Has anyone done a comparison of the Photon Instruments 127mm refractor with the Celestron and Meade 6" refractors?

I have been persuaded by people who have no financial interest in the
matter--and who have considerable experience looking through a variety of
apos, the Celestron 150mm, and the Meade AR-6, that either the Celestron or
the Meade achromats will provide superior detail and crispness, in exchange
for a bit of color. The Meade AR-6 is apparently made in Taiwan, not in
the PRC, which is a plus. (Why fund a country that we may go to war with in
the next 10-20 years?) However, there seems to be general agreement that
the LXD55 GoTo mount upon which the AR-6 is mounted is too light for that
OTA--and apparently has a poor reliability reputation as well.

I'm told (by someone that bought a lot of them for his business) that the
Celestron refractors were pretty inconsistent--worse than the Meade AR-6
refractors (which is pretty astonishing , considering Meade's reputation).
Was this a teething problem with new manufacturing, or are the Celestron 6"
achromats still pretty inconsistent?

Has anyone compared the Photon Instruments 127mm refractor with the
Celestron 6" and the Meade AR-6? I believe the Photon Instruments OTA is
Taiwanese. What about the mount? I've heard that the mount for these is a
little marginal, because the Photon is a pretty heavy OTA (about 15 pounds).

I have been persuaded by people who have no financial interest in the
matter--and who have considerable experience looking through a variety of
apos, the Celestron 150mm, and the Meade AR-6, that either the Celestron or
the Meade achromats will provide superior detail and crispness, in exchange
for a bit of color.

Who are you talking about that have considerable experience. Tell me
something did they really do some observing or did they just clance at a few
objects then go back to their 24inch galaxy mirrored telescopes? I have had
considerable amount of experience looking through APO's I own 4 of them and
their is no Achromat anywhere that can stand up to the color corection,
contrast or resolution of anyone's Achro made anywhere in the world

Has anyone compared the Photon Instruments 127mm refractor with the . . .


As far as comparing directly the Photon 127 mm Achro with my AP 130 F6 there is
no contest. The color correction, contrast and resolution or the APO made the
Chinese achro look like crap. Even the owner who stood right there was
unusually silent. To really add insult to injury I had my Tak FS 78 mounted on
top the little AP and it too was showing way better contrast than the Achro

Several month's ago I attended a Mars Star Party with my AP 155 F7 and my
AP900 goto mount. Several telescopes away was a Celestron 6inch Achro on a
Celestron Mount. While I did not get a chance to compare views spent my time
looking through a 40 year Newtonian with Cave optics that was given up for a
C8. The owner of the Achro kept coming over to my setup and was apparently
stunned by the views of my AP 155 maybe you should ask him. What he tought of
both scopes. This guy kept prodding me for questions such as who made my scope,
where was it made and when and so on. Apparently he never heard of
Astro-Physics

What interested me the most that night was this 40 year old Cave mirror was
performing very well compared to my AP it was an 8 inch F8 and was doing very
well on Mars then Jupiter and Saturn. The original owner traded it off for a
C8. The person who was the new owner could not believe this guy had traded a
perfectly good set of optics for an SCT. I agreed.

I guess in the end to hear people sit there and tell you that an Achro
performs nearly as good as an APO except for the color issue either they don't
have the experince or they just plain nuts.

Getting to mounts. What do you want for a few hundred peso's your not going
to get a Takahashi, Losmandy or and Astro-Physics at these prices. Decent
bearings alone will cost more than what your paying for! My recommendation is
to get yourself a Losmandy G11 and forgo the goto if you can't afford it. Then
get the tube assembly you want to look through.

Clear Skies
Dwight L Bogan

I guess in the end to hear people sit there and tell you that an Achro
performs nearly as good as an APO except for the color issue either they don't
have the experince or they just plain nuts.


Hi Dwight,

That's been my personal experience as well. If I had a dollar for
every post about apos by people who have zero experience with them I'd
buy an 8" TMB.

Clear Skies,

Steve

"DBogan3220" wrote in message
...
I have been persuaded by people who have no financial interest in the
matter--and who have considerable experience looking through a variety of
apos, the Celestron 150mm, and the Meade AR-6, that either the Celestron
or
the Meade achromats will provide superior detail and crispness, in
exchange
for a bit of color.

Who are you talking about that have considerable experience. Tell
me
something did they really do some observing or did they just clance at a
few
objects then go back to their 24inch galaxy mirrored telescopes? I have
had
considerable amount of experience looking through APO's I own 4 of them
and
their is no Achromat anywhere that can stand up to the color corection,
contrast or resolution of anyone's Achro made anywhere in the world

This was someone with an A-P who made a living (but no longer does) matching
Chromacors with the various Synta achromats. He had no financial interest
at this point,
and he had looked through a lot of achromats as part of star testing the
Chromacors.
He felt that even without the Chromacor, the 6" Syntas that weren't
defective (and
many were) showed more detail than any 4" apo that he had seen.

From what I have read, the D&G f/12 and f/15 achromats are not dramatically
inferior to apochromats of the same aperture. Of course, all that length
does wonders
for both color and weight, requiring more massive mounts, with equivalent
spending.

Has anyone compared the Photon Instruments 127mm refractor with the . .
..


As far as comparing directly the Photon 127 mm Achro with my AP 130 F6
there is
no contest. The color correction, contrast and resolution or the APO made
the

Nor did I propose that anyone do that. I asked if anyone had compared it to
the
Celestron or Meade 6" refractors.

Chinese achro look like crap. Even the owner who stood right there was
unusually silent. To really add insult to injury I had my Tak FS 78
mounted on
top the little AP and it too was showing way better contrast than the
Achro

I would expect that it would outperform it on color correction and perhaps
even
resolution. But there is certainly a trade-off happening here. Will a 6"
refractor
show more planetary detail than a 30mm apochromat? Of course. (If you tell
me
otherwise, explain why no one is making 30mm apochromats. They would be a
lot easier to mount.)

Several month's ago I attended a Mars Star Party with my AP 155 F7 and
my
AP900 goto mount. Several telescopes away was a Celestron 6inch Achro on a
Celestron Mount. While I did not get a chance to compare views spent my
time
looking through a 40 year Newtonian with Cave optics that was given up for
a
C8. The owner of the Achro kept coming over to my setup and was apparently
stunned by the views of my AP 155 maybe you should ask him. What he tought
of
both scopes. This guy kept prodding me for questions such as who made my
scope,
where was it made and when and so on. Apparently he never heard of
Astro-Physics

Yes, I would certainly expect an AP 155 to outperform a Celestron 6"
achromat.
But an AP 155 is not in my budget. (Feel free to contribute a few thousand
to the
cause, and I will join the cult!) An apochromat of 80mm aperture is; a
100mm
apochromat is a bit more than I want to spend; a 155mm is completely out of
the
question. A 6" achromat is something worth considering as a rough price
equivalent
of an 80mm apochromat. (It would be nice if I knew someone within a couple
hours
drive of Boise who has one.)

I have looked through the 4" A-P refractor. It was nice, but as even the
owner
admitted, it wasn't dramatically superior optics to the 4" Televue that he
sold
after waiting for his A-P to arrive. I've looked through the Televue 102
and 101NP,
both very nice, as was the Stellarvue 102EDT. There is a law of diminishing
returns on
optics as quality and aperture increase. I'm just trying to find an
appropriate
cost/benefit ratio for my needs. I have a little trouble talking myself
into spending
$3500+ to get a 4" apo and a GM-8, especially when I hear that perhaps that
last 10% of performance is costing 80% more.

What interested me the most that night was this 40 year old Cave
mirror was
performing very well compared to my AP it was an 8 inch F8 and was doing
very
well on Mars then Jupiter and Saturn. The original owner traded it off for
a
C8. The person who was the new owner could not believe this guy had traded
a
perfectly good set of optics for an SCT. I agreed.

It may depend on how easily he can transport that Newtonian. The SCT is a
great
design for those with small cars. I have yet to see any SCT that performed
exceptionally. It's a trade-off, like most choices in life.

I guess in the end to hear people sit there and tell you that an Achro
performs nearly as good as an APO except for the color issue either they
don't
have the experince or they just plain nuts.

Or perhaps they are less sensitive to color issues, and are prepared to
accept
lower magnification in exchange for less severe chromatic aberration
problems.
Which will show more detail on Saturn? A Televue-60 at 300x? Or a
Celestron 6"
at 150x, perhaps using a Minus-Violet filter? I find it unlikely that the
Televue is
going to show more detail, no matter how well made it is. I have a Televue
Ranger,
which is not an apo, but is a reminder that a small, well-made scope can
make up
for a big difference in aperature. Would I expect my Ranger to outperform
the
Celestron 6" achromat? No.

Getting to mounts. What do you want for a few hundred peso's your not
going
to get a Takahashi, Losmandy or and Astro-Physics at these prices. Decent
bearings alone will cost more than what your paying for! My recommendation
is
to get yourself a Losmandy G11 and forgo the goto if you can't afford it.
Then
get the tube assembly you want to look through.

Clear Skies
Dwight L Bogan

I really don't much care for goto. It is standard on the AR-6, and from all
accounts,
it sounds like a pile of potential trouble. Of course, the Losmandy G11
will set me
back about $2100--or more than twice as much as a Meade AR-6, a Celestron
C-6R,
or a Photon Instruments 127mm with a mount. As tempting as it is to just
run out and
splurge on a 6" or 7" apo--I would feel a little funny doing so, what with a
family to
raise. Unfortunately, I am one of the few software engineers I know who has
to
work for a living (most I know are multimillionaires), and so I can't quite
justify putting
a non-trivial chunk of my net worth into the ultimate refractor.

Hi Dwight,

That's been my personal experience as well. If I had a dollar for
every post about apos by people who have zero experience with them I'd
buy an 8" TMB.

Clear Skies,

Steve


I could say the same thing. But in reality an 8 inch TMB trip[lett is
really a huge scope and a hassle to setup. I've been going through my 14 inch
Newt withdrawls since I sold it, it to was a monster to setup the tube assembly
was 70 lbs and the german equatorial mount wieghed in over a 100lbs besides
setting up keeping it clean was anther hassle. Currently I take out my AP 155
F7 when their is something to photgraph, otherwise I'm content with my 92mm
Stowaway.

Right now Valery D is on the Burgess uncensored group so I'm having fun
reading the respones and adding more fuel to the fire. Hey what else can you
do. No one listens and if it appears in print as an advertisement in S&T or
Astronomy then it must be so.

Clear Skies
Dwight L Bogan

Subject: Has anyone done a comparison of the Photon Instruments 127mm
refractor with the Celestron and Meade 6" r
From: (DBogan3220)
Date: 12/6/03 4:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


I could say the same thing. But in reality an 8 inch TMB trip[lett is
really a huge scope and a hassle to setup. I've been going through my 14 inch
Newt withdrawls since I sold it, it to was a monster to setup the tube
assembly
was 70 lbs and the german equatorial mount wieghed in over a 100lbs besides
setting up keeping it clean was anther hassle. Currently I take out my AP 155
F7 when their is something to photgraph, otherwise I'm content with my 92mm
Stowaway.

Right now Valery D is on the Burgess uncensored group so I'm having fun
reading the respones and adding more fuel to the fire. Hey what else can you
do. No one listens and if it appears in print as an advertisement in S&T or
Astronomy then it must be so.

Clear Skies
Dwight L Bogan
********************
70lbs is good for a 14.5" Newt OTA!
I had a 14.5" F/6.5 , the OTA was 140lbs.

Those days are over with me, my back can't do that anymore!!!

Chas P.

o matter how well made it is. I have a Televue
Ranger,
which is not an apo, but is a reminder that a small, well-made scope can make
up for a big difference in aperature.

Would I expect my Ranger to outperform
the Celestron 6" achromat? No.

It would be unreasonable to expect an 70mm achromat to outperform a 6 inch
Achromat. Prontos and Rangers are apparently just moderate focal length
Achromats.

Just a question. Why are you choosing a 6 inch Achromat rather than a larger
Newtonian which should provide you with the superior optical performance for
you money?

Jon

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:11:14 -0700, "Clayton E. Cramer"
wrote:
Unfortunately, I am one of the few software engineers I know who has to
work for a living (most I know are multimillionaires)

You definitely need to get out more.

"Jon Isaacs" wrote in message
...
o matter how well made it is. I have a Televue
Ranger,
which is not an apo, but is a reminder that a small, well-made scope can
make
up for a big difference in aperature.

Would I expect my Ranger to outperform
the Celestron 6" achromat? No.

It would be unreasonable to expect an 70mm achromat to outperform a 6 inch
Achromat. Prontos and Rangers are apparently just moderate focal length
Achromats.

Compared to most of the small achromats I have looked through, the Ranger is
quite a
bit better on detail and color correction. Saturn at 160x shows a little
bit of color; at
lower magnifications, I can't see any at all.

Just a question. Why are you choosing a 6 inch Achromat rather than a
larger
Newtonian which should provide you with the superior optical performance
for
you money?

Jon

I would like an equatorial mount. I find Dobsonians a bit clumsy at high
power.

I've never seen a Newtonian--or an SCT--that performed all that well. I
have an
8" f/7 that does an OK job, but except under exceptional viewing
conditions,
doesn't dramatically outperform the Ranger on Saturn and Jupiter. Here's
the
sad part: I've gone to a lot of star parties over the years, and the only
Newtonians
that I have seen do a better job for planetary detail than my 8" f/7 are
usually 16"
and larger. Coulter and Meade Dobsonians are either really poorly made, or
no
one bothers to collimate their scopes.

I've looked through a 25" Obsession here in Idaho, but I suspect that
something was
really wrong with it. Neither my son nor myself were able to see any more
detail on
Saturn than the 8" f/7 shows--and actually somewhat less. There was some
turbulence,
but the 25" wouldn't show Cassini's Division! The light grasp was nice;
gobs of satellites
were not only visible, but prominent. Detail was simply not present.

I went to the Riverside Telescope Makers Conference several years ago. I
was
pleased with the Discovery 17.5" truss tube--had my employer not started
issuing
promises instead of paychecks when I returned home, I probably would have
bought
one. Unfortunately, a combination of no planets in good position, high thin
clouds, and
a crescent Moon prevented me from looking at anything but deep sky objects.
(By the
way: M51 was very impressive through this scope--even with that crescent
Moon washing
everything out, the arms of M51 were visible--and you could see the
spiral.) The
Moon was pretty impressive, although the image was a little soft compared to
what
was visible through a Televue 102, a 101NP, and a Stellarvue 102EDT. Mind
you,
it wasn't an objectionably soft image; just not quite as sharp and crisp as
these
4" refractors were providing.

I've used a 40" f/3.2 reflector in Santa Rosa, built some years ago by a
group of very enthusiastic sorts; Cassini's Division never appeared. Others
that had
used it more told me that they were also disappointed; only some had ever
seen
Cassini's Division through this behemoth--and yet almost any small reflector
will
show it.

"Brad Isley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:11:14 -0700, "Clayton E. Cramer"
wrote:
Unfortunately, I am one of the few software engineers I know who has to
work for a living (most I know are multimillionaires)

You definitely need to get out more.

Huh? At least where I lived in California, Ferraris weren't even that
unusual.
It was a conspicuous consumption sort of place.

Lots of engineers I knew didn't need to work; they just didn't know of
anything
else that they wanted to do, so they kept working.

Net worths of $10-$100 million are very common among almost everyone I
worked with 15 years ago. (I went to the wrong startup.)