View Single Post
  #59  
Old 24-05-2009, 12:00 AM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Of course, all the hyperbole must be true....the same ad also reads:

"And Meade’s 6” f/10 Advanced Coma-
Free (ACF) catadioptric optics deliver the
same sharp coma-free view as a professional
Ritchey-Chrétien telescope
, but
without an R-C’s high price tag"

I doubt that many people are going to honestly be able to tell the difference between an image taken with a 12" GSO RC and a 12.5" RCOS RC. At least, when both units are properly collimated, decent mounts are used, good tracking, good exposures and the same CCD imaging gear.

I've seen the same disdain in the photography field, where those using pro cameras treat those using non pro cameras with utter disdain and contempt.

This can only be good for the industry - like the Dinosaurs, these overly priced brands will *have* to adjust or die. The days of massive markups are over I suspect, and as a consumer, I'm quite happy with that. I don't particularly care if RCOS cries poor, or stops making such a large profit, that's not my problem. Maybe if they didn't sell their products with such massive markups, they'll retain some market share. I guess it'll depend on how greedy they are. They'll certainly play on their "name", much like Nike & Reebok play on their names in the shoe industry. A name is name, it's no guarantee of quality, or a reasonable price for that matter.

I can understand some RCOS owners becoming upset if a 12" GSO RC performs with 95% of a RCOS RC at 15-20% of the price, they'll find it hard to justify their expenditure I suspect ;-) And they'll be mightily jealous of those that are getting near performance at a fraction of the price.

I do suspect that the RCOS RC's are definitely better optically, and mechanically, and probably feature wise, but the question is, by *how* much, and is the huge price difference justified? I suspect not!

As to Meade, despite my dislike for the company and it's average products (imho), the LX200 ACF units have a reasonable reputation for optical quality, leading to reasonable imaging with the units. Sure, Meade did a major stuff up when it announced the ACFs as being Ritchey Chretiens, and it didn't win them any friends in the industry I suspect.

Dave
Reply With Quote