** Scope Reviews "does" Intes MN56 **
Eting
For those who care to look, I just posted a review of the Intes MN56.
Now, 63 telescopes reviewed, beginner's advice, etc etc...
Also, I'll take another opportunity to apologize for those who cannot get on
the web site. My web hoster is having some bandwidth issues, which I am trying
to resolve.
-Ed
WHALEN44
Got on the web site, no problem. Just could not find the review.
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan
WHALEN44
Last review is show as 7/18/99, the AP stowawy.
Howard Lester
the review.
Howard
Eting
>Hi Ed,
>
>Got on the web site, no problem. Just could not find the review.
>
Yes, one problem with this particular web server is its relatively slow
propogation through the www. 12 to 24 hours usually does the trick.
-Ed
Rod Mollise
>For those who care to look, I just posted a review of the Intes MN56.
>
>http://www.scopereviews.com
>
Hi Ed:
Great review of the MN-56! Thanks! Also enjoyed your CM-1400 review. One
quibble, however. I'd say that the original C14 Orange-tubes had a _mixed_
reputation for optical qualtiy at best. Some good ones, some pretty poor ones,
and a _lot_ of 'em with pretty rough--if otherwise ok--optics. I do think the
modern C14 OTAs are a lot better.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Mobile Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index7.html
The Home of _From City Lights to Deep Space_:
Rod's Guidebook for the _Urban_ Deep Sky NUT!!
*********************************************************
Eting
> I'd say that the original C14 Orange-tubes had a _mixed_
>reputation for optical qualtiy at best. Some good ones, some pretty poor
>ones,
>and a _lot_ of 'em with pretty rough--if otherwise ok--optics. I do think the
>modern C14 OTAs are a lot better.
>
Yes, I'd agree. I don't have enough first hand experience with the older
orange-tubed C14s, so my comments had to be just a little vague. But in
general, based upon the letters I get, is that you are correct. The newer C14s
are a lot more consistent.
This particular CM144 was very nice. Wish I had $6000 lying around...
-Ed
Jeff Ball
optically by Celestron and had a Byers retrovit on the mount. I am hoping
to do some rigorous testing of the optics this weekend. I will report my
findings later.
Eting wrote in message <19990805211314...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
John Cheng
Three excellent reviews of INTES Mak-Newt's, Ed Ting's, Todd Gross'
and the older S&T on the 6-inch Orion version and each of them mentions
finder eyepieces as a problem. If that's not feedback, what is?
Right, I know, it's a finder but an inexpensive gasket or thumb screw
will remove this blemish from a great product. Is anyone listening?
--
John Cheng
Pittsburgh PA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Eting
> Three excellent reviews of INTES >Mak-Newt's, Ed Ting's, Todd Gross'
>and the older S&T on the 6-inch Orion
>version and each of them mentions
>finder eyepieces as a problem. If that's >not feedback, what is?
>Right, I know, it's a finder but an >inexpensive gasket or thumb screw
>will remove this blemish from a great >product. Is anyone listening?
I've heard from at least a few readers who were not displeased with the finders
on their MN56s and MN61s. There seems to be some variation in quality on these
finders from sample to sample. Some are also apparently constrcuted
differently!
This is part of the "charm" of owning a Russian scope, I guess...
-Ed
pibbs
orions, with metal tube, 2 eyepices ets. seem to tbe the best deal or
has anyone out there had a bad experience with these new
scopes---otherwise what is recommended..am most concerned with
optics...you can email me or post to this group...THANK YOU FOR YOUR
HELP!!!!!!
pibb...@shore.net
Kevin Daly
At this point, the consensus seems to be the Starsplitter Tube dobs.
Excellent both mechanically and optically.
Kevin Daly
Mattatuck Astronomical Society
http://members.aol.com/kdaly10475/index.html
Todd Gross
>Hi:
> Three excellent reviews of INTES Mak-Newt's, Ed Ting's, Todd Gross'
>and the older S&T on the 6-inch Orion version and each of them mentions
>finder eyepieces as a problem. If that's not feedback, what is?
>
>Right, I know, it's a finder but an inexpensive gasket or thumb screw
>will remove this blemish from a great product. Is anyone listening?
umm, great point
Robert Berta
quality optically than in the past (although this comment isn't meant to imply
they had poor quality before). Competition breeds better products....as long as
they don't get so wrapped up in mass production that they blow the QA issue.
Bob Berta
Jeff Ball <ba...@marshall.edu> wrote in article
<37aad...@munix01.marshall.edu>...
mag...@arnprior.com
wrote:
>I find that all the new Celestrons seem to be more consistent and of a higher
>quality optically than in the past (although this comment isn't meant to imply
>they had poor quality before). Competition breeds better products....as long as
>they don't get so wrapped up in mass production that they blow the QA issue.
Not to pick on your post, Robert, but Quality Assurance techniques go
hand-in-hand with mass production. You don't need statistical quality
control unless you are producing en mass. Otherwise, it's just called
doing a good job, and charging for your time.
Doug Hoy
lude...@my-deja.com
et...@aol.com (Eting) wrote:screw
> >will remove this blemish from a great >product. Is anyone listening?
>
the finders
> on their MN56s and MN61s. There seems to be some variation in quality
on these
> finders from sample to sample. Some are also apparently constrcuted
> differently!
>
> This is part of the "charm" of owning a Russian scope, I guess...
>
> -Ed
Ed,
it is just an question, does customers agree to pay $ 50 more or not.
INTES MICRO have for this scopes since a few month an new superb 50 mm
Finder, but dealers want to buy as cheap as possible and not agree to
pay the extra $ 50 for the new bigger and better finder. So the mistake
lays not at INTES MICRO, it is the mistakes of the dealers who place
the orders to them for the little cheap finder.
Markus
Eting
>Ed,
>
>it is just an question, does customers agree to pay $ 50 more or not.
>INTES MICRO have for this scopes since a few month an new superb 50 mm
>Finder, but dealers want to buy as cheap as possible and not agree to
>pay the extra $ 50 for the new bigger and better finder. So the mistake
>lays not at INTES MICRO, it is the mistakes of the dealers who place
>the orders to them for the little cheap finder.
>
>Markus
Here's my understanding. The 6X30 finder is standard, but for about $50 more,
you can upgrade to either the 50 mm finder or the Telrad.
Any US dealers out there who want to chime in on this one?
-Ed
lude...@my-deja.com
correct
Markus
>
> Any US dealers out there who want to chime in on this one?
>
> -Ed
>
>
gemf...@my-deja.com
with a $40 Telrad? Are you trying to sucker some American astronomers? Just
curious, Jim
et...@aol.com (Eting) wrote:
> > Here's my understanding. The 6X30 finder is standard, but for
> >about $50 more, you can upgrade to either the 50 mm finder or the > >Telrad.
Markus replied:
> correct
>
> Markus
Ratboy99
>with a $40 Telrad?
Yeah, why not offer it for $50 less without a finder and the purchaser can get
his own Telrad.
rat
~( );>
lude...@my-deja.com
gemf...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Markus, Why would anyone want to spend $50 to upgrade an existing
finder
astronomers? Just
> curious, Jim
Hi Jim,
I think due Ed's comment there is a little missunderstanding. Upgrading
to 50 mm Finder is $ 50 extra, Telrads you can buy self cheaply in USA
Markus
lude...@my-deja.com
ratb...@aol.comet (Ratboy99) wrote:
> >Hi Markus, Why would anyone want to spend $50 to upgrade an
existing finder
> >with a $40 Telrad?
>
purchaser can get
> his own Telrad.
> rat
> ~( );>
>
>
not a problem at all.
Steve Paterson
Eting wrote in message <19990805162017...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>Hi there:
>
>For those who care to look, I just posted a review of the Intes MN56.
>
>http://www.scopereviews.com
>
>
I'm one stop away from buying this scope and wondered if anyone else can
share their experiences with it.
I plan to use it as a quality (although low aperture) planetary scope and
hope to progress to CCD work. One of the many appealing aspects about the
MN56 is that it is light, keeping mount costs down a bit.
Any recommendations about eyepieces and barlows?
Thanks, Steve
Reid Williams
Steve Paterson wrote in message <7qf1o4$dk5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>I'm one stop away from buying this scope and wondered if anyone else can
>share their experiences with it.
>
>I plan to use it as a quality (although low aperture) planetary scope and
>hope to progress to CCD work. One of the many appealing aspects about the
>MN56 is that it is light, keeping mount costs down a bit.
>
>Any recommendations about eyepieces and barlows?
To add to that question, has anyone w/ a premium refractor, changed to the
to either the MN56 or MN61? Not will you change, but have you
changed...past tense.
Also, has anyone tried the MN-61 on a plain GP mount? I've read most of the
vs. vs. vs. comments, but I don't recall anyone specifically trying it.
Thanks.
Reid Williams
POLARIS
comparison after I get it. It will take a month or two.
Clear skies,
Rob O.
Reid Williams wrote in message <7qfda5$50i$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Eric
ReidWi...@worldnet.att.net says...
>Also, has anyone tried the MN-61 on a plain GP mount? I've read most of the
>vs. vs. vs. comments, but I don't recall anyone specifically trying it.
>
>
I used the MN61 on an SP mount with the short wooden legs (from SP-C6) and
found it OK for visual work on a calm night. Focusing was sometimes a challenge
at high power. I would expect the GP with it's longer aluminum legs to shake a
bit more. I upgraded to a GP-DX, which is quite sturdy for visual use (I'm not
a photographer).
Eric Faust
>
>
Reid Williams
Eric wrote in message ...
>I used the MN61 on an SP mount with the short wooden legs (from SP-C6) and
>found it OK for visual work on a calm night. Focusing was sometimes a
challenge
>at high power. I would expect the GP with it's longer aluminum legs to
shake a
>bit more. I upgraded to a GP-DX, which is quite sturdy for visual use (I'm
not
>a photographer).
>
>Eric Faust
Thanks Eric.
I have a "fully loaded" GP(Vixen Drives, 1/2 Pier, JMI DSCs) and I am
considering just selling the whole thing and ordering a GM-8 w/ the Losmandy
DSC's. I guess I could just weight up my OTA to 19# or so and see how the
drives and vibrations manage.
One other thought, since the MN-61 is a newt (duh) I bet you could easily
operate with the legs fully retracted.
Thanks for the comments.
Reid Williams
Kevin N. Brown
mount variants would be adequate for the MN-61. I would think that a
Losmandy GM-8 would be the minimum and if you are planning on doing any
serious imaging you would need something like the G-11.
Kevin Brown
Burke, VA
Reid Williams <ReidWi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7qfda5$50i$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Steve Paterson wrote in message <7qf1o4$dk5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >I'm one stop away from buying this scope and wondered if anyone else can
> >share their experiences with it.
> >
> >I plan to use it as a quality (although low aperture) planetary scope and
> >hope to progress to CCD work. One of the many appealing aspects about
the
> >MN56 is that it is light, keeping mount costs down a bit.
> >
> >Any recommendations about eyepieces and barlows?
>
>
>
> To add to that question, has anyone w/ a premium refractor, changed to
the
> to either the MN56 or MN61? Not will you change, but have you
> changed...past tense.
>
> Also, has anyone tried the MN-61 on a plain GP mount? I've read most of
the
> vs. vs. vs. comments, but I don't recall anyone specifically trying it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Reid Williams
>
>
>
>
>
Reid Williams
Kevin N. Brown wrote in message <9cZy3.80$uf3.7...@newsie.cais.net>...
>At a weight of 20 lbs or so for the OTA, I would guess that none of the GP
>mount variants would be adequate for the MN-61. I would think that a
>Losmandy GM-8 would be the minimum and if you are planning on doing any
>serious imaging you would need something like the G-11.
>
>Kevin Brown
>Burke, VA
>
That's the way it is heading.
Thanks Kevin.
William E. Byrd
> One other thought, since the MN-61 is a newt (duh) I bet you could easily
> operate with the legs fully retracted.
>
That's what I do with my GM-8/MN-61 combo. Works well. Keep in mind that
the MN-61 OTA is about 20 pounds but once you add tube rings, a finder
and (possibly) a heavy eyepiece you're really looking at 26 to 27 pounds
on the mount. Been there, do that.
Bill
--
Bill Byrd we...@flash.net San Antonio, Texas
Eric
I'm not convinced that the GM-8 actually has a greater capacity than the DX as
suggested by it's 30# manufacturers load rating. I think both should be fine
for short exposures, or calm conditions also.
Eric
In article <7qhu06$3on$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
ReidWi...@worldnet.att.net says...
Reid Williams
Eric wrote in message <_m%y3.49216$pq3.3...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com>...
>For visual use, the GP-DX is fine. I would put the GM-8 in the same
catagory.
>I'm not convinced that the GM-8 actually has a greater capacity than the DX
as
>suggested by it's 30# manufacturers load rating. I think both should be
fine
>for short exposures, or calm conditions also.
>
>Eric
>
>
Thanks.
Reid
K3AC
Yes, I've tried the MN-61 on a GP mount and it will hold it, but it's
definitely at the max. load of this mount. It strains under the weight, very
noticeably. On the GP-DX, it's no problem.
Bob
Reid Williams
>
>Yes, I've tried the MN-61 on a GP mount and it will hold it, but it's
>definitely at the max. load of this mount. It strains under the weight,
very
>noticeably. On the GP-DX, it's no problem.
>
>Bob
Thanks Bob. I'm comfortable w/ my Vixen 90F on the mount, and will find
something larger if I go with the MN.
Reid
KD4ZN
The GP-DX holds it quite well with minimal shake. That's why Orion sells their
version with the DX.
Bob