Orion 80 mm ED Apo via Zeiss Telementor 63/840

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


"Tom T." wrote in message
s.com...
Al,

IMO - Markus is not trying to encourage or discourage you from
purchasing. Rather he's trying to help make you an informed consumer
by giving a knowledgable analysis.

In short, the scope's not perfect, but it could be a good deal IF it
fits with you. Not all deals are for everybody. You need to determine
if you would fit with the ED80. Don't buy it expecting a TMB, AP, TV,
etc... Do buy it if you are looking for something better than your
ST80 or other comparable achromats.

All too often there is a deluge of happy satisfied owners who tend to
either over look the defects or simply don't spot them for lack of
experience. Markus is trying to inject a reasoned, experienced
viewpoint.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Markus.

Tom T.



On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:24:09 GMT, "Al"
wrote:


"Markus Ludes" wrote in message
news:70ace3284fcfbd375c3f0821157b02f7.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...

I've had my ear to the ground on this one, and Markus' report is the
first I've heard of significant (quantified) problems.



Tom T.
---------------
Tom,


hereover in germany the first samples arrived some time ago and there
have been discussions due coma in several such scopes,
best wishes
Markus


Markus,

Please make me understand your motivation here...

First you write a report on the 80mm ED, which most of us who read it
(including me) find it to be less than sparkling for this new item. I
wrote
to you and thanked you on this NG for taking the time to post the report.
Now it seems that you're backpedaling, telling us, in a variety of ways,
that we shouldn't allow your report to influence our buying decision.
This
is the second post where you seem to be hedging. What is your thinking
here?

Al

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


"Tom T." wrote in message
s.com...
Al,

IMO - Markus is not trying to encourage or discourage you from
purchasing. Rather he's trying to help make you an informed consumer
by giving a knowledgable analysis.

In short, the scope's not perfect, but it could be a good deal IF it
fits with you. Not all deals are for everybody. You need to determine
if you would fit with the ED80. Don't buy it expecting a TMB, AP, TV,
etc... Do buy it if you are looking for something better than your
ST80 or other comparable achromats.

All too often there is a deluge of happy satisfied owners who tend to
either over look the defects or simply don't spot them for lack of
experience. Markus is trying to inject a reasoned, experienced
viewpoint.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Markus.

Tom T.



On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:24:09 GMT, "Al"
wrote:


"Markus Ludes" wrote in message
news:70ace3284fcfbd375c3f0821157b02f7.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...

I've had my ear to the ground on this one, and Markus' report is the
first I've heard of significant (quantified) problems.



Tom T.
---------------
Tom,


hereover in germany the first samples arrived some time ago and there
have been discussions due coma in several such scopes,
best wishes
Markus


Markus,

Please make me understand your motivation here...

First you write a report on the 80mm ED, which most of us who read it
(including me) find it to be less than sparkling for this new item. I
wrote
to you and thanked you on this NG for taking the time to post the report.
Now it seems that you're backpedaling, telling us, in a variety of ways,
that we shouldn't allow your report to influence our buying decision.
This
is the second post where you seem to be hedging. What is your thinking
here?

Al

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


"Tom T." wrote in message
s.com...
Al,

IMO - Markus is not trying to encourage or discourage you from
purchasing. Rather he's trying to help make you an informed consumer
by giving a knowledgable analysis.

In short, the scope's not perfect, but it could be a good deal IF it
fits with you. Not all deals are for everybody. You need to determine
if you would fit with the ED80. Don't buy it expecting a TMB, AP, TV,
etc... Do buy it if you are looking for something better than your
ST80 or other comparable achromats.

All too often there is a deluge of happy satisfied owners who tend to
either over look the defects or simply don't spot them for lack of
experience. Markus is trying to inject a reasoned, experienced
viewpoint.

Please correct me if I'm wrong Markus.

Tom T.



On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:24:09 GMT, "Al"
wrote:


"Markus Ludes" wrote in message
news:70ace3284fcfbd375c3f0821157b02f7.30545@mygat e.mailgate.org...

I've had my ear to the ground on this one, and Markus' report is the
first I've heard of significant (quantified) problems.



Tom T.
---------------
Tom,


hereover in germany the first samples arrived some time ago and there
have been discussions due coma in several such scopes,
best wishes
Markus


Markus,

Please make me understand your motivation here...

First you write a report on the 80mm ED, which most of us who read it
(including me) find it to be less than sparkling for this new item. I
wrote
to you and thanked you on this NG for taking the time to post the report.
Now it seems that you're backpedaling, telling us, in a variety of ways,
that we shouldn't allow your report to influence our buying decision.
This
is the second post where you seem to be hedging. What is your thinking
here?

Al

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:26:10 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


Al, just remember almost no scope is truely "perfect". Everybody has
different requirements, but IME, a scope has to fail the star test
pretty miserably to give truely bad images.

Couple that with the fact that the star test really isn't that easy to
give (it requires better seeing than many folks have a large part of
the time - especially on larger scopes, you also have to make sure to
isolate the scope as much as possible from outside influences - cool
down, localized poor seeing depending on where you set up, also note
that it's pretty pointless to star test a scope if it's not collimated
decently, etc...) or interpet (combined abberations tend to look
different than the nice pictures you see in suiters or on the web).

If fact, I was browsing through an old issue of Amater Astronomy just
the other night and found none other than Rod Mollise expressing his
concerns about the star test, threating to remove it from the next
edition of his book.

There are a couple of other things that tend to indicate acceptable
optics, but we aren't really talking about evaluating scopes here.

Depending on your level of experience, budget and what you are
satisfied with you/I/or anyone else could be quite happy with the
ED80. You could do a lot worse - especially if cost is a factor.

The best way to decide if you could be happy with one is to look
through it. If you can get to a star party and take a glimpse this
year you will at least get a chance to see what all the excitement is
about.

Tom T.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:26:10 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


Al, just remember almost no scope is truely "perfect". Everybody has
different requirements, but IME, a scope has to fail the star test
pretty miserably to give truely bad images.

Couple that with the fact that the star test really isn't that easy to
give (it requires better seeing than many folks have a large part of
the time - especially on larger scopes, you also have to make sure to
isolate the scope as much as possible from outside influences - cool
down, localized poor seeing depending on where you set up, also note
that it's pretty pointless to star test a scope if it's not collimated
decently, etc...) or interpet (combined abberations tend to look
different than the nice pictures you see in suiters or on the web).

If fact, I was browsing through an old issue of Amater Astronomy just
the other night and found none other than Rod Mollise expressing his
concerns about the star test, threating to remove it from the next
edition of his book.

There are a couple of other things that tend to indicate acceptable
optics, but we aren't really talking about evaluating scopes here.

Depending on your level of experience, budget and what you are
satisfied with you/I/or anyone else could be quite happy with the
ED80. You could do a lot worse - especially if cost is a factor.

The best way to decide if you could be happy with one is to look
through it. If you can get to a star party and take a glimpse this
year you will at least get a chance to see what all the excitement is
about.

Tom T.

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:26:10 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


Al, just remember almost no scope is truely "perfect". Everybody has
different requirements, but IME, a scope has to fail the star test
pretty miserably to give truely bad images.

Couple that with the fact that the star test really isn't that easy to
give (it requires better seeing than many folks have a large part of
the time - especially on larger scopes, you also have to make sure to
isolate the scope as much as possible from outside influences - cool
down, localized poor seeing depending on where you set up, also note
that it's pretty pointless to star test a scope if it's not collimated
decently, etc...) or interpet (combined abberations tend to look
different than the nice pictures you see in suiters or on the web).

If fact, I was browsing through an old issue of Amater Astronomy just
the other night and found none other than Rod Mollise expressing his
concerns about the star test, threating to remove it from the next
edition of his book.

There are a couple of other things that tend to indicate acceptable
optics, but we aren't really talking about evaluating scopes here.

Depending on your level of experience, budget and what you are
satisfied with you/I/or anyone else could be quite happy with the
ED80. You could do a lot worse - especially if cost is a factor.

The best way to decide if you could be happy with one is to look
through it. If you can get to a star party and take a glimpse this
year you will at least get a chance to see what all the excitement is
about.

Tom T.

Tom T. wrote in message ws.com...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:26:10 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


Al, just remember almost no scope is truely "perfect". Everybody has
different requirements, but IME, a scope has to fail the star test
pretty miserably to give truely bad images.

Couple that with the fact that the star test really isn't that easy to
give (it requires better seeing than many folks have a large part of
the time - especially on larger scopes, you also have to make sure to
isolate the scope as much as possible from outside influences - cool
down, localized poor seeing depending on where you set up, also note
that it's pretty pointless to star test a scope if it's not collimated
decently, etc...) or interpet (combined abberations tend to look
different than the nice pictures you see in suiters or on the web).

If fact, I was browsing through an old issue of Amater Astronomy just
the other night and found none other than Rod Mollise expressing his
concerns about the star test, threating to remove it from the next
edition of his book.

There are a couple of other things that tend to indicate acceptable
optics, but we aren't really talking about evaluating scopes here.

Depending on your level of experience, budget and what you are
satisfied with you/I/or anyone else could be quite happy with the
ED80. You could do a lot worse - especially if cost is a factor.

The best way to decide if you could be happy with one is to look
through it. If you can get to a star party and take a glimpse this
year you will at least get a chance to see what all the excitement is
about.

Tom T.

When they can produce an 8" parabolic mirror that gives a nice, symmetrical
diffraction image and then a refractor with tiny 3" spherical lenses can't
produce as good an image, it's depressing.
-Rich

Tom T. wrote in message ws.com...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:26:10 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


Al, just remember almost no scope is truely "perfect". Everybody has
different requirements, but IME, a scope has to fail the star test
pretty miserably to give truely bad images.

Couple that with the fact that the star test really isn't that easy to
give (it requires better seeing than many folks have a large part of
the time - especially on larger scopes, you also have to make sure to
isolate the scope as much as possible from outside influences - cool
down, localized poor seeing depending on where you set up, also note
that it's pretty pointless to star test a scope if it's not collimated
decently, etc...) or interpet (combined abberations tend to look
different than the nice pictures you see in suiters or on the web).

If fact, I was browsing through an old issue of Amater Astronomy just
the other night and found none other than Rod Mollise expressing his
concerns about the star test, threating to remove it from the next
edition of his book.

There are a couple of other things that tend to indicate acceptable
optics, but we aren't really talking about evaluating scopes here.

Depending on your level of experience, budget and what you are
satisfied with you/I/or anyone else could be quite happy with the
ED80. You could do a lot worse - especially if cost is a factor.

The best way to decide if you could be happy with one is to look
through it. If you can get to a star party and take a glimpse this
year you will at least get a chance to see what all the excitement is
about.

Tom T.

When they can produce an 8" parabolic mirror that gives a nice, symmetrical
diffraction image and then a refractor with tiny 3" spherical lenses can't
produce as good an image, it's depressing.
-Rich

Tom T. wrote in message ws.com...
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:26:10 GMT, "Al"
wrote:

Tom,

I understand what you're saying. When I read the Markus review here, I
simply compared what he was saying to what Orion had advertised. Needless
to say, there is a large gap between the two. Since I trust Markus more
than I trust Orion's advertising hype, I decided to pass on buying the
telescope. I thanked Markus and told him that I had changed my buying
plans, which seemed to upset him (maybe "upset" is too strong a word).
Nevertheless, there is an axiom which I normally keep uppermost in my mind,
but often tend to push aside...you get what you pay for.

Al


Al, just remember almost no scope is truely "perfect". Everybody has
different requirements, but IME, a scope has to fail the star test
pretty miserably to give truely bad images.

Couple that with the fact that the star test really isn't that easy to
give (it requires better seeing than many folks have a large part of
the time - especially on larger scopes, you also have to make sure to
isolate the scope as much as possible from outside influences - cool
down, localized poor seeing depending on where you set up, also note
that it's pretty pointless to star test a scope if it's not collimated
decently, etc...) or interpet (combined abberations tend to look
different than the nice pictures you see in suiters or on the web).

If fact, I was browsing through an old issue of Amater Astronomy just
the other night and found none other than Rod Mollise expressing his
concerns about the star test, threating to remove it from the next
edition of his book.

There are a couple of other things that tend to indicate acceptable
optics, but we aren't really talking about evaluating scopes here.

Depending on your level of experience, budget and what you are
satisfied with you/I/or anyone else could be quite happy with the
ED80. You could do a lot worse - especially if cost is a factor.

The best way to decide if you could be happy with one is to look
through it. If you can get to a star party and take a glimpse this
year you will at least get a chance to see what all the excitement is
about.

Tom T.

When they can produce an 8" parabolic mirror that gives a nice, symmetrical
diffraction image and then a refractor with tiny 3" spherical lenses can't
produce as good an image, it's depressing.
-Rich