New GSO 10 inch RC

[gregbradley]

Now that some of the initial problems have been sorted I wonder how these 10 inch RCs will be?

Anyone ordered one?

Greg.

[telecasterguru (Frank)]

Greg,

I was going to order one but the delivery keeps getting pushed back. They should have been here six months ago and don't look like turning up until January next year at the earliest.

Makes me think they may not yet have all the bugs sorted.

Frank

[cventer]

I ordered one. Guess I will have to just wait.

[Satchmo]

I read somewhere that they recently shipped 300 10" scopes to the States. Thats what I call mass production

[gazza83 (Gary)]

Hi,

What do you think of the 6" RCs (more in my price range)? They have good reports on US forums in AT6RC form.

Cheers

[Paul Haese]

Unfortunately our little market will have to wait. GSO have shipped 300 units to the US, which obviously is a bigger market. At least they are in production.

[toryglen-boy (Duncan)]

will this change the price of the 8" ... again!!

[gregbradley]

Thanks for the info.

I am not really in the market for one but they certainly represent bang for buck even if you have to tart them up a bit with a new focuser etc.

Several images on this site have shown that the 8 inch performs quite well. They seem to need a flattener though which is odd as they display coma something an RC should not be displaying.

Greg.

[Paul Haese]

Greg I think you mean field curvature. I have not seen coma in my images but I have seen field curvature. RC's do have curvature but not coma.

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

They seem to need a flattener though which is odd as they display coma something an RC should not be displaying.

Greg.

The elongated star images at the edge is defocussed astigmatism. RC's are coma free but suffer strongly from astigmatism without a field flattener with which they can produce very sharp round image at the edge. I've always thought , at least for the shorter focal length RC's at 12" and under , that the " coma -free " moniker was a bit of a furfy because of the off - axis astigmatism. the big observatories don't mind that for astrometry purpose as its still easy to find the centroid of an ellipse.

Mark

[jase (Jason)]

Don't know what to think to be honest.
http://www.oneilladvertising.com/Resources/hobby2.html

Will hold on to my money for a while longer...

[Paul Haese]

Those star don't look sharp or right for some reason. Might be focus and collimation, but mind you one would think focus would have to hit the spot sooner or later.

Maybe he got a bad one. None of the shots look focused though.

[telecasterguru (Frank)]

I also am a little confused.
Will wait for more results before coming to a conclusion. Early days yet.

[jase (Jason)]

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.

[Moon (James)]

From John himself on the SBIG Yahoo group discussing this image:

I am not sure what is causing the elongation in the stars. It could
be 1. an overly aggressive setting in Maxim, 2. collimation error, 3.
my camera to focuser connection not being square. 4. I also have the
very first pre-production model of this scope and it is possible that
the primary is not aligned perfectly. I should be receiving my new
AT10RC any day now. Sky and Telescope has tested the scope and will
be doing a story on the scope as a Sky and Telescope Hot Product for
2010. Perhaps I will not have this problem with the new scope. I will
let you know.

John O'Neill

[Kal (Andrew)]

Well I hope that the 300 that are on the boat to the US have rectified whatever problem was in that pre-production model.

[Paul Haese]

Jase that is the problem with commercial production I guess. Celestron, Meade and a few others have this very same issue really. I frequently read statements on various forums that people are sending back scopes because of issues with the optics. Yes you pay for what you get. However, I think that US and European scope specialists are charging way too much. This will eventually change though as the Chinese and Taiwanese get things under control.

I am glad to see that this was a preproduction model and that the new one he is getting has been tested by S&T. Personally I would not be happy with those results. Not one image is in sharp focus and I would hazard to say that the results I have obtained so far exceed the linked examples. Not as good as an RCOS for sure but very close to the mark. If you want that extra 10% you need to pay that much more money I guess (not that I agree one should). If I received a 10" like that I would send it back without any question.

[jase (Jason)]

Its all relative Paul. I'm not going to deny that the US and European manufacturers are expensive, but they are also spending at least six to eight fold in time to build scopes compared to the Chinese or Taiwanese counterparts. As you say, the latter is mass produced, quantity over quality philosophy. Robotic arms instead of flesh and bones driving greater profit, but improved quality? hmmmm maybe with time?

So who wins? You buy one of these scopes, have to spend more money and commit your time to resolving matters which should have technically been addressed through R&D and QA. You've had your fair share of troubles as have others and I'm sure this has come at a cost. Alternatively, you pay more for an established instrument and get close to a turn-key imaging solution, be it minor tweaks to get it humming along. If the Chinese or Taiwanese manufacturers spent a similar quantity of time as the others, prices would climb, so its a trade off.

For the money that is out laid, the results are what I would expect and as such I'd be happy. Obviously everyone has different expectations. Whether they are realistic and obtainable is another discussion. With such a vast difference in quality between budget, mid spec and top end RC's, one can only compare results of a similar breed RC, so my previous post in reference in the 10" RCA is moot. The RCA series and those from deepsky instruments are mid spec instruments as opposed to the budget RC's coming out of China or Taiwan. What I was attempting to allude to however is that paying that bit extra can yield vastly different (superior?) results.

I want to be clear that I'm not attempting to put people off purchasing budget RC's. In many cases, they'll probably meet your goals and you will be happy with the output. There is a strong market for such instruments which will thrive with time. I do however suggest people review the facts and manage expectations. Comparing the differences between a 4k and 12k instrument can be the difference between night and day, no matter how much time and money you sink into getting the 4k instrument working. Its putting lipstick on a pig.

[Terry B]

I wonder how one of these scopes would compare to a Vixen VMC 260L?
They retail about $500 more but have the Vixen quality behind them.

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

RC's are coma free but suffer strongly from astigmatism without a field flattener with which they can produce very sharp round image at the edge.
Mark

Hi Mark. has anyone done any comparisons between field flatteners that suit the 8" RC?
Peter