You know, you're right. I told David I was mostly interested in deep
sky stuff (but I thought I'd also mentioned the moon and double
stars). I live in rural Idaho under pretty dark skies and find the
Pronto remarkably good, all things considered, for deep sky. Makes
sense that the TV85 would outperform the Pronto on the moon,
separation of doubles, and planets . As I recall, what I was asking
was whether the additional 15mm of the 85 would provide much of a
performance pop over the 70mm of the Pronto.

But look, I'm giving serious thought to the NP101 (wider field than
the 102) so I can justify keeping the Pronto for travel!

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, Steve. I love your products and
wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression of my conversation
with Dave last week. BTW, I think a competing scope to the SKY90
(Pronto tube length, 90mm aperture) would be a wonderful thing.

Chris

PS, I also have a C8 and used it just last night but I still like
refractors better and grab the Pronto far more often.


Chris:

[snip]

I thought your post seemed a bit off base so I checked w/ David
Nagler.

It seems all of your questions to him about the performance difference
between the Pronto and the TV-85 were specifically about deep sky
objects. Not once did David and you address planets, double stars or
the Moon.

David and I both agree that there is a LARGE difference between the
Pronto and the TV-85 on the Planets, double stars and also the Moon.
This is due (like other folks have commented) to the better color
correction of the TV-85.

I have 13 telescopes from an 8" SCT to NP-127, etc. I use the TV-85
the most when I am observing for fun... I am taking one to the
Sierra this weekend.

Steve D. White
TeleVue N. American Rep.


www.televue.com

I hope this helps.