Have refractors hurt the hobby?

In article , Brian Tung wrote:
Robert Grumbine wrote:
But, fer cryin' out loud guys, just how much of the sky can you
aim a telescope at, 'even' a 60 mm, and see _nothing_ interesting?!
Now that I have scopes again, I've been wandering them about the sky.
Not target acquisition (well, aside from some revisits to old friends,
M42, M45, and Saturn the other morning, and epsilon Lyra the first night)
I'm really not very good at target acquisition. But just wandering
about I've seen some lovely groups of stars, and some elegant color
contrasts (very nice yellow-blue pair in Lyra-Cygnus, somewhere, ... oh
to find my way back :-) ).

On the off chance you're serious (and for those out there who don't know
what he's talking about), this is Albireo (beta Cyg), the beak of the
swan (or the foot of the cross), one of the finest binocular and telescopic
doubles in the sky.

To be serious: no, I'm not positive that it was Albireo. I wasn't
paying attention to where I was drifting the scope. My initial move
was towards delta Cygni, but I could easily have changed my mind.

Given the description, though, in Burnham, it almost certainly
was indeed Albireo. It's been cloudy here since then, so I haven't
had a chance to verify.

Lots of interesting things up there. Current reading, as I
wait for skies to clear, is Robert Hinkley Allen's _Start Names:
Their Lore and Meaning_ He mentions a nice colored multiple in
Andromeda.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

RichA wrote in message . ..
In the Dec. issue, the editor of Sky and Tel in December discusses
Christmas present telescopes. He of course makes mention of the junk
scopes, the 60mm 525x refractors and 76mm reflectors that are
mechanically and optically (usually by their eyepieces) challenged and
that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on.

This is undoubtedly true. But forget the 76mm reflectors, the main
culprit is the 60mm refractor on it's 9000 year old Tasco alt-az
rickety mount that is by far the main culprit, along with it's
dog crap little Huygen eyepieces and 3x plastic barlows.
So, has the mere presence of these telescopes harmed the hobby,
by driving many away from it.

I used to have the view that if someone couldn't maintain their
interest enough to "live" with a 60mm for a few years until they
sought out something better, maybe they didn't deserve to be in the
hobby, that their interest was not genuine. But, after having
watched the behaviour of amateurs over the past 35 years, I realize
that some (more now than before) come into the hobby and can be
turned off by bad equipment. Whether they "deserve" to be in the
hobby is purely a judgment call on people's part.

So if most agree that the lowly cheapo 60mm refractor (or worse,
the fully plastic 40 or 50mm trashfractor) has turned away potential
devotees, what can be done about it?

About 17 years ago, Meade and Celestron tried to help out here. They
both offered only decent (not great, but workable) 60mm refractors
with reasonable 1-1/4" eyepieces and real finderscopes. This was a
noble attempt by them to "upscale" the beginner. It worked for a bit,
but ultimately, both companies for whatever reason decided to dispense
with all pretense at being the hobby saviours and started selling
the same garbage scopes Tasco and Bushnell and Swift, etc, had been
selling. They needed the high margins these scopes offer.
They probably help offset R&D and production costs of real scopes.

The editor of Sky and Tel offers up the usual advise (which is good)
about trying educate people about bad versus good telescopes, but
amateurs are too few in number to influence the bulk of telescope
buyers who are looking generally for just another Christmas gift to
offer up and who don't put anymore thought into it than someone
buying a shirt for someone. In fact, someone is more likely to know
a good clothing brand than telescope.

But what if the only scopes offered at the entry level are decent
quality ones? Celestron and Meade tried this a decade+ ago, offering
decent beginner scopes, 1-1/4" eyepieces, good finders, etc, but they
couldn't sustain it and started selling the junk themselves to compete
with the odious Bushnell and Tasco.

So, over the past 40 years, had good scopes only been offered, would
there be more amateurs in the hobby today, or (despite the rejection
rate of the junk) are there more in the hobby today because of the
sheer number of cheapo junk scopes that have been turned out?
If you sell 100,000 good scopes, and 80% of the people stay in the
hobby, or 500,000 pieces of junk and 200,000 stay in the hobby,
obviously the junk scopes did a better job.

So have the cheap refractors hurt or helped the hobby?
-Rich

Hi Rich!No I dont think that the 60mm refractors have hurt the hobby
at all.I think that their manufacturers claims tend to discourage some
beginners after they have had them for a while.I am familiar with
TASCO because I owned a 50mm(2") refractor 100x ,and a JASON 280x
Constellation 60mm refractor.Both gave me fine views,but I educated
myself on telescope terminology and avoided the high powerlow aperture
trap,so that I was able to enjoy use of the scope.Those scopes were
built better without much plastic.The TASCO 2" even had an all metal
rack and pinion focuser-it was the 6TE-5.My friend Melvin logged a
sketch of the waning gibbous moon using it back in 1972 October (The
drawings are in my 1972 Journal).I think that the optics of todays
60mm's are better than those were.My suggestion to the 60mm user-take
the time to learn your telescope and its capabilities.Learn how to use
it and get some good books on scopes or join an astronomy club.Perhaps
a 60mm telescope users group would be helpful.After you learn your
scope,you can upgrade to a larger one or upgrade your 60mm scope with
better eyepieces.Though these new scopes are built like junk,a little
work can make them into decent units.Ya just need a little fire in the
belly!Gary Barabino Sr

RichA wrote in message . ..
In the Dec. issue, the editor of Sky and Tel in December discusses
Christmas present telescopes. He of course makes mention of the junk
scopes, the 60mm 525x refractors and 76mm reflectors that are
mechanically and optically (usually by their eyepieces) challenged and
that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on.

This is undoubtedly true. But forget the 76mm reflectors, the main
culprit is the 60mm refractor on it's 9000 year old Tasco alt-az
rickety mount that is by far the main culprit, along with it's
dog crap little Huygen eyepieces and 3x plastic barlows.
So, has the mere presence of these telescopes harmed the hobby,
by driving many away from it.

I used to have the view that if someone couldn't maintain their
interest enough to "live" with a 60mm for a few years until they
sought out something better, maybe they didn't deserve to be in the
hobby, that their interest was not genuine. But, after having
watched the behaviour of amateurs over the past 35 years, I realize
that some (more now than before) come into the hobby and can be
turned off by bad equipment. Whether they "deserve" to be in the
hobby is purely a judgment call on people's part.

So if most agree that the lowly cheapo 60mm refractor (or worse,
the fully plastic 40 or 50mm trashfractor) has turned away potential
devotees, what can be done about it?

About 17 years ago, Meade and Celestron tried to help out here. They
both offered only decent (not great, but workable) 60mm refractors
with reasonable 1-1/4" eyepieces and real finderscopes. This was a
noble attempt by them to "upscale" the beginner. It worked for a bit,
but ultimately, both companies for whatever reason decided to dispense
with all pretense at being the hobby saviours and started selling
the same garbage scopes Tasco and Bushnell and Swift, etc, had been
selling. They needed the high margins these scopes offer.
They probably help offset R&D and production costs of real scopes.

The editor of Sky and Tel offers up the usual advise (which is good)
about trying educate people about bad versus good telescopes, but
amateurs are too few in number to influence the bulk of telescope
buyers who are looking generally for just another Christmas gift to
offer up and who don't put anymore thought into it than someone
buying a shirt for someone. In fact, someone is more likely to know
a good clothing brand than telescope.

But what if the only scopes offered at the entry level are decent
quality ones? Celestron and Meade tried this a decade+ ago, offering
decent beginner scopes, 1-1/4" eyepieces, good finders, etc, but they
couldn't sustain it and started selling the junk themselves to compete
with the odious Bushnell and Tasco.

So, over the past 40 years, had good scopes only been offered, would
there be more amateurs in the hobby today, or (despite the rejection
rate of the junk) are there more in the hobby today because of the
sheer number of cheapo junk scopes that have been turned out?
If you sell 100,000 good scopes, and 80% of the people stay in the
hobby, or 500,000 pieces of junk and 200,000 stay in the hobby,
obviously the junk scopes did a better job.

So have the cheap refractors hurt or helped the hobby?
-Rich

Hi Rich!No I dont think that the 60mm refractors have hurt the hobby
at all.I think that their manufacturers claims tend to discourage some
beginners after they have had them for a while.I am familiar with
TASCO because I owned a 50mm(2") refractor 100x ,and a JASON 280x
Constellation 60mm refractor.Both gave me fine views,but I educated
myself on telescope terminology and avoided the high powerlow aperture
trap,so that I was able to enjoy use of the scope.Those scopes were
built better without much plastic.The TASCO 2" even had an all metal
rack and pinion focuser-it was the 6TE-5.My friend Melvin logged a
sketch of the waning gibbous moon using it back in 1972 October (The
drawings are in my 1972 Journal).I think that the optics of todays
60mm's are better than those were.My suggestion to the 60mm user-take
the time to learn your telescope and its capabilities.Learn how to use
it and get some good books on scopes or join an astronomy club.Perhaps
a 60mm telescope users group would be helpful.After you learn your
scope,you can upgrade to a larger one or upgrade your 60mm scope with
better eyepieces.Though these new scopes are built like junk,a little
work can make them into decent units.Ya just need a little fire in the
belly!Gary Barabino Sr

On 17 Nov 2004 20:07:09 -0800, (Gary Barabino
Sr) wrote:

RichA wrote in message . ..
In the Dec. issue, the editor of Sky and Tel in December discusses
Christmas present telescopes. He of course makes mention of the junk
scopes, the 60mm 525x refractors and 76mm reflectors that are
mechanically and optically (usually by their eyepieces) challenged and
that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on.

This is undoubtedly true. But forget the 76mm reflectors, the main
culprit is the 60mm refractor on it's 9000 year old Tasco alt-az
rickety mount that is by far the main culprit, along with it's
dog crap little Huygen eyepieces and 3x plastic barlows.
So, has the mere presence of these telescopes harmed the hobby,
by driving many away from it.

I used to have the view that if someone couldn't maintain their
interest enough to "live" with a 60mm for a few years until they
sought out something better, maybe they didn't deserve to be in the
hobby, that their interest was not genuine. But, after having
watched the behaviour of amateurs over the past 35 years, I realize
that some (more now than before) come into the hobby and can be
turned off by bad equipment. Whether they "deserve" to be in the
hobby is purely a judgment call on people's part.

So if most agree that the lowly cheapo 60mm refractor (or worse,
the fully plastic 40 or 50mm trashfractor) has turned away potential
devotees, what can be done about it?

About 17 years ago, Meade and Celestron tried to help out here. They
both offered only decent (not great, but workable) 60mm refractors
with reasonable 1-1/4" eyepieces and real finderscopes. This was a
noble attempt by them to "upscale" the beginner. It worked for a bit,
but ultimately, both companies for whatever reason decided to dispense
with all pretense at being the hobby saviours and started selling
the same garbage scopes Tasco and Bushnell and Swift, etc, had been
selling. They needed the high margins these scopes offer.
They probably help offset R&D and production costs of real scopes.

The editor of Sky and Tel offers up the usual advise (which is good)
about trying educate people about bad versus good telescopes, but
amateurs are too few in number to influence the bulk of telescope
buyers who are looking generally for just another Christmas gift to
offer up and who don't put anymore thought into it than someone
buying a shirt for someone. In fact, someone is more likely to know
a good clothing brand than telescope.

But what if the only scopes offered at the entry level are decent
quality ones? Celestron and Meade tried this a decade+ ago, offering
decent beginner scopes, 1-1/4" eyepieces, good finders, etc, but they
couldn't sustain it and started selling the junk themselves to compete
with the odious Bushnell and Tasco.

So, over the past 40 years, had good scopes only been offered, would
there be more amateurs in the hobby today, or (despite the rejection
rate of the junk) are there more in the hobby today because of the
sheer number of cheapo junk scopes that have been turned out?
If you sell 100,000 good scopes, and 80% of the people stay in the
hobby, or 500,000 pieces of junk and 200,000 stay in the hobby,
obviously the junk scopes did a better job.

So have the cheap refractors hurt or helped the hobby?
-Rich

Hi Rich!No I dont think that the 60mm refractors have hurt the hobby
at all.I think that their manufacturers claims tend to discourage some
beginners after they have had them for a while.I am familiar with
TASCO because I owned a 50mm(2") refractor 100x ,and a JASON 280x
Constellation 60mm refractor.Both gave me fine views,but I educated
myself on telescope terminology and avoided the high powerlow aperture
trap,so that I was able to enjoy use of the scope.Those scopes were
built better without much plastic.The TASCO 2" even had an all metal
rack and pinion focuser-it was the 6TE-5.My friend Melvin logged a
sketch of the waning gibbous moon using it back in 1972 October (The
drawings are in my 1972 Journal).I think that the optics of todays
60mm's are better than those were.My suggestion to the 60mm user-take
the time to learn your telescope and its capabilities.Learn how to use
it and get some good books on scopes or join an astronomy club.Perhaps
a 60mm telescope users group would be helpful.After you learn your
scope,you can upgrade to a larger one or upgrade your 60mm scope with
better eyepieces.Though these new scopes are built like junk,a little
work can make them into decent units.Ya just need a little fire in the
belly!Gary Barabino Sr

Oddly enough, the optics of the average 60mm refractor are probably
fine in most cases. The dissuaders are the horrible, unstable mounts,
the crappy eyepieces that push 300x and are hard to look though and
the useless finderscopes.
People like myself who grafted decent 1-1/4" eyepieces on those scopes
found out they weren't that bad optically.