Which planetary eyepiece?

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?

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:10:50 -0000, B Starr wrote:

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

I have heard that the Celestron Ultima/Orion Ultrascopic/ Antares
Ultimas are just as sharp and contrasty.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:10:50 -0000, B Starr wrote:

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

I have heard that the Celestron Ultima/Orion Ultrascopic/ Antares
Ultimas are just as sharp and contrasty.

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.


Hi Rich:

I saw the same review and was very disappointed indeed. In fact, it's not even
worthy of being called a review. "Product description," maybe.

This is doubly disppointing since Astronomy has shown a lot of improvement over
the last year under the guidance of Dave Eicher. Phil Harrington has done some
excellent reviews over the last 12 months or so. Unfortunately, this LX200 GPS
piece was "worthy" of the worst issues of the previous regime.



Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

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.


Hi Rich:

I saw the same review and was very disappointed indeed. In fact, it's not even
worthy of being called a review. "Product description," maybe.

This is doubly disppointing since Astronomy has shown a lot of improvement over
the last year under the guidance of Dave Eicher. Phil Harrington has done some
excellent reviews over the last 12 months or so. Unfortunately, this LX200 GPS
piece was "worthy" of the worst issues of the previous regime.



Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Phil Harrington has done some
excellent reviews over the last 12 months or so. Unfortunately, this LX200
GPS

Hi Gang:

Om rereading this post, I fear I may have given the impression that the LX200
review in question was written by Phil. Nope. Another person.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Phil Harrington has done some
excellent reviews over the last 12 months or so. Unfortunately, this LX200
GPS

Hi Gang:

Om rereading this post, I fear I may have given the impression that the LX200
review in question was written by Phil. Nope. Another person.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"matt" wrote in message ...
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.

best regards,
matt tudor

The fact that is most amazing is that even these three so called
"faulty" eyepieces were NOT out-performed by the ones they were tested
against. In addition, it was in a test environment that didn't allow
the Super Monos to show what they can do. Even then they were at
least as good as the others, and usually better.
When you have conditions that are good enough that other top
eyepieces have shown you all they can you will then be able to see the
improvement that can be gained with the Super Monos. It is very real,
when conditions allow, and that is the extra viewing advantage they
were designed to give you.
The eyepieces are mainly for those who want to be assured they
have the very best image that optics will allow at those rare times
when conditions permit such great views.

Harvey

"matt" wrote in message ...
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.

best regards,
matt tudor

The fact that is most amazing is that even these three so called
"faulty" eyepieces were NOT out-performed by the ones they were tested
against. In addition, it was in a test environment that didn't allow
the Super Monos to show what they can do. Even then they were at
least as good as the others, and usually better.
When you have conditions that are good enough that other top
eyepieces have shown you all they can you will then be able to see the
improvement that can be gained with the Super Monos. It is very real,
when conditions allow, and that is the extra viewing advantage they
were designed to give you.
The eyepieces are mainly for those who want to be assured they
have the very best image that optics will allow at those rare times
when conditions permit such great views.

Harvey

MrGrytt wrote in message
. ..
"matt" wrote in message
...
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.

best regards,
matt tudor

The fact that is most amazing is that even these three so called
"faulty" eyepieces were NOT out-performed by the ones they were tested
against. In addition, it was in a test environment that didn't allow
the Super Monos to show what they can do. Even then they were at
least as good as the others, and usually better.
When you have conditions that are good enough that other top
eyepieces have shown you all they can you will then be able to see the
improvement that can be gained with the Super Monos. It is very real,
when conditions allow, and that is the extra viewing advantage they
were designed to give you.
The eyepieces are mainly for those who want to be assured they
have the very best image that optics will allow at those rare times
when conditions permit such great views.

Harvey

I am not qualified to discuss the design or theoretical quality of these
eyepieces. I don't own any so I can't comment on their real merits .
I *can* comment on the merits of a claim made by a vendor when the odds are
1 in millions and things sound like an excuse. See, I'm trying to separate
the vendor's attitude from the eyepiece design . No comment on the design,
an F for the attitude . Shipping out of spec parts without testing, most
likely not only to S&T , then trying to obfuscate , and generally having a
defiant attitude doesn't exactly compel more people to buy from him .