Budget RC announced at NEAF

seeker372011 (Narayan) · #1 10-05-2008, 05:39 PM

http://www.astronomics.com/main/cate...F9DX9A0/Page/1

sorry if this is old news But I just got the email from Astronomics

Narayan

matt · #2 10-05-2008, 05:52 PM

Looks good...although the tech specs fail to mention the extent of secondary obstruction.

Looks large, though. Over 30%.

I would like a smaller secondary housing/CO.

netwolf · #3 10-05-2008, 07:42 PM

Matt i think the larger secondary is to provide for larger CCD's and to help produce a flatter field. Still the price is not Budget, at these prices the Meade LX200-ACF OTA's would be better choice. The 8" is almost 3000USD the Meade 8" is the same price (from opt) as the 6" RC. I guess time and testing will indicate weather they are worth it. But I would sure like to check what the factory price is direct from China.

Regards
Fahim

matt · #4 10-05-2008, 07:48 PM

I'd be happy to pay the extra $$$ to get optics which are guaranteed to be at least 1/12th wave.

You wouldn't get anywhere near that with the LX200-ACF...so it's not like you're comparing apples with apples

If you place no stock in the wavefront values of optics, by all means opt for the Meade product.

Not that I'm Meade "bashing". It's just that you get what you pay for....and I'm sure the ACF does a fine job.

Cheers.

netwolf · #5 10-05-2008, 08:41 PM

Matt, I had not read the 1/12th optics bit so in light of that you are right then they are worth more. It will all come down to performance tests once these come out. Until then we can only wait and speculate.

Gama · #6 10-05-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

I'd be happy to pay the extra $$$ to get optics which are guaranteed to be at least 1/12th wave.

You wouldn't get anywhere near that with the LX200-ACF...so it's not like you're comparing apples with apples

If you place no stock in the wavefront values of optics, by all means opt for the Meade product.

Not that I'm Meade "bashing". It's just that you get what you pay for....and I'm sure the ACF does a fine job.

Cheers.

Be happy to buy 1/12 wave WHAT ?.. RMS, Peak to valley, Wave at Kuma Beach Surf club!!.. Doesnt specify, so your paying $$ for WHAT ???. I dont know.. This can make the whopping difference.

Also as said, "You get what you pay for", so you must be getting a Premium scope for such low pricing..Hmmm, doesnt sort of make sense.

Jeeees guys, its good to get hyped up, but the ship hasnt docked yet, so lets not start unloading cargo..

I would like to know the real surface accuracy and also optical alignment and its ability to keep it during the night, yada yada..
This is why (And i hate to say it) the RC's do cost money. Maybe Peter Ward may explain a tad as he would have the figures tatood in his brain.
The secondary is most likely to be 50%, as thats what the cheaper RC optics use to get around costs on manufacturing.
Im not selling my pin hole telescope yet... Now excuse me while i move back into the shadows..

Theo

matt · #7 10-05-2008, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gama

Be happy to buy 1/12 wave WHAT ?.. RMS, Peak to valley, Wave at Kuma Beach Surf club!!.. Doesnt specify, so your paying $$ for WHAT ???. I dont know.. This can make the whopping difference.

Also as said, "You get what you pay for", so you must be getting a Premium scope for such low pricing..Hmmm, doesnt sort of make sense.

Jeeees guys, its good to get hyped up, but the ship hasnt docked yet, so lets not start unloading cargo..

I would like to know the real surface accuracy and also optical alignment and its ability to keep it during the night, yada yada..
This is why (And i hate to say it) the RC's do cost money. Maybe Peter Ward may explain a tad as he would have the figures tatood in his brain.
The secondary is most likely to be 50%, as thats what the cheaper RC optics use to get around costs on manufacturing.
Im not selling my pin hole telescope yet... Now excuse me while i move back into the shadows..

Theo

Hi Theo.

Appreciate the input.

I can assure you I'm not getting hyped up...but I don't think there's any harm in enjoying our hobby and revelling for just a moment in the thrill of 'affordable' new gear with possibly great optics being released.

When I say 1/12th wave, I'm assuming they are referring to the same measure as Celestron refers to when they guarantee their SCTs to be at least 1/4 wave and GSO when it refers to its mirrors being 1/12th wave.

When I say 'you get what you pay for'...that wasn't to imply the pricing of this new scope is in any way a guide to the quality of the optics. Certainly...a premium RC scope attracts a premium price.

But that is not to say prices are the only guide to an instrument's 'quality'. Look at what has happened with the Dob/ Newtonian market and companies such as GS and Synta. No...they are not what you might describe as premium products, but they are still very good and priced in a manner which would have been unthinkable 10-20 years ago.

I guess it's all relative, isn't it? Let's not shoot it all down in flames before we've had a chance to have a better look. As Fahim says, the proof of the pudding will be in how it performs once it's released.

avandonk · #8 10-05-2008, 11:02 PM

Sounds like the GSO RC's. It won't be perfect but at least it will be affordable. One could have lots of fun fixing the shortcomings and then put endless drivel on 'how to' on many sites!

What did a 16" DOB cost a couple of years ago?

Bert

matt · #9 10-05-2008, 11:03 PM

Very true, Bert.

Gama · #10 10-05-2008, 11:12 PM

Matt, you had me ready to go out and pick up Aluminium cans to get the extra money to buy one !. Well, maybe not too ready..
I knew what you were trying to say Matt, just jiggling some chains....
There is something i do say to people, "If your going out to buy a fruit, make sure you dont buy a lemon" because it leaves a sour taste..
Most of us wouldnt have known or know much about wave surface details.
So the reason for the post.

Theo

matt · #11 10-05-2008, 11:16 PM

No worries, Theo.

But I happen to like lemons...and buy them often when I go fruit and veg shopping

Cheers.

Gama · #12 10-05-2008, 11:23 PM

Well, just dont let me catch you selling them !.

Anyways, heres a link for those that wish to understand women ... Oh wait, there no such link !.
But there is a link to optical wave accuracy here http://www.telescope-optics.net/aberrations.htm .

Theo

netwolf · #13 13-05-2008, 11:48 PM

Any news on who is bringing these out in Australia and for how much?

Satchmo · #14 14-05-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

When I say 1/12th wave, I'm assuming they are referring to the same measure as Celestron refers to when they guarantee their SCTs to be at least 1/4 wave and GSO when it refers to its mirrors being 1/12th wave.

I would guess that that they mean 1/12 RMS surface accuracy as they claim 1/16 RMS surface for their Newtonian mirrors which are far easier to make than the highly aspheric RC's.

You can see the Newt specs here:

http://www.gs-telescope.com/content.asp?id=95

1/12 RMS equates roughly to 1/3 PV wavefront, and 1/16 RMS is 1/4 PV wavefront. If these tests are done at 632mm HeNe laser wavelenghth then increase those figures by about 20% for wavelength at peak visual sensitivity.
I don't see the point of talking about surface accuracy on a mirror as it can only produce an optical wavefront upon reflection.

Satchmo · #15 14-05-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seeker372011

http://www.astronomics.com/main/cate...F9DX9A0/Page/1

These scopes are clearly not the GSO RC's.

They show light baffled tubes, Feather Touch focusser and Quartz optics with 99% enhanced coatings.

Looks like there are more than one new player in the budget RC market.

netwolf · #16 14-05-2008, 04:37 PM

Some pictures from Neaf in this thread on CN
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthrea...l/fpart/2/vc/1
Also Stargazr mentions he has found it to be 1/12 (dont know what) overall. Not sure what he means by running a Roddiers over it. What is a Roddiers?

Regards
Fahim

Satchmo · #17 14-05-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netwolf

Not sure what he means by running a Roddiers over it. What is a Roddiers?

Regards
Fahim

He's referring to a piece of software that applies Roddiers Transform : a way of measuring wavefront accuracy working backwards from an Airy Pattern photograph.

I note from the Astronomics website that these optics are completely machine figured and that 12, 14" and 16" models will be forthcoming...

jase (Jason) · #18 14-05-2008, 06:43 PM

Help me out here... looking at the GSO parabolic mirror sets, they list the 16" (AD015) as a 1800mm FL @ F/4.5. Huh? only 1800mm? Great for Nebulae, but very far from a galaxy hunter. Sheez, don't think I'd bother. If I was to purchase a 16" RC, I'd want it to at least 3000mm FL. A fast focal ratio is great, but imaging at slow focal ratios isn't a bad thing with the sensitivity of today's CCD camera. Am I missing something...Mark?

netwolf · #19 14-05-2008, 07:34 PM

I think the 16" is referring to the the 16" dob not an RC. At least thats what is being indicated in the linked thread.

duncan · #20 14-05-2008, 07:50 PM

hi Sachmo.
i hope you are right. But even if you are not lets all hope and pray that these measurements are all equal across the board
that to me seems the most important thing. lets get a standard measurement across the board. Then maybe ametures can make a viable decision.
C'mon all you manufacturers getn your act together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup :