The Ranger and the Pronto Are No More

I wish you the best of luck and even though I'd be nervous about a TEC, I
hope you fair better than poor owner of the refractor above did.

I've looked through several myself at various star parties and they all had
excellent optics. Maybe something wrong with yous's eyes??

Roland Christen

"Chris1011" wrote in message
...
I wish you the best of luck and even though I'd be nervous about a TEC, I
hope you fair better than poor owner of the refractor above did.

I've looked through several myself at various star parties and they all
had
excellent optics. Maybe something wrong with yous's eyes??

Maybe but not in this case. There were 3 of us all with the same
impression. There was definitely something wrong with the scope. It could
have been owner induced for all I know.

Mike.



Roland Christen

Did you mean 102? The 101 has a short focal length.



I did mean the 102...


I'm not a big SCT fan, and personally I'd take the 4" APO refractor over the
SCT.

I am not a big SCT fan, I am looking at the competition in the market place for
a $1500+ scope and mount. My point is simply that $1500 buys a lot of scope.


However, I think your missing the mark of where this scope will hit.
If this scope is any good, this will likely mark the end of Televue's 102 ,
much the way the ranger and the pronto are gone.
-------------------------

The Pronto/Ranger were in quite different situation than the TV-102 will likely
be in, optically they are apparently inferior to the ED-80, mechanically
superior.

My guess is that the relationships between the ED-100 and TV-102 will be
similar to the relationship between the ED-80 and TV-85, that is the TeleVue
scope offers superior quality mechanical construction with Optics that are
similar but superior and with all around better quality control.


It may be that ED-80 will drive the TV-85 out of the market but it hasn't
happened yet. Rather a couple of decent quality achromats were sent to
pasture.

Jon

"Mike Fitterman" wrote in message
news:iPdSc.11184$gd1.4922@trndny05...
[SNIP]
On days where the seeing is fairly good here (allowing for more than 200x)
my bigger scope will definitely reveal more. The most interesting thing
it
reveals though is not some subtle detail, which both seem to catch equally
as well, but colors. The big scope shows much more color. Like the red
spot on Jupiter really standing out in a pinkish/salmon color. The OA
hints
at a pink color when the spot is transiting, but it's just a hint of
color,
it doesn't stand out like it does in the 16" scope.

Mike,

I spent several evenings out with my wife's 14.5" f/6 equatorial observing
Saturn and Jupiter when they were well placed. I used it with at full
aperture and with a 6.5" off-axis mask. It was always seeing limited at
full aperture, but there was never a time when I could see more detail with
the mask in place. At full aperture, even though it wasn't showing its full
potential, the colors were much more vivid and, with the same power, the
exit pupil was much more agreeable and floaters less of an issue.

Clear skies, Alan

"Alan French" wrote in message
...

At full aperture, even though it wasn't showing its full
potential, the colors were much more vivid and, with the same power, the
exit pupil was much more agreeable and floaters less of an issue.

Clear skies, Alan


I love this about the big scopes! The exit pupil is *much* more agreeable
and the floaters are definitely a non-problem. It makes viewing much easier
and sometimes a lot less painful when your staring for detail :-)

Mike.

"Mike Fitterman" wrote in message
news:SRdSc.2226$Po1.1201@trndny08...

"Chris1011" wrote in message
...
I wish you the best of luck and even though I'd be nervous about a TEC,
I
hope you fair better than poor owner of the refractor above did.

I've looked through several myself at various star parties and they all
had
excellent optics. Maybe something wrong with yous's eyes??

Maybe but not in this case. There were 3 of us all with the same
impression. There was definitely something wrong with the scope. It could
have been owner induced for all I know.

Mike,

Did the three observers come to this conclusion completely independently? I
ask because I've seen one enthusiastic or vocal person color the perceptions
others have of a particular instrument - often to its favor, but sometimes
to its detriment. Perception is a very interesting topic.

What did you see that made you believe there was something amiss with the
telescope?

Clear skies, Alan

BTW, an interesting book on perception, for those who are interested, is
"How We Know What Isn't So (The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday
Life)," by Thomas Gilovich. I'm not sure if everyday life applies to us
amateurs, but it is quite fascinating. Actually, I think I will take it to
camp for the inevitable day or two of "camp weather" (rain). It's worth
rereading.

I could send some cavers over that way - they can
be.... interesting.

No way, man! We don't need no stinking spelunkers!
rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

Steve told the story of our one dealing with TEC refractor. It was the most
god aweful APO I've ever looked through. The owner seemed quite enthralled
with it, but the three of us who looked through that day just ended up
gagging. I don't think it was out of collimation though, I really think
there was definitely something wrong with it.

There has been the odd TEC returned for problems. I don't know if they put
every scope out under the sky for testing, they mainly use the bench. There was
one 140 with wrong color curves, whic doesn't show up on an interferometer, I
guess. TEC fixed it and returned it to the owner.

I wish you the best of luck and even though I'd be nervous about a TEC, I
hope you fair better than poor owner of the refractor above did. Hopefully
that was just an anomoly.

I'm not too nervous, I've developed a relationship with Yuri over the past two
years of waiting, he has (as he does with ALL of his scopes) **personally**
guaranteed that it will meet our pre-agreed upon design criteria. I also
endeavored to ask the right people (educated about both TEC, and optics, that
is) before I plunked down in 2002.

I am quite confident that the scope will be everything that I have hoped for.

But, thanks for your concern, really. We obviously see things in very different
ways.


rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address











rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

"Alan French" wrote in message
...
"Mike Fitterman" wrote in message
news:SRdSc.2226$Po1.1201@trndny08...

"Chris1011" wrote in message
...
I wish you the best of luck and even though I'd be nervous about a
TEC,
I
hope you fair better than poor owner of the refractor above did.

I've looked through several myself at various star parties and they
all
had
excellent optics. Maybe something wrong with yous's eyes??

Maybe but not in this case. There were 3 of us all with the same
impression. There was definitely something wrong with the scope. It
could
have been owner induced for all I know.

Mike,

Did the three observers come to this conclusion completely independently?
I
ask because I've seen one enthusiastic or vocal person color the
perceptions
others have of a particular instrument - often to its favor, but sometimes
to its detriment. Perception is a very interesting topic.

I believe we did. It came off as a joke when we all got in the car at the
end of the star party. Steve was there and he can tell you if thought so
too.


What did you see that made you believe there was something amiss with the
telescope?

This was last year so I only remember the experience not the actual details.
I remember Mars looking like mush. There was a D&G long long focal length
monster refractor there and the views looked great through it. I remember
thinking how fantastic the D&G looked and how awful the TEC looked.

Mike.


Clear skies, Alan

BTW, an interesting book on perception, for those who are interested, is
"How We Know What Isn't So (The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday
Life)," by Thomas Gilovich. I'm not sure if everyday life applies to us
amateurs, but it is quite fascinating. Actually, I think I will take it
to
camp for the inevitable day or two of "camp weather" (rain). It's worth
rereading.

Actually, I think it's great that you can have a good relationship with the
owner. I'm looking forward to hearing the reviews! The larger the
unobstructed aperture the better as far as I'm concerned :-)

Mike.


"Ratboy99" wrote in message
...
Steve told the story of our one dealing with TEC refractor. It was the
most
god aweful APO I've ever looked through. The owner seemed quite
enthralled
with it, but the three of us who looked through that day just ended up
gagging. I don't think it was out of collimation though, I really think
there was definitely something wrong with it.

There has been the odd TEC returned for problems. I don't know if they put
every scope out under the sky for testing, they mainly use the bench.
There was
one 140 with wrong color curves, whic doesn't show up on an
interferometer, I
guess. TEC fixed it and returned it to the owner.

I wish you the best of luck and even though I'd be nervous about a TEC, I
hope you fair better than poor owner of the refractor above did.
Hopefully
that was just an anomoly.

I'm not too nervous, I've developed a relationship with Yuri over the past
two
years of waiting, he has (as he does with ALL of his scopes)
**personally**
guaranteed that it will meet our pre-agreed upon design criteria. I also
endeavored to ask the right people (educated about both TEC, and optics,
that
is) before I plunked down in 2002.

I am quite confident that the scope will be everything that I have hoped
for.

But, thanks for your concern, really. We obviously see things in very
different
ways.


rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address











rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address