetrical donut and think they're
finished. It's the last step that means the difference in high and low
contrast on planetary surface detail. I collimate everytime I use it.
I start with the 100X donut, move up to about 300X and ensure symmetry
and then to 500X and up when seeing permits to check the airy disk. I
spend about 1 to 2 minutes on average checking collimation. I actually
only touch it up every third or fourth time of use. It's easy and
gives me a bit of satisfaction knowing that I've optimized my optics
and hence, my view.

I digress. It's mounted on a GP-DX running SS2K-PC. It works great,
however, I have a 45" Astropier coming to make it even sturdier with
the SCT. I'll use the regular tripod for my SV refractors.

So again, my take is this. If I could only have one scope, I'd
definitely get a SV102APO. Exquisite optics, enough aperture to
satisfy, great Astrophotography potential (just look at what Stephen
does!) portability, extremely good build quality. But if I can have
two scopes, I want the smaller one optimized for portability and the
larger one to be as large as I can get and still manage reasonably
well, sharing as much equipment (eps, mount, etc.) as possible between
the two.

Best wishes on your decision.

Randy


>
> I make several trips a year to a fairly remote desert location, that
> requires a 4 hour car trip, and some pretty bumpy dirt roads at the
> end.  Is this a concern, and how difficult is it to learn to
> collimate one of these guys properly?
>
> And, just interested, what are you mounting the 9.25 on?
>
> I can see that the next scope purchase will be a difficult decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eric

Randy

I was reading an old thread on another group site. Someone was asking
if there was that much of a difference between the Vixen 120mm "neo"
achromat and the (hard to find) Vixen 130mm ED. Someone chimed in and
pointed out that you could buy a TMB 105mm APO for the same price as
the Vixen 130mm ED. Amazingly a few people thought that they would
prefer having the 130mm for the little extra light grasp even though
the build quality wasn't up to the TMB, nor the color correction.

I'm of the same camp.  I'd rather have a 133mm ED than a 4 inch apo of
almost similar cost.

Just my two cents.

- Don

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "btom" <caribe1@v...> wrote:
> Just wanted to let you all know that on the spur of the moment I
> bought a used TV102.
> Tom.

Tom,

We won't hold that against, though we will chide you from time to
time. Ron B(ee) posts here from time to time though he is a TV102
fanatic. He always adds knowledge and experience when he does post. I
hope you will follow in his footsteps and continue to post here as
well. We'll all have a lot to learn from your experiences with your
new 102.

Best wishes,

Randy

> I'm of the same camp.  I'd rather have a 133mm ED than a 4 inch apo
of
> almost similar cost.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> - Don

Don,

Ahh, this is sure the subject of much debate, huh? The most
interesting aspect of scopes to me is the tradeoffs you make buying
any scope. This is why it seems some of us just need more than one
scope since no one scope does it all. First of all, I generally
mistrust anything labeled semi-APO or neo-APO. To me, they are
marketing terms meaning "not APO", but made to sound like they really
are. I so appreciate Vic not succumbing to the pressure to label his
scopes as semi-anything, though by marketing standards, they would
certainly qualify.

I'll go you one further. I'd rather have a 150mm well corrected
achromat similar to the 102D than a 133ED assuming the price points
correspond to the price points of the 102D/102EDT. For purely visual
use it would have the light grasp to do anything I want and the color
difference between the two for visual use should be small. If color
were the most important thing to me, I'd stick with a reflector for a
lot less money. Now if cost weren't an issue, I'd just buy the biggest
SV APO Vic could make.

On build quality, that's a tough one. The older I get the more I
appreciate solid build quality and attention to details. I think that
is a big part of the observing experience. I'll even sacrifice some
optical quality for a great tube and focuser.

Randy

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "wmrroy" <wmrroy@y...> wrote:
>
> On build quality, that's a tough one. The older I get the more I
> appreciate solid build quality and attention to details. I think that
> is a big part of the observing experience. I'll even sacrifice some
> optical quality for a great tube and focuser.
>
> Randy

Don't want to beat this death but build quality is the one thing I was
thinking about after I posted my last comments. When I said that I
would take a 133mm ED rather than a 102mm APO if price was almost the
same, I just assumed that we were talking about Stellarvue scopes and
great build quality was just taken for granted!

- Don

> Don't want to beat this death but build quality is the one thing I
was
> thinking about after I posted my last comments.
> - Don

Hey Don,

Which would you prefer, a 102APO with the 2 speed JMI focuser and
sliding dew shield or a 133ED with the AT1010-like R&P and fixed dew
shield? The reason I ask is that in this configuration, I would
personally take the APO. Reverse the options and I'd take the 133ED.
Interesting, huh?

Randy

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "wa5hoo" <ppsupport@h...> wrote:
> How did you know you were getting a good one, just pays yer money,
> take yer chances?
> Eric

Hi Eric,

I had good experience with Company 7
http://www.company7.com/celestron/index.html
You may consider a small premium for knowing that you get a quality product.
My Celestar 8  sold with only a small discount.

David

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "wmrroy" <wmrroy@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey Don,
>
> Which would you prefer, a 102APO with the 2 speed JMI focuser and
> sliding dew shield or a 133ED with the AT1010-like R&P and fixed dew
> shield? The reason I ask is that in this configuration, I would
> personally take the APO. Reverse the options and I'd take the 133ED.
> Interesting, huh?
>
> Randy

Randy

You've got that right!

The reason I keep going back to the idea of a 130mm F/7 is because it
still fits nicely on the smaller Giro 2 Deluxe alt-az mount and still
has a certain amount of portability (just on the fringe). One you get
into the 6 inch range you have to go up to the larger Giro mount, and
that aint portable in any sense of the word.

The 130mm would have to have a retractable dew shield and that
wonderful two speed focuser or I'd still end up with the 102 APO!  ;-)

- Don

Hello Tom, Randy,

I can understand the weakness of the "flesh" as I too succumbed
to the APO temptation ;-).  Thanks Randy for your kind words.
Just a minor editorial correction: I'm not a TV-102 fanatic,
but one of the 4" refractor evangelist ;-).  Of course, the TV-102
just happens to be lying around ;-).  At any rate, I'm following
the development of the 102APO as well as the 102EDT and 102D with
great interest.

Happy new year to you Randy and Tom and to everyone in the Stellarvue
eGroup, a truly great group.  And please post your observations thru
your Stellarvue refractors here (or any 4" refractor) in the
Starrynight eGroup.

Ron B[ee]

--- In Stellarvue@y..., "wmrroy" <wmrroy@y...> wrote:
> --- In Stellarvue@y..., "btom" <caribe1@v...> wrote:
> > Just wanted to let you all know that on the spur of the moment I
> > bought a used TV102.
> > Tom.
>
> Tom,
>
> We won't hold that against, though we will chide you from time to
> time. Ron B(ee) posts here from time to time though he is a TV102
> fanatic. He always adds knowledge and experience when he does post.
I
> hope you will follow in his footsteps and continue to post here as
> well. We'll all have a lot to learn from your experiences with your
> new 102.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Randy

Both telescopes can be pushed beyond Dawes limit. Both have
amazingly accurate figures. Since the degree of correction is far
beyond what is needed for maximum resolution, and since it is a
refractor with no central obstruction and since the full multi-
coating is excellent, it should perform on par with the best out
there. I have certainly seen none better. None.

But in comparing the two (EDT and APO), while I have taken both up
to the same power without breakdown. I also pushed them to 600X on a
steady night. They both did well at that power even tho the seeing
could not support 600x. I did not think of doing a close AB
comparison. I was just really amazed at the performance of both. Of
course such nights are very rare and I think it would be misleading
to create the expectation that you can take a 102mm up to 600x.

On the steadiest nights, the APO should outperform the EDT quite a
bit since it is well corrected with three color crossings, has the
excellent flourophosphate front element and is virtually color free.
I would be very surprised if it did not do better under very steady
skies. I just haven't noticed any difference under good skies and
this speaks highly of the EDT's ability.

Hope that helps. As for me, I am taking the APO to Australia.

Vic Maris


--- In Stellarvue@y..., "marnay44" <Marnay44@a...> wrote:
> I have a question: On planets, can we push the APO more than the
EDT
> version without breakdown the image? if it is so,how much?
>
> George

Happy New Year to all our friends out there. Jan and I wish you all
the very best in 2002.

Vic Maris and the gang at Stellarvue

Hi,

Has anyone looked through a TV-102 and a Stellarvue 102 (any model)
side by side?  I own a TV-102 and was wondering how the Stellarvues
match up?  I like my TV-102 and it gives terrific images but wonder
how the Stellarvues compare?

Hi,

I'd join Don and Randy wishing the next bigger SV scope to be rather a cheaper
non-APO
scope than another offering in the line of companies now entering the big APO
scopes
market (TEC 140mm or WO 114mm being the latest examples).

The APO market is rather limited and manufacturers have to compensate for this
by
increasing the price.
I understand that designing/offering such scope might be a
challenge-to-be-conquered
for Vic but at the same time, SV shall continue to build on its streghts from
the past (the
latter would be on separate thread).

My idea of such scope:

size 127-150mm, f 7-8 (let's pick again an unusual combination),
lightweight OTA you can disassemble - still airline portable in parts,
color somwhere between an optimized achromat and true ED class scope,
JMI focuser,
price around $1500 ??

I have stake for #1 ;-)


David