|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Questar 5 specifications released:
Interesting. An in-baffle tube field flattener. I'd probably have made it outboard and a f-stop reducer, but this still looks good. Figure maybe $5000 for the OTA and $10,000 for a mounted scope. The mount will likely include modern electronics, perhaps Goto. Scroll near the bottom of the page.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...estar-5/page-8 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Questar 5 specifications released:
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 02:42:23 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Interesting. An in-baffle tube field flattener. I'd probably have made it outboard and a f-stop reducer, but this still looks good. Figure maybe $5000 for the OTA and $10,000 for a mounted scope. The mount will likely include modern electronics, perhaps Goto. Scroll near the bottom of the page. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...estar-5/page-8 Can I have one with rhinestones, please? Thank you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Questar 5 specifications released:
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 02:29:50 UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 02:42:23 UTC+2, RichA wrote: Interesting. An in-baffle tube field flattener. I'd probably have made it outboard and a f-stop reducer, but this still looks good. Figure maybe $5000 for the OTA and $10,000 for a mounted scope. The mount will likely include modern electronics, perhaps Goto. Scroll near the bottom of the page. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/5...estar-5/page-8 Can I have one with rhinestones, please? Thank you. Premium, American-made telescopes aren't aimed at everyone, just like $4000 Zeiss binoculars, $8000 Leica cameras, $120,000 Mercedes cars, etc. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Questar 5 specifications released:
Since 3 1/2 inches was too small for astronomy, and 7 inches in a Questar
is outrageously expensive, I applaud the decision to make one in this size. It may still be too pricey for its aperture for a mass market, but it should still have a broader appeal. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Questar 5 specifications released:
On Saturday, 28 April 2018 20:25:31 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:
Since 3 1/2 inches was too small for astronomy, and 7 inches in a Questar is outrageously expensive, I applaud the decision to make one in this size. It may still be too pricey for its aperture for a mass market, but it should still have a broader appeal. They have no APs? Then let them have Questars. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Questar 5 specifications released:
Quadibloc:
Since 3 1/2 inches was too small for astronomy... "Was?" The Q 3.5 is beautiful for the Sun, Moon, and Planets. Birds, bugs, wildlife of all sorts. Mine (35 years old) did a great job at the 2017 eclipse. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
willy! You'll fill specifications. Nowadays, I'll cover the garment | Orin | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | November 14th 07 06:15 AM |
'Objective' specifications for similar scopes? | Reddog | UK Astronomy | 4 | June 12th 05 12:46 PM |
Mount specifications?? | Edward Smith | Amateur Astronomy | 49 | January 14th 04 05:07 PM |
Mount Specifications? | Edward Smith | Misc | 1 | January 12th 04 04:48 AM |
Questar 7 vs AP 155 | Mike Kester | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | September 9th 03 11:09 PM |