Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
  #121  
Old 23-07-2013, 06:24 PM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profiler View Post
Yes - you do concede the point that Synta Tech equipment doesn't last
It does last, just not as long I have a GSO Dob that is about 3 years old and shows no signs of ageing yet. So yes, you do get some use out of them.

Quote:
[With respect to the automatic expectation that higher quality more expensive equipment will last longer - well - wouldn't the analogous logic to that assumption extend to the earlier point about the optical performance of high quality refractors aren't going to be the same as Synta Tech refractors
Not at all, being shorter lived doesn't mean that their optical performance can't be excellent when new. Talking about Dobs here, see below...

Quote:
Otherwise - as I keep on stating ad nauseum - if a Synta Tech ED120 was the same or even close to a TV-NP127 (for example) then companies like Tak, AP, TV, APM etc would have been out of business decades ago and we would all be using ED120s
To be honest, I don't understand what the attraction of those 120EDs is, but then, I'm not an imager. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole, given how much more useful scopes you can get for that sort of money…

The complication of this thread is that we've been arguing over three corners – expensive frac (high quality, limited usefulness) vs SW frac (to me as useful as tits on a bull) vs Dob (very useful, not lasting forever but cheap).

Cheers
Steffen.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 23-07-2013, 07:04 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
It does last, just not as long I have a GSO Dob that is about 3 years old and shows no signs of ageing yet. So yes, you do get some use out of them.



Not at all, being shorter lived doesn't mean that their optical performance can't be excellent when new. Talking about Dobs here, see below...



To be honest, I don't understand what the attraction of those 120EDs is, but then, I'm not an imager. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole, given how much more useful scopes you can get for that sort of money…

The complication of this thread is that we've been arguing over three corners – expensive frac (high quality, limited usefulness) vs SW frac (to me as useful as tits on a bull) vs Dob (very useful, not lasting forever but cheap).

Cheers
Steffen.
You make some good points Steffan and this is certainly a somewhat diverse thread.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 23-07-2013, 07:04 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,108
Indeed it has. I have looked through behemoth cannons (Obsessions etc), and whilst the views were enjoyable, it wasn't my cup of tea at all. I know others thoroughly enjoy them, but alas, not this little duck.

It's all about what YOU want to get out of it. I intend that my FL102S will out last me, and probably even my Williams Optics Megrez. Longevity surely plays an integral part in my decisions about equipment, but is not the sole factor.

I have had Synta/Skywatcher/Saxon's, and none "grabbed me", even their mounts. While of acceptable quality, not one of them was a keeper.

To each their own.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 23-07-2013, 07:11 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
The complication of this thread is that we've been arguing over three corners – expensive frac (high quality, limited usefulness) vs SW frac (to me as useful as tits on a bull) vs Dob (very useful, not lasting forever but cheap).

Cheers
Steffen.
This is the only point I would disagree on.

Limited usefulness for a quality refractor... I vehemontly disagree there. If I want to see the faint and whispy, I'll image it (and not have diffraction artifacts). If I want to have exceptional views of the Moon and Planets, I will just drop in an eyepiece. I find viewing DSO's in all but the most behemoth of reflectors absolutely useless anyway.

As I have mentioned before, the ONLY reflector I miss is my 180mm Maksutov - a good scope, but not without it's drawbacks too (image shift, average quality of construction, LONG cool down etc).
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 23-07-2013, 07:30 PM
MortonH's Avatar
MortonH
Deprived of starlight

MortonH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
To be honest, I don't understand what the attraction of those 120EDs is, but then, I'm not an imager. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole, given how much more useful scopes you can get for that sort of money…

The complication of this thread is that we've been arguing over three corners – expensive frac (high quality, limited usefulness) vs SW frac (to me as useful as tits on a bull) vs Dob (very useful, not lasting forever but cheap).

Cheers
Steffen.
Hey Steffen,

You left your 6" Mak out of the equation! And by some of the comments even this might be considered near "useless" for deep sky observing by some people.

Maybe we forget that some observers, myself included, have done a lot less visual astronomy than many people on this forum. Sometimes simply tracking down an "easy" object in a small scope can be rewarding. I haven't even ticked off all the Messier objects yet, so I am easily thrilled by seeing an object for the first time with my Stellarvue 110ED, even if it shows little detail.

Maybe one day I'll have seen so much that nothing less than a 20" scope will excite me...
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 23-07-2013, 07:39 PM
Kunama
...

Kunama is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortonH View Post
......
Maybe one day I'll have seen so much that nothing less than a 20" scope will excite me...
That would be a very sad day indeed! I fear some people have already reached that point ..... a shame indeed
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 23-07-2013, 09:33 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
This thread has as much win as Edsel future options in 58.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 23-07-2013, 10:03 PM
el_draco (Rom)
Politically incorrect.

el_draco is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Tasmania (South end)
Posts: 2,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortonH View Post
Maybe one day I'll have seen so much that nothing less than a 20" scope will excite me...
Not likely. I owned a 29" newt for a few years yet I still get high (haha) using a pair of binoculars.

Despite the physics, size is not always an issue in astronomy... it just offers a few different opportunities for pleasure...
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 23-07-2013, 10:23 PM
Steffen's Avatar
Steffen
Ebotec Alpeht Sicamb

Steffen is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toongabbie, NSW
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortonH View Post
You left your 6" Mak out of the equation! And by some of the comments even this might be considered near "useless" for deep sky observing by some people.
Pure self-restraint I try to keep myself from bringing it up at every opportunity Seriously though, back in 1999 it was the biggest I could afford and it's still as small as I would go (or recommend to anyone else). Its contrast advantage makes it roughly as useful as an 8" Dob for DSOs under ordinary skies (which is what I mostly have).

The Intes MK-67 is history now, but its Intes-Micro descendants go for less than a 120ED. No contest as far as I'm concerned, unless you need a fast scope for imaging.

Quote:
Maybe one day I'll have seen so much that nothing less than a 20" scope will excite me...
I don't think I'll ever stop loving the Intes Mak (unless a Mewlon miraculously shows up at my doorstep ). However, I'm fairly certain that there will be a 12"-16" Dob in my not too far future as well.

Cheers
Steffen.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 23-07-2013, 10:51 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
Not likely. I owned a 29" newt for a few years yet I still get high (haha) using a pair of binoculars.

Despite the physics, size is not always an issue in astronomy... it just offers a few different opportunities for pleasure...
+1

Yes - I think that is a very astute way of evaluating things
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 23-07-2013, 11:36 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo (Mark)
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco View Post
Not likely. I owned a 29" newt for a few years yet I still get high (haha) using a pair of binoculars.
I've used scopes up to 36" but I think the sweetspots all factors considered sit at 4 or 5 " refractors for wide field and 10" and 16" reflectors for Deep Sky and Planetary .

Tha being said I enjoy the naked eye views from a dark sky now more than ever !
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ed apo, refractor telescope

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement