Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Maybe he got a bad one.
|
Paul, Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally having a shot at you, but your statement is what puzzles me with these scopes. Given they're so cheap (in true RC terms), these scopes could be likened to being a consumable item. "ah, got a bad one, I'll just go buy another, she'll be right". R&D and QA out of China is surely improving, but is still insignificant when comparing that of US or European manufacturers.
Unfortunately Juliet got it wrong in her statement "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." Not so with RC's and the differing quality on today's market.
If I was to put tongue in cheek, I'd say the results displayed in the link are as good as it gets and worth the money paid. Perhaps slightly out of focus on some images, but others I'd say were in the CFZ. Seeing, sampling and other items may have also played a factor. If I were into these scopes and produced these results I'd be pretty happy. Would I be hoping to get similar results such as those by Roth Ritter who uses a
10" RCA (RCOS astrograph series) and produces work like
this or
this for example? No way!
No matter which way you look at it, you're pay for what you get. Many are happy with the results and I'm pleased to hear this. I welcome manufacturers entering this market as its good for competition, though the big players have little to worry about with their university and government contracts. Quality comes at price and in imaging, cutting corners leads to compromise. What you do however expect is that the quality is consistent, hence to come back to your original statement, it delivers little in the way of confidence to the consumer. Sounds like a 4k+ gamble, when you could continue to save the pennies for something with a known quality instead of wrestling with equipment each night attempting to pump out a solid image.