"Telescope" problem same in camera world

When you buy a telescope, any telescope, you are always asking
yourself the question, "Is this as good as it could be?"
From cheap 80mm Chinese achromats to top of the heap 7" apos,
to SCTs, there IS going to be some variation in quality so you want to
know you've done what you can to avoid getting stuck with a lemon or a
scope that isn't as good as the next one off the line.
The question that arises though is:
"Is a bad scope the result of normal quality variations, and if so,
how common is a bad one or, is it just a fluke?"

Here's a thread at a camera group where someone really saw
a difference in quality between two "identical" cameras and it
can happen with telescopes too;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=16010533

Rich wrote:

Here's a thread at a camera group where someone really saw
a difference in quality between two "identical" cameras and it
can happen with telescopes too;


Do you ever stop with your lame trolling bull****? How about putting up
your own lame blog and then if people choose to visit it they will, and
you will stop polluting Usenet for the rest of us?

Greg

Rich wrote:

Here's a thread at a camera group where someone really saw
a difference in quality between two "identical" cameras and it
can happen with telescopes too;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=16010533

Some would say that's what he deserves for buying a Fuji

I spend far more time at dpreview than I do here, and it is very true of
cameras .. and especially dSLR lenses. Even Canon, one of the best,
occasionally comes up with a klinker.

But there is an advantage with cameras: Standardized tests are bit
easier to conduct by the user. With astro telescopes, most of us test
them in conditions where seeing and such really affect the results.

Not to answer your question, but to add one other log to the fire. I suspect
one of the Prime Rules of amateur Astronomy, "The telescope best for you is the
one you're going to use the most often", applies to cameras as well. Does it?

Probably a good general principle of Life.

And to answer your question, I suspect that, statistically speaking, that lower
price does not mean a slack on quality assurance, but it doesn't help. And high
prices do no automatically mean high quality assurance, but it helps. But
remember what Mark twain said about statistics - "There are lies, damned lies,
and statistics."

Statistically speaking,
--- Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinprick holes in a colorless sky
Let inspired figures of light pass by
The Mighty Light of ten thousand suns
Challenges infinity, and is soon gone




"Rich" wrote in message
...
When you buy a telescope, any telescope, you are always asking
yourself the question, "Is this as good as it could be?"
From cheap 80mm Chinese achromats to top of the heap 7" apos,
to SCTs, there IS going to be some variation in quality so you want to
know you've done what you can to avoid getting stuck with a lemon or a
scope that isn't as good as the next one off the line.
The question that arises though is:
"Is a bad scope the result of normal quality variations, and if so,
how common is a bad one or, is it just a fluke?"

Here's a thread at a camera group where someone really saw
a difference in quality between two "identical" cameras and it
can happen with telescopes too;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=16010533

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:37:38 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:

Rich wrote:

Here's a thread at a camera group where someone really saw
a difference in quality between two "identical" cameras and it
can happen with telescopes too;


Do you ever stop with your lame trolling bull****? How about putting up
your own lame blog and then if people choose to visit it they will, and
you will stop polluting Usenet for the rest of us?

Greg

If you don't like it....