Which planetary eyepiece?

But why on earth would TMB not test each one before it left their shop?
Truly a mystery.

Phil

Leonard wrote:

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...


Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic


This may answer your own question .

Of the four TMB
Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they
were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what
could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not
hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that
the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not.

Leonard

Since such coincidences are extremely unlikely, why on earth would the ONLY
3 bad eyepieces out of 600 manage to be next to each other so that they'd be
all picked up and sent to S&T untested ? If the first attempt yields 3 bad
out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200
more ? Statistics say it's virtually impossible for the only 3 bad eyepieces
to lign up ready to be picked from the first attempt.

But if that's indeed the case, maybe the owner of that lucky hand (who
performed the selection) should consider playing the lottery .
Alternatively, whoever decided to not test products received straight from
manufacturing and ship them straight to customers should consider adding a
normal testing step for each eyepiece before shipping . Unfortunately, there
are lots of buyers who just purchase expensive stuff for bragging rights ,
and perceive it as automatically being good . These people would not even
question the quality of products coming from such famous vendors . That
might be an explanation to why nobody complained yet . The same way there
are millions of scopes sitting in garages , there are millions of eyepieces
sitting in cases unused for decades. Hopefully, this TMB will become a
collector item, anybody wants to sell me his from the now world famous
astigmatic lot ?

best regards,
matt tudor


Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...
But why on earth would TMB not test each one before it left their shop?
Truly a mystery.

Phil

Leonard wrote:

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message
news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...


Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic


This may answer your own question .

Of the four TMB
Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they
were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what
could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not
hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that
the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not.

Leonard

Since such coincidences are extremely unlikely, why on earth would the ONLY
3 bad eyepieces out of 600 manage to be next to each other so that they'd be
all picked up and sent to S&T untested ? If the first attempt yields 3 bad
out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200
more ? Statistics say it's virtually impossible for the only 3 bad eyepieces
to lign up ready to be picked from the first attempt.

But if that's indeed the case, maybe the owner of that lucky hand (who
performed the selection) should consider playing the lottery .
Alternatively, whoever decided to not test products received straight from
manufacturing and ship them straight to customers should consider adding a
normal testing step for each eyepiece before shipping . Unfortunately, there
are lots of buyers who just purchase expensive stuff for bragging rights ,
and perceive it as automatically being good . These people would not even
question the quality of products coming from such famous vendors . That
might be an explanation to why nobody complained yet . The same way there
are millions of scopes sitting in garages , there are millions of eyepieces
sitting in cases unused for decades. Hopefully, this TMB will become a
collector item, anybody wants to sell me his from the now world famous
astigmatic lot ?

best regards,
matt tudor


Phil Wheeler wrote in message ...
But why on earth would TMB not test each one before it left their shop?
Truly a mystery.

Phil

Leonard wrote:

"Markus Ludes" wrote in message
news:395377e1fed02501e56034fdbc66313d.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...


Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic


This may answer your own question .

Of the four TMB
Super Mono eyepieces (as you know, I did not test these, they
were taken from a large stack of untested units, figuring what
could be more honest from a manufacturer than to do that -- not
hand pick a set like I'm sure so many do. Markus assured me that
the second run was flawless -- it certainly was not.

Leonard

matt wrote:
....If the first attempt yields 3 bad
out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200
more ?

None after testing 100 more (M.L.)

matt wrote:
....If the first attempt yields 3 bad
out of 3 in a batch of 600 , how many bad ones are found after testing 200
more ?

None after testing 100 more (M.L.)

(Yuri) wrote in message . com...
"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:

Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic

Markus if 3 random selected eyepieces have astigmatism - it is not a
mystery, but a possibly manufacturer problem of that particular run,
and you should drive to Berlin asap to find out what was wrong.

Gary gave 5 stars for these eyepieces and revue sounds positive in
most acounts, what makes you write following:

Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds
Markus

Are you trying to say that if you would be a magazine, the APM /
Astro Potential Magazine, for example, you would do reviews based not
of product quality, but on amount paid for adds?

regards, Yuri


I check briefly the review in "Astronomy" for a 10" SCT. The review (of the
optics) was a pathetic joke. I can't say a magazine is doing it for money
or for truth when the review is so horribly non-specific.
-Rich

(Yuri) wrote in message . com...
"Markus Ludes" wrote in message news:

Why astigmatism in 3 of 600 pc and how can 3 non selected of such 600
pc go to such review place where all others have no complain ? Mytic,
Mystic, Mystic

Markus if 3 random selected eyepieces have astigmatism - it is not a
mystery, but a possibly manufacturer problem of that particular run,
and you should drive to Berlin asap to find out what was wrong.

Gary gave 5 stars for these eyepieces and revue sounds positive in
most acounts, what makes you write following:

Yes we do not pay every month thousands of $$$ to the magazin for adds
Markus

Are you trying to say that if you would be a magazine, the APM /
Astro Potential Magazine, for example, you would do reviews based not
of product quality, but on amount paid for adds?

regards, Yuri


I check briefly the review in "Astronomy" for a 10" SCT. The review (of the
optics) was a pathetic joke. I can't say a magazine is doing it for money
or for truth when the review is so horribly non-specific.
-Rich

Back to the original subject, which is sharper and more contrast: latest
Televue plossls or University Optics orthos HD?

Back to the original subject, which is sharper and more contrast: latest
Televue plossls or University Optics orthos HD?

Why not try them and see?

-Steve Paul

"B Starr" wrote in message
...
Back to the original subject, which is sharper and more contrast: latest
Televue plossls or University Optics orthos HD?