On Monday, 9 January 2017 02:44:45 UTC-5, Chris.B wrote:
On Monday, 9 January 2017 02:59:03 UTC+1, StarDust wrote:
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 5:10:16 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
Image stabilization. To damp images in case of wind, or touching the scope to reduce or eliminate damp-time, using high-power eyepieces, taking images. Camera stabilization is reaching incredible quality, you can now (with some of them) take hand-held images with normal lenses with 1-4 second exposure times. Stabilization isn't needed on scopes all the time, obviously, since we have tripods and mounts, but sometimes it would be an advantage when looking at objects where critical resolution is required.
However, I wouldn't want it if it costs as much as the ridiculously overpriced stabilization in binoculars.

I guess, DSO object are too dim for the image stabilization to work and planets need too high magnification.

The human eye has a remarkable ability to overcome image movement and to grab a fleeting moment's clarity.
The insistence by amateurs to capture an image of what they see has driven delayed processing and best image software selection like Registax.
Even I was able to produce images at the first few attempts which I thought completely impossible without huge investment.

Software which can process and grab best image quality during the actual capture period, perhaps aided by faster processing, may be the way forward for Solar System imaging.

Stable, commercial mountings, piers and tripods still remain in the realm of multi-thousand dollar investments.
Perhaps they need serious competition from upstart Chinese manufacturers or DIY/ATM examples to bring down prices?

A sturdy steel pole in the garden, set in concrete, offers a level of stability which overcomes many problems of vibration.
Thanks to massive mountings and piers I used to take extra focal images of the Solar System by simply holding a cheap digital camera up to the eyepiece.
To do so with many commercial mountings and their flimsy tripods would be to invite violent shaking of the image.

It is the constant repetition of the same design mistakes which I find so irritating.
Is there absolutely no user feedback to the factories churning out the same crappy designs year after year?

True. And some of those designs are very old. The basic cheap scope Tasco-style equatorial is 50 years old or more, the "G5" which is at least better which was preceded by the Vixen GP mount is 35 years old or so.
The original crude Edmund 1960's 1" solid shaft mounts were tuning forks, despite their mass and even Unitron mounts weren't that great, except in fit and finish.