Still buying a Stellarvue ?
MMSjcgirl
considering a Televue but would be willing to settle for a little less scope
and save a lot of money.
Mich
Al Klayton
"MMSjcgirl" <mmsj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020228235424...@mb-mj.aol.com...
product offering good value and the manufacturer ( Vic Maris) is a man of
integrity who has set high standards of performance and gives personal
attention to each and every scope.
Al
PhotoKing
some perverse joy some people get of driving Stellarvue nuts. I've never
understood that kind of senseless attack. Buy Stellarvue with confidence
that you're getting a good scope.
Andre
"MMSjcgirl" <mmsj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020228235424...@mb-mj.aol.com...
Anders Hansson
cost vs. performance ratio for the SV refractors. They simply represent
excellent value for money.
Anders H.
--
Correct address: anhn at telia dot com
Pat Nealy
excellent value for the buck. I refuse to allow the whiny posters to
dissuade me. I'll make my own decisions at the eyepiece.
I do not expect the 80mm to equal the construction or optical quality of
my TV85. It will however, cost only 25% of the 85's price.
I am looking forward to first light with the SV.
Then I'll have an opinion that counts.
Pat
Chris N.
> some perverse joy some people get of driving Stellarvue nuts. I've never
> understood that kind of senseless attack. Buy Stellarvue with confidence
> that you're getting a good scope.
>
> Andre
Let's be fair to both sides here.
Even (most of) the folks who have been criticizing Stellarvue have
taken pains to point out that they take issue with the advertising and
performance claims, not the scope itself.
Most agree that it's a well-made achromat that is clearly a step above
the 80mm f/5 scopes, both in fit-and-finish as well as having a better
lens cell and 2" focuser. Is it worth the rather large jump in price
over the generic f/5's? That's up to each person.
But I know I've seen at least Clive, who's been vocal regarding Vic's
claims, praise the scope itself.
Chris N.
Tom
bang for the buck in many areas. Including: great build quality, a
shorter tube and f-ratio than a tv102(this was my primary competitor
as well) - so it will be easier to travel with (the np101 is out of my
price range) and fine optics. It will have more color - I expect
that. The TV102 is a APO, while the EDT is an Achro that uses a
triplet design with ED glass for improved correction. Vic refuses to
call it a semi-apo (even tho it contains ED glass, and I am fairly
certain will compare well with other scopes that contain ED glass and
are advertised as Semi-apo), and I applaud him for that. I have also
been impressed by how open and friendly the members of the SV yahoo
group are, as well as the time Vic Marris has taken to discuss things
with me upon each of my calls. In my conversations with Vic, I have
always found him to be real up front about the performance that his
scopes deliver - often contradicting reports that I have heard from
(over?)enthuastic users (meaning he will NOT claim the levels of
performance that some of them do, and wants to make sure the buyer
knows what he/she is getting). In addition, he has a 30 day moneyback
guarantee - so if I am not satisfied, I may return the scope, having
only paid shipping. Further, the excellent pricing allows me to buy
new instead of looking for a used TV102 - thus allowing me to put my
own scratches and dings in. =>
This will be my seventh scope, so I have been around the advertising
mill a few times. I would advise you to look at the scopes if you can
- if not, examine their stats, pictures, read user reports, and look
for anyone who actually has one of these scopes that is *disatisfied*
with it, and find out why.
I think the whole "blowup" on usenet was due to an unfortunate
mis-understanding over what defines acceptable advertising and what
dosen't. Vic' origionally had made what some consider to be
misleading statements both on the web and on usenet. I, personally,
would like to see more companies held to the same standard (Meade and
Celestron noteably). To Vic's credit, he has corrected those on his
web site - removing the tables that most people had problems with. As
far as usenet is concerned, I personally feel he has tried to mend
what many consider his errors here as well, but unfortunatly the with
archival nature of google the old discussions are still there just
waiting to be brought up again by whoever stumbles on them.
Don't let the advertising arguements divert you from the fact that he
makes excellent scopes. Even those arguing about the advertising
would grant you that (I am thinking specifically of Clive here...).
Tom T.
mmsj...@aol.com (MMSjcgirl) wrote in message news:<20020228235424...@mb-mj.aol.com>...
Jim Braddy
news:20020228235424...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> After all the bashing, is anyone still buying a Stellarvue and why. I'm
Yes, I'm buying ANOTHER Stellarvue! Good scopes for the money!
Vic is honest, provides excellent customer service, and stands behind
his product. The scopes are easily on par with others in their price
range, in fact the detractors have only argued that they're not "better"
than other scopes in their class. Though that is subjective opinion,
and in some cases the opinon of individuals who have never even seen
or used one. The 80 f/6 is nicer than the Pronto in my opinion.
Yes, I've had both, and yes, there are those who disagree, but that's
my opinion. No, it's not a match for the TV-85 APO, or the Takahashi
Sky-90 APO, both of wich cost at least four times as much, but Vic never
claimed it was. However, he has anounced he'll soon be marketing
an 85mm APO that I think, should come very close to the TV and Tak in
performance. I've not yet seen the EDT's or APO's, but have little doubt
they will compete very well against most any production scope in their
class. I recently upgraded my order from the EDT to the APO. Am really
looking foward to doing some A-B comparisons of it, with some of the
Tak's, TMB's, and TV's in my local club.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Jon Isaacs
Apogee Inc is selling a 80 mm F6.25 refractor with ED glass for about $450 with
a 2 inch focuser and all. How does this scope compare to the Stellar Vue 80mm
F6?
jon isaacs
John Savard
part:
>After all the bashing, is anyone still buying a Stellarvue and why. I'm
>considering a Televue but would be willing to settle for a little less scope
>and save a lot of money.
Why not get *more* scope and save a lot of money?
I'm not saying you should settle for a Dob, or even a
Schmidt-Cassegrain. But what's wrong with a Maksutov-Cassegrain, now
that those are available at reasonable prices?
Peter Besenbruch
"Bashing" is an overstatement. People criticize the company's
advertising claims. The scope itself is fine for what it is, and
sold at a fair price.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.hawastsoc.org/ (Hawaiian Astronomical Society)
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/ (Deepsky Atlas)
Tom
portable 4" ED scope - but thats my requiremnent. While I've had the
bigger stuff (still do actually - can't imagine being with out it) and
smaller stuff (same comment), the medium size stuff seems to get used
far more for me. Plus there are a few advantages to a small well
constructed refractor...
Tom T.
jsa...@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote in message news:<3c7fd43a...@news.ed.shawcable.net>...
RAnder3127
>considering a Televue but would be willing to settle for a little less scope
>and save a lot of money.
If you really believed what was said
about StellarVue was "bashing"
then you must think very highly of
the product and have no reason not
to buy one. So go right ahead.
I dare you.
-Rich
Al Klayton
I really do believe you should accept the "dare". While waiting many months
for my Stellarvue scope, I had time to read what must be hundreds of posts
from very satisfied Stellarvue customers, and not one from a dissatisfied
customer ( I'm would guess there are a few given human nature and the huge #
of scopes Vic has sold).
AND, with Stellarvue's * LIBERAL* return policy you have nothing to lose (
except perhaps shipping costs), so why not see if you can in fact " save a
lot of money for a little less scope."
Al
"RAnder3127" <rande...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020301212434...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Cover2Cover
You forgot to mention Vic's tremendous support line. Vic will help you with any
problems that you have and if it can't be fixed by the end user Vic will make
sure it gets done by him. Of course the quality of the scope leads to very few
problems... so few in fact that people can only nit pick about the wording in
the advertising and not the scope itself.
Don
Al Klayton
I agree with you. Vic willing gives personal attention to each scope before
he sells it, and each scope owner after the sale to insure things are
"right" which I suppose is why he seems to get so little sleep!). I'd
also recommend potential customers tune into Stellarvue@Yahoogroups for a
while ( and surf the archives) and see for themselves how Vic deals with his
customers before and after the sale -- and then decide if they are still
interested in a Stellarvue scope.
Al
"Cover2Cover" <cover...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3C8041C4...@shaw.ca...
MMSjcgirl
little more over the weekend but I'm leaning towards the Stellarvue.
Mich
ValeryD
<snip>
> The TV102 is a APO, while the EDT is an Achro that uses a
> triplet design with ED glass for improved correction. Vic refuses to
> call it a semi-apo (even tho it contains ED glass,
<snip>
> Tom T.
This ED glass (fake ED) can't improve color correction.
When you will understand this? Or you just like to foolish
yourself and play with achromatic scope imaginating that it
is a semi-apo or even an apo? :-)
V.D.
Cover2Cover
correction can mean several things. BTW, explain to people why ED glass gives the appearance of
improved color correction... is it an illusion... please explain... I haven't been on this earth for
more than a couple of weeks??
Statements from you like this just prove that you're on a sour grapes rant and that you don't have
anything substantial to say.
Don
David
ValeryD wrote:
> This ED glass (fake ED)
What glass is used in SV 102 EDT according to your reverse engineering specialists ?
> can't improve color correction.
> When you will understand this? Or you just like to foolish
> yourself and play with achromatic scope imaginating that it
> is a semi-apo
What is your definition of a semi-apo ?
ValeryD
> ValeryD wrote:
>
> > This ED glass (fake ED)
>
> What glass is used in SV 102 EDT according to your reverse engineering >specialists ?
If you read all these threads with enough attantion, you can remember,
that the ONLY glass, which can be called as ED, but has no ubnormal
dispersion properties is FK5 (according to Schott classification).
In different catalogs from different manufacturers this glass has different
name. In Russian catalog, for example, it has destignation name LK3.
I am not much interested how it called in other catalogs, because this
glass has nothing what can be interested.
In any case, this glass can't improve color correction even a bit vs wha
can be achieved with BK7 or similar crown.
> > can't improve color correction.
> > When you will understand this? Or you just like to foolish
> > yourself and play with achromatic scope imaginating that it
> > is a semi-apo
>
> What is your definition of a semi-apo ?
Strictly speaking semi-apo is an achromat which has at least 50% smaller
secondary spectrum vs the same D and F/D plain achromat.
Very simple. I read this definition about 30 years ago and found it
actual till now, because there is no better and simplier definition
and "semi-apo" is too wide field.
This definition was given in the times, when most achromats were
long focus ones and F/15 was normal. Of course such long semi-apo
with secondary spectrum decreased 2x was really semi-apo - the half
way to a true APO.
Now another times.
V.D.
ValeryD
OK, which correction this ED glass can improve vs BK-7? Spherical? - not.
Field curvature - if yes, then only a bit and this mostly depends of
another parameters of a triplet, not due a difference between this ED and BK7.
So, really which correction????
All flames were about color correction, because all other correction is
not much interested for public and can be pretty similar - depends of
designer's tasks.
You need to be able to read between the lines. Very often peoples do not
speak straight, but try to say something between the lines.
V.D.
David
ValeryD wrote:
> David <morav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C806D78...@yahoo.com>...
> > ValeryD wrote:
> >
> > > This ED glass (fake ED)
> >
> > What glass is used in SV 102 EDT according to your reverse engineering >specialists ?
>
> If you read all these threads with enough attantion, you can remember,
> that the ONLY glass, which can be called as ED, but has no ubnormal
> dispersion properties is FK5 (according to Schott classification).
I read with great attention (and surprise).
Nowhere Vic Maris stated that the EDT uses FK5. Everything other is a guess.
D
David
dispersion glass.
Withdraw your accusation, Valery.
If you need to continue your white knight ride as a self-appointed consumer protector, look
first to make the threads on your Chromacorr straight (pun intended).
Tom
> When you will understand this?
VD - How the heck can you know what glass it is? To the best of my
knowledge, designers usually don't reveal details like that - they
seem to have this little thing about people reverse-engineering their
stuff to copy it. If you have proof of that statement, you had best
throw it up. (Like a link to a posting of Vic's where he says he uses
"Fake Ed Glass" I will even accept it if it states the type of glass
he uses in the EDT. If you can do this, I will apologize and grovel at
your feet for forgiveness.)
Come on - heres your chance... Prove it. Put up or shut up as my
coach used to say.
Ohh wait - I forgot - you are such good buddies with Vic, I am sure a
little thing like propritary information wouldn't hold him back.
>Or you just like to foolish
> yourself and play with achromatic scope imaginating that it
> is a semi-apo or even an apo? :-)
I don't know if its the language differece at this point or if you are
just an ass. (means jerk, dork, not a nice guy - wanted to be sure you
got that one).
If you are silent, we will assume that you can't back it up and you
had best shut up.
Tom T.
scopeguy
know that we can count on an opinion from you - I was getting worried.
Seems like stellarvue bashing is one of your favorites. Well now
that you are back to normal I guess all is right with the world.
Tom
stellrvue group on yahoo - its a great bunch of folks - many of us on
there don't even have SV stuff, but the atmosphere is very nice and
friendly.
Tom T.
mmsj...@aol.com (MMSjcgirl) wrote in message news:<20020301225630...@mb-mw.aol.com>...
Astronomy
I read between your lines and it seems like you continue to change the position of the
goal posts. One minute you use today's standards and the next you use stanfards that you
read about 30 years ago. As far as I'm concerned you have lost all credibility. There
were times whe you almost had me there but poof!... you've gone and destroyed any logical
discourse on this subject.
Don
Jim Braddy
news:20020301122026...@mb-fi.aol.com...
Wouldn't have a clue, as I've never seen one! JDBraddy
Jon Isaacs
>knowledge, designers usually don't reveal details like that - they
>seem to have this little thing about people reverse-engineering their
>stuff to copy it.
There is no problem with reverse engineering those things as far as I can tell.
These guys like Valery know what is available and run designs on computer
programs quickly. The problems with the glasses are manufacturing problems,
not design problems.
My suggestion is that rather than attacking Valary listen to him because he has
experience and understanding of the issues involved in designing and
manufacturing refractors and refractive elements.
There are at least three posters who have such skills here, RC, TMB and Valery.
Valery is the only one who has chosen to say anything, I imagine the others
were more cautious and wisely decided not to add their knowledge and skills to
these threads.
I might point out that Valery did explain how he knew what glass it was. I
have no way of knowing if he is correct or not, I can only read what he writes
and am no expert.
>I don't know if its the language differece at this point or if you are
>just an ass. (means jerk, dork, not a nice guy - wanted to be sure you
>got that one).
So what does that make you? Rude?? Insensitive???
>If you are silent, we will assume that you can't back it up and you
>had best shut up.
Why not take this stuff somewhere else. SAA is generally friendly, kind and
courteous. No need for such taunting.
This appears to me to be a case of what goes around comes around. If you want
Valery to be civil and share his knowledge in a civil and courteous way, I
suggest do the same.
Jon Isaacs
Chris1011
knowledge, designers usually don't reveal details like that
had best shut up.>>
Valery is very knowledgeable when it comes to glass. So is Tom Back and myself.
I think you are off-base to make any kind of conclusions that these people do
not know what is going on. Study optics in detail, and you will also eventually
come to understand. Until such time I would advise backing off.
When it comes to glass, a designer has not any choice. You either make an
achromat, regardless of the glass choices, or you make an apo. There is really
no in between. You cannot really make a fast short tube semi-apo with any
glasses that are available by any of the glass companies - unless you pay on
the order of 20 times the cost of normal crown and flint and somehow convince
the glass company to actually proiduce a melt for you since all the available
candidate galsse are now out of production.
If you are going to spend that kind of cash, you might as well get real ED
glass which is cheaper, and get at least 4 times better color correction (eg.
Meade ED design). And if you did that, you would certainly crow about it and
call it an ED apo, not a better color corrected achromat.
Let me challenge you or anyone else, to come up with a fast short semi-apo, one
that has at least 2x better color correction than a BK7-F2 or BK7-SF1 achromat.
Hit the glass catalogs and let the race begin!
Roland Christen
Barry Simon
Jon,
I bought the Apogee 80 mm f/6.25 refractor 2 years ago as a door prize
for our Deep South Regional Stargaze. I test all the optical prizes
for fit, finish, performance prior to the event (several things have
been returned for refund or exchange thru the years). This particular
scope was compared to my University Optics 80 mm f/6.25 refractor,
which has from time to time been rumored to have ED glass and has
generally received good reviews thru the years.
The Apogee ED scope showed an immediate softness with low power
viewing. High power testing on the Moon and double stars was very
disappointing. I contacted Apogee and was told that several
objectives in a recent batch did not pass muster and this was probably
one of them that had slipped thru. I was instructed to unscrew the
objective cell assembly and return it only for exchange. The
conversation and the exchange went very well. With the new lens cell
in place the scope performed much, much better. Still however, not
quite as well as the University Optics 80mm f/6.25, but better that
the short tube 80mm f/5 scopes I have looked thru.
The Apogee is a very nicely made scope with a black finish which
almost looks anodized. The focuser is a crayford. It also has a
1/4-20 mounting block with an integral ring which when loosened will
allow the tube assembly to be rotated. This is much like many
telephoto lenses from various camera manufacturers. If you elect to
go with tube rings instead, you can use this mounting block as a
platform for a finder and then you will be able to rotate the finder
to either the left or right side of the tube assembly. The baffling
inside of the tube is a graduated foam cylinder with steps. I do
wonder whether or not this foam will out-gas over time or otherwise
degrade and crumble away with time, heat, cold and moisture effects.
The William Optics Megrez 80 available from Anacortes is essentially
the same scope with the same focuser, optical focal length, case, etc.
The Megrez has a different finish and does have a retractable dew
shield, a very important consideration if travel is in your plans. It
is priced about $200 more and it also has the same foam baffling
system in the tube.
I have not compared either the Apogee, the Megrez or the University
80mm to the Stellarvue 80mm.
Barry Simon
Astronomy
Just curious.
If the Stellarvue 102D achromat shows better color correction than your usual
Chinese scopes (great or small difference-depending on the qc of the Chinese scope
since Vic's scopes are all pretty much the same high quality) and the Stellarvue
102EDT shows better color correction again with increased sharpness both of which
are very noticeably better than any Chinese scope that you can throw at it... what
gives if your statement is true that there is no in-between?
Don
Dave
> little more over the weekend but I'm leaning towards the Stellarvue.
> Mich
Mich:
Your email address at least suggests that you are from the southern NJ
area. If that is the case and you'd like to see either the 80mm F6
(1010) or the 102D, let me know and I'll arrange to meet you somewhere
so that you can take a look at one before making a purchase
decision.f
David
owenpa...@att.net (take out the nospam)
eye_...@arkansas.net
>Hey Rich - I see you are back, and up to your old tricks. So nice to
>know that we can count on an opinion from you - I was getting worried.
> Seems like stellarvue bashing is one of your favorites. Well now
>that you are back to normal I guess all is right with the world.
So who is doing the bashing now and again and again and again? You
and that's Ok?? What about the one of your _many_ open bashings
against a respected and innovative optical designer's products calling
it "kinda weird" (ie. Chromacor)? That's Ok, too, for you?? I
hardly think so unless you also care to openly proclaim yourself as
what you really are...a hypocrite.
Let's hear it. Don't leave us guessing like we must be regarding your
incognito.
Pete Rasmussen
eye_...@arkansas.net
>So just as a matter of interest:
>
>Apogee Inc is selling a 80 mm F6.25 refractor with ED glass for about $450 with
>a 2 inch focuser and all. How does this scope compare to the Stellar Vue 80mm
>F6?
>
>jon isaacs
Half the price? ;)
Pete Rasmussen
Chris1011
Chinese scopes (great or small difference-depending on the qc of the Chinese
scope
since Vic's scopes are all pretty much the same high quality) and the
Stellarvue
102EDT shows better color correction again with increased sharpness both of
which
are very noticeably better than any Chinese scope that you can throw at it...
what
gives if your statement is true that there is no in-between?>>
Repeat after me: an achromat is an achromat is an achromat. Color error is 1
part in 1850 to perhaps 1 part in 2000. You will not see the difference in
these two numbers. Apart from the fact that a longer focal length results in
less color error, a designer can do all kinds of tricks to bend the curve to
show less red (but then more blue) or less blue (but then more red). The best
all-around correction is C-F, but that does not prevent designers from trying
other corrections. This does not mean there is less color, just less of one
color at the expense of more of another. Some people have better red
sensitivity, so would declare one design to be better. others have more acute
blue sensitivity, thus would declare it just the opposite. I bet you any amount
that you can find just as many people who will say one scope has more color,
and the other half saying it has less. I have a standard C-F corrected 80mm F11
refractor that I guarantee will show much less color than any 80mm short focus
achromat, I don't care who made the shorty, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or some
guy in the Antarctic.
Hope springs eternal in the breast of man (don't know the origin of this quote
but it applies to this crazy business). It is tempting for those not
knowledgeable in optics to argue that anything is possible, but it is much
better to argue this when you are fully informed about a subject. Listen to
your elders.
Roland Christen
David
eye_...@arkansas.net wrote:
>
> Half the price? ;)
>
> Pete Rasmussen
Half the price of what ? What do you want to say ?
Dave
David
Chris1011 wrote:
> >> How the heck can you know what glass it is? To the best of my
> knowledge, designers usually don't reveal details like that
> if you are silent, we will assume that you can't back it up and you
> had best shut up.>>
>
> Valery is very knowledgeable when it comes to glass. So is Tom Back and myself.
> I think you are off-base to make any kind of conclusions that these people do
> not know what is going on.
So what exactly is going on?
> Study optics in detail, and you will also eventually
> come to understand. Until such time I would advise backing off.
>
> When it comes to glass, a designer has not any choice. You either make an
> achromat, regardless of the glass choices, or you make an apo.
So why the member of the "elders" club (Deryuzhin) uses the semi-apo term ? And he
even just defined in the thread above. Seems that the elders are not in complete
harmony in all views.
> snip..
> If you are going to spend that kind of cash, you might as well get real ED
> glass which is cheaper, and get at least 4 times better color correction (eg.
> Meade ED design). And if you did that, you would certainly crow about it and
> call it an ED apo, not a better color corrected achromat.
>
> Let me challenge you or anyone else, to come up with a fast short semi-apo, one
> that has at least 2x better color correction than a BK7-F2 or BK7-SF1 achromat.
> Hit the glass catalogs and let the race begin!
>
If there is a solution for this, I'd certainly not "crow" about it for reverse
engineers around..
Dave
ValeryD
> I can add, that the only statement Vic Maris did is that the ED element uses an abnormal
> dispersion glass.
> Withdraw your accusation, Valery.
>
> If you need to continue your white knight ride as a self-appointed consumer protector, look
> first to make the threads on your Chromacorr straight (pun intended).
Please, show me where Vic stated, that the ED element in 102EDT is
ubnormal dispersion element?
If it really ubnormal dispersion glass, why in this case this scope still
achromat???
Concerning thread. It is impossible to make it 100% squire in 100% cases.
The Chromacor cell can't be made with one installation in the machine tool.
Second, the thread in star-diagonal is not 100% squire in 100% cases too.
So, there is no reason to make 100% squire thread in a Chromacor. It is
even better, that by Chromacor rotating one can fully compensite
unsquire in star-diagonal thread.
As I see, you are learning towards to buy a SV. Do it! Their achromats,
as I know are fine instruments, but still plain achromats. Their APO is
significantly more expensive than achromats and nobody questioning
its APO correction.
V.D.
Chris1011
If there is a solution for this, I'd certainly not "crow" about it for reverse
engineers around..
Dave>.
If you did, you would win big prize. An easy to make semi-apo using ordinary
glasses would be a highly desireable thing for lens makers.
Roland Christen
ValeryD
Tom,
Your problem is that you think you know enough. Never think so!
You will never know enough. As much you will know, as more clear this
will be for you, that you still know far not enough.
About proprietary information. See, I know which glasses Vixen does use
in their APOs, I know which glasses AP used in their EDT and some other
APOs, I know which glasses Meade and BORG and TAK and Zeiss use in their
APOs and semi-apos. And what? Did I copied them? Who copied others?
I know, that Thomas know enough of such designs, Roland know almost all
of them. Does this fact hurts others production? Not!
Achromats are so simple things, that telling others about any kind of
proprietary here is just childrish. Better change a bit, eccording to ethic
the ads policy. This all and enough.
> I don't know if its the language differece at this point or if you are
> just an ass. (means jerk, dork, not a nice guy - wanted to be sure you
> got that one).
Aha! Don't you think, that this tells more about yourself?
V.D.
David
ValeryD wrote:
> David <morav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C80E5AC...@yahoo.com>...
> > I can add, that the only statement Vic Maris did is that the ED element uses an abnormal
> > dispersion glass.
> > Withdraw your accusation, Valery.
> >
> > If you need to continue your white knight ride as a self-appointed consumer protector, look
> > first to make the threads on your Chromacorr straight (pun intended).
>
> Please, show me where Vic stated, that the ED element in 102EDT is
> ubnormal dispersion element?
You brought up the accusation that EDT has "fake ED" FK5 glass. You are the first one to proof
anything. Reading between lines only ?
>
> So, there is no reason to make 100% squire thread in a Chromacor. It is
> even better, that by Chromacor rotating one can fully compensite
> unsquire in star-diagonal thread.
Or use a tape as real users reported ?
>
> As I see, you are learning towards to buy a SV.
My bussiness where I will put my money. I have already paid enough for two Chromacors to support
your BMW and fishing trips (or development of a simple extension tube you have promised to
deliver "soonest" for months). Or is screwing together 5 filter rings the best way to use a $750
gadget ? Maybe you will find some advantage in doing so...
I still have not heard from you whether you did not mind SV ads/website at the time when you
jumped on SV board with your Ch offering ? Or, maybe you thought, it wouldn't do any good for
the bussiness - but now it is O.K. ? That would be very hypocritical.
D
eye_...@arkansas.net
Astronomy
So am I to assume then that you know the glass type used in Vic's 102EDT?
Again, just curious.
Don
Alan French
I am not sure why there were any rumors involving this scope. In the UO
catalog I have here frin 1993-94 they explictly said the glasses were FK5
(the infamous "fake" ED glass, if I recall correctly) and SF2. The color
correction from C to F is about 1 part in 1950, so it is clearly just an
achromat. The one I had here for a while was a very nice little telescope.
Perhaps they did not always specify the glasses.
Clear skies, Alan
"Barry Simon" <bsim...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:989139d7.02030...@posting.google.com...
> [SNIP] This particular
> scope was compared to my University Optics 80 mm f/6.25 refractor,
> which has from time to time been rumored to have ED glass and has
> generally received good reviews thru the years.
> [SNIP]
Peter Besenbruch
>Hope springs eternal in the breast of man
Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
Alexander Pope
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733
__________________________________________________________
http://www.hawastsoc.org/ (Hawaiian Astronomical Society)
http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky/ (Deepsky Atlas)
David
Dave
>
> Your problem is that you think you know enough. Never think so!
> You will never know enough. As much you will know, as more clear this
> will be for you, that you still know far not enough.
>
> About proprietary information. See, I know which glasses Vixen does use
> in their APOs, I know which glasses AP used in their EDT and some other
> APOs, I know which glasses Meade and BORG and TAK and Zeiss use in their
> APOs and semi-apos. And what? Did I copied them? Who copied others?
> I know, that Thomas know enough of such designs, Roland know almost all
> of them. Does this fact hurts others production? Not!
>
> Achromats are so simple things, that telling others about any kind of
> proprietary here is just childrish. Better change a bit, eccording to ethic
> the ads policy. This all and enough.
>
> > I don't know if its the language differece at this point or if you are
> > just an ass. (means jerk, dork, not a nice guy - wanted to be sure you
> > got that one).
>
> Aha! Don't you think, that this tells more about yourself?
>
>
> V.D.
Val:
And now we know what is driving you crazy. You DON'T know what type of
glass Stellarvue is using in their design and it's driving you
absolutely insane! It's so funny to watch, but at the same time very
pathetic. Since you don't know, you have to make false claims about
"fake ED" glass... thereby inserting another term that has no meaning
at all in reality. As posted on the stellarvue groups site, Vic does
not use FK5, otherwise known as "fake ED" thanks to you.
We all await your next lie or false accusation. I'm sure it'll be just
as comical and outrageous as the past one's have been!
DO
Alan French
I am not sure why this is "thanks to Valery." FK5 has a V(d) of about 72,
so it is called an "ED" or "Extra Low Dispersion glass. However, it lies
quite close to the Abbe Line and so does not have the abnormal dispersion
characteristics necessary to get better than an achromat when matching it
with another glass. Glasses like FK01 or FK54 lie far enough off the Abbe
line that they can be matched with a proper glass to get much better color
correction.
Clear skies, Alan
> ..... FK5, otherwise known as "fake ED" thanks to you.
Jon Isaacs
>reverse
>engineers around..
>
>Dave
As Roland has previously explained, reverse engineering is not really a problem
here because this is not a design issue, Roland, Valery and Thomas Back can all
design objectives all day long with a variety of properties. Reverse
engineering is not an issue.
But given the availability and cost of the various glasses, it seems that the
choices are limited and well known.
jon isaacs
Tom
>Your problem is that you think you know enough.
No - I am quite aware there is a TON that I don't know. I know next
to nothing about glass types for instance. I am sure that you know
far more than I do there... I do credit your intelligence for
designing an exceptional product. You are a evidently a very
intelligent individual. (but ok, call me ignorant)
However - it appears that I know something that you don't. I know
that this vendetta campaign of yours really makes you look like an
ass. As far as the average person can tell, you simply have no
concept about how you come across. If you are trying to convince a
semi-intelligent individual NOT to purchase a product, you have to do
more than just spout crap like
You are foolish to buy this product - it is bad product - nothing like
what it is claimed to be
Give me hard data to make me change my mind or give up this stupid
vendetta - Why can you not see that?
>Never think so!
> You will never know enough.
I agree - I will never know enough - unfortunatly you seem to think
that you know everything. And well I am certainly willing to agree
that you know more that I do about optics, and your products, I am not
willing to blindly follow you down the path when you tell me your
competitors products are terrible. (call me stupid and incapable of
learning)
> As much you will know, as more clear this
> will be for you, that you still know far not enough.
Ok - once again, you tell me how dumb I am. Thanks for that...
> About proprietary information. See, I know which glasses Vixen does use
> in their APOs, I know which glasses AP used in their EDT and some other
> APOs, I know which glasses Meade and BORG and TAK and Zeiss use in their
> APOs and semi-apos. And what? Did I copied them? Who copied others?
> I know, that Thomas know enough of such designs, Roland know almost all
> of them. Does this fact hurts others production? Not!
Ummm yeah - ok, sure... whatever.... So if you know all this, and it's
as commen knowledge as you say, why can't you still tell us what the
glass used in the EDT is?
>
> Achromats are so simple things, that telling others about any kind of
> proprietary here is just childrish.
Ummmm yeah - sure... why don't you publish enough information to set
up shop over here and produce chromachors - you really don't realize
how DUMB this arguement sounds to the average individual do you?
Granted you may be right, but it still sounds pretty dumb to the
average Joe. (now you call me childish)
>Better change a bit, eccording to ethic
> the ads policy. This all and enough.
What the heck does this even mean? In english this is totally
meaningless - I think we are running into a language barrier again.
> > I don't know if its the language differece at this point or if you are
> > just an ass. (means jerk, dork, not a nice guy - wanted to be sure you
> > got that one).
>
> Aha! Don't you think, that this tells more about yourself?
Yeah - it means I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - I thought
your problems might POSSIBLY be due to language problems. Guess I was
wrong again. How do you say ass in russian? - I want to be sure I get
it right.
So let me get this straight - you call me a fool becuase I am looking
at a competitors product, then you call me stupid two or three
different times in this post alone and you expect to drive me from
purchasing your competitors product who at this time, the only thing
that I can see he did wrong was to publish some misleading
advertising, and refuse to reveal what he considers to be private
information? Yeah - sure that will work REALLY well...
And BTW - I still notice you never pointed me to anything that would
tell me what the glass types are in the SV 102EDT, or a even provide
reasonable arguement that would make me consider changing my order.
Therefore by the only logic this poor childish dumb ignorant american
can muster is I can only assume that you are full of it. For as
intelligent as you must be, your people skills certainly are terrible.
I gave you a very simple option - and you either couldn't or wouldn't
comply. You chose instead to insult me more times.
Guess that tells us even more about you.
David
S.A.A, where can I find the description of the glass used in the Chromacorr,
beside the typical "ubnormal" characteristics mentioned ?
David
The "reverse engineering" comment stems from the fact that in the past Deryuzhin
revealed that he obtained Synta 150 F8 scope from Markus Ludes and did reverse
engineering of the sample. Now the story is changed; he got the info from the
factory producing optics for Synta. Anybody believes that the Chinese will just
give out such info ?
Tom
Typically I respond nicely to people who call me a fool, and do not
provide any solid information that I can use...
Guess he just caught me on an off day.
If you can point me to anything that says I should take my hard earned
cash and apply it to another product - Hey, then I'm gonna listen.
But when somone insults me repeatedly because I am considering his
competitors products - yeah, sure I'll thank him and buy his stuff.
Once again - if you can point me to any HARD information, please do
so.
Tom T.
Richard F.L.R. Snashall
Chris1011 wrote:
>
>Let me challenge you or anyone else, to come up with a fast short semi-apo, one
>that has at least 2x better color correction than a BK7-F2 or BK7-SF1 achromat.
>Hit the glass catalogs and let the race begin!
>
How about:
R T G
496.02 24.23 BK7
-478.76 0.5
-526.35 8.98 N-KzFS11
186.71 26.77 BAF4
Aperture: 150, f/8
Rick S.
>
>Roland Christen
>
Tom
Thank you very much for your curteous response. I am well aware that
I know next to nothing about glass types and such. However - the
question that I really want answered is:
Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not purchase the
SV102EDT?
As a semi-informed american consumer, I know just enought to be
dangerous. From what I have seen as a typical consumer it all appears
to be name calling between (what appear to me to be) competitors. I
really appreciate your response, as I do not consider you to be a
competitor.
From your response, I assume that you are telling me there is no ED
glass in the EDT. Is that correct? If so, I simply ask for how you
(and any others) know. Simply saying "because of the laws of optics",
does not answer how you can know the glass involved in someones
product, or does it? If it does, can you please explain how? I am
trying to decide if I should by this product or not, and so far all I
am getting is name calling from a competitor. Or at least that is how
I see it - if I am wrong, please please explain it to me. Please do
not simply answer "trust me". I need to have SOMETHING more than that
to base my purchase on.
You say that it is impossible to produce a short tube apo, but as a
consumer, I see them available from many companies, including televue.
Are these not APO's? It is also my understanding that the EDT is not
an APO.
I mean absolutly no disrespect to you, but I really do not understand,
and I am getting extremely frustrated because I *want* to understand,
and all I seem to be getting from other posters is a sort of "I
should shut up and respect my betters" type of attitude. Maybe I am
misreading that, but from where I am sitting it doesn't seem like it.
Thank you once again for your response.
Tom T.
chri...@aol.com (Chris1011) wrote in message news:<20020302113232...@mb-fc.aol.com>...
Tom
I understand what you are saying applies to the 102D, however, am I to
understand that it applies to the EDT as well? The EDT supposedly
uses ED glass, and is not strictly an achromat.
Thank you for your time.
Tom T.
chri...@aol.com (Chris1011) wrote in message news:<20020302131340...@mb-fc.aol.com>...
Tom
you were insulting me in an attempt to draw me away from your
competitor - if this was NOT the case (you were not purposely
insulting me), please except my sincere apology for my earlier post.
However - You still have not told me HOW it is possible for you to
know what ED glass is in the 102EDT. I would like to know this simply
beacuse I am still considering purchasing the scope. Unfortunatly, it
is VERY hard to accept "Simply because I do." Anything concrete that
you can supply would be appreciated. Claiming laws of optics does not
do me any good. I do not understand enough about glass types to
follow that arguement. I am however willing to learn as long as
people do not insult me simply because I do not yet know. From my
viewpoint, I can see many different scopes at many different price
points that provide different levels of color correction. There are
less expensive scopes that provide better color correction than more
expensive scopes. Presumably they use different glass.
Tom T.
ar...@mercury.kherson.ua (ValeryD) wrote in message news:<5c4a4ee7.02030...@posting.google.com>...
> ttru...@yahoo.com (Tom) wrote in message news:<fe35d4da.02030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > The TV102 is a APO, while the EDT is an Achro that uses a
> > triplet design with ED glass for improved correction. Vic refuses to
> > call it a semi-apo (even tho it contains ED glass,
> <snip>
> > Tom T.
>
> This ED glass (fake ED) can't improve color correction.
> When you will understand this? Or you just like to foolish
> yourself and play with achromatic scope imaginating that it
> is a semi-apo or even an apo? :-)
>
>
> V.D.
RichardN22
meaningless - I think we are running into a language barrier again.>>
Tom,
Why are you having such a cow over all of this? Someone else explained this
very well, perhaps you missed the post. Everyone says the SV scopes are very
well made achromats and a fine value. Everyone says Vic does a great job
choosing quality components, good glass, and gives good customer service and
support. The ONLY thing being discussed are some of the claims on the SV web
page stating that these achromats are somehow just as good or better than some
other more expensive APO scopes. Vic may deliver the best achromat in the
world, but it is still an achromat and it can't correct colors any better than
any other achromat. Now it may be true that the components and execution of
less expensive achromats fall short of what SV offers, and that there may be
issues with lens cells, collimation and baffling, but you could get lucky. If
you want a well made achromat from a company that gives good service, then the
SV is the scope for you. If you want a scope that delivers better than
achromat color correction, look elsewhere.
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
Tom
First let me apologize for flying off the handle - it has been a long
day, and I do not respond well when I think I am being called a fool.
It has now occured to me that perhaps that was not his intention, and
simply a result of the language barrier.
I guess the thing that I just can not get my head around is that if
someone like Vixen can make an f6.5 ED scope and sell it cheaper than
the sv102edt, then why does everyone seem to be insisting that the
102EDT has to have worse color correction?
From my point of view, this makes no sense at all.
I can understand that it might not be any better, and it may possibly
be worse if in fact it is using an inferior type of ED glass, but I do
not understand why everyone is saying a more expensive scope
*absolutly has* to be worse than a cheaper scope, especially when both
are claimed to use ED glass.
It further boggles my mind when this claim is made by people who have
never (to the best of my knowledge) even looked through this
particular scope (102EDT).
Is it possible that we are confusing the 102d and the 102edt?
Is it becuause it is a triplet design? I thought that triplets were
*generally* considered to be superior in color correction to doublets.
I understand that it is not an APO. I also have been led to
understand that the term semi-apo has little to know *real* meaning. -
by this I mean that it only implies correction somewhere between an
achromat and an apo. Is there a magic barrier at f6.5? Is this the
fastest that you can make an scope using ed glass? I doubt it, but
please tell me.
I ask this because I have an SV102edt scope on order, and have not yet
seen anything that indicates that I should consider dropping the order
for that scope.
Please, please help me here. What am I missing?
Tom T.
Tom T.
ar...@mercury.kherson.ua (ValeryD) wrote in message news:<5c4a4ee7.02030...@posting.google.com>...
David
thank you for formulating an opinion w/o calling someone fool or idiot (as some
here habitually do).
It seems to me that you were misled by false arguments repeated on S.A.A. and
already memorized them.
The scope Tom considers is NOT compared to an APO on the SV site but to a "Fast
ED".
Under such denomination I can imagine e.g. Megrez SD 102 or a Vixen scope.
David
RichardN22 wrote:
...
Ron B[ee]
> >After all the bashing, is anyone still buying a Stellarvue and why. I'm
> >considering a Televue but would be willing to settle for a little less scope
> >and save a lot of money.
I would appear that if anyone is interested in the Stellarvue refractors, all
he/she has to do is get out to RTMC this year. I understand that all three
102mm models will be there.
Afterall, Confucious said "seeing is believing" ;-).
Ron B[ee]
Ron B[ee]
> yourself and play with achromatic scope imaginating that it
> is a semi-apo or even an apo? :-)
>
>
Umm, Valery, you've now perked my curiosity. Which type of
glass do you use in the Chromacor? I've read somewhere that
once the chromatic aberration reaches the eyepiece, there's
not much anyone can do. Since Chromacor obviously works and
speaking of physics, has a new physical law been discovered?
Thanks,
Ron B[ee]
PS Hopefully, curiosity doesn't kill the cat in this case ;-).
Brian Tung
> Umm, Valery, you've now perked my curiosity. Which type of
> glass do you use in the Chromacor? I've read somewhere that
> once the chromatic aberration reaches the eyepiece, there's
> not much anyone can do. Since Chromacor obviously works and
> speaking of physics, has a new physical law been discovered?
Since I've said something similar in the past, let me clarify what *I*
mean, at the least. When I made that assertion, I made it in the
context of a Barlow acting to make the scope effectively twice the
focal ratio (or whatever the factor might be). The Barlow cannot
correct the color. However, that's in large part because the Barlow
is not engineered to correct for color.
There is nothing in the laws of physics that makes the Chromacorr
impossible. I just wanted to make it clear that I, for one, do not
think it is somehow claiming the impossible (such as clear 675x
views from a 60 mm refractor!).
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
spun
On what planet is that?
If I were to judge amateur astronomy soley by S.A.A.,
I would conclude it is a hobby only for jerks.
ValeryD
> VD - perhaps I misjudged your earlier post - it certainly seemed like
> you were insulting me in an attempt to draw me away from your
> competitor - if this was NOT the case (you were not purposely
> insulting me), please except my sincere apology for my earlier post.
Tom,
Let me assure you, that I didn't have in my intention to turn your
attention out from SV product. No. If you decided in any case to
buy an _achromatic_ scope - then SV achromats are one of the best
choice for you. The reason is obvious - SV pay maximum attention for
QC of each scope and as Roland said, this makes SV a mile ahead of
other achromat makers. Image sharpness is more important than color
correction.
But....if you do plan to buy from SV a scope which has _really better_
color correction than other achromats, then you need to buy SV APO,
because as a person, who know something in optics, I will NEVER believe,
that SV achromatic scopes haseven a bit better color correction than same
size and F/D other achromats. Used glasses simply do not allow to do
this.
Also, I didn't called you fool. I never think so and I never communicate
with persons whom I consider as fools. What the sense to discuss something
with fool? He always think he know all and what other peoples intend is
to foolish him.
As for ED glass. If only SV use REAL ED glass, this immediately will be
reflected in the scope price. See, where SV does use REAL ED glass (or may be
even fluorite?) - in 102mm APO. Look at its price. 2.5K
The only conclution about another ED in SV achromat can be - this ED does
not has any ubnormal dispersion properties and costs accordingly. The ONLY
such glass, which can be formally called as ED, but still cheap and has
no abnormal properties - FK5 (Schott classification) or its direct analog
from another catalogs. Very easy .
You can trust to this my info - I know this subject.
About labguage barrier. Some time it really cause some misunderstanding.
What did I meant. No any vindettes at all. All these so called "vindettes"
will be forgotten immediately after SV will change it's ads style and
will not longer saying, that their achromats has better color correction
than other achromats with same sizes and F/D - this just impossible.
V.D.
Tom
Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your way of dealing with a
frustrated astronomer, and voicing your opinion in a non-threating
way.
I have been talking about the 102EDT NOT the 102D.
It seemed to me that VD called me foolish and stupid in several
different ways for even considering his competitors scope, without
explaining to me why. The only answer that I seemed to be getting was
a "because the laws of optics state", and "trust me - I know much much
more than you do."
The EDT uses ED glass in its design. It seems like people are telling
me that because of the laws of optics, it can't perform as well as
the vixen 102 f6.5 ED doublet.
I can't understand how it is possible for them to say that the EDT
(which uses ED glass) absolutly *HAS* to have worse color correction
than a cheaper scope in a similar focal length. I could see where it
MIGHT be worse, but to say it *HAS* to be worse, well - It simply
boggles my mind. I am begining to think that perhaps they, like you,
thought I was talking about the 102D, instead of the EDT.
I asked VD to explain to me how he knew what the glass types in the
EDT were, again, I recieved what I first thought to be insults
(although that may not have been the case). I asked him to let us
know WHAT glass was in the EDT, especially if it is commen knowledge.
He either did not see, ignored the request, could not or would not
respond, choosing again to respond with what I saw as insults (again -
it may have been more to the language barrier).
One reason that I am having a cow is that I am on the wait list for
the EDT. I have seen nothing concrete for a reason not to buy it, but
there are an awful lot of accusations floating around. There is
another, but I will not bring it up at this time. It seems that
Roland C. has even advised me to purchase a Meade ED scope instead.
Again - I am talking about the EDT, not the D. At this point, I do
not know WHAT is going on. I am inclined to think that people were
confused about which scope was / is under discussion.
That is why I am so concerned.
Thank you
Tom
richa...@aol.comeatcaca (RichardN22) wrote in message news:<20020302191600...@mb-fz.aol.com>...
Dave
It's hard to discern what your exact issue is here. The false
accusation that Val keeps tossing out there is that it uses a "fake
ED" glass, more commonly known in the astronomy world as FK5 glass. I
guess he likes to make up his own marketing terms.....whatever.
Anyway, the 102EDT does NOT use this "fake ED" glass (FK5), which is
the entire basis for Vals attacks. Ignorance is bliss.
The scope uses "true ED" (can I make up my own marketing terms? :))
glass. It is an excellent triplet scope with very good color
correction.
By the way, comparing it with the Meade ED doesn't make a lot of
sense. I have no idea why Roland would go down that path. The 102EDT
is a F6.1 design and the Meade is a F9. I have not had the opportunity
to personally compare these two scopes, so I won't state which one is
"better". Others feel like they can make that comparison without ever
having touched the 102EDT and also not knowing everything about it's
optical design. I guess I'm not that arrogant.
If you choose to buy one, you'll be very happy with the EDT.
David
ttru...@yahoo.com (Tom) wrote in message news:<fe35d4da.02030...@posting.google.com>...
Tom
Thank you very much for your response.
> As for ED glass. If only SV use REAL ED glass, this immediately will be
> reflected in the scope price. See, where SV does use REAL ED glass (or may be
> even fluorite?) - in 102mm APO. Look at its price. 2.5K
But this point STILL does not make any sense (to me). There are MANY
MANY ED scopes at or below this price point (of the 102EDT - $1700).
Meade, Vixen - etc. In addition, Vixen makes one in an f6.5 ED
doublet - very similar in FL, that has been reviewed in an
international magazine, and stated there to have better color
correction than an achromat from the same company with a longer fl
length.
The vixen retailed for under $1600 new, and the sale price is
currently under $1360 at Orion. I am not absolutly sure that it is
the f6.5 version, it could be the f9, but especially if it is the f9
version then my point STILL holds, as the f9 version contains a
flourite element instead of an ED one. In addition, the fact that it
contains ED glass IS reflected in its pricing. The 102d is $1100 -
the EDT is $1700 an increase of $600, while the APO jumps to around
$2400, and increase of $700, reflecting its use of an SD glass
(presumably). To the average consumer, this appears comparable to
price jumps from other companies - most notably in the vixen line,
from its f9 achro doublet to its f6.5 ed doublet and so on.
> The only conclution about another ED in SV achromat can be - this ED does
> not has any ubnormal dispersion properties and costs accordingly. The ONLY
> such glass, which can be formally called as ED, but still cheap and has
> no abnormal properties - FK5 (Schott classification) or its direct analog
> from another catalogs. Very easy .
Vic has now come out and revealed that the EDT does *not* contain fk5.
This was posted in the stellarvue yahoo groups last night, and the
information was previously brought to this thread. Even without this
knowledge, your conclusion does not appear to be true, because of the
pricing arguements I present above. Please explain to me what I am
missing?
> You can trust to this my info - I know this subject.
I *still* have a hard time with statements like this. Again, could
you please point me to where the glass type was stated or give me some
better idea how you know what the glass in the EDT could be? I know -
you said economics, but that just does not make any sense for the
points I have listed above... Please try to see it from my viewpoint.
I respect your knowledge, but basically you are still advising me
against a *competitors* product. I have long ago learned not to
listen to sales talk - that was one of the reasons that I was not
bothered by any of the previous threads. However - what we have here
seems to be a direct statement about the poor design and construction
of a scope from a direct competitor. How would anyone know whom to
believe?
> About labguage barrier. Some time it really cause some misunderstanding.
>
> What did I meant. No any vindettes at all. All these so called "vindettes"
> will be forgotten immediately after SV will change it's ads style and
> will not longer saying, that their achromats has better color correction
> than other achromats with same sizes and F/D - this just impossible.
I would be willing to grant that an achromat is an achromat is an
achromat as far as the optics are concerned, but this, strictly
speaking is not an achromat and that arguement does not apply. This
is an ED scope in the same price range as other ED scopes.
I would *really* appreciate answers to the questions I ask above.
Thank You -
Tom T.
Ron B[ee]
> reflected in the scope price. See, where SV does use REAL ED glass (or may be
> even fluorite?) - in 102mm APO. Look at its price. 2.5K
>
Now you really confused me, Valery. The Vixen 102mm ED f/6.5 sold by Orion
is listed for $1599 (OTA only). Orion's ads said ".. incorporating special,
extra-low dispersion ("ED") glass, for dramatically reduced chromatic
aberration and secondary spectrum." Using your clever extrapolation model
based on price, does this mean that the Vixen uses a "faked ED" as well?
If so, do you consider it an achromat?
Thanks for the clarification.
Ron B[ee]
scopeguy
shouldn't be able to do it, I shouldn't be able to do it. My only
question is why has none of the regulars ever said anything to rich?
If you have, I am sorry - I missed it. If you haven't why not? Am I
the only one here that finds some of his remarks offensive? I doubt
it. I never intended to be bashing val - I am sorry that you saw it
that way. That is not, I repeat not, what was intended. I do admit
to bashing rich, and I will try to refrain from now on.
The kinda wierd thing was meant as a description of how I see the
product, not a bash but evidently that was a poor choice of words.
the designer you reference has gone and done something that no one
else has even considered. I consider it an odd product, because it
seems to me that I have read that once the image reaches the eyepiece
it is too late to anything about abberations of that type. Obviously,
I was wrong - as his product does work. He is a very intelligent
individual who markets an unusual product - does that choice of words
suit you better? Again, it was never my intention to bash him.
Evidently I can not make myself clearer, and for that I apologize.
I can see that SAA has become a somewhat hostile and intolerant place
since I was last here. Obviously, you probably won't agree with me on
that. I lurked for a long while until I could not stand it anymore and
simply had to speak out. Since my opinion is obviously not wanted
here I will go away. I am sorry that free discussion is no longer
really applicable in this forum. It does sadden me (honestly) to see
all these accusations thrown around - and rich seems to do lots of the
throwing. That is why I have been on richs case as much as I have.
But again, he has every right to state his opinion, without someone
getting in his face. Since I wished to be afforded that courtesy, I
suppose I should give it to him.
As far as my identity, does it not make a statement about the group
dynamics when someone does not feel comfortable enough to reveal their
identity? It should.
I will bow out now and let you have the last word.
eye_...@arkansas.net wrote in message news:<3c810cd5...@news.arkansas.net>...
> On 2 Mar 2002 07:14:04 -0800, scope...@yahoo.com (scopeguy) wrote:
>
> >Hey Rich - I see you are back, and up to your old tricks. So nice to
> >know that we can count on an opinion from you - I was getting worried.
> > Seems like stellarvue bashing is one of your favorites. Well now
> >that you are back to normal I guess all is right with the world.
>
>
> So who is doing the bashing now and again and again and again? You
> and that's Ok?? What about the one of your _many_ open bashings
> against a respected and innovative optical designer's products calling
> it "kinda weird" (ie. Chromacor)? That's Ok, too, for you?? I
> hardly think so unless you also care to openly proclaim yourself as
> what you really are...a hypocrite.
>
> Let's hear it. Don't leave us guessing like we must be regarding your
> incognito.
>
>
> Pete Rasmussen
Cover2Cover
Don
Marnay44
George
Brian Tung
> If I were to judge amateur astronomy soley by S.A.A.,
> I would conclude it is a hobby only for jerks.
Really? I think you haven't been around other groups on Usenet. Or do
I take your statement differently, and you consider all of the following
people jerks?
Rod Mollise
David Knisely
Tony Flanders
Cousin Ricky
Mark D. Doiron
Stephen Paul
Sketcher
Gareth Slee
John Pazmino
Just curious.
Stan Martin
> different ways for even considering his competitors scope, without
> explaining to me why. The only answer that I seemed to be getting was
> a "because the laws of optics state", and "trust me - I know much much
> more than you do."
> (which uses ED glass) absolutly *HAS* to have worse color correction
> Roland C. has even advised me to purchase a Meade ED scope instead.> It seemed to me that VD called me foolish and stupid in several
> different ways for even considering his competitors scope, without
> explaining to me why. The only answer that I seemed to be getting was
> a "because the laws of optics state", and "trust me - I know much much
> more than you do."
>
Let me first say that I am a huge fan of quality achromats.
I’ve owned quite a few scopes and my favorite is still an achro
for several reasons, price being one of them. One thing you need to
keep in mind is that professional opticians like Valery & Roland have
been through this debate a thousand times and after awhile loose
patience trying to explain the fundamental principles of color
correction, glass types, & apo/ achro definitions. For you this is a
fresh issue and you just want to have accurate information but to them
this is a never-ending battle against rumors and misinformation. So I
don’t think they intend to be condescending, but rather
don’t have much time for pleasantries. I’ve been in a few
of these discussions myself and appreciate their efforts to give
accurate information. I do believe from my own experience that there
are some variations in color correction between one achromat and
another because of the execution of design, however, it is a very
small range of variation which is strictly limited by glass types. I
think we get into trouble when we try to imply that apos and achros
are in the same range….as if by improving an achromat, we could
move it closer in the range to an apo. It’s that implication
that will earn you a response like, “Repeat after me, an achro
is an achro” :o) Color correction between achros and apos are
in two different ballparks…10 miles apart. You can hit a homerun
in the “achro” park but it won’t score on the apo
board. There aren’t many secrets in available glass types.
It’s a global market and abnormal glasses bring premium prices
“globally” so it’s not presumptuous to assume what
glass types are used in a scope based on it’s price (unless a
company is willing to loose a “lot” of money on each
scope). If Valery or Roland would try to explain the technical
reasoning behind their statements about dispersion characteristics, it
would take a lot of time and probably be over your head (and most of
us on the newsgroup). I think that in most cases they do their best to
give accurate information. One thing that I really like about
astronomy is that most of the people that are in the hobby for a long
time really love the hobby and even when it develops into a business,
they still take the time to help and advise the new guys. So keep that
in mind when you feel like you’re being insulted. This is coming
from a “hard-core” achro guy.. :o) If the SV is in your
price range, go for it. From what I hear they are a great value for
the money!
Regards,
Stan Martin
Astronomy
Read the thread, An Apology..., and I think you'll see that Valery is just being a jerk.
I don't know how Roland could have entangled himself in this mess.
This has nothing to do with explaining for the umpteenth time the difference between achromat and apo and ed. This is sheerly just a
vendetta by Valery against Vic at Stellarvue.
Don
Stephen Pitt
news:20020302113232...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> >> How the heck can you know what glass it is? To the best of my
> knowledge, designers usually don't reveal details like that
> if you are silent, we will assume that you can't back it up and you
> had best shut up.>>
>
> Valery is very knowledgeable when it comes to glass. So is Tom Back and myself.
> I think you are off-base to make any kind of conclusions that these people do
> not know what is going on. Study optics in detail, and you will also eventually
> come to understand. Until such time I would advise backing off.
Roland: It is my opinion that when you blindly stand behind claims that
Stellarvue uses "fake ED" in their EDT you are at great risk of
catching foot in mouth disease, regardless of personal optical
knowledge.
Claims by Valery seem to have your blessing. But, in the absence
of any actual facts, would a man of science and, I understand, of law,
position himself so fallibly? You have forced the question:
Roland, do you assert the SV EDT uses FK-5 -"fake" glass? Yes or No.
If "yes," where is your data? If "no," shame on you. Without an
answer, the thread is dead.
After all, "How the heck can you know what glass it is?"
( Roland Christen )
Stephen Pitt
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Stephen Pitt
>
> But given the availability and cost of the various glasses, it seems that the
> choices are limited and well known.
Jon: It "seems" to imply, at best. But, implication is no more
than heresay when the facts are not known. What Roland, Valery, and Tom
B. don't know, are the facts concerning the SVEDT. It is risky at the
very least to make assumptions based on heresay, and most surprising
that men of science would continue such folly. We see hypothetical
premises based on assumption only, with no conclusion.
I have asked Roland to state one way or another: Does Stellarvue use
"Fake ED" glass in their EDT-yes or no. I am sure a longish answer
is forthcoming which might include his "now repeat after me" lesson
in optics.
All I want is a "yes," or "no."
Roland knows in the absence of a fact finder there can be no conclusion.
Harry Clinton
an AT1010. I'm tired of all this, "I know more than you" verbage. I know a
good scope when I look through one with a good eyepiece. Most people do.
Stellarvue makes a "excellent" scope as do others. I have ordered the 102D
based on my experience and oservations with the AT1010 and Stellarvue's
workmanship that goes into their scopes. Somewhere along the way, the
threads I have read in here take something away from astronomy. And people
shoud be ashamed for doing that. No one likes to be talked "down" to and,
hopefully, people will realize my hobby will be better served by
manufactures' who do not try to market their wares in s.a.a. at the expense
of upsetting and spreading dis-information to people like me. This forum is
not for that. My advise to people who manufacture products and make a living
from them..keep your sales pitches off s.a.a. This is my second post ever to
s.a.a. and hopefully the last.
Qui vult dare parva non debet magna rogare.
"MMSjcgirl" <mmsj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020228235424...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> After all the bashing, is anyone still buying a Stellarvue and why. I'm
> considering a Televue but would be willing to settle for a little less
scope
> and save a lot of money.
> Mich
>
RichardN22
not know WHAT is going on. I am inclined to think that people were
confused about which scope was / is under discussion.>>
O.k. Thanks for the explanation. This all started in reference to the SV
achro's, and somehow the two threads merged so that you are probably right in
that some of us were still replying to the achromat thread. Good luck in your
search for a well corrected 4" scope. I bought a used TV 101 and am VERY
pleased with it's quality, images, and color correction. What's the price of
the SV 102EDT? My TV 101 used was $1950.
Alan French
That depends what ED glass is being used. "ED" stands for Extra Low
Dispersion, and it includes FK5 glass which has a V(d) of about 72.
Although FK5 has this characteristic, it is still very close to the Abbe
line and is not an abnormal dispersion glass. It can not provide a real
improvement over glasses like BK7. This is why some folks call it a "fake"
ED glass.
The are other ED glasses with even lower dispersions, such as FPL=53 with a
V(d) of 95.0 that are well removed from the Abbe line and can provide far
better color correction when combined with the proper mating glass or used
in a triplet. (Remember that V is a reciprocal and higher numbers mean
lower dispersion).
If the Stellarvue does use a true ED glass, then the correction should be
significantly better than an achromat.
It would be nice if companies selling lenses would simply show a nice,
pretty graph showing the variation in focal length as a function of
wavelength or simply say the secondary color is 1 part in "whatever" from C
to F. I have seen such graphs from Takahashi, Meade, and AstroPhysics.
Meade even used to say what glasses they used as did UO optics in their 80mm
refractor kit. The color curve can hardly be considered proprietary -
anyone can take a refractor and measure it if they want to invest in a small
collection of narrow bandpass filters. I've been tempted, but I don't have
any scopes around that I am interested in checking (hence the filters were
not on my Christmas list long <g>). I suppose I could measure the three
Jaegers lenses I have - but I suspect I know where they will come out.
Actually, I am surprised that none of the folks who are interested in
reviewing scopes have gotten into this.
Clear skies, Alan
"Tom" <ttru...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe35d4da.02030...@posting.google.com...
> [SNIP]
> The EDT uses ED glass in its design. It seems like people are telling
> me that because of the laws of optics, it can't perform as well as
> the vixen 102 f6.5 ED doublet.
>
> I can't understand how it is possible for them to say that the EDT
> (which uses ED glass) absolutly *HAS* to have worse color correction
> than a cheaper scope in a similar focal length. I could see where it
> MIGHT be worse, but to say it *HAS* to be worse, well - It simply
> boggles my mind. I am begining to think that perhaps they, like you,
> thought I was talking about the 102D, instead of the EDT.
> [SNIP]
Rod
doublet, could the design result in less color than one using more
'ordinary' glass of higher dispersion? If so, then it would seem that one
could make the claim of less color, regardless of whether it's relationship
to the Abbe line qualifies it as 'real ED glass'.
Rod B.
Alan French wrote in message ...
Alan French
Achromats generally have a secondary color from C to F of between about 1
part in 1800 and about 1 part in 2000. The differences here are negligible.
For the common BK7/F2 [V(d) = 64 for BK7] doublet the secondary spectrum is
1 part in 1836. For FK5/SF2 it is 1 part in 1959. (The results will vary a
bit from these numbers depending on which catalog you use for the indices.)
If you draw a line between the two chosen glasses on a glass diagram it is
the slope of that line that determines the color correction. The Abbe line
is a line drawn between K7 and F2, and most glasses lie on a band along this
line. If you consider that you want to pick glasses that differ markedly in
dispersion [V(d)], you can see how you are stuck. If you pick two glasses
with a marked difference in dispersion, the slope is going to be pretty much
the same as K7 and F2. If you look where FPL-53 lies you can see why it is
one of several exceptions and makes a difference in the color correction.
You want the line between glasses to be horizontal.
Now you could obviously pick glasses that are not very different in V(d) and
get a line that is quite close to horizontal. The problem is that the
internal powers of the elements have to be high, which means steep curves
and extreme sensitivity to centering and alignment, and you still have to
stick with relatively long focal lengths to get good aberration control.
Horace Dall and others made some lenses this way, but they are not something
anyone would want to make in a production environment nor fast enough to be
competitive these days.
Clear skies, Alan
"Rod" <blue...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:pUzg8.12332$gK2.9...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Les Blalock
>I can see that SAA has become a somewhat hostile and intolerant place
>since I was last here. Obviously, you probably won't agree with me on
>that. I lurked for a long while until I could not stand it anymore and
>simply had to speak out. Since my opinion is obviously not wanted
>here I will go away. I am sorry that free discussion is no longer
>really applicable in this forum. It does sadden me (honestly) to see
>all these accusations thrown around - and rich seems to do lots of the
>throwing. That is why I have been on richs case as much as I have.
>But again, he has every right to state his opinion, without someone
>getting in his face. Since I wished to be afforded that courtesy, I
>suppose I should give it to him.
>
>As far as my identity, does it not make a statement about the group
>dynamics when someone does not feel comfortable enough to reveal their
>identity? It should.
Seems to me the majority in the group are mostly silent so your
concerns are with a vocal minority. Take a look at the stats on the
saa home page and you see that there are many, many more people here
who post very few times per month. I suspect many have a view similar
to mine in that, for the most part, I look for the posts of particular
individuals (see below) and consider the others to be noise,
entertainment or common-interest chit-chat. I usually just skim
threads like this Stellarvue thing even when they seem to be
pointless. At least in the Stellarvue thread I've learned something
about glass.
I believe the noise of the group is mostly the result of enthusiasm
rather than from hostility. And the possibility of someone posting
erroneous information without a quick response correcting it, is
remote. Many of the posts are just banter - just like it is out on
the observing field sometimes.
Even the crackpots are considered family by many old timers here.
Don't we all have those cousins that, well, you know... are just
different than the rest of the family. We still try to be polite to
them and even hear something useful from them once in awhile. And
sometimes we jump to their defense just because they're family. I do
have a killfile but there are only 3 people in it.
Sometimes I get an irresistable urge to post. Hopefully it's more
often helpful than (like this time) just another opinion. There are
plenty of opinions without adding my own. But, I admit that I'm
prompted to respond when my post would never be missed.
I guess the bottom line is this. I read this group for reviews
(opinions), news (mostly opinions), and information (sometimes
opinions<g>). And I particularly like to read the posts of Tony
Flanders, David Knisely, Brian Tung, J Bortle, Gary Seronik, Thomas
Back, Roland Christen, Herb York (even if he is a 8 fan), Thomas
Cambell's observing reports, Dave Mitsky, Joe O'Neil, Mark Gingrich
and that Rod Mollise guy. I mention them by name for the sake of
newbies - you will learn much from them.
There are also quite a few other guys and gals with much
experience and knowledge but they sometimes submerge themselves in
emotional exchanges so their contributions are sometimes diluted.
Although anonymous posting is a personal pet peeve, some very good
observing reports sport their sigs/usernames. But since they insist
on being anonymous, I'll forego listing them to honor their request to
remain unknown.
So, how did I feel the need to make this post. Oh yeah, about this
group becoming hostile and intolerant... It seems the arguments have
increased a little since N**CY returned - maybe it's made people more
edgy. But the group is rather cyclical (isn't it about time for the
glas-is-a-liquid thread?) so stick around awhile.
Les Blalock
compose, think about overnight, and then delete. Unfortunately, I hit
Send Now instead of Send Later. Oh well...
Les Blalock
http://www.cableone.net/les/Astro/
John Gretchen
--
Clear skies,
John N. Gretchen III
Port O'Connor, Texas
http://www.tisd.net/~jng3/stars/ [updated 02/12/02]
Rod
Is there a site on the web where one might find a discussion of the
principals/relationships you discuss here. I'd love to understand more about
how all this works.
Thanks,
Rod B.
Alan French wrote in message ...
eye_...@arkansas.net
>You are absolutly right pete. Bashing rich is out of line. If rich
>shouldn't be able to do it, I shouldn't be able to do it. My only
>question is why has none of the regulars ever said anything to rich?
>If you have, I am sorry - I missed it. If you haven't why not? Am I
>the only one here that finds some of his remarks offensive? I doubt
>it. I never intended to be bashing val - I am sorry that you saw it
>that way. That is not, I repeat not, what was intended. I do admit
>to bashing rich, and I will try to refrain from now on.
I do hope Rich will stop doing whatever it is that bothers you, too.
To be honest, I personally haven't been able to disagree with his
general complaint of this manufacturer, sorry. Search the company
history and then closely consider where an acceptable standard of
ethics might should exist.
Let it also be said that I have disagreed with Rich before on one of
his roguish opinions. I took a comment of his as bashing, and then
countered the claim as more or less that of being ridiculous. At the
time, I felt my reply was enough to put things straight. FYI, it was
over the Erfle design being called worthless and I knew differently.
He trolled, I replied <g>
At times over larger issues I believe he has characteristically, and
to the best of his ability, chosen a mix of both a bashing of sorts,
along with that of very reasonable opinion in order to provoke thought
(and ire, surely) in others. His elicited equally thought provoking
comments were often offered in similar mixed fashion. And there has
been, IMO, some good information brought forth anyway through the
unusual exchanges.
>The kinda wierd thing was meant as a description of how I see the
>product, not a bash but evidently that was a poor choice of words.
>the designer you reference has gone and done something that no one
>else has even considered. I consider it an odd product, because it
>seems to me that I have read that once the image reaches the eyepiece
>it is too late to anything about abberations of that type. Obviously,
>I was wrong - as his product does work. He is a very intelligent
>individual who markets an unusual product - does that choice of words
>suit you better? Again, it was never my intention to bash him.
>Evidently I can not make myself clearer, and for that I apologize.
Thank you for clarifying that. I personally see an eye-end optical
device that converts an achromat into an apochromat (with other
corrections as bonus) as SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY, and not just unusual.
Folks apparently have also had good success switching a chromacor to
other common achro-scopes they own, just like an eyepiece! That would
extend its value tremendously, I should think. To independently seek
out the opinions of experts in the field of optics will surely bolster
the incredible nature of this recent invention for you.
>I can see that SAA has become a somewhat hostile and intolerant place
>since I was last here. Obviously, you probably won't agree with me on
>that. I lurked for a long while until I could not stand it anymore and
>simply had to speak out. Since my opinion is obviously not wanted
>here I will go away. I am sorry that free discussion is no longer
>really applicable in this forum. It does sadden me (honestly) to see
>all these accusations thrown around - and rich seems to do lots of the
>throwing. That is why I have been on richs case as much as I have.
>But again, he has every right to state his opinion, without someone
>getting in his face. Since I wished to be afforded that courtesy, I
>suppose I should give it to him.
If were me would probably choose to stick around and consider
remaining "in his face" to compel him to share *better* of his
opinions. Be it good, bad, or a mix, if it were important enough for
me to know, I'd press the issue to find out. FWIW, I believe Rich has
provided this newsgroup with a wealth of information. Even if
sometimes it was perhaps, at a price <bg>
>As far as my identity, does it not make a statement about the group
>dynamics when someone does not feel comfortable enough to reveal their
>identity? It should.
I can see that and you are certainly entitled. My comment was meant
as thought provoking and not unfriendly. I hope you will understand
that and continue to post here regarding this hobby. What you have to
say is worth the read.
Clear skies,
Pete
eye_...@arkansas.net
<snip questions to Valery>
>I would *really* appreciate answers to the questions I ask above.
>
>Thank You -
>
>Tom T.
Hi Tom,
Why don't you ask the person you are buying the scope from *where* the
color correction level falls? After all, he is the guy to receive
your hard earned money, right? Besides, I think you deserve to know.
If he won't tell you, I would have to think he had plans of holding
something back from you for an unexceptable reason. If this EDT scope
you are buying is basically an achromatic triplet (or close if that is
even a possibility), I'd think the price was an outrage!
You can also test it at high power in the daytime against a known
achromat and known APO to get some idea if it was worth the expense to
keep it or not.
Good luck and please let us know anything.
Pete
Mark Rathbun
>compose, think about overnight, and then delete. Unfortunately, I hit
>Send Now instead of Send Later. Oh well...
Les
As one of the 'less frequent' posters to this group, and one that gets
sometimes caught up in the trivial OT posts, I'd like to think that
even in somewhat of a minor sense I do add something here. I do not
have the experience of the people that you mentioned. I won't for a
long time. I read most every post in this group, just to learn more,
even if I don't agree with the topic or the writer. Someday perhaps I
will have the writing ability of Tony, or the experience of David or
Brian or Rod and all the others that you mentioned. Until then, I'll
try to add my 2 cents worth.
I do use my real name, my real email address (spam resistant I hope)
in here. Everyone has to start someplace and I've found that working
up from the bottom is always the best way to start a new hobby. I look
forward to the day when I can be a real contributer of useful
knowledge to this group.
Guess I like to think of my posts as an example of 'youthful
exhuberance' for the time being.
I for one don't think you had to change a thing with your post before
you hit 'send'
Mark
rande...@aol.com
>I can see that SAA has become a somewhat hostile and intolerant place
>since I was last here.
Had anyone with even a bit of tolerance read the posts of StellarVue
proponents attacking people asking legitimate questions, they would
probably agree with you.
-Rich
Ian King
Just buy the scope :o) after all you can't go wrong, you know it will
be well made with sharp optics. What more can you ask for at the price
point of the SV 102 EDT?
If you find there is a little too much false colour for your tastes
just return it, but I am confident you will love the scope.
This whole thread is about Stellarvue's claims in their ads not about
whether the scope is a good buy or not.
And to everyone...
Who in their right mind seriously thinks that a prospective purchaser
is trying to decide between a large 5" or 6" achromat with Chromacor
or a small airline portable fast refractor.
They are two completely different products appealing to purchasers
with completely different agenda's. All this inference that Valery is
reacting because he feels his market share is diminished is complete
nonesense..
Best wishes
Ian King
ValeryD
> You brought up the accusation that EDT has "fake ED" FK5 glass.
>You are the first one to proof
> anything. Reading between lines only ?
Not reading between the lines only. Reading between the lines - yes, but
only partially. Reading another lines - about SV's 102mm APO - is even more
informative. See its price and price difference between EDT triplet and this
SV's APO.
I also know, that dealing with real ED glass is MUCH more difficult that
with "fake" ED glass. These difficulties were very well described by Roland
Christen - his accumulated long time experience. He can easily confirm, that
higher price of real APO objectives is not only due more expensive real ED
glass vs standard glasses which "fake" ED glass also is.
IMO ad in my experience - these difficulties is defined factor in small
APOs. In larger APOs cost of such large real ED approaches and at largest
diameters exceed manufacturing difficulties.
And, if to be precise, I never claimed that this fake ED glass is exactly
FK-5 (Schott destignation) - it can be similar from any another catalog.
Most of not all optical firms have this type of glass in their regular
production. In Russian catalog this is LK-3 glass.
> > So, there is no reason to make 100% squire thread in a Chromacor. It is
> > even better, that by Chromacor rotating one can fully compensite
> > unsquire in star-diagonal thread.
>
> Or use a tape as real users reported ?
Users can use what they consider will help to make their scopes
work better. Nothing is perfect in this world.
> > As I see, you are learning towards to buy a SV.
>
> My bussiness where I will put my money.
Sure, sure! I just noted, that you seems learning towards to try SV
102 EDT . Am I right?
>I have already paid enough for two Chromacors to support your BMW and
>fishing trips
Oh, this is MY business how to spend my free time.
>(or development of a simple extension tube you have promised to
> deliver "soonest" for months). Or is screwing together 5 filter rings
> the best way to use a $750
> gadget ? Maybe you will find some advantage in doing so...
Chromacor was specially designed to be used with stock chinese adapters
and Intes 2" star-diagonal. These accessories backing up all necessary
spaces. Another deal is stock chinese accessories quality. But.., please,
this is not my business. We doing OUR work just fine.
Yes, we still plan to deliver extention tubes if necessary, but there are
some on the market, include photo-filters rings.
We working with John Hopper about this, but John have to do a lot other
more important thing before he will offer accessories to Chromacor. This
is his part of business and I can't do his job. He doing enough other
important things right now.
>
>I still have not heard from you whether you did not mind SV ads/website
>at the time when you jumped on SV board with your Ch offering ? Or, maybe
>you thought
You need to read others posts with better attention. I wrote before and I
wrote in these last threads, that before website announces, Vic did his
claims, that his achromats are so well corrected due to proprietary design
and new formulae in glass design, that they have real lack of false colors
and therefore these achromats do not require any additional color correctors.
These statements were the reason why I questined what SV says.
SV goes even further and placed all these claims on the website!
Fortunately, later others - SV scopes owners - proved these SV's
statements wrong. And now all know - SV scopes are well build, but still
plain achromats.
Note, that you asking too, really too many questions with constance worth
better application. I am not at your service day and night.
V.D.
ValeryD
> Richard -
>
> Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate your way of dealing with a
> frustrated astronomer, and voicing your opinion in a non-threating
> way.
>
> I have been talking about the 102EDT NOT the 102D.
> It seemed to me that VD called me foolish and stupid in several
> different ways for even considering his competitors scope, without
> explaining to me why. The only answer that I seemed to be getting was
> a "because the laws of optics state", and "trust me - I know much much
> more than you do."
>
Tom,
Your native language is english, not mine. But even I can see that you like
to twist the facts.
1. I never called you stupid.
2. I never called you fool.
3. You, not me constantly try to offend other.
So, please, show me where I told, that you are stupid. be literall, please.
The word fool, used indirectly does NOT mean you were called fool.
As I said - you seem like to foolish yourself by yourself thinking
(imaginating) you will have color free scope. This is like small child
playing with car model imagines, that he is a driver of real big car.
Do you understand analogy. I don't know english well enoug to explain
this better than therefore I used _werb_ to foolish, not the word fool.
and 3. is obvious.
About stupidity. If you can't explain what type of scope do you really need,
if you can't differ ads hype and explanations from persons, who spend years
and years in this field (I mean optics/glasses), if you can't believe
in the reference (my own) chart of comparative advantages and disadvantages
SV EDT and Vixen ED APO 102 F/6.5 , then, please, make your own judgement
what does it mean - stupidity.
Because I see, that really, there is no any way to eaxplain you something
that you will really understand, than I can suggest you to try only one
way, which can be accomplished by two different approaches:
1. Buy SV 102 EDT - very nice purhcse and buy also Vixen 102 F/6.5 ED APO
and then compare image color correction and sharpness.
I can accept, that may be SV's image will be sharper, but not much if a
Vixen is right. But I can WARRANTY you, that color correction in Vixen will
be 5-6x better as well as color balance.
2. The same (I mean direct AB comparition) you can perform at Star Party
where both scopes will be present.
Ways is not simple, but I see, that this is the ONLY way to go. You just
can't listen to peoples. So, make your own choice, but compare all yourself
before you will judge which is which and who is right.
As for competition. We do not plan to sell achromats and will never do.
We do plan to make small serial apos and one kind of them will be high
quality achromats combined with pre-installed color corrector. In this
regard Vixen is much harder to beat competitor. But see - did I ever
said something poor against this company. And see - I told you, that if you
require maximally color free images at the lowest possible price - buy
Vixen instead of "improved color correction" achromat. Do not buy ARIES,
buy Vixen ED!
V.D.
ValeryD
> Claims by Valery seem to have your blessing. But, in the absence
> of any actual facts, would a man of science and, I understand, of law,
> position himself so fallibly? You have forced the question:
>
> Roland, do you assert the SV EDT uses FK-5 -"fake" glass? Yes or No.
>
> If "yes," where is your data? If "no," shame on you. Without an
> answer, the thread is dead.
>
> After all, "How the heck can you know what glass it is?"
> ( Roland Christen )
>
> Stephen Pitt
Stephen,
Please, look at yourself from aside.
1. You are associated with SV - this is well known fact and you did a
great job popularising SV scopes by your photography achievements.
But the same good results you can obtain with another plain achromats
with good mechanics and if necessary with attenuated blue (with simple
MV-1 or MV-0.5 filter).
2. We have enough different interests with Roland. This is well known
and
we experienced poor and good times in a past. But I will ALWAYS value
his knoweleges and his achievements in astro-equipment making. And
especially his
wishes to share his knoweleges with others. My hat off for him.
And I am sure he didn't blessed me and I don't need his blessing. With
the same straight I can tell again all what I told with or without his
support.
But I can understand his feelings, when somebody claims, that his
scopes
have "absolute minimal color errros", par or even exceed some apos,
etc - much
such nonsense were claimed.
RC put years and years (25?) to fight against false colors in
refractors
providing better and better color corrected objectives - he was a
pioneer
to use additional color correctors in achromats (in amateur scopes)
because
of not availability of cheap enough for amateurs ubnormal glasses.
Then,
as some ubnormal glasses becomes better and less costly, he began APO
objectives and scopes as serial production and then better and better
objectives followed. I know well what does it mean - to create and
then
make good APOs.
And what such man, as RC is, should fell, when he see, that his
(really his
one, even if it was not registered as a trade mark) brand EDT was used
by other company. And, even more - used for a scope which has nothing
to do with _REAL_ EDT, of course AP's, Roland's EDT!
Using the fact, that EDT is not a registered trade mark, the famous
name,
one of AP's vistit card, was used for achromatic!!!!!! scope - with
intention
to convince less knowelege peoples to buy this achromat!
Of course, registered trade mark is a registered trade mark. But in
peoples
life there are a number of unwritten rules. And we sould follow them
if we
like to be civil. Obviously, EDT name is AP's brand if follow these
unwritten
moral rules. Same obviously it was use (stolen??) buy other company
breaking
these rules.
You may ask, Stephen how many of AP owners will vote, that EDT name in
the reality, de-facto, is AP's property, at least in amateur scopes
world.
Ask many and many other peoples, who do not own AP scopes, but who
know
what _really_ is going on. I can assure you, that not too many
peoples
will agree, that SV did right using EDT name on its scope, especially
on
achromat with "absolutely minimal colors". Enough said !
3. Finally. If SV claimed, that ED glass used in their particular
scope,
this is OK. But REAL ED glass easily allow to make almost perfect
color
correction and why not do this? Why not do this and not claim with
full rights - this scope really has minimal colors.
SV did this, but later and for another scope, which is APO.
The only ED glass which can be used, but will not make an objective
APO
is FK-5 of its analog in another glass manufacturers catalogs.
You asked - Roland tell us this this or this. You try to provoke
Roland
to say something which can be used for legal actions. Shame, Stephen!
Shame shame and shame! Especially, because your lovely SV claming ED
glass using, does not say which ED. SV claiming superiority of their
achromats calling others as "generic", some ED refractors, some APos,
other "semi-apos" etc. So, nobody really can catch SV for false
claims, no legal actions possible. And you, knowing well, that Roland
has no real freedom to
call things by their real names asking him to do steps which can cause
big troubles for him.
Of course, you know, Roland will not say something exactly. So, you
like
to down his credibility and rise your one. He he, IMO, your
credibility
if you even have it is simple zero vs RC's credibility. Zero.
Roland can make such optics and instrumets which can't even dream of,
he also can make sky photos that you too still can't even dream of.
This remark is not necessary - just point you your real place.
Such a person you, Stephen. And this is only because you owned SV
scopes
and was associated with SV in its ads campaign. He he ...
V.D.
ValeryD
> ar...@mercury.kherson.ua (ValeryD) wrote in message >
> >
> > As for ED glass. If only SV use REAL ED glass, this immediately will be
> > reflected in the scope price. See, where SV does use REAL ED glass (or may be
> > even fluorite?) - in 102mm APO. Look at its price. 2.5K
> >
> > V.D.
>
> Now you really confused me, Valery. The Vixen 102mm ED f/6.5 sold by Orion
> is listed for $1599 (OTA only). Orion's ads said ".. incorporating special,
> extra-low dispersion ("ED") glass, for dramatically reduced chromatic
> aberration and secondary spectrum." Using your clever extrapolation model
> based on price, does this mean that the Vixen uses a "faked ED" as well?
> If so, do you consider it an achromat?
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Ron B[ee]
No No, Ron! Vixen never claimed something unrealistic. May be a bit
exaggerated, but not unrealistic. Vixen sells so many all over the
world, that the prices for large serial (or even mass production?)
production is not high. Small lenses can be made in a large quantity,
mechaics is not that too impressive and expensive. No real QC of each
scope and you receive such low price.
V.D.
ValeryD
> Umm, Valery, you've now perked my curiosity. Which type of
> glass do you use in the Chromacor? I've read somewhere that
> once the chromatic aberration reaches the eyepiece, there's
> not much anyone can do. Since Chromacor obviously works and
> speaking of physics, has a new physical law been discovered?
>
> Thanks,
> Ron B[ee]
> PS Hopefully, curiosity doesn't kill the cat in this case ;-).
Ron,
As I aready wrote, there are some not traditional ways to solve
the problems. We combined two such ways in manufacturing and one
in designing.
We just solved so called inverse problem. We didn't tried to solve
the problem with existed materials and approaches, We did another
thing - we looked what we need to create to solve the problem and
we did this.
V.D.
David
ValeryD wrote:
> David <morav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C8131B7...@yahoo.com>...
>
> > You brought up the accusation that EDT has "fake ED" FK5 glass.
> >You are the first one to proof
> > anything. Reading between lines only ?
>
> And, if to be precise, I never claimed that this fake ED glass is exactly
> FK-5 (Schott destignation) - it can be similar from any another catalog.
> Most of not all optical firms have this type of glass in their regular
> production. In Russian catalog this is LK-3 glass.
Ahhh, backing off ? But you still claim that the ED glass used in EDT has no abnormal
dispersion properties, right ?
>
>
> > > So, there is no reason to make 100% squire thread in a Chromacor. It is
> > > even better, that by Chromacor rotating one can fully compensite
> > > unsquire in star-diagonal thread.
> >
> > Or use a tape as real users reported ?
>
> Users can use what they consider will help to make their scopes
> work better. Nothing is perfect in this world.
Especially threading on Chromacors. Not exactly axial.
>
> >I have already paid enough for two Chromacors to support your BMW and
> >fishing trips
>
> Oh, this is MY business how to spend my free time.
I just have not read any boasting about such things from Vic Maris, in contrary, he
does not have any free time.
> Yes, we still plan to deliver extention tubes if necessary, but there are
> some on the market, include photo-filters rings.
>
> We working with John Hopper about this, but John have to do a lot other
> more important thing before he will offer accessories to Chromacor. This
> is his part of business and I can't do his job. He doing enough other
> important things right now.
You are leaving your dealer to look for solutions for you ? You, who is not able to
produce an extension tube with the right threading, want to produce Chromacor-focuser
combo ?
>
> Note, that you asking too, really too many questions
Are you exempt from being asked ? Is this right assured only against SV? And I have
many more ready.
> I am not at your service day and night.
You better be when you start an enterprise and your customer has questions. This is, I
believe, Vic Maris bussiness philosophy.
David
Joseph O'Neil
wrote:
>1. Buy SV 102 EDT - very nice purhcse and buy also Vixen 102 F/6.5 ED APO
> and then compare image color correction and sharpness.
>I can accept, that may be SV's image will be sharper, but not much if a
>Vixen is right. But I can WARRANTY you, that color correction in Vixen will
>be 5-6x better as well as color balance.
-snip-
Hi Valery;
A bit off topic here, but a couple of thoughts.
First off, understand I sell both the Vixen ED and the
StellarVue. I recently had a customer ask me which was better, to
which I replied I could nto say overall, but sicne I sell both,
neither choice was going to upset me.
1) As for sharpness VS colour correction, I find personally I
perfer overall sharpness, clarity and contrast as opposed to strickly
colour correction. That being said, I doubt people would be unhappy
with either telescope
2) The end result of this thread here on this newsgroup seems
to be that many people have now switched their StellarVue ED orders to
StellarVue APO orders. Guess the old saying as there is no such
thing as bad plublicity is true.
3) Here in USA & Canada, I have to point out that the
StellarVue does have one distinct advantage over the Vixen. If you
ever drop, damage, or need your refractor professionally cleaned,
services and / or repaired, it is easy to reach StellarVue to get this
done. now to be fair, Orion does have repair facilities, but I am
unsure of how many spare Vixen parts they keep on hand, and also, this
is a "secondary" repair shop in that any Vixen scope that might need
service is being repaired at a place other than original manufacture.
So the ability to service and repiar is improtant to me.
Whiel I do not sell either Takhashi or Astro_physics, if I were to buy
either one, my vote would be A-P because I know I can send the scope
and / or moutn back for repiar to a dometic place of original
manufacture.
joe
David
ValeryD wrote:
>
> 1. Buy SV 102 EDT - very nice purhcse and buy also Vixen 102 F/6.5 ED APO
> and then compare image color correction and sharpness.
> I can accept, that may be SV's image will be sharper, but not much if a
> Vixen is right. But I can WARRANTY you, that color correction in Vixen will
> be 5-6x better as well as color balance.
>
I am challenging you on this, Valery. Let be some fun.
Or is a WARRANTY an empty word for ARIES ?
I will supply the Vixen scope for Tom.
Your bet: Aries 6" fluorite (not a lemon, please)
And if the Vixen 102 F/6.5 ED will have 6x better color correction than SV 102 EDT, the SV will be
yours for retro-engineering.
I have no doubt that Tom would prefer to keep the Vixen, if it wins.
And let's precise the rules. You advised Tom "then compare image color correction and sharpness". How
do you want him to measure the multiply of better color correction ?
David