new scope...how perfect should I expect it to be?

Paul Murphy wrote:
Tom Rauschenbach wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:37:36 -0800, rat ~( ); wrote:


I think you've pretty much described, for a picky person, the
difference between Televue and Celestron.
Oh yeah, you might as well skip Meade, too...

rat
~( );


I took a look at the telescope in daylight for the first time and the
mirror looks perfect, except for some dust. Whatever was wiped across
the mirror is only visible under direct illumination with a flashlight.
(I take it Celestron doesn't inspect its scopes in a dark room with a
flashlight...)

That may be an overly stringent test.



I talked to Astronomics and they said that the flashlight test in a dark
room was a very difficult test for any SCT and even their Questar MCTs
usually have dust and swirl marks visible under a flashlight.

I'll leave the issues logged with Celestron and Astronomics just in case
and I'll at least give it a try under the stars to see how it does.

Good thinking; if it works well, optically and mechanically, you may be
well advised to keep it.



I think I'll stick to buying scopes from a local dealer and inspect them
on the spot from now on. I now appreciate the time and care that went
into my two refractors a bit more.


Good idea. I think mail order works well with some of the premium
scopes (e.g., AP, TV, SV, others) but less so with Meade and Celestron.
That said, I took my defective NS8GPS to Celestron (a 20 min
roundtrip) vs. to the local dealer (a 4 hr roundtrip on crowded LA freeways)

Phil

Paul Murphy wrote:
About 5 years ago I bought a TV Pronto and I bought a TV 102 a couple of
years ago. In both cases the optics and the fit and finish were
absolutely perfect, which may have led me to be a bit more critical
about optical and mechanical fit and finish standards. I was looking for
a very, very portable 8in SCT and I thought the NexStar 8i XLT would be
perfect for me for use going up and down the stairs in my apartment (no
elevator).

Well it arrived and I can't decide if I should pack it up for a refund
or give it a chance. I've only had 3 clear nights since the end of
November, so I'm not sure how soon I can test it under the stars.

Here's the letter I sent Celestron support and I'm wondering if I'm
over-reacting and most SCTs ship in such a state or if I really got an
unreasonably bad example. How clean should I expect an SCT to be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I bought the NexStar 8i for two main reasons...it's a very portable 8in
SCT and I thought Celestron took pride in their craftsmanship and
attention to detail given the "hand figuring" of the optics.
When I unpacked the telescope, it was literally covered in glass dust.
On the base it was as if someone poured half of a salt shaker out on it.
After cleaning that, I proceeded to check the optics with a flashlight.

1. There is a large grease or paint smear inside the baffle tube.
2. There is dust and small pieces of hair on the inside of the corrector
plate and on the mirror in addition to the moderate amount of dust on
the outside of the corrector plate.
3. There are multiple circular streaks and a horizontal streak where
someone rubbed the mirror with (I assume) a cloth. The mirror does not
appear to be scratched and I don't know how much performance will be
lost due to this utter lack of professionalism in letting the scope
leave your factory in such a condition.

How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition
and what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to
Astronomics for a full refund and move on to Meade."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any input would be appreciated. I fear that if I spend more money on an
LX90 I will lose out on the extreme portability and may end up with the
same fit and finish problems. Thanks!

Paul Murphy wrote:
About 5 years ago I bought a TV Pronto and I bought a TV 102 a couple of
years ago. In both cases the optics and the fit and finish were
absolutely perfect, which may have led me to be a bit more critical
about optical and mechanical fit and finish standards. I was looking for
a very, very portable 8in SCT and I thought the NexStar 8i XLT would be
perfect for me for use going up and down the stairs in my apartment (no
elevator).

Well it arrived and I can't decide if I should pack it up for a refund
or give it a chance. I've only had 3 clear nights since the end of
November, so I'm not sure how soon I can test it under the stars.

Hi:

To be honest, turn a flashlight on _any_ scope (or point one just right
at any light source) and you'll see some things you don't like.

Bottom line on this? It's up to you to decide whether you can live with
these minor imperfections. If you obsess about such things, if they
bother you to distraction, you should probably return the scope for a
refund. You will never be able to enjoy the beautiful things this scope
can and will show you.

Sadly, If things like this are a problem for you, you may have a hard
time finding ANY telescope that fulfills your expectations...even the
_most_ expensive. None of these things you've listed, by the way, will
have the slightest impact on telescope performance. Period.

A path to unhappiness, the Flashlight Test is. --Yoda.

;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

I would have stopped before writting:

this utter lack of professionalism in letting the scope
leave your factory in such a condition.

How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition
and what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to
Astronomics for a full refund and move on to Meade."

Save those comments for the news group. Your letter up to that point
was very reasonable, and to me indicates that you deserve another scope
on their dime. Tearing into their credibility won't help you at this
point. Leave that to your lawyer if they don't give you satisfaction
(which I'm pretty sure they will).
I suspect if they would have shipped you a clean scope that didn't star
test as well as your TVs, you might chalk it up to mass production,
design limitations, less money=less performance, etc. shrugged and kept
the scope as a mostly satisfied customer.

Shawn

Shawn wrote:
I would have stopped before writting:

this utter lack of professionalism in letting the scope

leave your factory in such a condition.

How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition
and what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to
Astronomics for a full refund and move on to Meade."


Save those comments for the news group. Your letter up to that point
was very reasonable, and to me indicates that you deserve another scope
on their dime.

Agree: Always best to write such things and then send it a day or two
later .. but maybe he did (and did not send it but to us).

Agree: Always best to write such things and then send it a day or two
later .. but maybe he did (and did not send it but to us).

No, I sent it when I was upset last night right after opening the boxes.
A few things I didn't metion that also led to my frustration...

1. The angle at which one of the tripod legs extends is larger than the
other two by about 1/4 inch where the leg spreader is positioned, so
that I have to push that leg in to get it to touch the spreader.

2. In addition to all the other cosmetic issues with the scope, the
decal reads "Special Editio" along with a large bubble under the "E". No
big deal on the decals, but it just adds to the impression of
carelessness when taken together with the large amounts of glass dust,
moderate dust inside the scope, the grease in the baffle tube and the
swirl marks on the mirror.

3. I purchased 2 TMB/Burgess 9mm planetary eyepieces and they were
accompanied by a letter and some replacement parts telling me to
disassemble the eyepiece and replace the retaining ring in the barrel
with one that includes baffles, which I did, although putting a screw
driver that close to the lower lens made me very nervous.

So, except for the Astrozap dew shield, every single thing I ordered had
quality control or fit and finish issues. Now that I'm calmed down from
the series of disappointments of last night, daylight tests of the scope
and eyepieces seem to show perfect performance. It was just the
succession of one thing going wrong after the other that caused me to
show my frustration at the end of the letter and tell them I'd try Meade
instead. I'll know more when the cloudy go away from upstate NY, but so
far, it seems like it was all cosmetic and will not significantly affect
the optical performance of the telescope or eyepieces.

--
Clear Skies,
Paul Murphy

(remove gemini to email me)

Paul Murphy wrote:
Agree: Always best to write such things and then send it a day or two
later .. but maybe he did (and did not send it but to us).


No, I sent it when I was upset last night right after opening the boxes.
A few things I didn't metion that also led to my frustration...

1. The angle at which one of the tripod legs extends is larger than the
other two by about 1/4 inch where the leg spreader is positioned, so
that I have to push that leg in to get it to touch the spreader.


Same was true of my Nexstar8GPS. I ended up having to grind the leg
ends where they met the central hub of the tripod using my bench grinder
to make the angles even. This became apparent only when I upgraded the
original plastic spreader to an inflexible metal Starizona spreader last
month.

2. In addition to all the other cosmetic issues with the scope, the
decal reads "Special Editio" along with a large bubble under the "E". No
big deal on the decals, but it just adds to the impression of
carelessness when taken together with the large amounts of glass dust,
moderate dust inside the scope, the grease in the baffle tube and the
swirl marks on the mirror.

3. I purchased 2 TMB/Burgess 9mm planetary eyepieces and they were
accompanied by a letter and some replacement parts telling me to
disassemble the eyepiece and replace the retaining ring in the barrel
with one that includes baffles, which I did, although putting a screw
driver that close to the lower lens made me very nervous.


But this sounds like TMB (not Celestron or the distributor). Sounds
like an upgrade, to be sure. I would not put this in the quality
control realm.

So, except for the Astrozap dew shield, every single thing I ordered had
quality control or fit and finish issues. Now that I'm calmed down from
the series of disappointments of last night, daylight tests of the scope
and eyepieces seem to show perfect performance. It was just the
succession of one thing going wrong after the other that caused me to
show my frustration at the end of the letter and tell them I'd try Meade
instead. I'll know more when the cloudy go away from upstate NY, but so
far, it seems like it was all cosmetic and will not significantly affect
the optical performance of the telescope or eyepieces.


Good to hear that, Paul. In the end that is the most important thing :-)

Phil

The flashlight test is tough on any scope not kept in a class-10 clean
room. You might be the unlucky guy who received one of the inventory
remnants left over from the holiday production rush. It's not supposed
to work that way, but quality control might be a bit less "involved"
during the months when more stuff has to ship to retailers.

This hobby is funny in that some companies will make state-of-the-art
optics with beautiful multilayer coatings and then ruin the whole effect
with a handful of cheap screws that save them maybe twenty five cents in
manufacturing costs.


Paul Murphy wrote:
About 5 years ago I bought a TV Pronto and I bought a TV 102 a couple of
years ago. In both cases the optics and the fit and finish were
absolutely perfect, which may have led me to be a bit more critical
about optical and mechanical fit and finish standards. I was looking for
a very, very portable 8in SCT and I thought the NexStar 8i XLT would be
perfect for me for use going up and down the stairs in my apartment (no
elevator).

Well it arrived and I can't decide if I should pack it up for a refund
or give it a chance. I've only had 3 clear nights since the end of
November, so I'm not sure how soon I can test it under the stars.

Here's the letter I sent Celestron support and I'm wondering if I'm
....

leave your factory in such a condition.

How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition
and what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to
Astronomics for a full refund and move on to Meade."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any input would be appreciated. I fear that if I spend more money on an
LX90 I will lose out on the extreme portability and may end up with the
same fit and finish problems. Thanks!

Tom R:

The "fit and
finish" of the styrofoam packing material was excellent,

Sounds like you got some real good packing material.

the scope and
accesories looked like they'd never been touched by human hands.

That's just it; I'll bet they never were.

rat
~( );

I talked to Astronomics and they said that the flashlight test in a
dark
room was a very difficult test for any SCT and even their Questar MCTs
usually have dust and swirl marks visible under a flashlight.

Whatever. What SCT's are there, Celestron and Meade? Both being lowest
common denominator manufacturers, of course the flashlight test is
going to be difficult for them, their products are flat out mass
produced at the lowest possible cost to squeak by on customer
satisfaction, so they can sell them as cheap as possible in order to
compete with each other. Sorry to sound so jaded, but IMHO Televue has
a totally different business model, and it shows in the superior
quality of their merchandise. Your problem is that it is too late, you
have already become discriminating enough to notice. I for one don't
think there is any going back.


rat
~( );