the refractor craze??

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:21:13 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

Roland's right, you're wrong.

Roland's right about what, and I'm wrong about what? He and I said very
nearly
the same thing.

You said the polar opposite. You're presuming that nobody here can read
between the lines.
Roland quite correctly stated that refractor users are purchasing
refractors, and knowing exactly what they're doing while making that
purchase.
And although not directly, you're attempting to dismiss refractors as
something less than what you're proposing as a better purchase/telescope.


In a nutshell, the refractor is the perfect ALL around scope.

That is a matter of opinion (yours apparently). I don't happen to agree. I
don't
really think there is such a thing as a "perfect ALL around scope".

Yes it's my opinion, and one shared by thousands of others (note
refractor sales), so I'm not sure what your point is.
That you don't think there is such a thing as a perfect ALL around scope
is definitely your opinion, and not shared by me, or many others.
I think it's rather elite to presume that amateurs should own a number
of different scope for each purpose pursued.
That makes the quest for a perfect ALL around scope an honorable one,
whether you think it's possible or not.
Elitism sucks in any hobby.


And you're wrong to boot.....the largest refractors, the newest
refractors, and the coolest refractors are always at big star parties...

All I said is that there are many more reflectors than refractors at all the
starparties I've been at. I figure that's because when people take a lot of
trouble and head for dark skies, they really want aperture- and that's
something
you don't get with refractors.

As I said, the fact that there is ten times as many of an item than of
some other item (in this case reflectors vs. refractors) at a hobby show
has more to do with the cost than the intent.

Mr. Peterson, I am very clear on your point, and I am fully in
disagreement with you.

Thanks for your interest in my post.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:35:33 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

You said the polar opposite. You're presuming that nobody here can read
between the lines...

You are entirely misrepresenting (and misunderstanding) my position. If you want
to argue that one kind of scope is better or worse than another, you can do so
with yourself.

You need to be careful reading between the lines... sometimes there is nothing
there.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

From my observations the most prevalent scope amongst serious amateurs is
the 8" and 10" SCT. I have a homemade 10" Dob which has been a great scopes
for many years. About two years ago I built a 90mm achro. refractor and find
I am using it more and more. Just a few days ago I ordered one of these 80mm
ED's from Orion to replace it and can't wait to get it. I think the buyers
of the SCT's are disappointed with these instruments and in someway regret
their purchasing decisions or at least long for another instrument with
complimenting features. The more observing I do the more I enjoy low power,
wide field views and I don't think I'm alone. Recently when set beside club
members with their SCT's there is always excitement about looking through my
refractor even though it is not a premium Apo. The high contrast and wide
field make the views more pleasing. At the recent Lunar eclipse I was a late
arrival but once my refractor was set up the others starting packing up
their gear and took turns watching through the refractor. Obviously this
was a perfect opportunity for a decent refractor to shine but there have
been other similar experiences. I've also heard the comments from those
looking through my Dob. that they can't believe how much better the images
are and how easy to that scope is to use compared to their fork mounted
SCTs. So bottom line to me, if there is any scope design that doesn't make
sense to me particularly for visual observing it is the SCT.

Subject: the refractor craze??
From: Chris L Peterson
Date: 11/20/2004 4:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:35:33 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

You said the polar opposite. You're presuming that nobody here can read
between the lines...

You are entirely misrepresenting (and misunderstanding) my position. If you
want
to argue that one kind of scope is better or worse than another, you can do
so
with yourself.

You need to be careful reading between the lines... sometimes there is
nothing
there.
**********************************
After owning over 150 scopes i can say there is no such thing as the perfect
scope. And the few starparties i do go to, i see more Dobs that APO's!!!

Chas P.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:31:08 GMT, "Juan Calculus"
wrote:

Now getting back into the astro hobby after a few years recess, I've noticed
a trend towards refractors. I visited a local SP a few weeks ago and I'll
bet close to 70% of the scopes there were refractors. I'm curious as to
what's caused this trend or shift as when I was active in the past, close to
15 years ago, the "light bucket" Dobsonian seemed to be the favorite at star
parties. How does a refractor, which I seldom see in apertures greater
than 100mm due to expense, compare with a light bucket Dob or reflector? It
certainly can't be DSO's as an 18" Dob would win that battle hands down. I
would also think that the larger reflector would be the winner for planets
too, especially if it has a good mirror. So, what is the appeal?
Portability, but what else? There must be something I'm missing regarding
their appeal especially when you compare the cost per aperture differences
between refractors and other scopes.

Thanks,
Juan


The Dob is still the largest selling scope for committed amateurs.
This factors out the people who buy crap refractors from dept.
stores for Johnny for a last-minute gift.
-Rich

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:21:13 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On 20 Nov 2004 19:11:00 GMT, (Chris1011) wrote:

I don't know if there is a real craze, a marketing craze, or no craze at
all.
But I do know that if you go to a star party, not one telescope in 20 is a
refractor. People who actually use telescopes visually know what makes
sense.

A lot of people use them for imaging, which you are not going to see at star
parties. It is hard to do with normal Dobs. People who buy high end apos
know
exactly why they do so.

Yup. That's why I used the term "visually", and referred to star parties. In
my
book, a refractor has two primary uses- imaging, and visual for travel or
rapid
setup (typically, casual use).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Roland's right, you're wrong.

Refractors are a better instrument for their size than newts or dobs.
they're better for photography, deployment, contrast, and ease of use.

Big dobs/newts are a drag to move around, the tracking is cumbersome,
and they require ladders/stools/etc to have on hand to cover the zenith,
or anywhere near it.

Refractor images are excellent, they are portable, they are outstanding
visually AND photographically.

Portable.
Have any of you ever used a refractor over 6?"
-Rich

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:44:17 -0500, "Rich Lauzon"
wrote:

From my observations the most prevalent scope amongst serious amateurs is
the 8" and 10" SCT. I have a homemade 10" Dob which has been a great scopes
for many years. About two years ago I built a 90mm achro. refractor and find
I am using it more and more. Just a few days ago I ordered one of these 80mm
ED's from Orion to replace it and can't wait to get it. I think the buyers
of the SCT's are disappointed with these instruments and in someway regret
their purchasing decisions or at least long for another instrument with
complimenting features.

It depends. If someone is a casual observer, they never really
utilized a night of terrific seeing, then they are likely to think
that a 4" apo (for eg) gives a better image. Further, if they are
not the motivated type, who will haul out a heavy 10" or even an
8" SCT, then they will likely go for a refractor. If their observing
tastes run to widefields, refractors can be a benefit too.
But if their tastes run to light gathering power, deep sky object
detail, or seeing transitory features on planets as well as possible,
then a small refractor will not cut it. Hence, everyone I know who
has purchased a small apo also has an SCT or a larger Newtonian,
except for the more casual observers who are satisfied with the basic
views and who value portability.
-Rich

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 21:35:33 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

You said the polar opposite. You're presuming that nobody here can read
between the lines...

From your first post:
"People who actually use telescopes visually know what makes sense."

You are entirely misrepresenting (and misunderstanding) my position.
You need to be careful reading between the lines... sometimes there is
nothing
there.

It's funny to watch your position shift, if even slightly, once you're
called on something you've said.
Having said that, it's cloudy, we're both bored, and you're starting to
get on my nerves, as I'm sure I am yours.

good day to you.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:11:30 GMT, Simple Traveler
wrote:

From your first post:
"People who actually use telescopes visually know what makes sense."

You disagree with this?!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Simple Traveler" wrote in message
Roland's right, you're wrong.

That's funny! They were talking about two different uses.

Refractors are a better instrument for their size than newts or dobs.
they're better for photography, deployment, contrast, and ease of use.

"for their size" ie, to simply say refractors are better instruments is
like saying a top fuel dragster is the best car because it goes the fastest.
(and some here would agree! vbg)

At the same time, I don't want to bring the groceries home (or haul a
telescope to a dark site) in a dragster. A pickup will haul a lot more than
a dragster, even if it isn't as fast. In the same way, scopes have different
advantages.

Big dobs/newts are a drag to move around, the tracking is cumbersome,
and they require ladders/stools/etc to have on hand to cover the zenith,
or anywhere near it.

Yes, but if you want to haul out to a dark site and hunt for the faintest
DSOs, nothing beats a big dob.

Refractor images are excellent, they are portable, they are outstanding
visually AND photographically.

True, providing you aren't chasing something that takes 14" of aperture to
see.

In a nutshell, the refractor is the perfect ALL around scope.

Ah, now I get it. You're just a TROLL!

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/
And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/
************************************

That ability to go deeper either visually or photographically is not up
for debate, everybody on SAA agrees (or should) that big newts and dobs
go deeper(in less time photograpically, and all the time visually)

But that doesn't make them (for most users) appropriate, considering all
of their downsides.

The refractor is the perfect telescope, and people who buy expensive
ones usually have come to that observation on their own, with no
counseling from this group, or any other.

Nobody is going to spend three grand on a refractor (or not) based on
anything anybody in SAA has said, they're already way beyond that and
making up their own minds based on experience.

What happens at star parties indicates trends of a very, very small
percentage of star party attendees.

And you're wrong to boot.....the largest refractors, the newest
refractors, and the coolest refractors are always at big star parties,
so I don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that there is ten times as many scopes at a star party that
cost five times less than a big refractor isn't indicative of anything
beyond the fact that there's always less of the most expensive/desirable
item at any hobby gathering.