Oooh Aaahh! First look at GSO 8" RC..

[Garyh]

oh dear, lighten up people! Hope the scope meets your expectations Alex!
All that matters is that you are happy with the final image!
You go and look at tests done on many SCT`s both Celestron and Meade and the numbers don`t look any better.

[omnivorr]

Heehee.. ignore ol' VD there tryin to put a pox on it Alex
take yer time.. and enjoy!
we're all wishin' those clouds away
but we can wait if they linger longer..

good things come to those who do.. and the journey is at least half of the fun! ....after all, once the destination is achieved, what is there but memories? ...unless new challenges to scheme

[Zaps]

Here's what I'm thinking: Chinese/Taiwanese manufacturers have gone from being a joke to consistently mass-producing refractor doublet lenses which are 90-95% of the quality of far more expensive big name telescope makers.

They have also been offering inexpensive mass produced newt mirrors which are much improved from early examples and which contine to improve.

So maybe they can eventually offer mass-produced RC class optics which are 90-95% of the quality of today's extremely expensive suppliers, even if it means raising their prices a little? They would have to raise their prices a LOT before they weren't price competitive with the big names.

It's not surprising that the makers of very expensive optics are getting nervous about Chinese and Taiwanese factory production! If guys like us can immediately get an off the shelf RC with excellent optics (90-95% quality) for a helluva lot less than the extemely expensive "you'll get it when we say you'll get it" guys, we'll be bloody thrilled!

Originally Posted by Vader

You are right guessing whom I am. But no more.
I just explained, that there is no real hope, that next samples of these
8" RC will be better made optically. They can be improved in the
mechanical design, focurer, outside style etc. They can't be improved
optically - because of nature of these things. High gradient aspherics
CAN'T be made fast and cheap. Again: high gradient aspherics
CAN'T be made fast and cheap.
The same was with attempts to obtain very smooth optics in fast made
SCT. With some variations they always suffer of surface roughness.
But they suffer less, than these cheap RC.
Even spherical optics being fast made are not smooth at all - zones,
surface roughness etc. What we can expect from $1395 RC where
aspherics is really huge?
If you don't believe, no problem, you can check if your guess is right -
that next samples will be significantly better than tested crap ones- just
buy one of later sample and look yourself.

And why these scopes were dropped from $3000 to just $1395 ?
I can tell you - they are really crap. They are MUCH worser than even
RCX from Meade! RCX are coma-free design of SCT and their optics is
way smoother, than fast cheaply made taiwanese RC.
If you like to pay your backs for a magical "RC", do it. But others, I believe, have all rights to know what is what and make their choice with open eyes.
As a person, who know this subject, I can't recommend to buy cheaply
made RCs. Peoples will spend their money much wiser buying Meade RCX.
They are not a high-end RC, of course, but they are definitely better, than cheap, crap taiwanese RC.

[netwolf]

The assumption that because it is cheap it must be made fast and therefore not be of good quality seems a bit of a stretch. Labour is not so expensive in SE Asia that they need to produce at great speed. Its is a matter of record that optics from China always improve over time to be acceptable for our standard of use.

[AlexN]

Still waiting for a test night... Im sure enjoying all this debate over the quality of the optics in a scope that nobody has really properly tested yet... Its amusing to see so many people, smart people, having a go at something that they themselves may never have even seen in person..

I am waiting for a perfect night to test it... theres been a couple of nights where majority of the sky was clear with some storm clouds far south south east on the horizon, I consider nights like that to be less than perfect as there could be a light haze thats difficult to see, water particles in the air carrying light pollution etc etc.. Im waiting for a perfectly clear night to point the scope at one target for 6 hours and see what I can get out of it!

[Paul Haese]

Alex I wish you all the luck. The construction of the scope from the images looks really good. Probably as good as my C14 (which externally looks really cheaply made; yet the images it produces speak volumes).. And; the scope comes with a case, my Tak came in a cardboard box????

Several things stand out in my mind. The vendors will at least consider this. The Chinese manufacturers want to sell these things. The fact they have gone to the trouble to install what looks like a heap of baffles, use carbon fibre and put this together nicely says to me it is likely that the optics are reasonable to good at worst. They are well aware that several bad reviews of the scopes is gonna kill any potential they might have had. It does not make sense to try to sell crap in this current climate.

Secondly, Chinese optics are now a really good quality; ok not diffraction limited but for the price if they produce lovely tight stars and wonderful looking images (which is entirely possible) then this will put pressure on the more expensive guys to drop their prices if they want to survive in the current financial climate. These optics are catering for blokes and gals that don't have the capital reserves of a small country. Astronomy has nearly always been for the rich, this has been starting to change in the last 6 years.

I am looking at these scopes myself and think even if it is badly figured I can always send it back for either a new one or get my money back. What harm is there in buying them that I ask you nah sayers? Least I will not be paying 25K plus and still run the risk of it being damaged or not up to par.

Good luck Alex.

[Vader (Valery)]

Originally Posted by Zaps

It's not surprising that the makers of very expensive optics are getting nervous about Chinese and Taiwanese factory production! If guys like us can immediately get an off the shelf RC with excellent optics (90-95% quality) for a helluva lot less than the extemely expensive "you'll get it when we say you'll get it" guys, we'll be bloody thrilled!

You took it wrong. We have enough orders for high-end optics (not only for RC systems) with a turn for year or two ahead. 90% of them are not from amateurs.

Then you are wrong about 90-95% of quality by chineses.
These tested 8" RC do not produce diffraction images at all! Just a
blob. No Airy disk, no diffraction rings.
So, this is just light concentrator, not a telescope.

And the most important. I do not advice to by our products - they are
really expensive and, possibly, are beyond of your buying abilities.
We also do not produce something smaller, than 16".
I just point out - these cheaply, fast made RC from taiwan are crap.
One can spend money much better bying Meade RCX aplanatic
SCT. They are free from coma too, but their mafucacturing technique
allows to produce optics much smoother, than crap taiwanese RC.
RCX by Meade is a very good choice for astrophotographers with
limited pockets. These scopes are decent astrographs, which really
produce diffraction images and not a blob.

Hope you do understand now.

[Chippy (Nick)]

Time will tell eh... but I'm betting on something a bit better than a blob from these new RC's !!

[gregbradley]

Wow its just like the old RCX is not an RC days!

This scope is causing a stir. I wonder why.

It certainly looks impressive.

There's also companies that do refiguring of mirrors as a backup and you'd still be way ahead on price.

Greg.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Yes, a very interesting thread, cant wait for 1st light.

[marki]

Vader, the images I seen from these scopes (links are on this site somewhere) are far from being blobs. Just as an exercise in weighing up your suggested alternate scope I have done a little research and this is what I have found. Meade no longer list the RCX 8", 10" 12" or 14" fork mounts on their web site so I assume they have stopped producing them due to going broke. None of the australian importers list these scopes either. What meade still list in the RCX line is the 16" and 20" tubes. Working with the smallest and cheapest 16" tube the cost in US dollars is $39 999.00. Now you will need a big mount to carry this tube as it weighs a tonne so Meade offer the max mount at a poultry $29 999.00 US. These figures converted in AU dollars is $57 976 and $43 481.75 respectively. Without considering GST and import duties the cost would be $101457.75. Now lets compare that figure to what Alex paid. GSO 8" RC from andrews = $2499.00. EQ6 Pro = $1999.00. Total = $ 4498.00. The difference is $96959.00. Hmmm thats a fair comparison . Perhaps Alex could use the 97K he saved to buy a 20" planewave like Gama's as they are far better then RC's anyway.

Mark

[netwolf]

Where is Meade building there RCX optics now? Have the not moved this to Mexico? I have poste previously links showing Meade and Celestron low end scopes being made in the same factory in SE Asia.

Vader truely i dont understand why you insist on making statements you can not back up. Check out the multitude of images taken on this forum and others with Chines made scopes and come back and tell us about the blob they produce. I am not suggsting you have an agenda to push your scope but you do seem to have a very very one track opinion with no room to move. I think perhaps this is the reason CN has such strict rules on Vendors not commenting on other vendors products. It is truely unfair to attack a vendor who is not present to defend there product. I think it goes against the spirit of this forum. I am sure others here even those who might share your view would agree with me that this is not the way to present an argument. You have shown no test results you have done yourself or anything but just laid waste to a vendor's reputation. I dont often speak out on such matterrs, but I will call you to adjust your tone.

Alex i am sorry to take your thread of topic. But sometimes we can not stand by.

Regards
Fahim



Regards

[Tandum (Robin)]

Jezz Alex, and I thought I was a stirrer. Imagine getting a thread locked for buying a scope

I just got home and it's clear as a bell out there. Go shoot some blobs



[edit]
Mechanically it looks a lot like my VC200L doesn't it.
But the pressure is on now mate ....
How any photos have you done with that sbig?
Want to borrow a 40D. Point and click ?

Sucks to be you just now

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

I gave Alex an invite to come up for some dark skies tonight too.
tsk tsk tsk
You're missing out mate.

[marki]

Originally Posted by Tandum

Jezz Alex, and I thought I was a stirrer. Imagine getting a thread locked for buying a scope

I just got home and it's clear as a bell out there. Go shoot some blobs

Hahaha

[Kal (Andrew)]

I don't know if you have seen this pic taken wuth the Astro-Tech 6" RC of the moon. Too bad it only resolves into blobs, washes out all that detail!!

[netwolf]

Kal i did see that blob, and the blobbin detail is great.

[Vader (Valery)]

Originally Posted by marki

Vader, the images I seen from these scopes (links are on this site somewhere) are far from being blobs.

Mark

Look here http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/~grzy/APO.html

8" RC by GSO. Look at the star image. This is really blob. And this is in
almost perfect seeing conditions - in the air of laboratory. It will be really horrible under real sky.

Read numerical findings: Strehl is about 0.5. And with spherical aberration
removed. Without removing spherical aberration Strehl is lower than 0.25!!! I specially reprocessed these interferograms. No diffraction image at all. This is crap of a crap. Not a telescope. Image quality on a level of multilens telephoto objective, not better,
Of course, it will produce star images on CCD chip with sharpness of
ordinary telephoto. My Canon EF 200mm F/1,8 produce better images.

At the pointed website look at the upper tested telescope 16" F/10 ACF
Meade (former RCX) - it show Airy disk and first diffraction ring with
moderate optics roughness. But this scope being 2x larger is at least
5 better optically than tested below 8" RC by GSO.

However if you think that these cheaply made RC from GSO deliver
decent images, far from blobs, no problem - buy it and use it.
Wiser guys will, however, buy RCX or ACF alternatives.

If RC scopes can be produced cheap and smooth, believe me, there
will be a lot of these telescopes before these taiwanese guys introduced
their crap tubes as RC scopes.
No free lunch.
16" f/10 ACF

16" f/10 ACF

[Tandum (Robin)]

Vader,
Do you have any results from other domestic scopes as a comparison? I notice this 8" RC is mechanically a Vixen VC200L copy. There is no point comparing it to a 16" anything. No one here can lift a 16" scope.

[Vader (Valery)]

Originally Posted by netwolf

Where is Meade building there RCX optics now? Have the not moved this to Mexico? I have poste previously links showing Meade and Celestron low end scopes being made in the same factory in SE Asia.

Vader truely i dont understand why you insist on making statements you can not back up. Check out the multitude of images taken on this forum and others with Chines made scopes and come back and tell us about the blob they produce. I am not suggesting you have an agenda to push your scope but you do seem to have a very very one track opinion with no room to move. I think perhaps this is the reason CN has such strict rules on Vendors not commenting on other vendors products. It is truely unfair to attack a vendor who is not present to defend there product. I think it goes against the spirit of this forum. I am sure others here even those who might share your view would agree with me that this is not the way to present an argument. You have shown no test results you have done yourself or anything but just laid waste to a vendor's reputation. I dont often speak out on such matterrs, but I will call you to adjust your tone.

Alex i am sorry to take your thread of topic. But sometimes we can not stand by.

Regards
Fahim


Regards

Real RC scope should produce PINPOINTstar images. Not soft cotton blobs.

Second: CN is a property of a vendor, who actively trying to sell these
craps and make money. Therefore no one can tell peoples there what is what.
You will never buy our scopes - they are too expensive for you, too long
to wait as well. But why can't you think, that I am a honest man, a former amateur astronomer (before my university years) and now I am amateur astronomer again (since many years) - why can't I give you a good advice - do not by crap RC by GSO? Buy another astrograph - MAk, RCX, MN or APO. Spend your hardly earned money wiser, than being hooked at such a cheap bite.

If you don't believe me, go to AstroMart in Refractors forum or in a Yahoo apug group and ask Roland Christen about these thested 8" RC by GSO. Give him a link and ask his opinion about these tested scopes. I am sure he will answer your questions honestly.

And tell me - will you buy these crap RC for yourself?

At the last note - such crap RC just compromise an excellent reputation
of true RC scopes. I don't like to see this as well.

Buy a smaller TAKAHASHI BRC250 and I will congratulate you with a
good choice. Buy a Maksutov astrograph and I will congratulate you
with good choice too.
I understand, you are hoping to get an excellent scope for nothing.
But, sorry, this is empty dream. As more you and others will buy crap
scopes eating these cheap bites, as more crap scopes will flood the
market.
Your money - your choice. I merely trying to advice you to make better
choice, note, not from our production line.