Astronomical Equipment

This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Sirius:
This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Would that be the one that showed that digital and film cameras both
have their proponents, and that some people like and use both?

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

Hobbyists have always liked the latest and greatest. Amateur astronomy
is not a monolith; it is a collective name for a whole lot of people
doing their own thing. Some go for the latest and greatest, others are
more conservative.

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

Never heard anyone say that, but it's often true that newer technology
is better than old technology.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

Nobody wants to star-hop? Not a single amateur astronomer on Earth?
That seems unlikely.

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Nonsense. Besides, the sound of that abominable instrument does not
require or deserve more than a RadioShack cheapie.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Sirius:
This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Would that be the one that showed that digital and film cameras both
have their proponents, and that some people like and use both?

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

Hobbyists have always liked the latest and greatest. Amateur astronomy
is not a monolith; it is a collective name for a whole lot of people
doing their own thing. Some go for the latest and greatest, others are
more conservative.

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

Never heard anyone say that, but it's often true that newer technology
is better than old technology.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

Nobody wants to star-hop? Not a single amateur astronomer on Earth?
That seems unlikely.

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Nonsense. Besides, the sound of that abominable instrument does not
require or deserve more than a RadioShack cheapie.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Sirius:
This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

Would that be the one that showed that digital and film cameras both
have their proponents, and that some people like and use both?

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

Hobbyists have always liked the latest and greatest. Amateur astronomy
is not a monolith; it is a collective name for a whole lot of people
doing their own thing. Some go for the latest and greatest, others are
more conservative.

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

Never heard anyone say that, but it's often true that newer technology
is better than old technology.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

Yes, for some people at some times.

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

Nobody wants to star-hop? Not a single amateur astronomer on Earth?
That seems unlikely.

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Nonsense. Besides, the sound of that abominable instrument does not
require or deserve more than a RadioShack cheapie.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Sirius posted:

This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

Not necessarily, but sometimes newer technology does have some advantages over
older technology.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Well, maybe yes and maybe no. The DSC's require power and (sometimes) a
little electronic tweaking. Analog setting circles require no power, but can
be hard to read if they aren't large enough or if not illuminated properly.

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Naglers and Panoptics have better correction over wider fields than the older
Orthoscopics. Radians often have considerably longer eye relief than many
Orthos. Orthoscopics still offer very good performance, but if you need eye
relief or wider well-corrected fields of view, the newer eyepiece designs
might be a somewhat better choice.

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

In terms of sensitivity, yes. In terms of no chemical "mess" and faster
processing, yes. In terms of reciprocity failure, yes. In resolution, film
still has an edge, although that edge is shrinking noticably over time.

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

Not exactly, although GoTo is nice to have when you are pressed for time. I
still star-hop, and many people with the more advanced capability still drop
back a bit from time to time.

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Newer does not necessarily mean better, although in some of the above cases
you cite, it can be so. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Sirius posted:

This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

Not necessarily, but sometimes newer technology does have some advantages over
older technology.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Well, maybe yes and maybe no. The DSC's require power and (sometimes) a
little electronic tweaking. Analog setting circles require no power, but can
be hard to read if they aren't large enough or if not illuminated properly.

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Naglers and Panoptics have better correction over wider fields than the older
Orthoscopics. Radians often have considerably longer eye relief than many
Orthos. Orthoscopics still offer very good performance, but if you need eye
relief or wider well-corrected fields of view, the newer eyepiece designs
might be a somewhat better choice.

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

In terms of sensitivity, yes. In terms of no chemical "mess" and faster
processing, yes. In terms of reciprocity failure, yes. In resolution, film
still has an edge, although that edge is shrinking noticably over time.

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

Not exactly, although GoTo is nice to have when you are pressed for time. I
still star-hop, and many people with the more advanced capability still drop
back a bit from time to time.

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Newer does not necessarily mean better, although in some of the above cases
you cite, it can be so. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Sirius posted:

This was really prompted by the recent digital camera
vs. film discussions.

It seems to me that amateur astronomy (and other
hobbies as well) have been seized by what I
call "lastest-and-greatest-itis."

The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete.

Not necessarily, but sometimes newer technology does have some advantages over
older technology.

For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

Well, maybe yes and maybe no. The DSC's require power and (sometimes) a
little electronic tweaking. Analog setting circles require no power, but can
be hard to read if they aren't large enough or if not illuminated properly.

Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Naglers and Panoptics have better correction over wider fields than the older
Orthoscopics. Radians often have considerably longer eye relief than many
Orthos. Orthoscopics still offer very good performance, but if you need eye
relief or wider well-corrected fields of view, the newer eyepiece designs
might be a somewhat better choice.

Digital cameras & CCD have to be
better than film, right?

In terms of sensitivity, yes. In terms of no chemical "mess" and faster
processing, yes. In terms of reciprocity failure, yes. In resolution, film
still has an edge, although that edge is shrinking noticably over time.

Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

Not exactly, although GoTo is nice to have when you are pressed for time. I
still star-hop, and many people with the more advanced capability still drop
back a bit from time to time.

If newer = better, then one question:
How come the best electric guitar amps
still use vacuum tubes?

Newer does not necessarily mean better, although in some of the above cases
you cite, it can be so. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Sirius wrote:


The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete

Newer equals better and older equals obsolete. . .sounds to me like the same
way society has been conditioned to perceive its aging populace. Of course,
what else would one expect from a "throw away/use it and loose it" culture?


For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

"Faster" would be more correct than "better."


Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Different, yes; Better, no. Each has their own strengths.


Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

There are times when I star-hop and there are times when I use my digital
setting circles and I would bet there are many others who also do both.


--
Martin
Remove "ilikestars" from email address to reply

Sirius wrote:


The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete

Newer equals better and older equals obsolete. . .sounds to me like the same
way society has been conditioned to perceive its aging populace. Of course,
what else would one expect from a "throw away/use it and loose it" culture?


For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

"Faster" would be more correct than "better."


Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Different, yes; Better, no. Each has their own strengths.


Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

There are times when I star-hop and there are times when I use my digital
setting circles and I would bet there are many others who also do both.


--
Martin
Remove "ilikestars" from email address to reply

Sirius wrote:


The thinking is that newer technology automatically
MUST be better, and older MUST be obsolete

Newer equals better and older equals obsolete. . .sounds to me like the same
way society has been conditioned to perceive its aging populace. Of course,
what else would one expect from a "throw away/use it and loose it" culture?


For instance, DSC's have to be better
than setting circles, right?

"Faster" would be more correct than "better."


Naglers, Panoptics, and Radians have to be
better than Orthoscopics, right?

Different, yes; Better, no. Each has their own strengths.


Nobody would want to star-hop when they can
have GPS GoTo, right?

There are times when I star-hop and there are times when I use my digital
setting circles and I would bet there are many others who also do both.


--
Martin
Remove "ilikestars" from email address to reply