The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less
than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a
perfectly
good time under the stars?

Why yes, yes it is.


It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

Don't you have a 12.5" Starfinder Dob with DSCs? I think that qualifies as a
"best" of what's available on a cost/performance basis.

But, to your point, enjoying has to do with what you have, not what you
don't. I could be very happy with a mass produced 8" F6 Dob modified with
EbonyStar and virgin Teflon, the typical 25mm and 9mm Plossls that come with
it, and one of the lower cost wide field 6mm eyepieces.

But still, given the choice, I'd go for high fidelity at smaller apertures
and wider fields. There's nothing like a big honking Dob to make those faint
fuzzies stand out, and for making M42 look marvelous, just like there's no
substitute for wide field star sweeps of the Milky Way anf for framing the
brighter DSO's. Each has its place. Which one one prefers is purely
subjective. I'm just glad that scopes are cheap enough that you don't have
to give up wide field for high power large aperture viewing. You can do both
for right around $1000 (excluding S&H) with an 8" F6 XT8 IntelliScope Dob, a
Short Tube 80 on EQ-1, an Orion 24 - 8mm Zoom and 6mm Expanse eyepiece.
(Gee, maybe I should go to work at Orion ;-)).

For sure, the fidelity of the images will suffer a little with those
eyepieces, but it will cover a huge range of objects and viewing pleasures
given good sky conditions.

Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?


RIght on. There never will be a perfect telescope, never will be a perfect
eyepiece and there is no doubt my eyes are far from perfection.

But so what.....

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

I like to think in terms of "decent quality" rather than in terms of "the
best." A decent eyepiece provides great views of the sky above. 40 years ago
todays "decent quality eyepiece" most likely would have been significantly
superior to anything in existence.

I can enjoy riding either a $500 bicycle or a $2500 bicycle, I can enjoy
viewing through either a $50 eyepiece or a $250 eyepiece. My hope is to use
the equipment, accept it for what it can do, aberations and all, observe and
enjoy.

I say you have once again hit the nail on the head.

Jon

Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?


RIght on. There never will be a perfect telescope, never will be a perfect
eyepiece and there is no doubt my eyes are far from perfection.

But so what.....

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

I like to think in terms of "decent quality" rather than in terms of "the
best." A decent eyepiece provides great views of the sky above. 40 years ago
todays "decent quality eyepiece" most likely would have been significantly
superior to anything in existence.

I can enjoy riding either a $500 bicycle or a $2500 bicycle, I can enjoy
viewing through either a $50 eyepiece or a $250 eyepiece. My hope is to use
the equipment, accept it for what it can do, aberations and all, observe and
enjoy.

I say you have once again hit the nail on the head.

Jon

Starstuffed wrote:

Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

In my view, the show is overhead all the time whether you've got a scope
or not. I know people in a country where few can afford telescopes but
they are crazy about astronomy. I have been fortunate to observe quite
a bit with very large telescopes but I still love to just look up at the
sky in awe of the beauty and what I'm seeing with my own, unaided eyes.
I'll step out of my house or out of a dome with no optics in hand just
to look at the sky for a while. That doesn't take anything away from
the telescopic views. But I think we're all admitted to the main event
for free. Some choose to get better seats, but that's a luxury, not a
necessity. If you can't observe what's up there -- and be awed by it --
without glass then you're just not paying attention.

Mike Simmons

Starstuffed wrote:

Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

In my view, the show is overhead all the time whether you've got a scope
or not. I know people in a country where few can afford telescopes but
they are crazy about astronomy. I have been fortunate to observe quite
a bit with very large telescopes but I still love to just look up at the
sky in awe of the beauty and what I'm seeing with my own, unaided eyes.
I'll step out of my house or out of a dome with no optics in hand just
to look at the sky for a while. That doesn't take anything away from
the telescopic views. But I think we're all admitted to the main event
for free. Some choose to get better seats, but that's a luxury, not a
necessity. If you can't observe what's up there -- and be awed by it --
without glass then you're just not paying attention.

Mike Simmons