Re: [APML] Returning to AP - scope advice

["westergren" <westergren@netzero.net>]

Joel,
The Tak FSQ106 doesn't need a field flattener for superb photos.  For visual
work, the Tak offers some really good viewing.  But it has one drawback
since it is a Petzval design, it has glass just in front of the eyepiece,
preventing the use of a conventional barlow lens.

I have an FSQ106 and I love it.  I don't have any experience with the NP101.
Most of the televue scopes require a field flattener for photography.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: <Joel_Haynes@powderject.com>
To: <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 12:16 PM
Subject: [APML] Returning to AP - scope advice


> Folks,
>
> After a several year hiatus, I'm excited about returning to AP and am
> seeking advice about the relative virtues of the TV NP101 and the Tak
> FSQ-106.  (I'm on the notification list for an A.-P. 130 but I'll need
> something to get me through the long wait.)  Previously, I had good luck
> with a TV Genesis (non SDF) (see ftp://voltaire.csun.edu/haynes.dir/  for
a
> couple of scanned in, unprocessed prints).  I understand that the NP101 is
> a step up form the older Genesis in terms of color correction and other
> aberrations, but I'm not sure what the Tak has to offer over the 101 other
> than the 4'' focuser.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice.
>
>
> Joel Haynes
> Lurking on the list from mosquito-infested Mazomanie, WI
>
>
>
>
>
> --  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>
>
>



--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>