Quote:
Originally Posted by Astro_Bot
I guess I'm looking for quantitative answers to help remove a source of error, that being interpretation of descriptors people use: e.g. one person's "pretty close" is another person's "significantly out".
|
Hey Astro_Bot, I came close to buying a skywatcher GOTO dob, but I too found getting good answers to questions regarding reliability difficult. I know if you search the web you'll always find bad reviews of pretty much any product but I just couldn't convince myself that these scopes were worth the money (to me). There are plenty of good reviews out there and many happy owners, but these are still a relatively new product and talking to a supplier I have found some are having issues already, one owner (of an Orion dob, same system as SW) ditched the electronics and fitted an Argo Navis after repeated attempts to fix pointing errors failed! Also I've owned one of these budget dobs before and their bases aren't the best and end up needing rebuilding after several years (what happens to the goto then....?).
Because of this, I've embarked down the path of ATM. I'm building a dob base for a 10" newt and fitting an argo navis. This will cost approximately half that of a GOTO skywatcher and should perform MUCH better and for many years to come, although without tracking. I could add servocat later down the track if I wanted and only be about $500 more than the SW. The reason I went down this path is that I know the Argo is a great system, and one I can take to my next scope - same goes for the servocat.
So, when I started this thread I was looking to find a quality scope for visual observing, for me I've decided to try an avoid the constant updating cycles by buying some premium components (the argo) and building a premium base. This (I hope) should allow me to upgrade later without having to buy the electronics all over again.
Besides, ATM is FUN! (thanks Mental
)
Dave.