William Optics VS Takahashi live view

[@AstronomyGarage]

This was a great video. The Takahashi is the gift that keeps on giving.

[@JoeJaguar]

It is awesome was even much better in the 80s then my cell phone showed. Thanks for watching.

[@atiladudus3168]

Fantastic that you make these comparisons. I have a Stellarvue 102 triplet and people tell me I'm missing out on planets if I just use the refractor. I was incredibly happy that the high end frac had better performance, otherwise my money would have been wasted. I do hobby astronomy more casually. I've seen sensational things through SCT's and I'm particularly impressed with Mak's. I've been thinking about getting a 7 inch Mak for a while now. But I'm not sure if it performs better. and I don't want the hobby to feel like work or having to resell. For garb and go, a good compact 4 inch refractor is hard to beat. A 5 inch frac would be too expensive and bulky for me.

[@JoeJaguar]

Stellar view was making mid range and as you know about 10 years ago, they switched to high end, and now the performance is pretty much on par with the top main branch so I am glad that you are enjoying your stellarvue. Telescope. I did on a 7 inch Mac F 15 that’s the ultra high contrast coatings the last ones when Meade did make them . It was beautiful it compared to my 6 inch apo and only weighed about 22 pounds, so I’m not sure if that’s too heavy for you Also, the downfall besides the weight, I found out after two hours of cool downtime, even with the builtin fan images were very good, but it was after three hours that the images were spectacular In the end, I sold it because it just took too long for it to be optimized before viewing I think for you a 4 to 5 inch good refractor is more than enough. I also done some videos on my takahashi FS 128 and it’s a beauty I purchased it used so he’s a lot cheaper than getting one brand new. no idea thank you thank you my 128 only weighs I believe 17 pounds

[@atiladudus3168]

@@JoeJaguar For a Takahashi guy, Staellarvue is of course middle class ;) Yes, I have the newer SVX model. What may would bother me wouldn't be the weight, but size of a 5 inch frac. If you say that the mak took too long for you, I think that will be the case for me too. There is also an option to insulate the tube have to check on that one. I think I'll stick with my set up and I'm not in a hurry. Maybe there will be an opportunity somewhere for a used scope that can complement mine. I think you're right Your 4 inch takahashi almost looks like a 5 inch to me. Thanks for your answer, I'll check out your videos

[@JoeJaguar]

@@atiladudus3168 I think Vic a stellarvue when he decided to make the high-end stuff was a great thing I think yours is not middle ground anymore it’s higher than that Yeah, I don’t think the Mac will work for you unless it’s maybe a 5 inch or maybe 6inch maximum However, I have already compared a 4 inch ed/apo to a 5 inch Mac and a 4 inch steel was a little bit better The only thing 127 mm mag had was more portibility Again, a 6 inch match would be OK but that’s equivalent to a 5 inch refractor and again I think the refractor will edge it out and the only benefit is going to have is the size but it’s still going to need a bit of cool downtime As you know, it always comes down to compromise I think stick to your 4 inch SV and maybe one day if you find a 5 inch SV maybe they can work

[@AmatureAstronomer]

Watching you compare two refractors, it just dawned on me that I never use eyepieces. I plug a camera into the optical tube and look at my laptop. I have the finder scope aligned with the camera. Tonight, I might try an eyepiece.

[@JoeJaguar]

I find at least in the Eyepiece is just way better image then I’m showing on my cell phone but you’re using a real astro Camera so I’m sure the images good anyway Try it out and tell me how you like it seem visual live if it’s a different experience than looking at the laptop What they say, looking in the eyepiece gives you more in tune, to the object you’re looking Give it a try and tell me what you think or what your perspective is

[@Astroturf100]

Awesome video! Just wondered what are your thoughts on the great FPL-53 doublets and say the triplets of same size aperture and quality on planetary? Are the triplets better or worth it for the performance and cost difference? I guess the evostar 100 and the TSA102 Tak come to mind here too. Was it a 40-50% difference with them too?

[@JoeJaguar]

What’s funny is whatever Scope you have you’re always gonna think the views are good because you have nothing to compare it to For instance, I did have the sky watcher Evostar 100 and I thought it was good until I got the takahashi TSA 102 This was one of the first videos that I compared in 2019 on my channel and the difference on it was just huge Now I know a couple of my subscribers said maybe I got a bad version of the Sky Watcher I didn’t think so because the images look pretty good, but anyway in that video even at the most lowest power, I could definitely see a difference in the image, quality and sharpness Normally, when you watch my comparison videos, you will see most times in the low power reviewing the difference is really hard to tell and then maybe some difference in the medium power and then sometimes at the high power is where you normally see the difference But in that comparison, the TSA 102 in Sky, Watcher, ED 100 I can clearly see a difference in sharpness, even at the most lowest power, which was about 30 power Back to your question I have also owned the Sky Watcher 120 ED and that one I found it to be extremely good and sharp. I even did a video maybe several weeks ago we’re actually came fairly close 15 to 20% difference from a takahashi 128 doublet So I guess if you can find a high-quality one used, it might be worth it would be my first choice For instance, in Canada, this guy watch your 120 ED is about $3000 before tax with that kind of money you’re very near approaching a high-end quality one if you find one used I also owned the meade 6000 130 mm triplet, and I thought that was a very well-made sharp refractor. Being 130 mm is not too big I didn’t find cool down time to be any issue. But I think for the most part a double it 53 if it’s at least f8 if it was, Madewell can be all the most visual people need. I am heading this way from triplets to doublets for this reason . The only problem is. The mass produced stuff sometimes is a little bit of a hit and miss if you get a really great sample or just an average sample that’s the hard part to know what you get. I hope this helps you out. Cheers.

[@Astroturf100]

Wow yes those are some great points Joe. It would be nice to at least try and look through a mass produced telescope if buying used. Or make sure the place you are buying from accepts returns.@@JoeJaguar

[@JoeJaguar]

@@Astroturf100 yes true in Canada you really cant return its not really an option Ps tell me what you decide

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Interesting comparison, like! I noticed that a 80 mm FPL53 refractor has the same price as a 102 mm FPL51. But which one would have a better image quality?

[@JoeJaguar]

If the 51 is long like f12 and 53 short like f7.5 it could be close But normally they dont make f12 51 scopes so probably get the 53 scope and it will be half the size, will be more portable, and easier to mount on a tripod

[@Vic-pz5oh]

I could even notice the difference with your phone comparison Joe on saturn.dont know how you didnt bump into one of the tripods you were moving between them so fast .must be the jaguar in you🐱🐾👍

[@JoeJaguar]

I guess I’m just used to my backyard and where my Tripod feet are In the video, I am coming out in some parts that are not necessary or the walking around or me looking a little bit longer and each Eyepiece as I don’t want to video to be super long Thanks for watching again

[@BurningFlame1999]

I thought the 110 mm will be better. Does focal length influence the sharpness and image quality? For example a 102/660 mm vs 102/1000 mm at the same magnification will have the same sharpness and image quality ?

[@JoeJaguar]

OK so you’re talking about regular acro, so yes, the longer it is then the better the image will be as your example the 1000 mm one would be better than 660 mm version But after that, there’s better refractors made with better glass Here’s a video I made that talks about from the regular glass made to the best ones kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJvWl36rmbRkqassi=slhhhnC2aJ_Kf9F3 So, even though the William optics has a 51 glass, ed glass which is better than an acro, the Takahashi uses an even higher grade glass called fluorite, and it’s also longer as well So it depends what glass you use how long of your telescope it is . For instance, if you use a better glass, you can actually make it a little bit shorter or if use a triplet you can make it a little bit shorter, if using less quality glass than you make it a little bit longer so it depends and varies on a few different things. But also depends how good you make the lens and what meeting glass you use so there’s several factors But watch my video, and I think he’ll give you a better understanding

[@BurningFlame1999]

​@@JoeJaguarThank you for the answer :)

[@JoeJaguar]

@@BurningFlame1999 you’re welcome. The video will explain it there’s many factors which glass you make the meeting system how long and short you make it it’s a double edge or triplets in which quality of the lens I think you’ll understand no more when you watch it.

[@CONDUCTORE77]

Awesome video! My Tak FS 102 is insane on planets. I dare say that it does better than my awesome TSA 102. I also have an FS 78. All are just amazing.

[@JoeJaguar]

Wow, you got a great collection of telescopes and pretty much size Do you feel like having the TSA 102 and the FS 102 is like duplicate ? Thanks for watching

[@CONDUCTORE77]

Thank you for the great videos! I watch your channel from New Hampshire, USA. The FS images seem brighter on stars and open clusters than the TSA, but the TSA seems to “ possibly” edge it out on the planets. It’s like apples and oranges though as these are just such high quality instruments. Ironically, the little FS 78 seems just as good as the other 2 on the planets. I use Pentax XW & XL eyepieces with these also which seem to impart a “ cooler” and more grey look than my TV or other eyepieces. At star parties, I can’t tell the difference in image quality from my Taks & the best TMB & AP scopes.

[@JoeJaguar]

@@CONDUCTORE77 thank you for that it’s nice to get different opinions with people who have the same telescope I just traded my FS 128 for the TSA 102 to the same guy that I sold it to about two years ago has he wanted something a little bit bigger and the FS 128 was his dream telescope so I decided I’ll do it and get my old TSA back I Find My 102 TSA is probably one of the most sharpest fractures that I’ve used Thanks

[@CONDUCTORE77]

Cool story. I also had a TOA 130 that I thought was nice too. It’s very easy to get addicted to all of them. Please keep these cool comparison vids coming. My Taks do amazing with Pentax eyepieces for some reason. Try some in yours if u get a chance….

[@JoeJaguar]

@@CONDUCTORE77 if you watch the channel, you’ll see I have a Takahashi TOA 150 but the damn thing is just really heavy. In fact, it’s probably one of the heaviest 6 inch that you can buy. I’ve heard a lot of good things about Pentex, but they’re really not available in Canada new and used to really hard to find but you’re correct they had a lot of great reviews

[@lornaz1975]

Joe you should trade in that WO for a triplet. I think it will do better in comparison with the Tak.

[@JoeJaguar]

I know that William uptext is not on par are quite in the same league as a takahashi but since I have it, I figure I’ll just do a comparison He’s a bit larger in the Takahashi and it also is a Ed lens so it’s not like it’s an acro or anything like that but I figured since Angeles bought it, I’ll do the comparison in case anybody out there would like to see it I like to know the difference

[@lornaz1975]

@@JoeJaguar I think a 110 is a good size. I seem to be drawn to the 120mm refractors more. Seems to have good punch and still not too large. I love these telescope comparison vids!

[@JoeJaguar]

@@lornaz1975 I’m glad you like my videos you’ve been a long time subscribe I do like the build quality of the William optics and the size is pretty good. Yeah I also like the focuser which seems to be a mid grade range. I think most people would be happy with it I kind of like yeah the 120 to the 130. It’s a very good size for most people although for me personally, I still like the 5 to 6 inch as well

[@lornaz1975]

@@JoeJaguar Joe you have been a big help on my astronomy journey! I have learned a lot from you in the past 3 years!

[@JoeJaguar]

@@lornaz1975 thx bro

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

I wachted the video again and now I understand that the 110 mm WO lost to the 102 mm Takahashi because of the very short F5.9 ratio and the lower quality FPL51 glass.

[@JoeJaguar]

Yes the chromatic operation was a bit too much with both of those combinations If it was much longer like a focal ratio of eight, maybe it would’ve performed better, but this telescope on positive was made for deep sky imaging Thanks for watching

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

@@JoeJaguar 250x was I guess just too much for the short F5.9 FPL51 WO.

[@JoeJaguar]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 yes plus again its said it was made for dso which to me right away, tells you that there will be false colour could be ehy they discontinue this model, which was like the first generation

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

@@JoeJaguar I guess for DSO it would do very well and maybe even at medium magnification. But as you already said, being so short and with FPL51, it wasn't really made for high magnification.

[@JoeJaguar]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 yes