I'm very curious to see the results. None of the 10" units I sold came back to bight me, hence my serious interest in the 12.
I suspect however the end result will be a bit like that old chestnut in comparing motor vehicles.....sure, a Hyundai will get you there, as will a S-class Benz....
I'm very curious to see the results. None of the 10" units I sold came back to bight me, hence my serious interest in the 12.
I suspect however the end result will be a bit like that old chestnut in comparing motor vehicles.....sure, a Hyundai will get you there, as will a S-class Benz....
true but its the journey that is memorable look forward to seeing the review
I find it a little curious that people still question the quality of the mirrors in these scopes. I have never read a thread where an owner has stated that their optics were no up to scratch and the many pics flooding the usual forums taken with these scopes certainly stand up to close scrutiny. Many who bought the 8" have jumped at the larger scopes so I guess there is a lot of good news there as well. I have only heard people dump on the standard focusers and this is pretty much the case for any run of the mill mass produced scope so nothing new there either. These scopes have certainly given the high end manufacturers something to think about and most people would question if that last few % was really worth 3 times the cost.
Don't get me wrong; the RC10(and RC8) users have shown some lovely results. Though I didnt see the resolution of the GSO RC scope as good as other scopes in that similar price range though. Let it be design or mirror; the user be the judge.
Leaving myself open for argument of opinion here aren't I? lol, but it depends on your wallet and expectations in the end I guess doesn't it..
The RC10 was $1000? more 12 months ago when it first came out? Sure that happens with electronics and technology; but not usually so quickly with scopes unless they'd be used?
That slightly concerns me as a buyer; though with the entry of the 12" scope at that price, I'm interested to see a good review and some imaging results
Think you could persuade GSO to post some design specifications and Zygo results on their website(poke).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Daniel, nearly every image I have seen come out of these units is pretty nice, so what is there to doubt? There are several members here using them and each seem to have good images from them. What are your concerns?
Yeah I see your point Daniel. Australian dollar impact has also significantly effect the price here too. The dollar is strong against Taiwan currency but has remained relatively static against the Yen. That means while something like your vixen will cost the same as last year, the cost of the Taiwanese product will drop a lot in price. It might also be part of their marketing strategy when they can produce scopes at high levels but maybe not the enth degree that other companies attain and at an affordable price. Cost of labour is likely to be quite different too.
I will ask about stats and see how far that gets me. It would help their marketing though for the descerning customer.
I wonder which scopes you are referring about (re resolution), are you referring to the vixen you own? Not seen many vixen images that rival the GSO RC images. My point being here that this is a matter of opinion. Not everyones opinion will be the same. Bang for buck though you cannot go wrong with the RC8. Skill of the user and processing will also affect the end result.
I will do my best to give you a good review. You will either like the review or you will not.
I doubt the high end manufacturers care. There is a market for low end and high end requirements.
You pay for quality. In design and mirror quality. No doubt about it.
Seeing the results first hand from a GSO RC10" and a Deep Sky Instruments RC10" the difference is massive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marki
I find it a little curious that people still question the quality of the mirrors in these scopes. I have never read a thread where an owner has stated that their optics were no up to scratch and the many pics flooding the usual forums taken with these scopes certainly stand up to close scrutiny. Many who bought the 8" have jumped at the larger scopes so I guess there is a lot of good news there as well. I have only heard people dump on the standard focusers and this is pretty much the case for any run of the mill mass produced scope so nothing new there either. These scopes have certainly given the high end manufacturers something to think about and most people would question if that last few % was really worth 3 times the cost.
I'm all for user reviews! They are the only way users can get a fair and balanced viewpoint on equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Yeah I see your point Daniel. Australian dollar impact has also significantly effect the price here too. The dollar is strong against Taiwan currency but has remained relatively static against the Yen. That means while something like your vixen will cost the same as last year, the cost of the Taiwanese product will drop a lot in price. It might also be part of their marketing strategy when they can produce scopes at high levels but maybe not the enth degree that other companies attain and at an affordable price. Cost of labour is likely to be quite different too.
I will ask about stats and see how far that gets me. It would help their marketing though for the descerning customer.
I wonder which scopes you are referring about (re resolution), are you referring to the vixen you own? Not seen many vixen images that rival the GSO RC images. My point being here that this is a matter of opinion. Not everyones opinion will be the same. Bang for buck though you cannot go wrong with the RC8. Skill of the user and processing will also affect the end result.
I will do my best to give you a good review. You will either like the review or you will not.
These scopes have certainly given the high end manufacturers something to think about and most people would question if that last few % was really worth 3 times the cost.
Mark
Not trying to derail this thread...and I too anxiously await the review as I've enjoyed reading Paul's past postings and experiences.
I'm not sure that these scopes have had a negtive impact on the high end manufacturers and would be interested to know if there is any data to support this theory.
Although I don't follow pricing closely, I am not aware of a sustained big drop in the price of "competitive" high end gear. No doubt this price point has expanded the market for folks who could not otherwise afford larger RC scopes but I don't think it has caused any to adjust their pricing. I could very easily be wrong. Having "dabbled" in the Astro equipment business in the past, I can tell you that there are not huge margins available for suppliers at any step of the chain.
By all accounts the smaller brothers of these scopes represent "good value" and seem to perform well, but I reckon people that are dead set on owning "the best" will not be seduced by these more affordable optics. I speculate that those who want to avoid any doubt as to quality will stick with the high end makers...technically this maybe expensive vanity but what is the price for "knowing" the gear is not the weak link?
I'm really enjoying this thread - theres some very balanced and realistic discussion going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leinad
Think you could persuade GSO to post some design specifications and Zygo results on their website(poke).
The public domain picture below shows a high end `Zygo certified' 0.98 Strehl 12" mirror that shows significant surface ripple that would render it a poor performer for visual planetary and deep sky viewing of faint low contrast objects. It is however a performer for deep sky astrophotography, where pixel scale , seeing and guiding all tend to push these issues in to the background.
Interferometers, via assigning imaginary 3 dimensional surfaces to real mirrors are good for modeling figure of revolution problems but a Strehl number from a `Zygo' is no guarantee of a smooth surface as the picture indicates. There are many factors that go in to producing a surface with such macro- ripple. This is what I would call the `signature' of the optician who produced it.
So my point is that Zygos reports only tell half the story, and for imaging instruments I believe that they are often made to a sufficient quality for them to produce good results for the field in which they are intended- They are not `Swiss Army Knife ' optics, that will perform brilliantly with any task they are given just because of the high Zygo certified Strehl ratio.
So I don't think it is productive to waste too much time musing whether these things are `good or bad' rather look at whether they are up to the task they are deigned for. One should not confuse optics supplied with a certificate of high Strehl ratio made primarily for imaging with ones that have smooth master craftsmen surfaces that will really please the discriminating visual observer who may be working at high magnifications and viewing in real time.
I doubt the high end manufacturers care. There is a market for low end and high end requirements.
You pay for quality. In design and mirror quality. No doubt about it.
Seeing the results first hand from a GSO RC10" and a Deep Sky Instruments RC10" the difference is massive.
Not sure I agree with your assessment Daniel but hey Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say a GSO RC is in the same ball park as an RCOS or officina stellare etc etc in either quality of build nor accuracy of mirrors. My only thought is when looking at the images they produce, is that little bit extra really worth all the extra money? For some yes but from my perspective I would find it very difficult to justify the extra cost for what is really very little gain to my eye. In the past I have bought the very best of many things only to find out that they often only just beat the opposition and that always leaves me disappointed. Its a bit like the dude who buys a ferrari only to find he is having a lot of trouble trying to shake that pesky evo 10. At least he will look the part I guess. The fact is that these scopes in the hands of some dedicated and talented individuals have produced some pretty decent pics. I remember the outcry when they were first announced......bound to be rubbish, I believe that has been put to bed a long time ago. They may not be the best there is but they are certainly capable of performing as advertised.
Not trying to derail this thread...and I too anxiously await the review as I've enjoyed reading Paul's past postings and experiences.
I'm not sure that these scopes have had a negtive impact on the high end manufacturers and would be interested to know if there is any data to support this theory.
Although I don't follow pricing closely, I am not aware of a sustained big drop in the price of "competitive" high end gear. No doubt this price point has expanded the market for folks who could not otherwise afford larger RC scopes but I don't think it has caused any to adjust their pricing. I could very easily be wrong. Having "dabbled" in the Astro equipment business in the past, I can tell you that there are not huge margins available for suppliers at any step of the chain.
By all accounts the smaller brothers of these scopes represent "good value" and seem to perform well, but I reckon people that are dead set on owning "the best" will not be seduced by these more affordable optics. I speculate that those who want to avoid any doubt as to quality will stick with the high end makers...technically this maybe expensive vanity but what is the price for "knowing" the gear is not the weak link?
Scott before GSO started making these scopes where could you go to buy a 12" RC for under 4K? You are right about the bigs boys as those with enough free cash to buy their scopes will go on buying them for the prestige and 5% extra they offer and that has always been their market in any case. The biggest problem they face is that the US is on the bones of its RS right now as you would well know. My thoughts are based on the way companies like RCOS have reacted to competition in the past particularly with the meade debarcle in mind. If they are immune why did they bother launching a lawsuite against a company that does not have the expertise to make the hyperbolic mirrors needed? Yes they were not true RC's but these manufactures can hardly claim to have invented or have sole guardianship of the design. Meade don't even target the same market. They are very aware of what is happening me thinks, how they respond is still to be seen I guess.
We can agree to disagree, and agree it's all down to the user and what the needs are, whats expected and whats delivered.
Hi Leinad
I've edited my post again for succinctness. I 'm not sure that we disagree about anything?
BTW the foucaultgram is not from a high end RC -its a 12" F3.8 Newtonian but a high end one.
We know you won't be buying one Mark. It is not a Newtonian.
I've definitely been seduced by Mikes results with his 12" F4, but I can see that these 12" RC would be a a low cost way into medium aperture long focus imaging. The mount would be a problem though . A 12" F4 could go on an EQ6 whearas the F8 will require something big an high end such as a Titan or Paramount ?
( Stop press: The planetary alignment is really beautiful )
Yeah I see your viewpoint Mark.
Though are you talking from a visual purpose or photographic?
We can agree to disagree, and agree it's all down to the user and what the needs are, whats expected and whats delivered.
Daniel what do you mean by visual . So much LP where I am EP's are wasted. They are advertised as an astrograph and from what I have seen they make a fair job of it. I have looked through one using a good quality EP (pentex XW14) and to my eye it appeared to have a yellow cast over everything, my meade ACF gives a far more pleasing image visually so I would not buy one for visual work but I dont think thats a function the designers had in mind for these scopes. Agree with Satchmo, its gonna need a big mount.
I for one am not expecting this new scope to be equal to an instrument made for scientific service. I expect it to produce nice images just like the RC8" that I own. If it does that it satisfies my wants; that being to produce nice astro images. I certainly would not use it for planetary work as I have my SCT for that purpose. Not seen many ultra high resolution images of the planets (by amateurs I know) taken with an RC and I don't expect I ever will. Tools in the shed here. Some tools are designed for different purposes.
Mark (Satchmo) this size scope requires a very sturdy mount. You could use an NJP or even the new EQ8 (whenever it is available). I don't think it is a necessity to spend on a very high end mount like a Paramount though. However as Peter always says the mount is everything in the equation. So it would pay to buy a good mount. You don't this type of scope though to budget on the mount.
I've edited my post again for succinctness. I 'm not sure that we disagree about anything?
BTW the foucaultgram is not from a high end RC -its a 12" F3.8 Newtonian but a high end one.
Was late and the brain was slowing down. I meant to quote Marki; didnt agree with the comparisons made.
So reading more on foucault testing ; these really go hand in hand with zygo interferomter reports no ? Zygo report doesnt just report Strehl ratings, but also wave and structure graphs. A foucault test is showing you the surface smoothness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marki
Daniel what do you mean by visual . So much LP where I am EP's are wasted. They are advertised as an astrograph and from what I have seen they make a fair job of it. I have looked through one using a good quality EP (pentex XW14) and to my eye it appeared to have a yellow cast over everything, my meade ACF gives a far more pleasing image visually so I would not buy one for visual work but I dont think thats a function the designers had in mind for these scopes. Agree with Satchmo, its gonna need a big mount.
Mark
Misread your post Mark; was late mnd was wondering..
Advertising hype IMHO. Be nice if they had some specs to back up the advertising.
Interested to see further specs, and the results on these scopes.
All in all. Enjoy your new scope Paul; looking forward to your review and some more photos of the scope then what's currently available.
Exciting times. Looking forward to the review and pics. Those scopes definitely made an impact on the market as far as affordability and quality goes. Some amazing pictures everywhere on the internet is a testament to that. They just do what they're meant to do and very well. No more no less.
look forward to seeing the review
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say a GSO RC is in the same ball park as an RCOS or officina stellare etc etc in either quality of build nor accuracy of mirrors. My only thought is when looking at the images they produce, is that little bit extra really worth all the extra money? For some yes but from my perspective I would find it very difficult to justify the extra cost for what is really very little gain to my eye. In the past I have bought the very best of many things only to find out that they often only just beat the opposition and that always leaves me disappointed. Its a bit like the dude who buys a ferrari only to find he is having a lot of trouble trying to shake that pesky evo 10. At least he will look the part I guess. The fact is that these scopes in the hands of some dedicated and talented individuals have produced some pretty decent pics. I remember the outcry when they were first announced......bound to be rubbish, I believe that has been put to bed a long time ago. They may not be the best there is but they are certainly capable of performing as advertised.
. So much LP where I am EP's are wasted. They are advertised as an astrograph and from what I have seen they make a fair job of it. I have looked through one using a good quality EP (pentex XW14) and to my eye it appeared to have a yellow cast over everything, my meade ACF gives a far more pleasing image visually so I would not buy one for visual work but I dont think thats a function the designers had in mind for these scopes. Agree with Satchmo, its gonna need a big mount.
