Info on the Apogee Widestar ?
a...@ais.net
Anyone have any information or experiences with this scope. Right now
I'm looking to purchase a used Ranger or Pronto and the Apogee is
a little more $$ but has an additional 30mm.
Thanks
Allister
a...@ais.net
AndersonRM
>Anyone have any information or experiences with this scope. Right now
>I'm looking to purchase a used Ranger or Pronto and the Apogee is
>a little more $$ but has an additional 30mm.
>
>
But, at 100mm F6.4, just remember it's going to have a lot of colour
and probably other aberrations as well. Would probably make
a very good rich field scope, though. I'll have one to test in a
couple weeks.
-Rich
AndersonRM
what he was currently using as a small scope, was he still using
his Traveler? He replied that he had sold his Traveler shortly
after getting a mid-1980's Vixen 102mm fluorite. He maintained
that the Traveler had the beginnings of aberrations other than
chromatic due (probably) to it's F5.7 F.R. He still has larger AP
scopes which he said perform at a higher level than the Traveler did.
The Vixen showed more detail on planets and was worth the extra
lenght an mount requirements. The Vixen is the scope he now
uses to demonstrate telescope views to people when he's travelling.
This more or less concurs with my experience (limited to three Travelers
and four fluorites) of the type he mentioned. The views in fluorite
scopes i've seen through always look very good.
Has anyone directly compared a Traveler with a Tak 102,
Vixen or Celestron-Vixen 102?
-Rich
Rich N.
AndersonRM <ander...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807120557...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Hi Rich,
Why do you ask? Bored? Do you want to know how much
to charge for a Vixen 102?
It would be nice to talk to Terrence directly on saa.
How old was his Traveler? What age, size and type is his
"larger AP"?
It would be fun to have Mr. Dickenson visit Fremont Peak.
His "Adventures in Refractorland" have inspired more then
a few of to collect glass. It is too bad it is such a dated
article. The AP scopes he wrote about are several AP
generations old.
Does he have an email id?
I wonder what he would think of Roland's upcoming
run of 130mm f/8 ED"T"s?
Rich N.
Dr. David B. Toth
>
> I spoke to Terrence Dickenson a few days ago. I asked him
> what he was currently using as a small scope, was he still using
> his Traveler? He replied that he had sold his Traveler shortly
> after getting a mid-1980's Vixen 102mm fluorite.
<some deleted>
> This more or less concurs with my experience (limited to three Travelers
> and four fluorites) of the type he mentioned. The views in fluorite
> scopes i've seen through always look very good.
> Has anyone directly compared a Traveler with a Tak 102,
> Vixen or Celestron-Vixen 102?
> -Rich
Just to keep things clear, the Traveler IS a fluorite. The ED glass in
the AP scopes IS a type of fluorite.
Dave
Gary
a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
Gary
Chris1011
>>Doc, please correct me, but is not the Fluorite element in the Traveler
a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
Gary>>
I will try to correct you. The "Fluorite-Glass" blend you refer to is Ohara
FPL53 which is superior to crystalline fluorite and costs a bundle more. It is
almost totally pure fluorite with certain additives to make it a glass instead
of crystal.
According to my sources in Japan, no one there uses the old crystalline
material anymore. They ALL use either FPL53 or the older FPL52 because of its
superior workability and stability during polishing. The labor time required
for finishing an FPL53 lens vs. a pure fluorite lens is 5 times less. Some
companies refer to this new material as fluorite, some call it fluorite-ED and
some call it SD. The only pure fluorite lenses now made come out of China where
the labor rate is still very low. I dont know of any telescope companies using
Chinese made fluorite lenses.
Roland Christen
Michael J. Edelman
Gary wrote:
> Doc, please correct me, but is not the Fluorite element in the Traveler
> a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
> used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
Just to make it even more confusing, I was under the impression that the
only crystalline fluorite found in optics was the very tiny natural flourite
elements found in some microscope objectives, the rest being a synthetic
fluourite glass.
Comments?
--
Michael Edelman http://www.mich.com/~mje
Telescope guide: http://www.mich.com/~mje/scope.html
Folding Kayaks: http://www.mich.com/~mje/kayak.html
Airguns: http://www.mich.com/~mje/airguns.html
Blair Morris
chri...@aol.com (Chris1011) wrote:
>
> I will try to correct you. The "Fluorite-Glass" blend you refer to is Ohara
> FPL53 which is superior to crystalline fluorite and costs a bundle more. It is
> almost totally pure fluorite with certain additives to make it a glass instead
> of crystal.
>
> According to my sources in Japan, no one there uses the old crystalline
> material anymore. They ALL use either FPL53 or the older FPL52 because of its
> superior workability and stability during polishing. The labor time required
> for finishing an FPL53 lens vs. a pure fluorite lens is 5 times less. Some
> companies refer to this new material as fluorite, some call it fluorite-ED and
> some call it SD. The only pure fluorite lenses now made come out of
China where
> the labor rate is still very low. I dont know of any telescope companies using
> Chinese made fluorite lenses.
>
> Roland Christen
Postings like Rolands remind me of that scene in Annie Hall where Woody
Allen is challenged in a movie lineup by another patron as to the true
meaning of a Marshall Mcluen statement and Marshall then appears from
behind the movie poster to tell the guy that he is an idiot. Roland and Al
will forget more in their lives than guys like Rich will ever know. Mabye
you can do us all a favour Rich and quit posting so much crap.
Rich N.
Michael J. Edelman <m...@mich.com> wrote in article
<35AA6557...@mich.com>...
>
>
> Gary wrote:
>
> > Doc, please correct me, but is not the Fluorite element in the Traveler
> > a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
> > used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
>
> Just to make it even more confusing, I was under the impression that the
> only crystalline fluorite found in optics was the very tiny natural
flourite
> elements found in some microscope objectives, the rest being a synthetic
> fluourite glass.
>
> Comments?
> --
> Michael Edelman http://www.mich.com/~mje
Hi Michael,
Yet another addition to the confussion, I had heard
the fluorite crystal used by Tak wasn't natural crystal
but fluorite crystal grown in a lab.
It would be good to know if it is fluorite crystal or
glass with fluorite or at least glass designed to
act like fluorite crystal.
Rich
Rich N.
Rich N. <rich.neu...@tandem.com> wrote in article
<01bdae91$d8fea560$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>...
The Texas Nautical web site has note about
the fluorite used in Takahashi telescopes.
see: http://www.neosoft.com/~lsstnr/WhatFS.htm
Rich
Gary
Gary
> I will try to correct you. The "Fluorite-Glass" blend you refer to is Ohara
> FPL53 which is superior to crystalline fluorite and costs a bundle more. It is
> almost totally pure fluorite with certain additives to make it a glass instead
> of crystal.
> Roland Christen
J T Gill
>>
>> I will try to correct you. The "Fluorite-Glass" blend you refer to is Ohara
>> FPL53 which is superior to crystalline fluorite and costs a bundle more. It
>> is almost totally pure fluorite with certain additives to make it a glass
>> instead of crystal.
>>
>> According to my sources in Japan, no one there uses the old crystalline
>> material anymore. They ALL use either FPL53 or the older FPL52 because of
>> its superior workability and stability during polishing. The labor time
>> required for finishing an FPL53 lens vs. a pure fluorite lens is 5 times
>> less. Some companies refer to this new material as fluorite, some call it
>> fluorite-ED and some call it SD. The only pure fluorite lenses now made
>> come out of
>China where
>> the labor rate is still very low. I dont know of any telescope companies
>> using Chinese made fluorite lenses.
>>
>> Roland Christen
>Postings like Rolands remind me of that scene in Annie Hall where Woody
>Allen is challenged in a movie lineup by another patron as to the true
>meaning of a Marshall Mcluen statement and Marshall then appears from
>behind the movie poster to tell the guy that he is an idiot. Roland and Al
>will forget more in their lives than guys like Rich will ever know. Mabye
>you can do us all a favour Rich and quit posting so much crap.
I don't know if that is that bad a thing. I actually learned something
from this thread, i.e. a lot about fluorite, and how it is used
in telescope objectives. I also learned that a lot of people don't know
how to spell 'fluorite'
JT
Matthew Buynoski
>
>
>Michael J. Edelman <m...@mich.com> wrote in article
><35AA6557...@mich.com>...
>>
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>>
>> > Doc, please correct me, but is not the Fluorite element in the Traveler
>> > a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
>> > used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
>>
>> Just to make it even more confusing, I was under the impression that the
>> only crystalline fluorite found in optics was the very tiny natural
>flourite
>> elements found in some microscope objectives, the rest being a synthetic
>> fluourite glass.
>>
>> Comments?
>> --
>> Michael Edelman http://www.mich.com/~mje
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>Yet another addition to the confussion, I had heard
>the fluorite crystal used by Tak wasn't natural crystal
>but fluorite crystal grown in a lab.
>
>It would be good to know if it is fluorite crystal or
>glass with fluorite or at least glass designed to
>act like fluorite crystal.
>
>Rich
>
Fluorite is calcium flouride, CaF2, and it does not form a glass. If there is
fluorite in use in the lens, then it must be crystalline or polycrystalline.
Perhaps the confusion is that the lens contains both fluorite and glass
elements, although the one is pure fluorite and the other(s) is silica-based
glass.
I'd be extemely surprised if anyone uses natural fluorite crystals for optical
elements. Natural fluorite is almost always loaded with defects and impurities,
and also virtually always very highly colored. To get the quality of crystal
you folks would want in a lens element, it is almost certain that manufactured
high-purity fluorite crystals are used as blanks.
AndersonRM
N." <rich.neu...@tandem.com> writes:
>Why do you ask? Bored? Do you want to know how much
>to charge for a Vixen 102?
>It would be nice to talk to Terrence directly on saa.
>How old was his Traveler? What age, size and type is his
>"larger AP"?
I don't know how old his AP was, are the old one's inferior to the
new ones? His larger AP's are mixed. He has a 5 inch EDF
and (I think) a six or seven inch unit. In all, I believe he has
four AP's.
>Does he have an email id?
I don't know. Maybe his publisher would?
>I wonder what he would think of Roland's upcoming
>run of 130mm f/8 ED"T"s?
I don't know that either. Since you've seen through these
"upcoming" scopes, post a psychic review.
-Rich
AndersonRM
writes:
>Just to keep things clear, the Traveler IS a fluorite. The ED glass in
>the AP scopes IS a type of fluorite.
If fluorocrown or whatever fluorite-glass mix is near the quality of
pure fluorite, don't you think TAk and the rest of them would already
be using it, especially since it's cheaper, and easier to work with?
-Rich
Rich N.
AndersonRM <ander...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807132135...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
ROTFLMAO
Rich, did you just get back in town?
Rich N.
William...@nashville.com
On 1998-07-13 rich.neu...@tandem.com said:
>Yet another addition to the confussion, I had heard
>the fluorite crystal used by Tak wasn't natural crystal
>but fluorite crystal grown in a lab.
>It would be good to know if it is fluorite crystal or
>glass with fluorite or at least glass designed to
>act like fluorite crystal.
All the fluorite crystal used in telescope lenses is grown, not mined.
Large natural fluorite crystals are mighty rare. Fluorite's been available
in industrial quantities only since WWII, although Ziess experimented with
it 100 years ago.
The views expressed in this tagline do not necessarily represent ...
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
Glenmore F. Wong
> > I spoke to Terrence Dickenson a few days ago. I asked him
> > what he was currently using as a small scope, was he still using
> > his Traveler? He replied that he had sold his Traveler shortly
> > that the Traveler had the beginnings of aberrations other than
> > -Rich
>
> Hi Rich,
> It would be nice to talk to Terrence directly on saa.
> How old was his Traveler? What age, size and type is his
> "larger AP"?
> a few of to collect glass. It is too bad it is such a dated
> article. The AP scopes he wrote about are several AP
> generations old.
Rich A.,
The article "Adventures in Refractorland" appeared in Sky & Tel Oct
1989. In it, Terence refers to his 4" f6.5 AP refractor, vintage 1985.
Is this the Traveler you are referring to? What about the other four
you are referring to?
It is reassuring to note that in your past Traveler thread, the recent
"AP Bump" thread and in this current thread, this NG has not received
ONE confirming response. Your moniker "Legend in his own mind" grows
with every post.
glenmore
David A. Silva
I just spoke with Sonny Bono - he claims that his 1960s vintage 2.7" Unitron
refractor outperformed a 16" Meade LX200 in an otherworldly testing ground.
He monitors Cher's comings and goings with this setup.
And as a famous New York Rabbi once quoted from scripture:" Corroboration,
Shmorroboration; pass the lox."
Sarcasm filter off:
Please remove nojunkmail. from my address to reply
Clear skies -David
Blair Morris
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> In article <rblair-1307...@199-175-107-48.islandnet.com>,
> rbl...@islandnet.com (Blair Morris) writes:
>
> > Roland and Al
> >will forget more in their lives than guys like Rich will ever know. Mabye
> >you can do us all a favour Rich and quit posting so much crap.
>
> Sigh. Despite responses from (?) like Blair, who would take to
> task anyone asking a question that upsets them, I still haven't gotten
> any answer. Somehow, the post diverged off into fluorite exotics.
>
> So, given my post of Mr. Dickenson's views I ask it again;
> Which provides better performance, the Traveler or a Vixen 102fl?
> If you weren't after extreme portability and wanted a quality scope
> now, i'd say the question has some merit.
>
> -Rich
Although I regret the use of the word "crap" in my previous posting, I
will rephrase my statement. You post far too much material which contains
no information other than your personal opinion, regardless of the nature
of the thread or the request for information being made. You also
frequently put down AP and TV products for no apparant reason. Blair
AndersonRM
N." <rich.neu...@tandem.com> writes:
>Yet another addition to the confussion, I had heard
>the fluorite crystal used by Tak wasn't natural crystal
>but fluorite crystal grown in a lab.
>
>
Obvious, to say the least. I've never even SEEN a fluorite crystal
in nature that was large enough to cut a 4 inch blank from.
-Rich
AndersonRM
AndersonRM
N." <rich.neu...@tandem.com> writes:
>ROTFLMAO
>
>Rich, did you just get back in town?
>
>
I don't think I ever left. :)
-Rich
David North
occasions. At higher mag, the longer focal-length Vixen showed a sharper
image than the Traveller, but it's not clear why (eyepiece? barlow? it's
impossible to use the same glass to get the same mag due to completely
different focal lengths).
Of course, the Vixen does not have access to the wide fields the
Traveller can deliver, so they both had their "zone of excellence."
I don't think "inferior" or "superior" are terms that make much
sense here, even if my comparisons are valid (and I have been assured
repeatedly and emphatically by Traveller owners -- even those who have
not even looked through a Vixen 102 Fluorite -- that I simply must have
screwed up).
The Vixen is a standard sort of telescope, and the Traveller is a
widefield instrument with portability as part of its purpose (what's the
name of that scope..? Traveller? You mean it's not named after R. E.
Lee's horse?)
I think what's being compared here is a Thoroughbred and a
Clydesdale. There's no point in complaining that the Clyde won't keep up
in a sprint... or that the Thoroughbred gets tired when trying to pull a
load.
Chris1011
Which provides better performance, the Traveler or a Vixen 102fl?
If you weren't after extreme portability and wanted a quality scope
now, i'd say the question has some merit.>>
Well, Rich, it is quite possible that the Vixen gives Terry a better view than
his Traveller. His scope was one of the first prototype lenses (#3 or #4 I
think). It was made before I got my interferometer setup. It did not even have
the latest FPL53 glass. It was, however very well color corrected, sported 97%
transmission, and was only 19" long. That meant it could be tucked under an
airline seat.
There have been many changes since then. I now figure each lens set using the
interferometer and will guarantee 1/10 wave P-V at the test wavelength (543.5nm
green).
I will not, however claim that today's Traveler will outperform IN RESOLUTION
any other 4" apo, and that includes the TV101, Takahashi 102, Vixen and even
the Meade 4" ED., if they are well made. It will, however NOT be bested by any
of them either. I don't think there are any scopes as short physically as the
Traveler, nor are any of the competitors better color corrected, nor can any of
them cover a larger photographic field. All the above mentioned scopes have
some advantage over the others, including our Traveler. It is up to each
individual to figure out what is wished from their scope.
Roland Christen
Michael Barber
<199807140204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>In article <rblair-1307...@199-175-107-48.islandnet.com>,
>rbl...@islandnet.com (Blair Morris) writes:
>
>> Roland and Al
>>will forget more in their lives than guys like Rich will ever know. Mabye
>>you can do us all a favour Rich and quit posting so much crap.
>
>Sigh. Despite responses from (?) like Blair, who would take to
>task anyone asking a question that upsets them, I still haven't gotten
>any answer. Somehow, the post diverged off into fluorite exotics.
>
>Which provides better performance, the Traveler or a Vixen 102fl?
>If you weren't after extreme portability and wanted a quality scope
>now, i'd say the question has some merit.
>
We have compared a variety of telescopes in search for the best ones of each
type to be used in the testing of our cameras and for monitoring seeing,
etc. This comparison included various telescopes types, including
reflectors, compound scopes and fluorite or ED refractors. Since each type
has its own strengths and weaknesses, we wanted the best of each type to
test our cameras.
In the refractor category we compared the AP scopes with a variety of others
of similar aperture, including Takahashi, Celestron, Vixen and Meade. This
comparison included scopes in the 4" range (with the exception of the Zeiss
which we did not consider based on price alone). Based on our comparisons
and on the comparisons of other imagers and astrophotographers well known to
us we consider the Astro Physics EDT/EDF models to be the best of the lot,
including the less expensive Vixen and more expensive Takahashi.
Does this mean that no one else could claim with credibility that they
prefer another scope? Of course not. There will always be a certain
subjective standard applied in making the final choice and what the user
"likes" begins to play as much a role in the decision as the actual
performance of the telescope. Even though I believe that the AP performs
better than the others, I understand that someone might like, for instance,
the Takahashi better. What may be unacceptable color for me may not bother
him at all. Does this mean that one of us is wrong or that one of the
scopes is "inferior" to the other?
No, it just means that we have different likes and dislikes which, at this
level of quality, begin to become as important as the differences in the
products. But I am sure this isn't a new concept to anyone, such as
yourself, with much experience with high end telescopes. However, when
someone consistently fails to recognize the difference in performance
between truly exceptional telescopes and just good or mediocre ones, then we
must begin to question either his judgement or his motives.
So to answer the question posed: In my personal experience, and in the
opinion of others whose opinion I trust because of their years of experience
and accomplishments in amateur astronomy, no, the AP Traveler is not
"inferior" to the Vixen 102 FL. I'll just add that we have also backed up
this opinion with our check book. Even though we had a more difficult
choice than most because we had available Vixen and Takahashi refractors
directly through our contacts in Japan, we nevertheless opted for Astro
Physics. We have now equipped our company with a complete line of AP
refractors including the Traveler, 5.1" f/6, 6.1" f/7 and 7" f/9.
Regards,
Michael Barber
SBIG
Joseph O'Neil
>Well, Rich, it is quite possible that the Vixen gives Terry a better view than
>his Traveller. His scope was one of the first prototype lenses (#3 or #4 I
>think). It was made before I got my interferometer setup. It did not even have
>the latest FPL53 glass. It was, however very well color corrected, sported 97%
>transmission, and was only 19" long. That meant it could be tucked under an
>airline seat.
-stuff snipped-
I have a "dumb question" here, but what kind of standards are
people aiming for here? I know Terry has high standards, but he is a
pretty well experienced observer, so his comments should be taken from
that point of view. Sort of like a gold medalist in downhill Oylmpic
skiing comapring which brand of skis gives him the extra 1/100th of a
second edge.
The other thing is the quailty of the optics here in question
are so far above the "average" (for lack of better term) telescope ,
well, to me it's a bit like splitting hairs.
Another issue, to me just as important, is overall quailty of
contruction. Don't get me wrong, I love the Vixen stuff (heck, I sell
the stuff, so it would be reeeeeaaaal dumb to put it down), but the
overall mecahnical quailty of the A-P scopes I have seen is
outstanding. Is this factor taken into account?
Finally products constantly improve over time (as Rolland
points out), so one should compare a current Traveller to a current
Vixen. To give you an example, my Ceravolo Mak-Newt is the very first
one Peter ever made, the "pre-prototype" as he calls it.
The newer Mak-Newts have coated front corrector plates, better
primary and secondary mirror cells, different tubes, different glass
used in mirrors and correctors, and so on.
Yet I would not trade my scope for all the tea in China, as
the saying goes. Aside from the sentimental value, the optical
quaility is phenominal, far above most scopes out there. Peter
himself does not say this (he calls the scope "his folly"), but just
from my experience the optical quiality is astounding. Sure there are
better scopes out there, but sometimes I think people get a little too
carried away with "who's number one".
joe
AndersonRM
rbl...@islandnet.com (Blair Morris) writes:
>You post far too much material which contains
>no information other than your personal opinion, regardless of the nature
>of the thread or the request for information being made. You also
>frequently put down AP and TV products for no apparant reason. Blair
>
>
Thanks again for NOT answering the question.
-Rich
AndersonRM
> I don't think "inferior" or "superior" are terms that make much
>sense here, even if my comparisons are valid (and I have been assured
>repeatedly and emphatically by Traveller owners -- even those who have
>not even looked through a Vixen 102 Fluorite -- that I simply must have
>screwed up).
Ok, say my main goal is the sharpest views of planets at higher power?
-Rich
AndersonRM
(Chris1011) writes:
>Well, Rich, it is quite possible that the Vixen gives Terry a better view
>than
>his Traveller. His scope was one of the first prototype lenses (#3 or #4 I
>think). It was made before I got my interferometer setup. It did not even
>have
>the latest FPL53 glass. It was, however very well color corrected, sported
>97%
>transmission, and was only 19" long. That meant it could be tucked under an
>airline seat.
Thank you very much for the answer.
>There have been many changes since then. I now figure each lens set using the
>interferometer and will guarantee 1/10 wave P-V at the test wavelength
>(543.5nm green).
>
>I will not, however claim that today's Traveler will outperform IN RESOLUTION
>any other 4" apo, and that includes the TV101, Takahashi 102, Vixen and even
>the Meade 4" ED., if they are well made. It will, however NOT be bested by
>any of them either. I don't think there are any scopes as short physically as
the
>Traveler, nor are any of the competitors better color corrected, nor can any
>of them cover a larger photographic field. All the above mentioned scopes have
>some advantage over the others, including our Traveler. It is up to each
>individual to figure out what is wished from their scope.
I thank you for your honesty and wish some other people here were capable
of the same objectivity when comparing scopes.
Now how about image contrast and how those other scopes compare? :)
-Rich
AndersonRM
<gle...@mail.idt.net> writes:
> In it, Terence refers to his 4" f6.5 AP refractor, vintage 1985.
>Is this the Traveler you are referring to? What about the other four
>you are referring to?
He said the F.L. was really F5.7. I didn't ask which year the scope
he owned was from. Does the current Traveler have the same
correction as the current EDF's?
-Rich
AndersonRM
<sb...@sbig.com> writes:
>So to answer the question posed: In my personal experience, and in the
>opinion of others whose opinion I trust because of their years of experience
>and accomplishments in amateur astronomy, no, the AP Traveler is not
>"inferior" to the Vixen 102 FL. I'll just add that we have also backed up
>this opinion with our check book. Even though we had a more difficult
>choice than most because we had available Vixen and Takahashi refractors
>directly through our contacts in Japan, we nevertheless opted for Astro
>Physics. We have now equipped our company with a complete line of AP
>refractors including the Traveler, 5.1" f/6, 6.1" f/7 and 7" f/9.
>
>
I assume you use the AP scopes to evaluate your CCD cameras.
Did the photographic speed of the instruments compared to the others
you mention have anything to do with your decision to use the AP's?
-Rich
jjg...@ix.netcom.com
>
> I will not, however claim that today's Traveler will outperform IN RESOLUTION
> any other 4" apo, and that includes the TV101, Takahashi 102, Vixen and even
> the Meade 4" ED., if they are well made.
I can surely state that I have viewed both thru my Meade 102mm ED/APO
and an AP Traveler, and the Traveler appears to be the better scope...
at least in this limited comparison - which was not side by side.
The Meade shows no color on the full Moon at 200x, so that is good
enough color correction for me. While a TeleVue Pronto showed some
false color on Jupiter under fairly dark (for LA - on top of Mt.
Wilson) skies, the Traveler that was nearby showed none, and had
an extremely sharp image as well.
The Traveler is a super scope, period. It's contrast, clarity of the
image, and compactness plus 4" of aperture are unbeatable in the
current scope market.
If they ever become more readily available, I would gladly sell
my Meade and get a Traveler.
Major advantage of the Meade? Price and availability, of course...
And let me thank Roland for his honesty, knowledge, and character
to freely discuss his scopes with us here. Same goes to Al Nagler.
J. Goss
Ian Turner
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to undo Michael answering the question.
The AP scopes are corrected into the IR. Hence you need not use a IR
blocking filter when doing Tri color CCD.
In my test all other refractors needed this filter.
Ian
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Ian Turner
Replace the xxxxxxxxxx with mindspring
Astrophoto and CCD Imaging Tips
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7247/
_____________________________________________________________________
AndersonRM
writes:
>The other thing is the quailty of the optics here in question
>are so far above the "average" (for lack of better term) telescope ,
>well, to me it's a bit like splitting hairs.
Yes, but it's the thought in the back of your mind that says:
"There is a better scope out there that shows nth more detail."
In fact, missing a good, steady night when it comes to planetary
observing is worse than not having the "best" scope.
-Rich
JosephB41
Joe Bergeron (JABer...@aol.com)
WHALEN44
I think your beating a dead horse, give it a rest.
Michael Barber
> I assume you use the AP scopes to evaluate your CCD cameras.
> Did the photographic speed of the instruments compared to the others
> you mention have anything to do with your decision to use the AP's?
Somewhat, but the primary reasons were quality and price. We like the AP scopes
because they are excellent. Takahashi was a close runner up, but I think the
color correction is better in the AP. The fact that the APs have faster focal
ratios *and* better color correction is a rather remarkable bonus. I think that
the reason other manufacturers tend not to make doublet systems faster than about
f/8 is because they can't do it easily without the system suffering excess
color. I believe that Takahashi, for instance, makes a 6" f/7 that is a triplet
design but their 6" f/8 is a doublet. The Tak f/7 triplet, including mount, also
lists for about $27,000 while the AP 6" f/7 triplet is less than $10,000
including the 900 mount.
AP also makes an f/8 version of the 5" which is the same f/ratio as the Takahashi
5" and if I wanted a longer focal length in this scope for some reason I still
would have chosed the AP 130 + 600 mount for about $4,000 less than the FS128.
Regards,
Michael Barber
SBIG
Dr. David B. Toth
>
> Doc, please correct me, but is not the Fluorite element in the Traveler
> a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
> used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
> Gary
>
Gary: I am not clear on the categorizations, but I was made aware that
it is one of the top end ED glasses, and that fluorite is a component. I
suggested that interested parties ask Roland directly ...
Dave
Dr. David B. Toth
>
> >>Doc, please correct me, but is not the Fluorite element in the Traveler
> a Fluorite/glass blend and not the more expensive Fluorite crystal as
> used in the Vixen/Celestron and Taks?
> Gary>>
>
> FPL53 which is superior to crystalline fluorite and costs a bundle more. It is
> almost totally pure fluorite with certain additives to make it a glass instead
> of crystal.
>
Thanks Roland, I thought that was what you had said, but I try to resist
attributing quotes when I am not certain, and since I was satisfied, I
was too cheap to drop a dime to call.
So, has there been a slight design change from the earlier Travelers
like Terry had to more current ones (if you could call my 4 year old one
current)?
Dave
Dr. David B. Toth
> Sigh. Despite responses from (?) like Blair, who would take to
> task anyone asking a question that upsets them, I still haven't gotten
> any answer. Somehow, the post diverged off into fluorite exotics.
>
> So, given my post of Mr. Dickenson's views I ask it again;
> Which provides better performance, the Traveler or a Vixen 102fl?
> If you weren't after extreme portability and wanted a quality scope
> now, i'd say the question has some merit.
>
> -Rich
Rich; is there a real reason for this trolling? You know how to reach
Terry to ask him ...I am sure you can use directory assistance for
Yonkers, ON ... if you need his phone number I can give it to you.
His email is skynew...@compuserve.com
We cannot substantiate the claims of another, and they need to be
prefaced by which versions of scopes he is comparing, etc.
Dave
Dr. David B. Toth
> If fluorocrown or whatever fluorite-glass mix is near the quality of
> pure fluorite, don't you think TAk and the rest of them would already
> be using it, especially since it's cheaper, and easier to work with?
> -Rich
Roland made his post before you sent me this ...
I suggest you read it.
Rather than engage in speculation, it might have been better to pick up
the phone as I suggested and call Roland, or even Terry for that matter.
I don't think for Tak or anyone else, so I would not know why they do
what they do, or even what it is that they do do.
Dave
jjg...@ix.netcom.com
> BTW, in the Meade focuser is a slotted section containing a
> metal pad about 1/8" thick. If you replace that with a piece
> of teflon, the focuser works better.
> -Rich
Hey, thanks for the tip! But to me, the Meade isn't all that heavy -
compared to the Pronto (heh, heh, he says laughing to himself at how
incredibly heavy a 70mm scope can be..)anyway... ;-)
But I like the Pronto, too, even for all its weight. Just wish Al
Nagler would take some of those big lenses out of one of his 2"
eyepieces and use it for a finder scope. Had my 55mm TV Plossl apart
and now think this is the greatest idea...
J. Goss
AndersonRM
>If they ever become more readily available, I would gladly sell
>my Meade and get a Traveler.
>
>Major advantage of the Meade? Price and availability, of course...
Meade could drop the price further still if they got away from that
heavy focuser body and objective cell. Dropping the weight
on the 4 inch F9 would make it more attractive for transporting.
AndersonRM
(JosephB41) writes:
>When did you put that interferometer setup into use, Roland?
Also, where you aquire the reference lens used in it? Is it required
to be more accurate than the lens under test?
-Rich
AndersonRM
(WHALEN44) writes:
>I think your beating a dead horse, give it a rest.
>
>
Well, it's interesting we can discuss the finer points of
eyepiece performance "till the cows come home" but
not certain telescopes.
-Rich
WHALEN44
performance "till the cows come home" but
>not certain telescopes.
Rich,
Don't know what your posts your refering to. I, like many others who frequent
sci.astro have noticed you seem to have a not so hidden agenda concerning
AstroPhysics products.
Don't know why or really care to know, it just gets boring.
You never seem to run out of questions, almost like you don't like the answers
you get, so you ask another question hoping for a negitive (about AP) answer.
Well I'll give you one.
The Vixen is much better than the traveler as a baseball bat, the extra length
more than makes up for the quality construction of the AP.
In the real world however, I have had the chance to view through almost every
model AP from 4" to 8" over the last 10 years. Also have observed with Tak's,
Vixens, Ziess, Pentax, Nikon , and TeleVue. If I had to pick one company to buy
a APO from, it would be Astrophysics.
In every comparison I've done between refractors, they always come out on top.
They always seem to have the best contrast, resolution, color correction,
mechanical quality etc.
And no, I don't own one, never have. Don't know Roland all that well, though I
have talked with him at WSP several times, and on the phone once or twice. He
is a real gentleman, and always ready to answer a question or help someone out.
We are lucky to have him involved in our hobby. I for one would hate to think
of a world without AP scopes, as one day I hope to own one (or two, or three)
to add to my collection of other fine scopes.
Steady Skies,
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Chris1011
to be more accurate than the lens under test?>>
The" reference lens" you refer to is really a fused silica test plate
configured to use a tiny portion of its surface. This element was made for me
by Peter Ceravolo and certified on a Zygo. The part of the surface used by the
interferometer has a surface accuracy on the order of 1/50 wave P-V. You can
also get these elements from Zygo to about the same accuracy.
Roland Christen
AndersonRM
writes:
>
>> If fluorocrown or whatever fluorite-glass mix is near the quality of
>> pure fluorite, don't you think TAk and the rest of them would already
>> be using it, especially since it's cheaper, and easier to work with?
>> -Rich
>
>Roland made his post before you sent me this ...
>
>I suggest you read it.
Actually, I posted this before I had read Roland's.
-Rich
AndersonRM
writes:
>Rich; is there a real reason for this trolling? You know how to reach
>Terry to ask him ...I am sure you can use directory assistance for
>Yonkers, ON ... if you need his phone number I can give it to you.
Funny that a presumably educated person like yourself could
be such a sensitive little fellow. For the second time, i've got the
info from T. Dickenson.
>His email is skynew...@compuserve.com
>
>We cannot substantiate the claims of another, and they need to be
>prefaced by which versions of scopes he is comparing, etc.
Roland already told us which scope Terry owned. His Vixen fluorite
is from the mid 1980's.
-Rich
AndersonRM
(WHALEN44) writes:
>Rich wrote >Well, it's interesting we can discuss the finer points of
>eyepiece
>performance "till the cows come home" but
>>not certain telescopes.
>
>Rich,
>
>Don't know what your posts your refering to. I, like many others who frequent
>sci.astro have noticed you seem to have a not so hidden agenda concerning
>AstroPhysics products.
>Don't know why or really care to know, it just gets boring.
>You never seem to run out of questions, almost like you don't like the
>answers
>you get, so you ask another question hoping for a negitive (about AP) answer.
>Well I'll give you one.
Maybe a second time will make it clear to you.
-Terrence made a statement regarding two
telescopes, I asked the group (many of whom have had a chance to
compare AP and fluorites) if the statement was true or not.
None of the AP devotees would give a remotely straight answer except
yourself (after a qualifier) and SBIG.
To his credit, Roland took the time to explain what he thought was the
reason Terry might have the opinion he does, that his AP Traveler is
a first generation model and not up to the optical quality of newer models.
What I really find irksome is the "head in the sand" attitude of some of
the AP scope supporters on this group. Rather than simply say
what you, SBIG and Roland did, they attack my quite legitimate question
as a "troll," presumably so they don't have to provide a legitimate answer.
My question regarding the AP vrs. fluorite Vixen has been answered, so
i'm satisfied and very curious to see a new Traveler again.
However, when there comes a time questions are deemed
"verboten" on this group simply because some nervous nitwits don't like
them, then they might as well bring in some kind of puritanical
moderator to cut them out. IMO, anyone who supports this type of
categoric censorship is fool.
-Rich
WHALEN44
on this group simply because some nervous nitwits don't like >them, then they
might as well bring in some kind of puritanical moderator to cut them out.
IMO, anyone who supports this type of categoric censorship is fool.
Rich, I think perhaps you protest to much. If you want to find out answers, and
can't seem to get them from others, perhaps it's time to find out for yourself.
I'm sure there a Traveler and a vixen in your part of the country. Get them
together, check them out. Or, just go to a star party and do it. I for one, am
much more comfortable with first hand info than totaly relying on someone elses
opinion. At present I have a C10 full of temperature probes trying to determine
how best to improve the thermal charcteristics of a SCT. I take the answers I
get from various sources, ponder over them, and if not satisfied, take matters
into my own hands.
AndersonRM
>But I like the Pronto, too, even for all its weight. Just wish Al
>Nagler would take some of those big lenses out of one of his 2"
>eyepieces and use it for a finder scope. Had my 55mm TV Plossl apart
>and now think this is the greatest idea...
Only problem is the cost of those lens elements versus the junky
objectives found in most finders. Plus, the f.l. of the elements
is probably about 100mm, so getting up to 8x would require
a 12mm eyepiece.
-Rich
AndersonRM
(Chris1011) writes:
>The" reference lens" you refer to is really a fused silica test plate
>configured to use a tiny portion of its surface. This element was made for me
>by Peter Ceravolo and certified on a Zygo. The part of the surface used by
>the
>interferometer has a surface accuracy on the order of 1/50 wave P-V. You can
>also get these elements from Zygo to about the same accuracy.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know it was a plate.
-Rich
AndersonRM
(WHALEN44) writes:
> At present I have a C10 full of temperature probes trying to determine
>how best to improve the thermal charcteristics of a SCT. I take the answers I
>get from various sources, ponder over them, and if not satisfied, take
>matters into my own hands.
I agree with that approach and have done so many times. But, my
philosophy about refractors is that I can always get a better
mount, tube or focuser, but I can't re-grind a lens.
Alas, regarding the availability of Travelers up here; Unfortunately,
most people i've seen up here tend to spend money on LX200's,
which i've seen dozens of. However, I expect to see quite a few
(20 or so last time I was there) AP's at the Starfest convention.
We have quite a few smaller star parties in Ontario, but it's not
like Freemont park.
-Rich
J T Gill
>most people i've seen up here tend to spend money on LX200's,
>which i've seen dozens of. However, I expect to see quite a few
You live near Chas? Hehehe
JT
Dr. David B. Toth
>
> In article <6oj08k$kjv$1...@208.10.1.83>, "Dr. David B. Toth" <ve3...@amsat.org>
> writes:
>
> >Rich; is there a real reason for this trolling? You know how to reach
> >Terry to ask him ...I am sure you can use directory assistance for
> >Yonkers, ON ... if you need his phone number I can give it to you.
>
> Funny that a presumably educated person like yourself could
> be such a sensitive little fellow. For the second time, i've got the
> info from T. Dickenson.
I'm not particularly little, I am reasonably empathic, not sensitive,
and I am certainly well enough educated to agree with the other folks
here who have already noted that you love to see yourself in print. Your
posts border on circuitous drivvle Richard. Once a question is answered,
you re-ask it as if attempting to find a totally different answer like
someoen is lying to you. Again, virtually all of your questons would
have been answered if you had called Terry directly and asked HIM why HE
PREFERRED that Vixen over his particular earlier Traveler. I got my
Traveler after seeing his.
Ian Turner was right. You really need to observe more and type less. I
for one do not appreciate your snideness in your above response. I
showed you the courtesy of earlier replies, but you are like a pesky
mosquito buzzing in someone's ear.
With all due respect, I think it is incumbent upon you, when you get the
same reply from multiple, independent individuals, to reassess your
actions.
David B. Toth, MD
Dr. David B. Toth
> >Rich,
> >
> >Don't know what your posts your refering to. I, like many others who frequent
> >sci.astro have noticed you seem to have a not so hidden agenda concerning
> >AstroPhysics products.
> >Don't know why or really care to know, it just gets boring.
> >You never seem to run out of questions, almost like you don't like the
> >answers
> >you get, so you ask another question hoping for a negitive (about AP) answer.
Then, AndersonRM wrote:
> >Well I'll give you one.
>
> Maybe a second time will make it clear to you.
> -Terrence made a statement regarding two
> telescopes, I asked the group (many of whom have had a chance to
> compare AP and fluorites) if the statement was true or not.
> None of the AP devotees would give a remotely straight answer except
> yourself (after a qualifier) and SBIG.
> To his credit, Roland took the time to explain what he thought was the
> reason Terry might have the opinion he does, that his AP Traveler is
> a first generation model and not up to the optical quality of newer models.
> What I really find irksome is the "head in the sand" attitude of some of
> the AP scope supporters on this group. Rather than simply say
> what you, SBIG and Roland did, they attack my quite legitimate question
> as a "troll," presumably so they don't have to provide a legitimate answer.
> My question regarding the AP vrs. fluorite Vixen has been answered, so
> i'm satisfied and very curious to see a new Traveler again.
> However, when there comes a time questions are deemed
> "verboten" on this group simply because some nervous nitwits don't like
> them, then they might as well bring in some kind of puritanical
> moderator to cut them out. IMO, anyone who supports this type of
> categoric censorship is fool.
> -Rich
Again, there is absolutely no one here, save God, who knows what Terry
thinks other than Terry. Ask him why he thought what he thought. THEN we
would have something to debate. Until then, you are asking us to second
guess his presently subjective opinion.
Dave
B Yen
& almost bought a 2nd one at RTMC. To back this up, there have been many
positive s.a.a. posts about the Vixen 4" f9 performance (that Orion has
recently been importing/selling). I know some local refractor "nuts", who
rave about the Celestron 4" fluorite in terms of color-free images. There
was that review many yrs ago in Astronomy by Alan Dyer of the 4" Celestron
fluorite: "as color-free we've tested.."
The Japanese fluorites are renowned for their superb performance, in terms
of resolution (can crank up the power 60x per inch, or greater) &
color-correction.
Owners tend to keep their best performing telescopes..
J T Gill
It is drivel, by the way.
>you re-ask it as if attempting to find a totally different answer like
>someoen is lying to you. Again, virtually all of your questons would
>have been answered if you had called Terry directly and asked HIM why HE
>PREFERRED that Vixen over his particular earlier Traveler. I got my
>Traveler after seeing his.
I thought that was the whole point of this thread. Didn't Rich say that
Dickson said he preferred his Vixen to his Traveler, and was simply
wondering if anyone else felt the same? It is interesting that as someone
who simply watched this thread I learned
A) At some point (according to Rich) Terry said he preferred his Vixen over
the traveler he had had.
B) He had an older traveler.
C) Some changes had been made, and the scope refined somewhat
D) Roland Christensen (sorry if misspelled) is much more polite than
most of his defenders here.
(and I'm not intending to invest defenders with any sort of
pejorative meaning here, or to imply that he requires defense)
JT
J T Gill
>thinks other than Terry. Ask him why he thought what he thought. THEN we
>would have something to debate. Until then, you are asking us to second
>guess his presently subjective opinion.
>Dave
THe original question was not why Terry did, but if anyone else had
compared the two. I don't personally feel he asking why Terry felt that
way, but was asking if anyone else had made the comparison.
JT
AndersonRM
writes:
>Again, virtually all of your questons would
>have been answered if you had called Terry directly and asked HIM why HE
>PREFERRED that Vixen over his particular earlier Traveler. I got my
>Traveler after seeing his.
In my original post, I SAID Terry found
more aberrations in the Traveler and preferred the Vixen for that
reason. I then asked others to opine on this. Get it through your
head, "I DON'T HAVE TO ASK TERRY MORE QUESTIONS!"
Of the many responses to the original post, only three
directly answered my question and even those responses came
after the usual indirect garbage from AP supporting tub-thumpers.
They (and you) should take a lesson from Roland who saw fit
to provide a direct answer rather than tangental nonsense.
-Rich
AndersonRM
writes:
>Again, there is absolutely no one here, save God, who knows what Terry
>thinks other than Terry. Ask him why he thought what he thought. THEN we
>would have something to debate. Until then, you are asking us to second
>guess his presently subjective opinion.
I asked others what they though of a comparison
between Vixen fluorites and Travelers. Presumably, others had made
such a comparison. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
-Rich
Robert Provin
> Don't know what your posts your refering to. I, like many others who frequent
> sci.astro have noticed you seem to have a not so hidden agenda concerning
> AstroPhysics products.
I think the title of Rich's original post tells a lot about his feelings
toward Astro-Physics: "Is the Traveler inferior to Vixen 102 Fl?"
If his inquiry was really all that innocent, wouldn't a title like:....
Traveler and Vixen 102 FI, which is best? or simply
What are your thoughts regarding the Traveler and the Vixen 102 FI?
....get the point across without loading the question?
To me, the title of his post seemed highly loaded toward a negative AP view.
Robert
--
Robert Provin
Department of Geography
California State University
Northridge, California 91330-8249
phone: (818) 677-5647
email: postm...@voltaire.csun.edu
http://voltaire.csun.edu/
Dr. David B. Toth
>
> >posts border on circuitous drivvle Richard. Once a question is answered,
>
> It is drivel, by the way.
Thanks ... I'll have to add that to my word-power list. <grin>
Dave
Dr. David B. Toth
>
> >Again, there is absolutely no one here, save God, who knows what Terry
> >thinks other than Terry. Ask him why he thought what he thought. THEN we
> >would have something to debate. Until then, you are asking us to second
> >guess his presently subjective opinion.
>
>
> THe original question was not why Terry did, but if anyone else had
> compared the two. I don't personally feel he asking why Terry felt that
> way, but was asking if anyone else had made the comparison.
>
My point is that we don't know if Terry felt there was something wrong
with the Traveler or whether his needs changed. Asking that and getting
an answer might change the whole complexion of the discussion (and it
might let it die too) ...
<grin>
Dave
J T Gill
>Dave
Hehehe. IT is an effective word. Especially if you like to make people
start frothing at the mouth. :-)
JT
AndersonRM
robert...@csun.edu (Robert Provin) writes:
>I think the title of Rich's original post tells a lot about his feelings
>toward Astro-Physics: "Is the Traveler inferior to Vixen 102 Fl?"
>
>If his inquiry was really all that innocent, wouldn't a title like:....
>Traveler and Vixen 102 FI, which is best? or simply
>What are your thoughts regarding the Traveler and the Vixen 102 FI?
>....get the point across without loading the question?
>
>To me, the title of his post seemed highly loaded toward a negative AP view.
Well, duh, Mr. Provin; Do you think (maybe) because the
origin of the post was a statement by a noted amateur astronomer
that he sold his Traveler and prefers the image quality he sees
in his Vixen fluorite? Trust me, if people have compared them and
believe the AP is the superior instrument, a post on a newsgroup
isn't going to change that. Unless someone is completely unsure
of their own ability to assess image quality.
-Rich
Blair Morris
Mr. Anderson, there are a greater number of people asking you to stop
posting than there are asking you to keep posting. Please respect the
wishs of the majority, or you yourself will force the issue of a
moderator.
J T Gill
Haha. If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that. One of
the great things (and, unfortunately, one of the worst things) about
usenet is that everybody has the same access to the forum. Besides, all
this bashing back and forth is fun to watch ;-).
JT
Jeff Medkeff
>Mr. Anderson, there are a greater number of people
>asking you to stop posting than there are asking
>you to keep posting.
Well, I hope he keeps posting. What the minority say, and
what the majority want, are often two different things.
>Please respect the
>wishs of the majority, or you yourself will force
>the issue of a moderator.
Hahahahah! This is the funniest thing I have ever read on
s.a.a.!
(Just how do you propose getting a moderator for this
group?)
--
Jeff Medkeff | Check out the s.a.a. photos page at
Rockland Observatory | http://shutter.vet.ohio-state.edu/saa.htm
Sierra Vista, AZ |
Robert Provin
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
> Well, duh, Mr. Provin; Do you think (maybe) because the
> origin of the post was a statement by a noted amateur astronomer
> that he sold his Traveler and prefers the image quality he sees
> in his Vixen fluorite? Trust me, if people have compared them and
> believe the AP is the superior instrument, a post on a newsgroup
> isn't going to change that. Unless someone is completely unsure
> of their own ability to assess image quality.
> -Rich
Dear Mr. Anderson, with all due respect, your post was not a statement by a
"noted amateur astronomer", but rather a paraphrase by you of what
allegedly was said by same. Which as you know, allows for a lot of room
for the injection of loaded phrases and/or misrepresentation. The point
has been made that the best information comes directly from the source.
BTW, does your original post indicate an insecurity with regards to
assessing image quality?
And if it matters, I really think that all this talk of moderators and
such is nonsense. I really believe that anyone who posts (on topic) should
be unfettered and uncensored, including my friend Rich!
AndersonRM
rbl...@islandnet.com (Blair Morris) writes:
>Mr. Anderson, there are a greater number of people asking you to stop
>posting than there are asking you to keep posting. Please respect the
>wishs of the majority, or you yourself will force the issue of a
>moderator.
You scare me, Mr. Morris.
-Rich
Blair Morris
ander...@aol.com (AndersonRM) wrote:
Hey, come on, I'm not one to be afraid of! perhaps you missed the "tone"
of my post. All I really wanted to say (and probably should have said) is
that your posts bug me! You ask retorical questions, you get five answers
from someone, and then you ask the question again. But hey, who am I to
tell you to stop, I was out of line asking you to even think about cutting
back your posts. You actually sound like someone who knows something about
optics, but I think I will just do what I always did before I started
telling you that you bug me, and that is, just read what you post and
think to myself "god this guy posts a lot" ........hey, mabye your into
this a hundred times more than I am, and you live to talk about
it!!!..................no hard feelings I hope.
Blair.
AndersonRM
robert...@csun.edu (Robert Provin) writes:
>Dear Mr. Anderson, with all due respect, your post was not a statement by a
>"noted amateur astronomer", but rather a paraphrase by you of what
>allegedly was said by same.
Allegedly. I suggest you call Mr. Dickenson if you have any doubt
as to what he said. In fact, how about putting some money on the
accuracy of my recollection of his statements? You see, I wasn't the only one
"in the room" when the comments were made.
>BTW, does your original post indicate an insecurity with regards to
>assessing image quality?
I don't think so. I've done lots of high power observing due to light
pollution
at my site and have evaluated "thousands" of telescope's as to their image
quality. In fact, i'd go so far as to say my observing experience provides
me with a greater chance to evaluate optics than someone who concentrates
on prime-focus photography.
-Rich
AndersonRM
rbl...@islandnet.com (Blair Morris) writes:
>mabye your into
>this a hundred times more than I am, and you live to talk about
>it!!!..................no hard feelings I hope.
"Water off a duck's back."
-Rich