Quote:
Originally Posted by Profiler
Although I fully appreciate that the hobby of astronomy is a broad church and has a following catering to many different tastes I, for one at least, have never been interested in the "appearances" of the equipment (other than to assess condition when purchasing 2nd hand). For me a 'telescope' is something I look through to see the universe - not something I look at.
In this context my own experience has always been that the images always tend to be better with the more expensive refractors. I loved my first short-tube C-80 but when I purchased a Tak FS-60 it simply outperformed the C-80 and the same trend continued thereafter with gradually larger and larger refractors. Ultimately, the single most important rule of thumb with refractors based upon actually looking through them was that quality trumps quantity. There really wasn't any emotion to these experiences other than what can be seen in the eyepiece and not what is seen when looking at the telescope.
|
Good points Richard. I must say the differences in viewing with my FL102S vs the SW ED100 I had was remarkable (an even WIDER gap betwixt the FL102S and the NG120 I had). QUALITY will always trump QUANTITY, but there is also horses for courses... and that is NOT being a scope snob!
I have looked through a couple SW/Saxon 120's, and they are GOOD. I would not rate them incredible, but the extra aperture does not equate to a better image, as evidenced comparing them to 18mm less with the 102 (and 19mm in a TV 101).
I will disagree a little though, and that to ME at least (and several refactorians I know), external cosmetics ARE important. Makes the experience more pleasureable, in an almost intangible way.I like my stuff to look good and perform well, and to the point of less functionality, dislike things like velcro, zipties, etc on my mounts and telescopes. I will also repaint to match or repair. It's the Virgo in me
I know a couple here are the same way inclined too