The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- high-end refractor shoot-out
jjg...@ix.netcom.com
> <snip>
Let me paraphrase...in general, then, the Meade did not perform to the
levels of the other scopes that cost 2-3 times as much.
And why?
Cheaper glass, more wave error, probably lower quality diagonal in the
Meade. Do eyepieces make a difference? You bet. All in all, just
about what one would expect from such a comparison, based on what I
have seen in 4" versions of similar tests.
Thanks much for the posting.
JG
Glenmore F. Wong
>
> In article <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com (Jay
> Reynolds Freeman) writes:
>
> > 1.) THIS WAS A TEST OF SPECIFIC TELESCOPES: We certainly did not
> >obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
> >quality of any of these products, and the quality control of telescope
> >manufacturers is a subject of frequent heated controversy among amateur
> >astronomers.
> >
> >
>
> Does this mean AP and Tak scopes aren't "created equal?" :)
> Excellent, involving review!
> -Rich
No. Jay is simply taking a look at one scope and not extrapolating the
results to the rest in the field as in "Is the Traveler inferior to the
Vixen?"
glenmore
Jay Reynolds Freeman
carelessly over his shoulder, MaxBright diagonal stuffed
into a low-cut holster at his waist, and lasciviously
fondled the new voice-operated go-to mount he had bought to
clinch the comparison. Sneering at Jay Freeman and Dave
North, who were trying to find the Moon and failing, because
that bright thing in the sky had ruined their dark adaptation,
he spat and spoke with a scornful stare, "There are two kinds
of people in this world -- those who have loaded Astro-Physics
refractors and those who star-hop: You star-hop!"
Freeman lifted his gaze slowly from the finder and raised
a cynical eyebrow, whereupon Neuschaefer looked up to find the
sky had suddenly darkened, and saw that the vast shadow
obliterating the light pollution of San Jose fell from a giant
Celestron 14, dust covers off and siderial drive tracking
smoothly, pointed directly at him. Fidgeting nervously, he
suddenly realized that the tanned leather cartridge belt that
used to hold his prized, paired collection of Zeiss Abbe
Orthos was now empty ... and that North had disappeared ...
Well, not quite. It began when three amateur astronomer helpers for
the August 28 public night at Lick Observatory found that they planned
to bring five-inch refractors from different manufacturers to set up.
It took a fist full of dollars to buy even the cheapest of these -- my
Meade 127 ED doublet -- and a few dollars more -- quite a few -- to
obtain Dave North's new Takahashi FS 128 fluorite doublet or Rich
Neuschaefer's late-model Astro-Physics 130 f/8 EDT. So the model of
"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" was very natural when I circulated the
previous quote by private EMail. But that's not how it really was.
To begin with, Neuschaefer's Astro-Physics 130 is indeed loaded, but
he has not yet bought a voice-driven mounting for it. He did bring
along his 155 f/7 EDF, too, though, and we all watched closely to make
sure he didn't try to sneak it onto the mounting when no one was
looking. Dave North didn't steal any eyepieces, or at least, I had all
mine when I got home, but he was most covetous of Neuschaefer's Zeiss
Abbes, and eager to try them, when we got around to swapping eyepieces
in the test. And I left Harvey, my Celestron 14, at home, though I felt
a considerable twinge of regret at doing so, for the seeing was
certainly good enough to allow a C-14 to perform at its best.
More importantly, when word of our planned engagement got around, two
more high-end five-inch refractors showed up. Robin Casady brought his
nearly new Astro-Physics 130 f/6 EDF, which did have a go-to mounting
(though not a voice-operated one), and Dean Linebarger showed up with
another Takahashi FS 128. That was a lot of high-end competition
slumming with my lowly Meade, but I wasn't worried: Anything my
telescope did well would be because of its own intrinsic superiority,
and anything the others did better would merely be because of their
larger apertures, by one and three millimeters. Besides, at f/9, my
Meade had a longer tube length than any of the other telescopes, and
since I had bought a pier extender for my Losmandy G-11 mounting, it
stood taller in the saddle, er, tube rings, as well. How could I lose?
There were also a number of experienced observers at hand who did not
bring five-inch telescopes. Those whom I know well included Rod Norden
and Akkana Peck, but the volunteers at Lick were drawn in great part
from the Hall's Valley Astronomical Group, a very active club whose
members I generally do not know. Thus we had a great many qualified
people wandering around looking through our telescopes.
I generally make a point of not saying who owns what equipment in my
usenet postings -- I don't wish to tell whose garage might be worth
breaking into (and I thank Rich, Dave, Dean, and Robin for specific
permission to describe what they brought to the shoot-out). However, I
think I should mention that the people present all own a tremendous
amount of equipment. Each five-inch owner has at least one other
telescope a good deal larger. Collectively, the group of observers who
were there have at least a dozen high-end refractors (including two
Astro-Physics 180 EDTs, several more Takahashis, and a couple of Vixen
fluorites), a handful of Dobson-mounted Newtonians in the 12- to 20-inch
aperture range, a Celestron 14 (mine), a Takahashi 9-inch
Schmidt-Cassegrain, and no doubt many other fine instruments that I have
either forgotten to mention or have never heard about.
I suspect this test report will be well read and will provoke
controversy, so before I go into detail on what we did, I will state two
of the important bottom lines, and I will repeat them later, as well:
1.) THIS WAS A TEST OF SPECIFIC TELESCOPES: We certainly did not
obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
quality of any of these products, and the quality control of telescope
manufacturers is a subject of frequent heated controversy among amateur
astronomers.
2.) DIFFERENCES AMONG THESE TELESCOPES WERE VERY SMALL: Though the
majority opinion was that they were not identical in performance;
nevertheless, a modest minority of the experienced observers who looked
through them could detect no difference at all among all five.
Furthermore, all of the telescope owners agreed that the performance
difference between the best and the worst of the telescopes was less
than the performance difference obtained on any one of them by switching
from a good eyepiece to a merely acceptable one.
Yet truth is in the details, so here they are:
Our primary job during the evening was to show celestial objects to
the guests at Lick's public night. Thus our comparison tests got going
slowly, but on the other hand, the telescopes had plenty of time to
settle in thermally -- it was a lovely evening, with shirt-sleeve
temperatures all night long, and a strong temperature inversion (it got
a good deal colder as we drove back down the mountain later on).
Furthermore, we all had plenty of time to familiarize ourselves with
each other's equipment.
I had always been curious how obvious the performance disadvantage of
my Meade's relatively simple and inexpensive ED-glass achromatic
objective was, in side by side testing with better designs, so one of
the first tests I wanted was a check of color correction on a bright
star. Dave North had set up his Takahashi FS 128 next to me, and we
both happened to have 9 mm Vixen Lanthanum eyepieces in use -- the long
eye relief and moderate magnification made them very useful for the
guests' observing, so I suggested we both point our telescopes at Vega.
The Vixen LVs sometimes have noticeable lateral color, so we were
careful to keep the star well centered in the field. Vega itself was
near the zenith at the time.
The difference was quite obvious: The Takahashi showed a little glow
around the bright star, as one usually sees from the combined effects of
atmospheric and optical-surface scattering, but it was of the same color
as Vega itself. The Meade showed a glow that was noticeably larger and
brighter, and was of a hue considerably more violet than the star alone.
With that data in mind, I walked over to Rich Neuschaefer's
Astro-Physics 130 f/8 and asked to look at Vega. I didn't bring the
Lanthanum eyepiece with me -- Rich was using an 8 mm Brandon at the
time. Vega showed no trace of violet under these conditions -- the star
looked neither better nor worse than in the FS 128. I wasn't surprised,
for I had looked at bright stars in Rich's telescope before.
Later in the evening -- to get a little ahead of myself -- Rich
compared the view of Jupiter in my 127 ED with that in his Astro-Physics
130, using a 10 mm Zeiss Abbe Orthoscopic in both telescopes, looking
specifically for color at the edge of the planet. He reported that my
ED showed more.
As the evening wore on, Jupiter cleared the trees at the east side of
the Lick parking lot. (We had set up on the east side of the main
building, to keep out of the wind, if there had been any, but there
wasn't.) It was a showpiece object, and very popular with the public,
and we all spent large amounts of time with it in the field of view.
Several of the telescope owners were also very experienced lunar and
planetary observers -- I know for sure that Rich and Dave are -- and
one of the most common reasons for buying a high-performance refractor
is to obtain excellent views of the Moon and the planets, so we ended
up doing most of our test comparisons with Jupiter as the subject.
The seeing was good enough, and Jupiter high enough, that these
instruments were limited by their own optical performance rather than by
seeing, for a significant amount of the time. In any ten-second view of
the planet, odds were good that there would be a second or two of
breathtakingly quality, during which such details as festoons and spots
in the equatorial zone, or delicate scalloping at the edges of the
bands, jumped out in crystal clarity. We all independently settled on
magnifications between about 125x and about 175x as providing the best
views -- less did not show all the detail, and more reduced the apparent
brightness of the planet's cloud tops to the point where many of the
low-contrast features became harder to see.
(I had one interesting seeing problem. By coincidence, Robin had
set up below my line of sight to Jupiter. My seeing varied in
inverse proportion to the number of people lined up to look through
his telescope -- warm air rising from their bodies, in the calm
conditions of the evening, was enough to cause a noticeable loss
of image clarity in my telescope. The problem went away, within
seconds, every time they all went away.)
One problem emerged relatively soon: Image quality varied noticeably
with the eyepiece that was in use. The variation was not enormous --
differences between telescopes and between eyepieces were both small --
but it was there. For example, I found that when I compared my Meade
127 ED, using a Meade 7 mm Research-Grade Orthoscopic eyepiece, to
Dean's Takahashi FS 128, using a 7 mm Nagler, the views were about
equal. Yet when Dean borrowed an 8 mm Brandon, or a Takahashi 7.5 mm,
or a 16 mm Zeiss Abbe Orthoscopic with a 2x Barlow, his image became
better than mine. My own telescope also delivered a better image when I
used a borrowed Takahashi 7.5 mm eyepiece.
The effect of eyepiece choice on performance created a problem with
the tests: We couldn't just compare the telescopes with the same
eyepieces, because the different telescope focal lengths resulted in
different magnifications, which obviously affected what we saw. Yet
if we juggled eyepieces to achieve closely similar magnifications,
how would we know whether any differences in performance came from
the telescopes or the eyepieces?
The fix was to do lots of eyepiece swapping. We compared the same
telescope with different eyepieces, and different telescopes with the
same eyepiece, and different telescopes with different eyepieces, till a
consensus emerged. A little to everyone's surprise, there was
considerable agreement on results. I attempted to poll everyone
involved in the testing before I wrote the next few paragraphs, and I
hope I am not misrepresenting anyone's views, but I believe all
participants will see this report in one place or another, and I will
happily report if any of them subsequently disagree -- or they may well
say so themselves.
First, no one could detect any difference in performance among the two
Takahashi FS 128s, the Astro-Physics 130 mm f/8 EDT, and the
Astro-Physics 130 mm f/6 EDF: As far as we could tell, these four
telescopes all delivered identical planetary performance while looking
at Jupiter. People who wish to argue about performance differences
between Astro-Physics triplets and Takahashi fluorite doublets will find
no grist for their mill in our experience.
Second, a majority of the experienced telescope users present,
including all five owners of the five-inch refractors under test, agreed
that the Meade 127 ED delivered images that were slightly softer, or
slightly less contrasty, or slightly less crisp, than those of the other
four telescopes. The Meade is mine, and I expect I made more
comparisons involving it than anyone else, but nevertheless, it is
difficult to describe just how and in what respect its images were
lacking. I certainly could not identify any feature or hint of a
feature that I could see in one of the other telescopes, that I could
not see in the Meade. Perhaps it was that I could not see those
features quite as often in the Meade, or that it was more difficult to
do so. The difference was small and subtle. Yet I would say that it
was certainly there.
Notwithstanding, a few experienced users, notably Rod Norden, could
detect no difference at all between any of the five telescopes tested.
Rod kept saying that his favorite telescope was the one he had just
looked through, and that he could find all the features he had seen in
any one telescope, in any other. These persons, however, were in the
minority. (Incidentally, I am not including the opinions of the general
public -- Lick's non-amateur-astronomer guests for the evening -- in
these results. Most of them looked with great curiosity, and several
made sharp and insightful comments about the telescopes, but a large
proportion were neither informed nor experienced.)
Third, the perceived differences in telescope performance were indeed
small. I didn't know how to quantify them, and after a little thinking
suggested that at least we could say that the difference was about the
same as we got in any one telescope by switching from a good eyepiece to
a merely acceptable one, and people agreed. That comparison isn't
particularly quantitative, either, but readers of this report are
perhaps more likely to be in a position to compare eyepieces than to
compare high-end refractors, so putting the conclusion in those terms
does make it more widely understandable.
There was also something close to consensus on eyepieces. The most
common opinion was that the best eyepieces present were Zeiss Abbe
Orthoscopics -- the newest, 1.25-inch barrel models, recently sold in
limited quantity in the United States by Astro-Physics. The only
"complaint" about these was that they didn't come in enough focal
lengths -- most everybody wanted a 7 or 8 mm for the Jupiter viewing;
Zeiss offered nothing between 6 and 10. However, the 16 mm worked well
with a 2x Barlow (and I regrettably did not think to ask which
manufacturer's Barlow was in use). Tied for second were Vernonscope's
Brandons and Takahashi's line. My Meade 7 mm Research-Grade Orthoscopic
was third (though I noticed later that it was dirty). The Vixen
Lanthanums and a couple of Naglers were each separately inferior to all
of the others, though I don't believe anyone compared Naglers to
Lanthanums directly.
A couple of people also compared Rich Neuschaefer's MaxBright diagonal
with more conventional mirror diagonals, and found the MaxBright
produced notably less scattering in the image. I heard at least one
person state that he planned to order a MaxBright on the basis of that
comparison.
After we had all looked at Jupiter to our hearts' content, I suggested
doing formal star testing, and even pointed my Meade at a bright star
with a high-power eyepiece, to demonstrate its less than perfect star
test (which I have reported in a previous internet posting). There was
little interest in star testing, however -- and that sort of makes
sense, though the part of me that wants to be scrupulously complete
about gathering data, is uneasy. The sense is, that we had just
completed exhaustive testing of these telescopes in one of their
specific intended uses -- looking at fine, low-contrast planetary detail
-- with convincing results. It might have been nice to see whether
those results were reflected in star testing, but to do so would more
nearly have served as a check on the validity of star testing than have
provided additional information on what was most important about the
telescopes' performance.
So we called it quits, and packed up.
I said before, that I would repeat two particularly important
bottom lines, and I will now do so, word for word:
1.) THIS WAS A TEST OF SPECIFIC TELESCOPES: We certainly did not
obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
quality of any of these products, and the quality control of telescope
manufacturers is a subject of frequent heated controversy among amateur
astronomers.
2.) DIFFERENCES AMONG THESE TELESCOPES WERE VERY SMALL: Though the
majority opinion was that they were not identical in performance;
nevertheless, a modest minority of the experienced observers who looked
through them could detect no difference at all among all five.
Furthermore, all of the telescope owners agreed that the performance
difference between the best and the worst of the telescopes was less
than the performance difference obtained on any one of them by switching
from a good eyepiece to a merely acceptable one.
There is one final bottom line:
3.) APERTURE WINS. Remember, this test was conducted at Lick
observatory. At the end of the evening, we all went inside and had a
look at Jupiter through the 36-inch refractor. This instrument was
loafing -- its 55 mm Plossl eyepiece delivered 316x and an exit pupil
nearly 3 mm in diameter -- one we associate more commonly with looking
at galaxies and emission nebulae than at planets. Even at f/19, a
three-foot conventional doublet has a lot of secondary color, and
although the seeing was very good, it was not perfect for such a large
instrument. Nevertheless, the 36-inch blew us all away. Features only
hinted at in our puny five-inch instruments were shown clearly and with
lots of detail in the big refractor. How humbling, to be reminded that
the best of our modern, high-tech, high-end instruments was barely
qualified to replace the finder on this century-old leviathan.
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
AndersonRM
> 1.) THIS WAS A TEST OF SPECIFIC TELESCOPES: We certainly did not
>obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
>quality of any of these products, and the quality control of telescope
>manufacturers is a subject of frequent heated controversy among amateur
>astronomers.
>
>
Does this mean AP and Tak scopes aren't "created equal?" :)
Excellent, involving review!
-Rich
jjg...@ix.netcom.com
>
> AndersonRM wrote:
> >
> > In article <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com (Jay
> > Reynolds Freeman) writes:
> >
> > >obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
> > >quality of any of these products, and the quality control of telescope
> > >manufacturers is a subject of frequent heated controversy among amateur
> > >astronomers.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Excellent, involving review!
> > -Rich
>
> results to the rest in the field as in "Is the Traveler inferior to the
> Vixen?"
>
> glenmore
Well, glenmore, you look like the moron now. Scopes vary within even a
given product line, and Rich couldn't make such a sweeping generalization
since he is well aware of this phenomena. It is you that are making
the 'extrapolation'.
JG
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> levels of the other scopes that cost 2-3 times as much.
Your paraphrase is not strictly correct, and since you do not
mention that the difference was small, it is also certainly
misleading. Perhaps you intended to challenge as much as to
summarize? In any case, a modest minority (that's modest in number,
not in personality :-) ) of the experienced observers present thought
that the Meade performed *exactly* as well as those other telescopes
that cost several times as much. Even the majority thought that the
difference was very small. It took work to notice it. I suggest that
Meade is to be commended for implementing a design that comes within a
hair's breadth of the performance of instruments costing several times
as much. One who wished to challenge might equally well ask why
Astro-Physics and Takahashi have delivered only a minute increase in
performance in return for such a lavish increase in cost.
I will be curious to see whether Meade's recent improvements in the
quality of optical work of their Schmidt-Cassegrain line are followed
by similar improvements in quality of work of the ED doublets. I
don't think that all the present ones are nearly as good as mine. Yet
if these telescopes were consistently well manufactured, I suspect they
could give Astro-Physics and Takahashi very serious competition in the
marketplace. Certainly another high-end refractor of consistent
high quality would be welcomed by many.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
> > quality of any of these products, and the quality control of telescope
> > manufacturers is a subject of frequent heated controversy among amateur
> > astronomers.
>
> Excellent, involving review!
I am glad you liked it, and I am also glad you asked. I haven't
heard of any reports that suggest that late model Christen triplets
are anything other than consistently high in quality, and I have seen
a lot of them -- possibly twenty by now -- and they have all been
good. I have heard a small number of complaints, both on the net and
off, about mild problems with Takahashi optics, and I have seen far
fewer Takahashi refractors than Astro-Physics units. I have heard a
somewhat higher incidence of reports about problems with Meade EDs,
some of them more serious, and I have never observed with any Meade ED
other than my own. I wish I had reliable reports about the Meade EDs,
but I don't -- most of what I am referring to is net.opinion, which
most readers here will have already seen. I don't have to reiterate
the problems about the validity of net.opinions, I am sure. Yet we
all have to make up our minds as we each see fit. I have done so, and
I will tell you what my present opinion is, though I must state
carefully that it is precisely that -- neither more nor less than an
opinion -- and that I can only wish that I had more facts to use in
forming it. Here goes.
Refractors tend to be pricey, and often involve much pride of
ownership. Notwithstanding, if I were in the market for a late-model
Astro-Physics refractor, I would buy it without a worry in the world
about quality of optics. If I were getting a Takahashi doublet, I
would be a little more thoughtful, and might want to star test or
field test before completing the purchase. If I were contemplating
another Meade ED doublet, I would be much more worried about optical
quality, and would insist on thorough testing before completing the
purchase. If I had more first-hand experience with Takahashis and
Meades, I might think differently. And of course, I might make
exceptions for any of these worries if I were buying from a source I
personally considered knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy.
I say again -- these remarks are neither more nor less than one
person's opinion.
AndersonRM
<gle...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>> > 1.) THIS WAS A TEST OF SPECIFIC TELESCOPES: We certainly did not
>> >obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
>> >quality of any of these products,
>No. Jay is simply taking a look at one scope and not extrapolating the
>results to the rest in the field as in "Is the Traveler inferior to the
>Vixen?"
It could mean a larger number of Taks, APs, Vixens would help him
establish an "average" quality level for each model of scope. This implies
(IMO) differences may exists between scopes of the same brand.
He says nothing about specific comparisons between brands.
-Rich
AndersonRM
>Well, glenmore, you look like the moron now. Scopes vary within even a
>given product line, and Rich couldn't make such a sweeping generalization
>since he is well aware of this phenomena.
Oh oh! Now you've done it. It is sacrilege to even suggest
these telescope "sacred cows" might vary in quality. :)
I think some of them should consider you could have an
excellent and "super" excellent AP of the same model,
since differences don't just mean bad or good.
I've seen variances in all types of scopes i've looked through
and because of this, if I decided to go after a big AP refractor,
I know the exact scope I want and the person who currently owns it.
However, since the current owner is as aware as I am of the
level of perfection of his particular AP, it's not likely to ever
come up for sale!
-Rich
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > > >obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
> > > >quality of any of these products,
>
> > No. Jay is simply taking a look at one scope and not extrapolating the
> > results to the rest in the field as in "Is the Traveler inferior to the
> > Vixen?"
>
> It could mean a larger number of Taks, APs, Vixens would help him
> establish an "average" quality level for each model of scope. This implies
> (IMO) differences may exists between scopes of the same brand.
> He says nothing about specific comparisons between brands.
More units would better establish the average quality levels of each
manufacturer, and would also better establish the unit-to-unit
variance. My statement (1), above, was simply an assertion that we
did not have enough samples to measure these quantities. I left
opinion about them out of the review better to stress that we did have
some moderately factual conclusions, and also because we would surely
have had less consensus about it. Besides, s.a.a. has plenty of
opinions already. :-)
WHALEN44
Great report, very thought provoking. Did anyone use any Pentax eyepieces? Also
in a later? post you seemed to indicated some possible differences between the
Meade APO's depending on when they were made? If I understood what you implied,
you thought perhaps some of the later made ones were perhaps not as good as
earlier ones? My experience has been fairly limited like yours with a wide
variety of these scopes, but from what I have seen, the first ones were very
dissapointing (first 6 months of production). I have looked through a few that
were made between 1 and 2-1/2" years ago, they seemed to be of much better
quality. I have not viewed through any produced in the last year, I would hope
they continued to increase their quality.
I never had looked through the 4", just the 5" & 6" & 7" models. When was yours
produced ?
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
CJ
> If I were contemplating
> another Meade ED doublet, I would be much more worried about optical
> quality, and would insist on thorough testing before completing the
> purchase.
This doesn't seem very realistic. If you were actually placing an order
for one of these Meade scopes, just how would you go about "insisting on
thorough testing before completing the purchase"? Would you ask Meade to
personally test your instrument before shipping it out? Or would you
ask them not to charge your credit card until you've had a chance to
test it yourself? It seems to me that if you purchase a scope from Meade
or Celestron, all you can do is roll the dice and hope for the best.
Paul Gustafson
option would be to purchase from someone like Tuthill and pay the extra $$
to have it tested first.
Paul Gustafson
Running a jOeY Bad Boy System
CJ wrote in message <35E993...@gate.net>...
Rich N.
AndersonRM <ander...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808300919...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> In article <35E894...@mail.idt.net>, "Glenmore F. Wong"
> <gle...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>
> >> > 1.) THIS WAS A TEST OF SPECIFIC TELESCOPES: We certainly did not
> >> >obtain sufficient statistics to make any claims about the average
> >> >quality of any of these products,
>
> >No. Jay is simply taking a look at one scope and not extrapolating the
> >results to the rest in the field as in "Is the Traveler inferior to the
> >Vixen?"
>
> It could mean a larger number of Taks, APs, Vixens would help him
> establish an "average" quality level for each model of scope. This
implies
> (IMO) differences may exists between scopes of the same brand.
> He says nothing about specific comparisons between brands.
> -Rich
Hi Rich,
More of my experience is with the late model AP EDTs and EDFs.
To my eyes they are like peas in a pod. They are outstanding.
Rich
Rich N.
frequently to let the people visiting the observatory have a look through
our
telescopes, but after all we were there to give the visitors a view of the
night
sky while they were waiting for a look through the great 36" refractor.
I was surprised how much difference an eyepiece can make even when
they are all "high end" eyepieces. Some clearly gave better planetary
performance.
While it wasn't a perfect "lab" comparison it was better than walking
around looking through telescopes at a star party, we had the advantage
of being able to swap eyepieces.
The visitors were really great. They were friendly and genuinely
interested
in observing. The staff members at Lick were outstanding.
I hope other people on saa will have a friendly "shoot out" with their
observing friends.
More clear, steady skies,
Rich
Jay Reynolds Freeman
I don't believe any Pentax eyepieces were used.
> Also, in a later? post you seemed to indicated some possible
> differences between the Meade APO's depending on when they were
> made?
What I intended to say was that I believed there were differences in the
quality control of Meade *Schmidt Cassegrain* optics depending on when
they were made; I have heard (net.opinion -- possibly not too reliable)
that recent Meade SCT optics run higher in quality, with less chance of
getting a lemon, than has been the case in the past.
I did not mean to imply any such variation with time of Meade ED
refractor optics; I have insufficient data -- not even any rumors --
to hazard a guess on the presence or absence of any such effect. If,
however, Meade has been getting its act together on SCT optics, then
perhaps one may hope for similar quality-control improvements in other
Meade product lines.
> My experience has been fairly limited like yours
> with a wide variety of these scopes, but from what I have seen, the
> first ones were very dissapointing (first 6 months of production). I
> have looked through a few that were made between 1 and 2-1/2" years
> ago, they seemed to be of much better quality. I have not viewed
> through any produced in the last year, I would hope they continued
> to increase their quality.
All this is new to me: If so, it is a very hopeful sign.
> I never had looked through the 4", just the 5" & 6" & 7" models. When
> was yours produced ?
I don't know, actually -- I am the third owner, I believe, and I bought
it not quite a year ago. The owner immediately previous to me is a regular
on s.a.a -- perhaps he will speak up...
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > another Meade ED doublet, I would be much more worried about optical
> > quality, and would insist on thorough testing before completing the
> > purchase.
>
> This doesn't seem very realistic. If you were actually placing an order
> for one of these Meade scopes, just how would you go about "insisting on
> thorough testing before completing the purchase"? Would you ask Meade to
> personally test your instrument before shipping it out? Or would you
> ask them not to charge your credit card until you've had a chance to
> test it yourself? It seems to me that if you purchase a scope from Meade
> or Celestron, all you can do is roll the dice and hope for the best.
I was not necessarily speaking of a new purchase. It is quite rare
for me to buy a brand new telescope from a regular dealer in what most
people would call a "normal" transaction. Most of my equipment has
been bought used, or through dealers who were personal friends and
willing to vouch for specific items, or things like that. In
transactions of that nature one can often arrange to test before
acceptance, or to hand pick a system, or something similar.
I tend to discount most of the Meade-bashing that goes on here on
sci.astro.amateur, for reasons that are well-discussed by others --
mostly, that you only hear wheels that squeak, and there are lots more
Meade wheels than Celestron wheels in the first place. And I know
many people here in the San Francisco area who have bought Meade
telescopes recently and have been entirely happy with them, or have
had good service from the factory if required. But I know one person
on a face-to-face basis who had enormous difficulty getting Meade to
address optical problems that appeared serious to all of us who
conducted tests, in a rather high-end Meade telescope -- a seven-inch
Maksutov. His experience makes me regard Meade customer service as
rather a Jekyll-and-Hyde kind of creature. I think I would have
serious qualms about ordering a new, major piece of equipment from
Meade through a regular dealer sale. (I'm not sure there is any other
kind.) I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, just that I would have to sit
down and think hard for a while if I thought I wanted to.
I don't personally know of anyone who has had a similar contact
with any possible Dark Side of Celestron (insert here cartoon of
Darth Vader with a C-11 OTA settled firmly over his head), but as
many will be quick to point out, there aren't as many Celestrons
sold as there are Meades, so perhaps it is less likely that I would
have heard of such an instance, even if they occurred in the same
proportion of sales. However, for Celestron, there is another option
-- Orion is a Celestron dealer, and has a 30-day no-questions-asked
return policy. If I wanted a big Celestron, I would always have the
fall-back position of getting one from Orion and taking advantage of
that policy if I found it necessary to do so. As a courtesy to
Orion, of course, I would tell the folks there that I planned to do
extensive testing of my whatsis and was prepared to bring it back
if I didn't like it, and would see how they felt about my doing so.
I expect they'd honor their policy, but I also expect that at that
point, they might tell me whatever they'd heard about the presence
and incidence of problems in my proposed purchase.
Glenmore F. Wong
> Well, glenmore, you look like the moron now. Scopes vary within even a
> given product line, and Rich couldn't make such a sweeping generalization
> since he is well aware of this phenomena. It is you that are making
> the 'extrapolation'.
>
> JG
For a person of average intelligence, it shouldn't take more then a few
of Rich's posts to determine that he sometimes does not know what the
hell he is talking about. WHAT is taking you so long?
glenmore
Glenmore F. Wong
Very much enjoyed your reviews. My friends and I had a similar night
but did not do quite as extensive a comparison. Present were a Tak
FS128, Tak FS102, AP Traveler and AP 6"f7. All manner of eyepieces were
used, Zeiss and Pentax orthos, Tak LE's, both with and without
binoviewers. The 6" of course had crisper views of Jupiter at a
particular power, where the other scopes needed to throttle back to get
the same crisp view. Major detail was seen in all scopes, but easier to
come by in the 5" and 6". There was nothing lacking in anyones views
and we all had a great time.
One observation agreed to by all was the "warmer" (in the words of the
Tak owners) view of Jupiter. Jupiter in the Taks had a yellowish cast
to it, while in the AP's, the planet was more white. Back in the
infamous "TV 140 Wars", this was mentioned by Mike Harvey in his FS128.
Thomas Back commented that this was evidence of secondary chromatic
aberration. Do you remember seeing this difference in your comparisons?
glenmore
AndersonRM
> I suspect they
>could give Astro-Physics and Takahashi very serious competition in the
>marketplace. Certainly another high-end refractor of consistent
>high quality would be welcomed by many.
>
>
Maybe. But the market is small and Meade may not wish to commit
their resources and time to producing scopes on the level of the
AP or Tak. They may also have sold more ED refractors than AP
or Tak ever did because the Meade scopes are far less expensive.
-Rich
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > could give Astro-Physics and Takahashi very serious competition in the
> > marketplace. Certainly another high-end refractor of consistent
> > high quality would be welcomed by many.
> >
>
> Maybe. But the market is small and Meade may not wish to commit
> their resources and time to producing scopes on the level of the
> AP or Tak. They may also have sold more ED refractors than AP
> or Tak ever did because the Meade scopes are far less expensive.
If they could hold their present prices and keep the quality up
to the level of the one I have, they might have a real winner. Of
course, I don't know for sure what the actual spread of quality on
the ED line is at the present time...
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> but did not do quite as extensive a comparison. Present were a Tak
> FS128, Tak FS102, AP Traveler and AP 6"f7.
The interesting comparison here -- because of similar aperture -- would
have been the Traveler against the 102. Was there any evidence of
one being better than the other?
> One observation agreed to by all was the "warmer" (in the words of the
> Tak owners) view of Jupiter. Jupiter in the Taks had a yellowish cast
> to it, while in the AP's, the planet was more white. Back in the
> infamous "TV 140 Wars", this was mentioned by Mike Harvey in his FS128.
> Thomas Back commented that this was evidence of secondary chromatic
> aberration. Do you remember seeing this difference in your comparisons?
I did not see that difference, nor do I remember anyone else commenting
on it. Vega looked equally free of violet glow in both Taks and both
APs in our comparison (all four equal to one another).
r...@netgate.net
>As a courtesy to
>Orion, of course, I would tell the folks there that I planned to do
>extensive testing of my whatsis and was prepared to bring it back
>if I didn't like it, and would see how they felt about my doing so.
>I expect they'd honor their policy, but I also expect that at that
>point, they might tell me whatever they'd heard about the presence
>and incidence of problems in my proposed purchase.
I haven't bought any big-ticket items from them, but I've made several
accessory purchases at their Cupertino store. Most from their "surplus"
section, which is "no returns". The staff have always gone out of
their way to point out (possible) problems with these items, and suggest
what I should look for to satisfy myself that any flaws something might
have are acceptable for my purposes.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to assess their expertise, but I feel
confident about them dealing honestly and fairly with customers.
Ran
Derek Wong
>
> While it wasn't a perfect "lab" comparison it was better than walking
> around looking through telescopes at a star party, we had the advantage
> of being able to swap eyepieces.
Rich:
I'm interested in your take on this. I know you are an AP owner; do you
agree that with these specific scopes there was little difference in
image between the AP and Tak?
Also, how did you guys compensate for the Maxbright providing the better
image? Did switching diagonals have the same effect as switching ep's?
Last, it sounds like the Meade gave a great showing. Did you guys try
views at higher powers, perhaps on the moon to see if this increased the
differences between the Meade and the other scopes?
> Fidgeting nervously, he
> suddenly realized that the tanned leather cartridge belt that
> used to hold his prized, paired collection of Zeiss Abbe
> Orthos was now empty ... and that North had disappeared ...
What happened after this--did you pull out your laser collimator ?-)
Derek Wong
daw...@earthlink.net
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> views at higher powers, perhaps on the moon to see if this increased the
> differences between the Meade and the other scopes?
We were set up on the east side of the main building at Lick, to
avoid wind (if there had been any), and in consequence the Moon was
blocked by the building from approximately sunset through the time it
set. Only a few of us were set up in time to look at it, and though
the seeing was reported good at the time, it clearly had not settled
completely.
At the end of the evening, I offered a star-test of the Meade, but
no one else seemed interested in star-testing.
Charles Hovatter
Glenmore F. Wong wrote in message <35E9E2...@mail.idt.net>...
>Jay,
>
>One observation agreed to by all was the "warmer" (in the words of the
>Tak owners) view of Jupiter. Jupiter in the Taks had a yellowish cast
>to it, while in the AP's, the planet was more white. Back in the
>infamous "TV 140 Wars", this was mentioned by Mike Harvey in his FS128.
>Thomas Back commented that this was evidence of secondary chromatic
>aberration. Do you remember seeing this difference in your comparisons?
>
>glenmore
Hi Glenmore,
One problem that we refractor nuts sometimes have is forgeting just what color
something really is. I don't have any APO's, only achromats so the problem is
more pronounced for me. It never ceases to amaze me when I drag out my 6" F/6
Edmund Newt for a look at Jupiter. Wow! - What pure colors!
Next time you guys get together, why not take along a good newt just as a "color
control".
BTW - I love refractors!
Great post's guys,
-Chuck
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> assumption that the TAK and A/P were equally matched. However, you
> made a big error in my opinion in choosing such low
> magnification. If I were to lug out all those scopes for comparision
> I would have made sure ahead of time, I would have suggested you had
> various focal lengths of the same brand eyepiece .. such as the
> Zeiss abbe 1.25" set, plus barlows, and perhaps extention tubes to
> attempt to reach the same magnifications in various different
> scopes. . . using the same lien of eps and the same barlow.
>
> Then, i would have strived for 250-300x.
>
> If you couldn't use 250x, then the seeing was NOT reasonable enough
> to conduct this test. Please let me know why you stayed under
> 200. . . where most scopes perform closer to each other to begin
> with.
I mentioned this matter in the review -- let me quote the passage
here, to save readers the trouble of digging things out, then elaborate.
>> The seeing was good enough, and Jupiter high enough, that these
>> instruments were limited by their own optical performance rather
>> than by seeing, for a significant amount of the time. In any
>> ten-second view of the planet, odds were good that there would be a
>> second or two of breathtakingly [sic] quality, during which such details
>> as festoons and spots in the equatorial zone, or delicate scalloping
>> at the edges of the bands, jumped out in crystal clarity. We all
>> independently settled on magnifications between about 125x and about
>> 175x as providing the best views -- less did not show all the
>> detail, and more reduced the apparent brightness of the planet's
>> cloud tops to the point where many of the low-contrast features
>> became harder to see.
Seeing was indeed very good -- when I increased magnification to
285x on my Meade, to show people its star test, I found the bright
star (beta Pegasi) showing both diffraction disc and a ring or two,
with the pattern occasionally stationary, at about the same frequency
as the intervals of exquisite seeing that I mentioned in the cited
passage. There was also no wind or other source of motion or
vibration that would have restricted the use of high magnification,
and we all had driven telescopes, well aligned, and tracking smoothly.
Furthermore, there were several runs of eyepieces of similar design
by the same manufacturer, in different focal lengths: I had Meade RG
Orthos in 4, 7, and 10.5 mm focal lengths (as well as other Orthos),
and also had a long run of Vixen Lanthanum LVs, from 2.5 mm out to 9.
Rich had a full set of Zeiss Abbe Orthos, which includes 10, 6, and 4
mm. There were Brandons in several focal lengths. There may have
been others.
Notwithstanding, all five telescope owners independently settled on
magnifications in the range 125x-175x as showing the best views of
Jupiter, even in the seeing that I have described. The process really
was independent -- we were all fussing with our telescopes, anxious to
obtain the best views before we started trading them, and that's what
happened. The process of selecting magnification was uncontroversial
enough that I did not think to elaborate on it, but that was certainly
our collective choice.
I myself tried observing with 228x and 285x, and both I and at least
one other experienced observer agreed that my Meade 127 showed much
more detail at 163x than at either of the higher magnifications, and
also more than at one lower magnification we tried (I think it was
127x). (The other observer was Akkana Peck -- not one of our
five-inch owners -- that makes six who agreed on the range of powers
we settled on.) The superiority of 163x was evident to me, even
though I could clearly detect the intervals of fine seeing when
observing with the higher magnifications.
In fact, to my eye, it appeared that the difference between the
several magnifications was most evident during the intervals of fine
seeing. That's kind of what you'd expect, of course, but note that
the magnifications are reversed from what many people would
anticipate: I am saying that when the seeing was merely good, 163x and
285x showed comparable amounts of detail, but when it settled and
became excellent, the lower magnification of 163x showed considerably
more detail, whereas the higher magnification of 285x did not show
nearly as much improvement. We telescope owners did not discuss this
matter in detail among one another, but I remember overhearing a few
comments to the effect that 200x was too much magnification, or
something like that.
If we had been observing double stars, or possibly Mars, we might
have increased magnification -- it was certainly a night where I would
have used 285x routinely for demanding double-star work, with my Meade
127. But of the targets available, Jupiter best represented the
reason why most of the owners of these five-inch refractors had
purchased those telescopes, so that is what we observed, and I don't
think there is much question that we had all selected the right
magnifications to show the most detail on that particular night of
excellent seeing.
It may be worth noting that the amount of sunlight per unit surface
area received at the distance from the Sun of Jupiter's orbit is down
by a factor of some 30 compared to that at the Earth's distance --
looking at Jupiter in full sunlight is like looking at a terrestrial
landscape on a quite cloudy day. On such a day, the human eye's
pupils routinely dilate to a much greater size than the
half-millimeter exit pupil that we would have obtained from our
five-inch telescopes at 250x. Perhaps that's empirical evidence that
to observe low-contrast detail under such conditions, the eye does
require more photons per unit area of retina, and thus less
magnification for telescopic viewing.
David North
too much magnification, or something like that.<<
For a while after midnight I had a run where I thought 200x not
unreasonable, after which I backed down to the 150x range again, which
seemed to be about right most of the night.
The sky vibration was odd that night; there seemed little profit
over 175x, but there was phenonmenal detail available in that range.
Go figure.
David North
words of the Tak owners) view of Jupiter....Thomas Back commented that
this was evidence of secondary chromatic aberration. Do you remember
seeing this difference in your comparisons?<<
I could detect no such relationship myself in any of the scopes,
including the Meade. The background seemed pretty white all 'round, and
the only significant difference in views of color seemed to be through
the binoviewers. There, a "warmish" effect could be seen, and the
coloring in the SEB in particular seemed more pronounced (the b-v views
were outstanding).
Overall, I'd say I don't see this effect, but I have seen it
mentioned several times so I was looking for it.
To be honest, one of the APs seemed to present this effect for a
short time, but disappeared after a change of eyepiece. So I can't help
but wonder about this whole legend.
Chuck: >>Next time you guys get together, why not take along a good newt
just as a "color control".<<
Not too long ago I had the opportunity to *be* that newt (a reasonably
good six inch), comparing with an AP180f/7 and an AP130f/6. The
conclusion was interesting: the effects of eyepiece and atmosphere were
greater than anything that could be seen from comparing the newt to the
refractors straight up.
In other words, it appears that other system errors are greater
than the lens error, if any can be found. Any "color" or tint variation
seen in the refractors was duplicated in the newt.
At least that night at Fremont Peak. The transparency was fairly
good, steadiness better than average. Not a bad test night.
Rich N.
Glenmore F. Wong <gle...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<35E9E2...@mail.idt.net>...
> Jay,
>
> Very much enjoyed your reviews. My friends and I had a similar night
> but did not do quite as extensive a comparison. Present were a Tak
> FS128, Tak FS102, AP Traveler and AP 6"f7. All manner of eyepieces were
> used, Zeiss and Pentax orthos, Tak LE's, both with and without
> binoviewers. The 6" of course had crisper views of Jupiter at a
> particular power, where the other scopes needed to throttle back to get
> the same crisp view. Major detail was seen in all scopes, but easier to
> come by in the 5" and 6". There was nothing lacking in anyones views
> and we all had a great time.
>
> One observation agreed to by all was the "warmer" (in the words of the
> Tak owners) view of Jupiter. Jupiter in the Taks had a yellowish cast
> to it, while in the AP's, the planet was more white. Back in the
> infamous "TV 140 Wars", this was mentioned by Mike Harvey in his FS128.
> Thomas Back commented that this was evidence of secondary chromatic
> aberration. Do you remember seeing this difference in your comparisons?
>
> glenmore
>
One of the Takahashi FS-128 owners likes Taks because of
the "warmer" view of Jupiter. He first pointed this out to me
several years ago looking through my FC-100.
I was not looking for the effect when I was looking through the Taks
at Lick. The color and the contrast was better with the 8 Brandon
vs the 9mm Nagler in the one FS-128. I didn't see a Nagler in the
other FS-128.
I've not noticed a "warm" look in the AP 130mm EDT.
Rich
Clive Gibbons
>>Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote:
>
>> If I were contemplating
>> another Meade ED doublet, I would be much more worried about optical
>> quality, and would insist on thorough testing before completing the
>> purchase.
>
>This doesn't seem very realistic. If you were actually placing an order
>for one of these Meade scopes, just how would you go about "insisting on
>thorough testing before completing the purchase"? Would you ask Meade to
>personally test your instrument before shipping it out?
Perhaps what Jay is implying is that he *wouldn't* buy another Meade ED
doublet, sight unseen. In light of this, he might not be able to purchase
another example that he would be happy to own. So be it...
The reality is, if you want to own an instrument that satisfies your
requirements, you should always test it before purchase.
I, for one, certainly wouldn't spend the money up-front and hope the scope
arrives with great optics. And, FWIW, I thought that Meade claims they
test and certify each and every instrument, before they leave the factory.
But, do I trust their guarantee... ;)
Cheers,
--
Clive Gibbons
Technician, McMaster University,
School of Geography and Geology.
Rich N.
Derek Wong <daw...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<35EA65A2...@earthlink.net>...
> Rich N. wrote:
> >
> > While it wasn't a perfect "lab" comparison it was better than walking
> > around looking through telescopes at a star party, we had the advantage
> > of being able to swap eyepieces.
>
> Rich:
>
> I'm interested in your take on this. I know you are an AP owner; do you
> agree that with these specific scopes there was little difference in
> image between the AP and Tak?
Hi Derek,
Yes.
One comment on the comparison. When I had volunteered at Lick
on other nights I had always set up on the south side of the Observatory
since it has least obstructed view but it can get windy. I had thought
we would have more time between groups of visitors to compare our
telescopes given my past experience.
Setting up on the east side of the old observatory building placed us
next to the back door of the observatory. It seemed like no sooner
than one group of visitors left our scopes than another group came
by for a look. This was good since that is why were there. But
it made me take rather quick looks through the other telescopes. So
while it was better than just wandering around at a star party, it was
not the ideal setting for a serious comparison if someone wants to
look for small differences between telescopes.
Both FS-128s performed very well.
> Also, how did you guys compensate for the Maxbright providing the better
> image? Did switching diagonals have the same effect as switching ep's?
No. Were quite busy with visitors looking through our telescopes.
> Last, it sounds like the Meade gave a great showing. Did you guys try
> views at higher powers, perhaps on the moon to see if this increased the
> differences between the Meade and the other scopes?
I only looked through the Meade a few times. I spent more time between
the Taks and APs. The Meade gave nice images but did show color
around Vega. I didn't look at Vega throught the Taks. Only my AP and
the Meade.
I would have liked to spent more time comparing the Meade to the
other two brands. One "problem" with the night, we were often pointing
at different objects when I would take a quick break to have a look through
another telescope.
Rich
WHALEN44
>> or Tak ever did because the Meade scopes are far less expensive. >>
How many have they sold ? I see more AP's, Televue etc. at star parties than
Meades ED's. In fact, it's darn rare to see a Meade. I always wondered about
this, seems they should be everywhere at the price they sell for. Perhaps those
who buy them tend not to go to star parties, or they bring something else. Any
thoughts ?
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> logistical reasons.
I am not certain what logistical reasons you have in mind, but
certainly there were many eyepieces present that would have delivered
magnifications substantially in excess of those that we settled on --
I had seven eyepieces in my box which had shorter focal lengths than
my Meade 7 mm Research-Grade Orthoscopic, for example -- and I believe
that each of us also had at least one decent Barlow, as well. It was
just that nobody wanted to use them. It might have been more thorough
to do so, but I can't blame folks for not wanting to waste a night of
fine seeing by using magnifications too high to take advantage of it.
> Is it not true that the scopes with hte best correction will show
> their lack of errors, and higher resolution more readily at higher
> magnification?
The issue was, which of these telescopes does best, that which we
all hoped they would do well. Looking for difficult detail on
Jupiter, on a night of excellent seeing, is certainly a representative
desirable use of high-end refractors, and surely it makes sense to use
the eyepiece focal lengths that best do the job. Performance at
higher magnification is an interesting test, and I indeed tried to
encourage folks to do some star testing, but a functional test of the
intended use seems more desirable, so I think our efforts were
properly, er, focused.
Rich N.
Todd Gross <to...@weatherman.com> wrote in article
<toddg.306...@weatherman.com>...
> Unless I am missing something, this comparison was limited to under 200x
for
> logistical reasons. From my (limited) experience in comparing scopes back
to
> back (yes, even with ALL those scopes and comparisons of mine, I still
would
> call it limited!!) and what other knowledgeable people have told me, a
jovian
> 250x or higher power comparison would have been much more revealing.
> Is it not true that the scopes with hte best correction will show their
lack
> of errors, and higher resolution more readily at higher magnification?
>
> Todd
It may have been more revealing. However, were there to give
the visitors at the observatory a show and while I may find looking for
small differences between highly magnified views of Jupiter instructive,
I don't think the visitors would have enjoyed the view.
I think most people use way too much magnification. I went for the
most aesthetically pleasing view.
Rich
Rich N.
Jay Reynolds Freeman <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>...
-snip
> At the end of the evening, I offered a star-test of the Meade, but
> no one else seemed interested in star-testing.
By that time I in the process of switching OTAs on my mount.
Rich
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> doublet, sight unseen.
That is correct, with the caveat that I might be willing to accept
an assertion of optical quality from a seller whom I considered honest
and knowledgeable, and in that circumstance might buy one sight
unseen. That is how I got my present one.
--
Rich N.
WHALEN44 <whal...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808311910...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
I also see far more APs and Takahashis than Meade "APO"s at star parties.
Rich
WHALEN44
Thanks for your reply. I agree, Meade SCT optics seem to have improved a bunch.
Now they just need to work on their image shift. Well, one thing at a time !
Richard Whalen
LKJ1999
>From: whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44)
>Date: 8/31/98 3:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808311910...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
WHALEN44 wrote.>
>How many have they sold ? I see more AP's, Televue etc. at star parties than
>Meades ED's. In fact, it's darn rare to see a Meade. I always wondered about
>this, seems they should be everywhere at the price they sell for. Perhaps
>those
>who buy them tend not to go to star parties, or they bring something else.
>Any
>thoughts ?
>
>Richard Whalen
>whal...@aol.com
I don't know what starpartys You go to Richard, i never see any big
refractors!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > image? Did switching diagonals have the same effect as switching ep's?
>
> No. Were quite busy with visitors looking through our telescopes.
I did rather more than half the viewing of Jupiter through my Meade
ED 127 with no diagonal in place. The eyepiece was high enough to make
straight-through viewing fairly easy, at least until Jupiter got within
an hour or two of the meridian.
> I would have liked to spent more time comparing the Meade to the
> other two brands. One "problem" with the night, we were often pointing
> at different objects when I would take a quick break to have a look through
> another telescope.
I tend to bring my C-14 to dark-sky star parties, but often have the
Meade ED out when we set up on first-quarter-Moon evenings, and when
we do various public events. I am sure there will be ample
opportunity for further comparison between it and Rich's AP, as well
as with other high-end refractors, in the future.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > or Tak ever did because the Meade scopes are far less expensive.
>
> Meades ED's. In fact, it's darn rare to see a Meade.
I have noticed that myself. It is clear that a lot of the folks who
bring refractors to star parties are serious refractor fanatics, who have
been willing to spend the extra money for the very high-end stuff. Yet I
would be astonished if there were not a larger market niche for the Meades,
considering their much lower price and heavy advertising. I, too, wonder
where they all are.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> refractors!!!
You should keep quiet about that 10-inch LX200 of yours, you're scaring
them off...
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> most aesthetically pleasing view.
The only rule of thumb about selection of magnification, that I am
truly comfortable with, is that if you don't try lots of different ones,
you will never be sure that the one you did pick is best.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
>
> Rich
Yes, but your observation is biased -- you usually bring several. :-)
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808311933...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- high-end refractor
shoot-out
> >From: whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44)
> >Date: 8/31/98 3:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <199808311910...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> WHALEN44 wrote.>
> >How many have they sold ? I see more AP's, Televue etc. at star parties
than
> >Meades ED's. In fact, it's darn rare to see a Meade. I always wondered
about
> >this, seems they should be everywhere at the price they sell for.
Perhaps
> >those
> >who buy them tend not to go to star parties, or they bring something
else.
> >Any
> >thoughts ?
> >
> >Richard Whalen
> >whal...@aol.com
> *******************************
> I don't know what starpartys You go to Richard, i never see any big
> refractors!!!
>
> Chas P. LKJ1999
Hi Chas,
How big are the refractors you see at star parties?
Rich
LKJ1999
>From: whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44)
>Message-id: <199808311926...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>WHALEN44 wrote.
*********************************
That's funny, i just sold three Meade SCT's
that had no image shift!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 3:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>Jay wrote.
>
> You should keep quiet about that 10-inch LX200 of yours, you're scaring
>them off...
******************************
I guess so. Any refractor want to go toe to
toe, with my 10" LX-200, let's get it on!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 3:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <01bdd517$43ba7860$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>Rich
wrote.
********************************
I never see any refractors! Maybe a 60 or 80mm refractor, that't it! Never
have seen a
AP-refractor!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>Message-id: <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>Jay wrote. <SNIP>
>
> I did rather more than half the viewing of Jupiter through my Meade
>ED 127 with no diagonal in place. The eyepiece was high enough to make
>straight-through viewing fairly easy, at least until Jupiter got within
>an hour or two of the meridian.
**************************
You must have a very high tripod!
My Meade 5" ED, LXD-600 refractor was to low ! I had to look on my knees most
of
the time!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808312000...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- high-end refractor
shoot-out
> >From: fre...@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman)
> >Date: 8/31/98 3:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>Jay wrote.
>
> >
> > You should keep quiet about that 10-inch LX200 of yours, you're
scaring
> >them off...
> ******************************
> I guess so. Any refractor want to go toe to
> toe, with my 10" LX-200, let's get it on!!!
>
> Chas P. LKJ1999
Are you sure you aren't really Ralph A.? ;-)
Rich
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 4:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <01bdd51b$ebca9f40$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
Rich wrote.
>
>Are you sure you aren't really Ralph A.? ;-)
>
>Rich
Who is Ralph A.???
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808311958...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >Subject: Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- high-end refractor
shoot-out
> >From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
> >Date: 8/31/98 3:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
<01bdd517$43ba7860$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>Rich
> wrote.
> ********************************
> I never see any refractors! Maybe a 60 or 80mm refractor, that't it!
Never
> have seen a
> AP-refractor!!!
>
> Chas P. LKJ1999
Then how do you know your Meade 10" SCT is so much
better than 6" APO refractor?
Rich
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd520$b19bf620$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
>Rich wrote.
>
>Then how do you know your Meade 10" SCT is so much
>better than 6" APO refractor?
>
>Rich
*******************************
I never said it was better! But it will give any
6" to 8" refractor, a run for it's money!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > them off...
> ******************************
> I guess so. Any refractor want to go toe to
> toe, with my 10" LX-200, let's get it on!!!
One of the ones we looked through at Lick might give you a run for the
money. It's the one inside the big dome at the south end of the building...
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> > ED 127 with no diagonal in place. The eyepiece was high enough to make
> > straight-through viewing fairly easy, at least until Jupiter got within
> > an hour or two of the meridian.
>
> was to low ! I had to look on my knees most of the time!!!
I was using a Losmandy G-11 with the (extendable) legs fully
extended, and with a twelve-inch Losmandy pier extension in use. I
bought this unit so that my telescope could intimidate rival
refractors by sheer physical size. Actually, I bought it because it
puts the eyepiece of the Meade at a reasonable height when viewing
near the zenith, and I suspect that most people -- myself included --
would rather climb a few steps on a short ladder when necessary, than
stoop, kneel, or squat.
LKJ1999
>Message-id: <freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>Jay wrote.
>
>
> One of the ones we looked through at Lick might give you a run for the
>money. It's the one inside the big dome at the south end of the building...
*****************************
Bring it on!!!
Chas p. LKJ1999
WHALEN44
>that had no image shift!!!>>
Chas,
I think we have have a different opinion on what constitutes "no image shift".
You first said your 10" had none, than stated later it had a little, but not
enough to bother you. In reality, it is very noticable, though your moto focus
cuts down the effect somewhat (it shifts slower). To me, it would be very
bothersome, even though your scope does have very good optics for a SCT. If it
had none, you would have the perfect Meade SCT !
Richard Whalen
WHALEN44
refractors!!!>>
Cheifland, WSP, TSP, Astrofest, 5 mile SP, TAS-SP.
Sure you don't see many at Hickory Hill, not many serious observers go there
anymore as the light pollution has about all but ruined it.
Richard
WHALEN44
What star parties do you go to ? I've never seen you at a big one, only at
regular observing sessions at Hickory Hill and once or twice at Cheifland. You
really need to go to WSP in the keys. As far as the 36" Lick refractor, your
10" would'nt have a chance. I think you really need to do some side by side
comparrisions between your 10" and a AP 6.1" or 7.1" before you make a fool of
yourself. Believe me, I looked pretty foolish when my 12.5" f6 optimized
newtionan with a small secondary and perfect collimation got blown away by a
6.1" EDF. Even stopped down to 5.3", the AP 5.1" EDT blew it away. Not even
close ! (all this after I challenged Roland one year at WSP to a shootout). I
had a bigger gun, but it was shooting blanks ! Sold the scope the next day....
Richard Whalen
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 6:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199808312214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>WHALEN44 Wrote.
>
>Cheifland, WSP, TSP, Astrofest, 5 mile SP, TAS-SP.
>Sure you don't see many at Hickory Hill, not many serious observers go there
>anymore as the light pollution has about all but ruined it.
>
>Richard
********************************
I've been to Cheifland a few times!
Never saw a refractor!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>From: whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44)
>Message-id: <199808312225...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>WHALEN44 wrote.
******************************
If i could fly to the Winter starparty, then yes i would go! Is there any swap
meets there?
Everytime i plan to go to a starparyt it's cloudy! And if anyone wants to put
their
$10,000+ 6" refractor against my $2500,
10" LX-200, let them do so! The Joke is on them! I spent $2500, they spent
$10,000+!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
WHALEN44 <whal...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808312225...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Chas,
>
> What star parties do you go to ? I've never seen you at a big one, only
at
> regular observing sessions at Hickory Hill and once or twice at
Cheifland. You
> really need to go to WSP in the keys. As far as the 36" Lick refractor,
your
> 10" would'nt have a chance. I think you really need to do some side by
side
> comparrisions between your 10" and a AP 6.1" or 7.1" before you make a
fool of
> yourself. Believe me, I looked pretty foolish when my 12.5" f6 optimized
> newtionan with a small secondary and perfect collimation got blown away
by a
> 6.1" EDF. Even stopped down to 5.3", the AP 5.1" EDT blew it away. Not
even
> close ! (all this after I challenged Roland one year at WSP to a
shootout). I
> had a bigger gun, but it was shooting blanks ! Sold the scope the next
day....
>
> Richard Whalen
>
Hi Richard,
It is too bad Chas would have to wait for the big star parties like WSP
that only take place once a year to see AP refractors. Even with light
pollution you can still have good double star, lunar and planetary viewing.
Is seeing is also a problem in your area?
Rich
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
> ******************************
> If i could fly to the Winter starparty, then yes i would go! Is there
any swap
> meets there?
>
> Everytime i plan to go to a starparyt it's cloudy! And if anyone wants
to put
> their
> $10,000+ 6" refractor against my $2500,
> 10" LX-200, let them do so! The Joke is on them! I spent $2500, they
spent
> $10,000+!!!
>
> Chas P. LKJ1999
If you want to look at it that way I'm sure you could find some 10" Newts
that would give your 10" SCT a challenge for much less than $2500.
Rich
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 6:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <01bdd531$7195d300$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
Rich wrote.
>
>If you want to look at it that way I'm sure you could find some 10" Newts
>that would give your 10" SCT a challenge for much less than $2500.
>
>Rich
I don't think so! I did have a 10" f/8.3 Starliner
Newt, that would beat my LX-200! But it cost alot more than $2500,!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808312254...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
I was thinking of a 10" Newt. on a Dobs mount.
Rich
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd530$89bc2fc0$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
>Rich wrote.
>
>
>Hi Richard,
>
>It is too bad Chas would have to wait for the big star parties like WSP
>that only take place once a year to see AP refractors. Even with light
>pollution you can still have good double star, lunar and planetary viewing.
>
>Is seeing is also a problem in your area?
>
>Rich
*******************************
Hi Rich, at my house, from May to Oct, seeing
is very good most nights! Deepsky is a waist of time in my back yard! Most
summer nights i can see MAG-3 stars, on clear winter nights
i can see MAG-4.3 stars max!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd533$5867fbe0$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>Rich
wrote.
>
>I was thinking of a 10" Newt. on a Dobs mount.
>
>Rich
******************************
Price a 10" Dob from one of the top Dob makers today! That's about what they
cost...
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808312304...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
But maybe a 10" Meade, Celestron, or Orion Dobs would give
your SCT a challenge.
Or, you could ATM it.
You could buy a Parks mirror, Novak cell, spider, etc. and build
the mirror box, rocker box and upper assembly and be around $1000.
Heck, you could grind the mirror and make most of the other parts
and be under $1000.
Rich
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd535$e46a5a00$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
>Rich wrote.
>
>But maybe a 10" Meade, Celestron, or Orion Dobs would give
>your SCT a challenge.
>
>Or, you could ATM it.
>
>You could buy a Parks mirror, Novak cell, spider, etc. and build
>the mirror box, rocker box and upper assembly and be around $1000.
>
>Heck, you could grind the mirror and make most of the other parts
>and be under $1000.
>
>Rich
***************************
Me ATM it! Me make a mirror! WHAT A JOKE!!! If and when i get a DOB, it will
be
a 16" f/7.
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808312337...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Sorry Chas, make that "...one could grind...".
Rich
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd539$48b33c40$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
>Rich wrote.
>
>Sorry Chas, make that "...one could grind...".
>
>Rich
******************************
I could never see myself grind a mirror!
I can see myself buying Your 7" AP...
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808312344...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Chas, I mean someone could ATM a 10" Dobs
for under $2500 that could give your SCT a run for its money.
Rich
Charles Hovatter
Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote in message ...
> I was using a Losmandy G-11 with the (extendable) legs fully
>extended, and with a twelve-inch Losmandy pier extension in use. I
>bought this unit so that my telescope could intimidate rival
>refractors by sheer physical size. Actually, I bought it because it
>puts the eyepiece of the Meade at a reasonable height when viewing
>near the zenith, and I suspect that most people -- myself included --
>would rather climb a few steps on a short ladder when necessary, than
>stoop, kneel, or squat.
One thing that I really like about my refractors is that I can use them sitting
down. I can see more when I can hold my head perfectly still, and be
comfortable. I weave all over the place with my 14.25" F/6 EQ Newt.
-Chuck
Glenmore F. Wong
> The interesting comparison here -- because of similar aperture -- would
> have been the Traveler against the 102. Was there any evidence of
> one being better than the other?
>
No, other than the yellow cast vs. the whiter view in the Traveler. I
compared my Traveler to this FS102 in the past and did the same with
this other Traveler and the comparisons were always neck in neck. At
the end of the evening we got the Traveler up to 300x with a 4mm Zeiss
ortho and 2x barlow and the image was still very nice. But as with your
test and as Rich N. mentioned, our group similarily fussed with our
individual scopes and independently settled with powers 125-185x for the
most aesthetically pleasing views. I agree with Todd Gross, maybe at
higher powers we could have seen more differences.
glenmore
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd53a$d5b6fa40$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
Rich wrote.
>
>Chas, I mean someone could ATM a 10" Dobs
>for under $2500 that could give your SCT a run for its money.
>
>Rich
But would it have GO-TO for under $2500,???
Chas P. LKJ1999
Rich N.
LKJ1999 <lkj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199809010012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> >Chas, I mean someone could ATM a 10" Dobs
> >for under $2500 that could give your SCT a run for its money.
> >
> >Rich
> ****************************
> But would it have GO-TO for under $2500,???
>
> Chas P. LKJ1999
I'm thought we were talking about image quality.
Rich
LKJ1999
>From: "Rich N." <rich.neu...@compaq.com>
>Message-id: <01bdd53e$91e5ff60$5ee0fc82@Neuschaefer_Rich.mis.tandem.com>
>Rich wrote.
>
>
>I'm thought we were talking about image quality.
>
>Rich
>
Rich i'm very happy with the image quality
of my 10" LX-200!!! I can't see myself buying another 10" scope! Hell i've had
9 10" scopes.
What i want is a 16" f/7 Dob! Starmaster won't make one for me. I don't think
any Dob maker will fool with making me a 16" F/7 Dob!
I guess they are scared to make anything longer than f/4.5...
Chas P. LKJ1999
Peter Besenbruch
Freeman) wrote:
>I don't personally know of anyone who has had a similar contact
>with any possible Dark Side of Celestron (insert here cartoon of
>Darth Vader with a C-11 OTA settled firmly over his head), but as
>many will be quick to point out, there aren't as many Celestrons
>sold as there are Meades, so perhaps it is less likely that I would
>have heard of such an instance, even if they occurred in the same
>proportion of sales. However, for Celestron, there is another option
>-- Orion is a Celestron dealer, and has a 30-day no-questions-asked
>return policy. If I wanted a big Celestron, I would always have the
>fall-back position of getting one from Orion and taking advantage of
>that policy if I found it necessary to do so. As a courtesy to
>Orion, of course, I would tell the folks there that I planned to do
>extensive testing of my whatsis and was prepared to bring it back
>if I didn't like it, and would see how they felt about my doing so.
>I expect they'd honor their policy, but I also expect that at that
>point, they might tell me whatever they'd heard about the presence
>and incidence of problems in my proposed purchase.
I have friends who have sent their Meades and Celestrons to the
factory. The Meade results have generally been satisfactory. The
Celestron results have been disastrous. They include a C-8 with
spherical aberration - returned twice, an excellent C-11 returned for
a loose secondary - returned 5 times, a C-14 - returned twice and
having various incorrect parts shipped to our club, finally 4
incorrect parts in a row shipped to my house before they shipped the
right one.
The Meades generally were shipped back for poor optics. The resulting
repairs produced usable instruments within six weeks. My conclusion
from all this is that Meade has a workable system in place to handle
returns and repairs, while Celestron doesn't (as of three years ago).
___________________________________________________
Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "nobulk." for the true e-mail address.
Mark Wagner / Resource International
: Chas,
: What star parties do you go to ? I've never seen you at a big one, only at
: regular observing sessions at Hickory Hill and once or twice at Cheifland. You
: really need to go to WSP in the keys. As far as the 36" Lick refractor, your
: 10" would'nt have a chance. I think you really need to do some side by side
: comparrisions between your 10" and a AP 6.1" or 7.1" before you make a fool of
: yourself. Believe me, I looked pretty foolish when my 12.5" f6 optimized
Having had the opportunity to look at detail on Jupiter (last year)
through the Lick's 36" Clark, I can tell you it kicks on any other scope
I've viewed through for *detail*. Aperture rules! Chas' 10" SCT may be a
fine scope, but he is certainly deluding himself when he says bring on the
36. I think he's just baiting. As for the AP's, there are several that
come to Fremont Peak (fwiw, we look up at Lick on Mt. Hamilton while
heading down to Fremont Peak), the only scopes I've seen that compete in
the same class are the 5 and 6 inch Takahashis and a very nice Cerravolo
HD216. I have looked through enoug Meade 8, 10 and 12" LX's and SCTs to
know what they offer, on average, compared to the other scopes mentioned
above, on average. No competition.
--
Mark Wagner
mgw@r*e*source-intl.com
Resource International (remove the * to reply by e-mail)
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 9:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6sfiga$28b$1...@samba.rahul.net>
>Mark wrote.
*******************************
I did not know it was a 36" refractor!
And my LX-200 is very well above average,
i will bet the bank on that!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
RichardN22
come to Fremont Peak (fwiw, we look up at Lick on Mt. Hamilton while
heading down to Fremont Peak), the only scopes I've seen that compete in
the same class are the 5 and 6 inch Takahashis and a very nice Cerravolo
HD216. I have looked through enoug Meade 8, 10 and 12" LX's and SCTs to
know what they offer, on average, compared to the other scopes mentioned
above, on average. No competition.>>
Yeah, I've got one of those SCT's Mark's looked through! I've been told by
many I have a 'good' one, and the view of Jupiter from the Sierra Buttes a few
week-ends ago was stunning. Even so, for contrast and sharpness, *nothing*
beats a quality refractor, although a larger SCT *may* show more detail at
times, seeing permitting.
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
RichardN22
Chas P. LKJ1999 >>
Sure, it could go-to star parties, it could go-to a backyard....
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 10:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <35eb5...@news.acadiacom.net>
Charles wrote.
>
>One thing that I really like about my refractors is that I can use them
>sitting
>down. I can see more when I can hold my head perfectly still, and be
>comfortable. I weave all over the place with my 14.25" F/6 EQ Newt.
>-Chuck
Hey chuck You wanna sell that 14" F/6???
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>Date: 8/31/98 10:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <199809010224...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>RichardN22 wrote.
>
>Yeah, I've got one of those SCT's Mark's looked through! I've been told by
>many I have a 'good' one, and the view of Jupiter from the Sierra Buttes a
>few
>week-ends ago was stunning. Even so, for contrast and sharpness, *nothing*
>beats a quality refractor, although a larger SCT *may* show more detail at
>times, seeing permitting.
>
>
>Richard Navarrete
**********************************
Let me say this one time only! A 5"or 6"
Refractor is not enough scope for me!
And if Mark and Richard want me to come out
with my LX-200, where ever they use their
scopes, just say the word!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>From: richa...@aol.com (RichardN22)
>Message-id: <199809010228...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>RichardN22 wrote.
>
>Sure, it could go-to star parties, it could go-to a backyard....
>
>
>Richard Navarrete
********************************
It can go to hell to! I don't want a 10" Dob!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
bratislav
> Then, i would have strived for 250-300x.
>
> If you couldn't use 250x, then the seeing was NOT reasonable enough to conduct
> this test. Please let me know why you stayed under 200. . . where most scopes
> perform closer to each other to begin with.
Todd,
I know that many people (I've got a friend who doesn't bother observing unless
he can use at least 300X) like high magnifications, but on a low contrast target
as Jupiter, going below 0.8mm exit pupil (around 160X on 5") is indeed counterproductive.
Optimum exit pupil for planets is around 0.6 to say 1.3mm depending on albedo, contrast
of detail observed, observer's acuity and of course seeing.
Most time I'd settle at around 0.8 to 1mm (200 to 250X on 8"). It is also
surprising how much difference one can see with seemingly similar eyepieces (say 5, 6
or 7mm). That's why bulk of my eyepieces is between 4 and 10mm (8 of them!).
Bratislav
David North
ep's?<<
Not for me. Going from a cheapo mirror to the Maxbright eliminated some
halo and scatter... enough to where I'll probably get one (but I'm not
sure. Later inspection of the diagonal established that the paint used
to "flatten" the interior of the cheapo is practically gloss...)
Changing eyepieces reduced specific point reflections, in particular
a wandering flare that disappeared with the orthos and the Brandon.
Two different effects.
Todd: >>Is it not true that the scopes with hte best correction will
show their lack of errors, and higher resolution more readily at higher
magnification?<<
Yup.
We did try going higher, but the sky simply wouldn't allow it. The
results were so muddy in everything that the comparison would have been
pointless. We could only work with what we had.
Some star viewing was done at higher mag; the Meade showed (no
surprise) more lateral color. The APs and Taks were again hard to
distinguish one way or the other, especially in that there was some
atmospheric action happening also.
The logistics of getting those glass biscuits all in one place were
somewhat tiresome, and Hamilton seemed to give us the best odds of good
seeing. You roll the dice, you win or lose.
Rich: >>I didn't see a Nagler in the other FS-128.<<
I tried my 7mm nag just for ducks, and it really did fairly well that
night, though not as well as the 8 Brandon or the 6 abbe.
>>I think most people use way too much magnification. I went for the
most aesthetically pleasing view.<<
Egg zackly. But I also noted in later testing that the "aesthetic" range
ended up being almost the same as the "max information" range. I think
the sky was a bit odd that night.
Jay: >>I was using a Losmandy G-11 with the (extendable) legs fully
extended, and with a twelve-inch Losmandy pier extension in use.<<
That's five feet of tripod height, for those who might be curious. Plus,
of course, the head.
Richard: >>Even so, for contrast and sharpness, *nothing* beats a
quality refractor, although a larger SCT *may* show more detail at
times, seeing permitting.<<
You know, I'm not so sure. That 225 Tak SCT Robin owns has more than
once inflated my socks, if not blown them off.
Jay Reynolds Freeman
> results were so muddy in everything that the comparison would have been
> pointless. We could only work with what we had.
That's interesting; my impression was that there were intervals
of good seeing sufficient to support higher magnification -- in particular,
the diffraction disc of my test star for star-testing at 285x (4 mm eyepiece
in Meade 127 ED) was completely steady on the order of ten percent of
the time. I felt the problem was that too much magnification made the
low-contrast features hard to see -- that it was not seeing that limited
us, but image brightness. How do such others who were there, as read
this newsgroup, feel about the matter?
> Some star viewing was done at higher mag; the Meade showed (no
> surprise) more lateral color.
I think you mean "longitudinal color"?? Lateral color would be
blue fringes on one side of the image, red on the other; what I saw
was a uniform violet halo around bright stars.
> You know, I'm not so sure. That 225 Tak SCT Robin owns has more than
> once inflated my socks, if not blown them off.
Hmnn. Perhaps we should investigate further...
Setting the brim of his hat low against the glare of the
noonday Sun, and keeping his focuser hand carefully clear of
the gleaming white nine-inch barrel that sat heavily in the
polished leather holster at his hip, Casady stepped slowly
into the silent, dusty street. He could feel the shifting,
unseen eyes of the notorious Refractor Gang, staring at him
with evil expectation, from behind the shuttered windows and
barred doors of the decaying mining town ...
--
Jay Reynolds Freeman -- freeman at netcom dot com -- I speak only for myself.
Todd Gross
>> Todd
>It may have been more revealing. However, were there to give
>the visitors at the observatory a show and while I may find looking for
>small differences between highly magnified views of Jupiter instructive,
>I don't think the visitors would have enjoyed the view.
>I think most people use way too much magnification. I went for the
>most aesthetically pleasing view.
>Rich
******ACTUALLY******* the selections are important to prove a point now that I
think about it! I also have a 5.1" EDF with marvelous results (see
http://www.weatherman.com/edf.htm, and http://www.weatherman.com/jupiter.htm)
However, visually, I have noted that the.5 exit pupil, or even a bit greater
does provide more pleasing views.. than struggling for anything less. . .
often putting me around 200x despite the capability to go higher. Given really
steady skies, (which I have so rarely, I am not at all sure about this) I find
250x+ much more pleasing, in greater aperture. The CCD camera can overcome the
light shortcoming , but my eyes cannot. While I often argue for reduced
aperture to combat seeing problems.. it isn't just resolution that improves
with greater aperture, but obviously - the larger exit pupil which can allow
one to use higher magnifications more easily.
Bottom line, aperture wins again, when seeing and other factors permit,
despite my recent (unbelievable to me) success with imaging Jupiter with the 5"
Todd
Todd Gross
>I guess so. Any refractor want to go toe to
>toe, with my 10" LX-200, let's get it on!!!
>Chas P. LKJ1999
let's see some images or drawing of Jupiter through that thing already
Todd Gross
>>
>>Then how do you know your Meade 10" SCT is so much
>>better than 6" APO refractor?
>>
>>Rich
>*******************************
>I never said it was better! But it will give any
>6" to 8" refractor, a run for it's money!!!
how do you know this?
LKJ1999
>Date: 9/1/98 8:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <toddg.315...@weatherman.com>
Todd wrote.
>
>let's see some images or drawing of Jupiter through that thing already
I don't do CCD or astro photo work! Also i don't have a way to send images
thru the computer! I've only looked at Jupiter one time time thru LX-200,
Clouds!!!
Chas P. LKJ1999
LKJ1999
>From: to...@weatherman.com (Todd Gross)
>Message-id: <toddg.316...@weatherman.com>
I've looked thru a few 5" &6" refractors over the Years! They don't do any
better than my LX-200 on the Planets! Remember it's
$2500, vs $10,000 or more for a 6" AP refractor...
Chas P. LKJ1999
Klaus Moedinger
> I don't do CCD or astro photo work! Also i don't have a way to send images
> thru the computer! I've only looked at Jupiter one time time thru LX-200,
> Clouds!!!
Sell one your scopes and get a scanner and a printer! :)
You could post pictures to alt.binaries.pictures.astro.
Or better, create your AOL-homepage and put them there.
Wouldn't it be great to see you and your scopes on the web?
--
Best regards, Klaus Moedinger
Mark Wagner / Resource International
: > I've only looked at Jupiter one time time thru LX-200,
What demanding objects does he look at then, that lead him to the
conclusion that his LX-200 is a perfect telescope? Maybe he's enjoying
views the surface detail on Mercury.... yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! ;-)
bro...@my-dejanews.com
Kevin Brown
In article <toddg.316...@weatherman.com>,
--
Kevin Brown
Burke, VA
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
RichardN22
quality refractor, although a larger SCT *may* show more detail at
times, seeing permitting.<<
David North wrote...
You know, I'm not so sure. That 225 Tak SCT Robin owns has more than
once inflated my socks, if not blown them off.>>
That's right! I had many great views with that scope when Alan owned it. I was
referring to the usual Celestron/Meade type SCT's. That Tak is in a class of
it's own.
Richard
MitchAlsup
>I don't think so! I did have a 10" f/8.3 Starliner
>Newt, that would beat my LX-200!
>
So, the truth comes out. CP has (what he claims to be)
an optically superb 10" LX200, which was beaten by
a 10" Newtonian.
In a previous thread, he insisted that the central obstruction
did not cause as much damage to the image as reported
in Suiters book, and repeated in Texerau, and Rutten and
van Vengrooij.
This implies (strongly) that (optically) he doesn't know
what he is talking about.
Then he tries to change the subject from optical performance
to cost, and GOTO features of the mounts.
> But it cost alot more than $2500,!!!
> And if anyone wants to put their $10,000+ 6" refractor
> against my $2500, 10" LX-200, let them do so! The
> Joke is on them! I spent $2500, they spent $10,000+!!!
No, actually, the jokes on you. You have to have 90+ scopes
pass through your hands to find 3 or 4 which have the optical
quality you demand (see above). While the others can simply
order the scope they want and wait for it to arrive, knowing
that it will be neigh-onto-perfect when it does.
Mitch
Mitch Alsup
Mitch...@aol.com
Rich N.
Jay Reynolds Freeman <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<freeman-not-h...@netcom.com>...
> > We did try going higher, but the sky simply wouldn't allow it. The
> > results were so muddy in everything that the comparison would have been
> > pointless. We could only work with what we had.
>
> That's interesting; my impression was that there were intervals
> of good seeing sufficient to support higher magnification -- in
particular,
> the diffraction disc of my test star for star-testing at 285x (4 mm
eyepiece
> in Meade 127 ED) was completely steady on the order of ten percent of
> the time. I felt the problem was that too much magnification made the
> low-contrast features hard to see -- that it was not seeing that limited
> us, but image brightness. How do such others who were there, as read
> this newsgroup, feel about the matter?
Hi Jay,
I agree.
>
> > Some star viewing was done at higher mag; the Meade showed (no
> > surprise) more lateral color.
>
> I think you mean "longitudinal color"?? Lateral color would be
> blue fringes on one side of the image, red on the other; what I saw
> was a uniform violet halo around bright stars.
You are right again.
> > You know, I'm not so sure. That 225 Tak SCT Robin owns has more than
> > once inflated my socks, if not blown them off.
>
> Hmnn. Perhaps we should investigate further...
>
> Setting the brim of his hat low against the glare of the
> noonday Sun, and keeping his focuser hand carefully clear of
> the gleaming white nine-inch barrel that sat heavily in the
> polished leather holster at his hip, Casady stepped slowly
> into the silent, dusty street. He could feel the shifting,
> unseen eyes of the notorious Refractor Gang, staring at him
> with evil expectation, from behind the shuttered windows and
> barred doors of the decaying mining town ...
>
> --
Robin's Tak SCT does perform very well. Damn, hard to beat more aperture.
;-)
Rich