The Ranger and the Pronto Are No More

Alan French wrote in message
...
"Dan McShane" wrote in message
...
Alan,

Please........

Long before Mike and Stephen posted actual first hand opinions regarding
the
OA-6.5 and my 90mm ATS-OA there were a bounty of opinions based without
any
first hand knowledge/experience. And I believe to say anything other
than
that is pure revisionism.

Dan,

One thing I love about s.a.a. is the way folks completely ignore
questions.

I asked you a very simple question, and instead of an answer I get a
snotty
"Please....." I have neither said anything about the performance of one
of
your OA scopes, nor invoked anything from some other thread. My point was
also about someone making claims about two telescopes - sight unseen.

I think I have better things to do now.


Alan,

Fair enough.

Regarding Mike`s comments regarding the OA-4 vs. Orion`s soon-to-be
available 100mm f/9 ED? Well, on a 1-10 ludicrousness scale, about a 3,
considering Mike`s experience with my OA-90mm vs. similar aperture and f-#
scopes.

Dan







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/04

How about we just bemoan losing the Lone Ranger and Tonto, instead?? At least
they had great background music instead of a lot of bitching-out back and
forth.....
g
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)

Where's
your proof that TEC is so great? Can you fill us in? Make sure you send
out all your notes, perform double blind tests etc etc....

Mike.


Hello Mike , Rat and group ,

I can say unequivocally that the DGM off-axis
OA-7 reflector ( speaking for mine only ) and the TEC APO-140 (
speaking for mine only ) are both just excellect telescopes . Both
different , both excellent . That has been my experence with each . I
have not had a problem with either scope but feel each Co. would back
up its product completely . This thread needs to be put to bed .
Best of luck to each of you with your scopes , I
know Rat has a thrill coming soon !
May the clouds depart and give a each of us a good night soon
!
Leonard

Thank you, my thoughts exactly.

I can say unequivocally that the DGM off-axis
OA-7 reflector ( speaking for mine only ) and the TEC APO-140 (
speaking for mine only ) are both just excellect telescopes . Both
different , both excellent . That has been my experence with each . I
have not had a problem with either scope but feel each Co. would back
up its product completely . This thread needs to be put to bed .
Best of luck to each of you with your scopes , I
know Rat has a thrill coming soon !
May the clouds depart and give a each of us a good night soon
!
Leonard









rat
~( );

email: remove 'et' from .com(et) in above email address

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...

I feel comfortable recommending Orion stuff because Orion seems to
try to put together the best package for the money rather than trying to put
together the "best selling" package for the money.

That's right, with the only exception being the ShortTube 4.5 EQ
Reflector. Other than that, their brand name is still reputable
throughout their product line, and their telescope packages are all
usable for beginners.

A couple of 1.25 inch Kellners with a 60mm F11 refractor can provide some nice
views...

Along with red-dot finders for the less expensive models, that's
really all it takes to make a huge difference over "department store
telescopes" (even with the same OTAs). Moving up the pecking order a
bit, Orion includes two Plössls with practical focal lengths.


- Robert Cook

--
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
That's the name of the product line (like Telestar), but Meade doesn't
hide the fact that they're selling these telescopes. In fact, many
retailers bank on the company's name.

I agree, "Its a Meade..."

Not that it makes a difference
to me personally--if they want to be like Tasco, it's up to them. As
a result, however, I would not recommend Meade (or Celestron) by name.

I agree. I feel comfortable recommending Orion stuff because Orion
seems to
try to put together the best package for the money rather than trying to
put
together the "best selling" package for the money.

A couple of 1.25 inch Kellners with a 60mm F11 refractor can provide
some nice
views...

jon


I'm a little worried about all this agreement here on SAA, but I agree
with you...

I just got Orion's catalog #046 with the 100mm ED on the cover. And while
I wouldn't exactly call these high end refractors, they certainly MAY
offer the best value for the money out there (though just how good the 100
is remains to be seen)...

I have been an Orion customer for decades. Almost from the beginning.
And I don't feel bad about having said that at ALL...

Cheers!

Jan

(Brian Tung) wrote in message ...

Robert Cook wrote:

That's the name of the product line (like Telestar), but Meade doesn't
hide the fact that they're selling these telescopes. In fact, many
retailers bank on the company's name. Not that it makes a difference
to me personally--if they want to be like Tasco, it's up to them. As
a result, however, I would not recommend Meade (or Celestron) by name.

I will recommend specific products by name, though.

Sure, so would I, depending on the individual case. In fact, whenever
I help someone get started in amateur astronomy (concerning
equipment), most of that business probably goes to these two
companies, because the local telescope store (Oceanside Photo &
Telescope) stocks these products, and they don't sell the super-junky
models.

My reasoning is as
follows: These companies do not make a ton of money on their higher
quality scopes--low volume and small margin. They keep them on their
roster to maintain prestige.

Prestige for the purpose of selling PowerSeeker and Polaris (Tasco
wannabe) crap? Wouldn't this erode whatever prestige they have?
They've turned their own reputations into chicken-and-egg scenarios.
And if they chase away people who are just trying to get a taste of
this hobby, could that be counted as a loss of future sales of more
sophisticated telescopes and accessories?

Retailers can bank on the Celestron or
Meade name because they continue to make *some* quality products. But
they do count on some volume, and if not enough people buy them, we may
end up seeing a gap in the mid-level product offerings.

You're essentially implying that in order to maintain a shaky market
that is beneficial for us, these companies must prey on other people's
ignorance. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth--I'm just
applying your accurate assessment to what actually happens on the
sales floor, while keeping in mind what inevitably ends up in
countless closets. People are going to be ripped off anyway, so we
might as well benefit (instead of Tasco).

We could accept this situation as the immutable reality it may be, but
I want us to acknowledge its true nature. Simply put, we get lower
prices on SCTs because Celestron and Meade are making a living on junk
that they bait other people into wasting their money on--this is
basically a transfer of wealth. As a bonus, some beginners of limited
means may be able to afford a quality telescope that, because of its
inherent versatility, they could make good use of for a lifetime.
See, I can be practical...but this kind of practicality comes at a
cost.

Here's yet another take on this deceptively complex issue:

http://tinyurl.com/5ty6v

At the moment, however, I'm focusing on what to tell beginners, and
I'm obviously not going to say "You can't go wrong with Celestron or
Meade." :-)

I had already lambasted Celestron in another thread, so I thought it
was only fair to pick on Meade this time. :-)

Uhh...OK.

It was just a tongue-in-cheek remark--not altogether inaccurate, but
not necessarily serious, either (or funny, for that matter). ;-)


- Robert Cook

Robert Cook wrote:
Prestige for the purpose of selling PowerSeeker and Polaris (Tasco
wannabe) crap?

Sure. Especially if the typical beginner won't recognize it as crap.
They'll think, hey, this is Celesteade (or is it Metron?), I'm sure it's
good, it must be my fault. I must not be any good at astronomy. Or,
at least, that's my concern.

You're essentially implying that in order to maintain a shaky market
that is beneficial for us, these companies must prey on other people's
ignorance.

Nah. I'm saying something a bit more damning--that the companies will
prey on other people's ignorance whether or not we buy the good stuff,
and if we don't buy the good stuff, they have no great compulsion to
continue to sell it, and then we'll have *nothing* but the crap.

At the moment, however, I'm focusing on what to tell beginners, and
I'm obviously not going to say "You can't go wrong with Celestron or
Meade." :-)

Nor I.

Brian Tung
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

"clyde crewey" wrote in message
om...
Stephen,

So, at this point the only think left to do is get back on topic. It's
easy
to agree that the Ranger and the Pronto are no more because of the 100mm
F6
Chinese achros and the ED80 kill them in price competitiveness. However,
while the ED100 might be the deathnell of the TV102 on price, the DGM
Optics
OA4 is still a better value, and anyone seriously looking at an ED100 on
a
CG5/SVP, might want to consider the comparative luxury of the ultralight
OA4
on a Dob mount. That's all I had to say on the subject in the first
place.


Well, as I said, I don't agree with this at all because it's not true.
Or only partially true at the most. The Pronto/Ranger were slated
for extinction when TV introduced the TV76, and yes, I know that for a
fact.

I didn't know that. Hence, it was easy to agree it was the result of the
"China syndrome". g

The TV76 was introduced well before the ED80. As I pointed
out, the TV76 is the exact same size and weight as the Pronto. In
fact, it uses the exact same tube and focuser. The writing was on the
wall for the achro's when the 76 had success. The TV76 is the
concept of the Pronto perfected, and ditto for the TV60 and the
Ranger. Al made a decision to phase out the achro's and that's really
the story.

I've often been tempted by the TV-76, but wanting aperture in my short
tubes, I lean toward the 85, and the 101.

As for the ED100 being the death knell of the TV102, how
do you figure that?

Well, I don't really. Someone else does. I simply said "while it _might_" be
true (on price), it doesn't mean much for the OA4, which, while much cheaper
than the TV102, remains cheaper than the ED100 still. At best, that makes it
reasonable competition, leaving the buyer to consider factors other than
focal ratio and aperture, which they share virtually in common.

The way I see it, the TV102 surviving all the years of OA availibility is
sort of a mystery, considering the comparative performance, and radical
price difference. But, people swear by their apos, even though a much larger
reflector can be had for far less money, and even though the vast majority
of them are fully aware that the larger reflector outperforms their apo on
just about everything. So preference for those unobstructed views, whether
openly admitted or not, seems to be playing a part in their enjoyment of
observing, just as I have seen from the OA over a larger reflector.

As for why the less expensive OA hasn't taken a big chunk out of the 4"
F8/F9 refractor market, I can only assume it has to do with mass
inexperience with the design. As many folks as there are who seem to have a
lot of experience, it's hard to imagine that someone like myself, who has
only been at this for 3+ years, has sat down and compared the OA scopes in
A/B testing with larger reflectors and apos, and they have not. While I
don't have the experience and expertise to be able to describe the details
of the objects compared, and thereby give a "pleasing" review to the
officianados among us, it is my experience that there is insignificant
difference between the OA and the apo, for the range of powers (actually
fields of view) where they overlap.

But anyway, people need to see for themselves, just as I need to see through
the ED100 before forming an opinion about it in particular. My apo
experience is limited to a session with a TV-76, another with a TV-85 and
several with a TV-101, and of course the 2 minutes with the now infamous
TEC140, which was being negatively affected by some anomaly in the optical
train.

Meade has had a 102 ED out for years at only $100
above the price of the ED100 and that hasn't killed the TV102. Why
would the ED100? And why wouldn't the ED100 be the death knell of the
Tak 102 if it's going to kill the TV102? As someone who has used both
of those scopes visually, you can throw a net over them
performance-wise. BTW, my 6" f/8 Dob beat them both on Saturn! (And
yes, the Tak owner admitted it!) If one considers ease of detail seen
as "beating" The C ring was visible farther around the planet and
available at a lower power in the Dob. However, both 4" APO's
provided what could be certainly be called a more pleasing view. On
low contrast Jupiter, it was really too close to call. On the moon, we
both picked the refractors.

And so it goes with the OAs. Refractor like views from a reflector. It
really is that simple. Regardless of any egregious claims I might have made
in the past about its ability to best an obstructed scope of larger
aperture.

Whoops, sorry, I'm off topic!

No, I am.

Regards,
Stephen

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message

The way I see it, the TV102 surviving all the years of OA availibility is
sort of a mystery, considering the comparative performance, and radical
price difference. But, people swear by their apos, even though a much
larger
reflector can be had for far less money, and even though the vast majority
of them are fully aware that the larger reflector outperforms their apo on
just about everything.

I think the preference for apos is an aesthetic isssue. Even though I
collect less "data" through my refractor than I do through my larger newt, I
am charmed by the beauty of the subject matter and thats a great thing after
a hard day's work. I don't mean to imply that the views through the newt
are ugly, far from it. Maybe its that I have no illusions of contributing
to "science" and I spend time under the night sky in part to restore myself.
A 3-4" apo can do that for me. The natural views and the intuitive motion
(alt/az) tend to make the scope disappear as I am carried away by the
awesome context we live in.

As for why the less expensive OA hasn't taken a big chunk out of the 4"
F8/F9 refractor market, I can only assume it has to do with mass
inexperience with the design.

I think its because only Dan, Mike and you have ever seen one g

Whoops, sorry, I'm off topic!

No, I am.

me too...

Ed T.