Astronomy Cast quality of later podcasts

[syousef]

Though I didn't always listen to them as they were released I remember discovering Astronomy Cast and playing catchup for a couple of months because I found the podcasts to be so good. I always felt slack that I wasn't making time for them.

Well I'm playing catchup again and I have to say that I'm finding the quality of the latest podcasts disappointing. I think they are now doing what they should have done in the first place and making fewer of them instead of keeping up a breakneck pace, but it is still striking that the later podcasts contain glaring errors compared to the first ones.

As an example take the Messier Catalog show. The recommendation to attempt a Messier marathon with 10x40 binoculars at a minimum? WHAT? The statement that the Caldwell catalog was set up as the southern hemisphere equivalent? You can't even do the entire Caldwell catalog in one night. The fact that southern objects were missing was certainly a motivation, but presenting it as an alternative to the Messier Catalog for Southern Hemisphere listeners had me wanting to shout at the phone.

I just finished listening to the show on precision. I have some background in science so I did understand what they were trying to get at but the descriptions were just muddled!

...and the episode on Galileo - the first one I really took issue with - made it sound like the man was a putz who got what he deserved, and focused on that almost more than the science. It felt more like a defence of the Catholic Church's actions in context than a science show. A scientist should know better than to do that no matter what their personal religious beliefs.

These are just of the more annoying few examples. I don't want to be negative because the show use to be so good, because it takes a lot of effort, and because we need more good astronomy resources. But I can't ignore this.

I've left perhaps 5 or 6 detailed comments on the web site against the episodes but they never get published. I've never been as blunt as in this post but instead raised specific issues or pointed to alternate sources that correct what was said. No attempt to correct glaring mistakes is made.

I've just started listening to the 3-parter on astrophotography. The recommendation to buy a really expensive tripod for wide field DSLR images has me baffled so far. I'm using a tripod worth about $40 that I picked up for $15 and so long as I'm sensible about how I set it up and trigger it I haven't found it lacking.

It use to be that I'd point anyone with an interest in Astronomy at the show. Anyone else feel the quality went down? There were always minor mistakes and omissions but not anything that glaring. If I recommended the podcasts to a newbie now I'd probably tell them to listen to all podcasts below a certain number. I have this sinking feeling...a bit like someone's just axed (or badly remade!) my favourite TV show. Leaving shows full of misinformation basically undoes all the wonderful (and unpaid!) work they did.

[Paul Haese]

I agree the more recent shows have an annoying ad at the front of the episode and I think the content has fallen away a little. I am not real keen on the "love ins" myself. Maybe this is part of how it will continue but for me I really liked the first 200 episodes.

[Octane (Humayun)]

I'm assuming when they refer to tripods, they're actually referring to mounts.

The most important kit in /any/ astrophotographer's list of equipment, is the mount. Without a good mount, it becomes exponentially more difficult to get pinpoint round stars.

Granted, this is not so much of an issue for widefield astrophotography, but, it is still an important point to consider.

If, they really were discussing widefield astrophotography on a tripod, then, I can't fault them for, again, recommending a good (expensive) tripod. The better tripod designs are built like tanks that can take a bit of knocking about. This is important when you're trying to image with a breeze -- a telephoto (or even a fat lens) will have enough surface area to wobble a cheap tripod.

H

Originally Posted by syousef

I've just started listening to the 3-parter on astrophotography. The recommendation to buy a really expensive tripod for wide field DSLR images has me baffled so far. I'm using a tripod worth about $40 that I picked up for $15 and so long as I'm sensible about how I set it up and trigger it I haven't found it lacking.

[syousef]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I agree the more recent shows have an annoying ad at the front of the episode and I think the content has fallen away a little. I am not real keen on the "love ins" myself. Maybe this is part of how it will continue but for me I really liked the first 200 episodes.

Oh you mean that 8th Light ad? I agree. I'm in IT. Took a look at their webpage out of curiousity. It says "At 8th Light, we craft web applications that are beautiful, durable and free of defects in workmanship." I'd love to know how they managed to get their code completely bug free since that is just impossible. Big red flag.

I don't know if I've got to the "love ins". I suspect it will be depressing.

[syousef]

Originally Posted by Octane

I'm assuming when they refer to tripods, they're actually referring to mounts.

You're making my point for me. If they use such imprecise language that it is confusing to people who've been in the hobby for a long time, what chance does a newbie have? What are the chances someone's going to sell you a decent quality astro mount if you walk into a shop and ask for a tripod? Actually that was another glaring statement Dr Gay made that I had real issue with.

This is taken from the show transcript:
'Pamela: So here my favorite people to go to is Oceanside Photo and Telescope because you can basically say, “I have this much money. What can I get?” and they will point you in the correct direction.'

Not I want to do such and such, and this is my budget, is it possible? I don't care how reputable that store is: the above simply equates to "here I'm a sucker, who knows nothing and you can bilk me for this much".

The worst piece of advice you can give anyone is to start with Astrophotography. Some people progress there quickly, but if you know nothing, learn to use and align a mount roughly before you start spending up big without a clue what to do. Best advice you could give is tag along with someone and offer to help. Perhaps at a club.

If this nonsense is how they had started their show I'd have been trashing them big time. The reason I'm torn is that their early stuff while not perfect was VERY good, and to do that service for people for free buys you a lot of respect in my book...but the above sort of nonsense is quickly trashing that respect for me.