Review of TMB optical Monocentric eyepieces

wrong tools are

1, to test a planetary eyepiece at low power like he did , his scope 8"
F/4.5 ,
means focallenght 913 mm : 8 mm = 114 power, jip, thats the right power
to do Planetary
Observing in a 8" scope

2, How many out know that for Planetary Observing the scope must be 101
%
collimated. How many have hear scope of such fast f-ratio really 100%
dead on
collimated ? I mean really 100% ?

3, Dont know , but usual experienced Planetary Observers dont
use a comacorrector for observing faintest details on Planets


etc.

Markus


"Leonard" wrote in message
om

"Stephen Pitt" wrote in message news:b7061404ce8795d56ac6cc2edb1bc619.5675@mygate .mailgate.org...
Gary was wrong. It happens when using the wrong tools and asking-or
not asking-the appropriate questions.


Hi Stephen ,

Interesting post , what are the wrong tools and
questions he used and asked ? And in your opinion what are the
appropriate questions and tools ?
It seems to me he did a very competent review , no ?
Leonard




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:44:56 +0000 (UTC), "Markus Ludes"
wrote:

Hi Tom

Monos are designed as high end Planetary eyepieces and mostly bought by
experienced planetary observers
who take the time to wait for the best seeing to see the little
diffrence, which is for them not little
but important improvement.
Take a bunch of 4" apos , in which nights you can see a diffrence and in
which not ,
if the diffrence big or small ? Mostly small, but this small is still
the reason to pay more to get 1 photon more to your eye, right ?

Markus

Markus


Markus -

FWIW, I tend to agree. Planetary observers tend to be (IME) by FAR
the most critical observers, and every little bit counts.

Seems to me that's the whole point of the SuperMonos.

Tom T.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:44:56 +0000 (UTC), "Markus Ludes"
wrote:

Hi Tom

Monos are designed as high end Planetary eyepieces and mostly bought by
experienced planetary observers
who take the time to wait for the best seeing to see the little
diffrence, which is for them not little
but important improvement.
Take a bunch of 4" apos , in which nights you can see a diffrence and in
which not ,
if the diffrence big or small ? Mostly small, but this small is still
the reason to pay more to get 1 photon more to your eye, right ?

Markus

Markus


Markus -

FWIW, I tend to agree. Planetary observers tend to be (IME) by FAR
the most critical observers, and every little bit counts.

Seems to me that's the whole point of the SuperMonos.

Tom T.

Hi Tom

Monos are designed as high end Planetary eyepieces and mostly bought by
experienced planetary observers
who take the time to wait for the best seeing to see the little
diffrence, which is for them not little
but important improvement.
Take a bunch of 4" apos , in which nights you can see a diffrence and in
which not ,
if the diffrence big or small ? Mostly small, but this small is still
the reason to pay more to get 1 photon more to your eye, right ?

Markus

Markus


I didn't compare these to the Pentax SMC orthos, but I did compare
them to a number of other well respected planetary eyepeices. And,
personally, I found that unless seeing conditions were very good (and
I was using excellent optics) most nights there was little to no
difference between the supermonos and the other eyepeices I compared
them too.

On those nights when seeing steadied though... There most certainly
was a difference. Not huge, but certainly perceptable.

Tom T.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Hi Tom

Monos are designed as high end Planetary eyepieces and mostly bought by
experienced planetary observers
who take the time to wait for the best seeing to see the little
diffrence, which is for them not little
but important improvement.
Take a bunch of 4" apos , in which nights you can see a diffrence and in
which not ,
if the diffrence big or small ? Mostly small, but this small is still
the reason to pay more to get 1 photon more to your eye, right ?

Markus

Markus


I didn't compare these to the Pentax SMC orthos, but I did compare
them to a number of other well respected planetary eyepeices. And,
personally, I found that unless seeing conditions were very good (and
I was using excellent optics) most nights there was little to no
difference between the supermonos and the other eyepeices I compared
them too.

On those nights when seeing steadied though... There most certainly
was a difference. Not huge, but certainly perceptable.

Tom T.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On 25 Jun 2004 06:28:08 -0700, (Leonard) wrote:

If you thought this post was a troll why bother to answer ?

Why? Because the review does not match my own observations and I
thought another data point would be helpful to the group. And, I only
"hoped" the OP was not a troll - didn't say it *was*.

I find it strange you consider an experenced observer and telescope
maker to have an opinion thats " nore than a bit of hogwash " . I guess that
means more that a bit of hogwash .

Gee, Leonard, you caught a typo. Feel better?

BTW, just because someone has a lengthy VC doesn't make him
infallible. I also am an experienced observer ((45+ years good
'nuff?) and (not-so-experienced) ATM, and am fully capably of honest
evaluation of EPs.

I assume your opinion carries a lot of weight somewhere .

Don't know, don't care - just providing another POV.

Clear skies, good seeing, etc...


Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"

http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/

On 25 Jun 2004 06:28:08 -0700, (Leonard) wrote:

If you thought this post was a troll why bother to answer ?

Why? Because the review does not match my own observations and I
thought another data point would be helpful to the group. And, I only
"hoped" the OP was not a troll - didn't say it *was*.

I find it strange you consider an experenced observer and telescope
maker to have an opinion thats " nore than a bit of hogwash " . I guess that
means more that a bit of hogwash .

Gee, Leonard, you caught a typo. Feel better?

BTW, just because someone has a lengthy VC doesn't make him
infallible. I also am an experienced observer ((45+ years good
'nuff?) and (not-so-experienced) ATM, and am fully capably of honest
evaluation of EPs.

I assume your opinion carries a lot of weight somewhere .

Don't know, don't care - just providing another POV.

Clear skies, good seeing, etc...


Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"

http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/

On 25 Jun 2004 04:44:27 -0700, (Craig Levine)
wrote:

Hmmmmm....you say that "Note that I have not tried the Monos in short
FL instruments, so I've no opinion in this area.", yet, you also state
that "...the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash". Mr. Seronik
used a short Fl instrument in his review, and your equipment consists
of long focal lengths. On what basis can you claim that portions of
the review are "hogwash"?

My understanding is that other instruments were used also, Craig.
Nevertheless, from long years of planetary observing (my prime mover),
I feel qualified to state that the kind of aberration noted
(astigmatism) is not exacerbated by decreased focal lengths. Coma,
certainly yes, but *not* astigmatism. Thus I felt my observations to
be relevant.

To restate, in all areas upon which I feel qualified to comment
(throughput, on-axis distortion, off-axis distortion, lateral color,
scatter, internal reflections), the SuperMono EPs are either equal to
or better when compared to *my own* Pentax, Tak, and Televue EPs.
Since making my comparisons, I have purchased SMs in two focal lengths
and will gladly trade a few Pentax and Taks for others.

Best regards...

Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"

http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/

On 25 Jun 2004 04:44:27 -0700, (Craig Levine)
wrote:

Hmmmmm....you say that "Note that I have not tried the Monos in short
FL instruments, so I've no opinion in this area.", yet, you also state
that "...the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash". Mr. Seronik
used a short Fl instrument in his review, and your equipment consists
of long focal lengths. On what basis can you claim that portions of
the review are "hogwash"?

My understanding is that other instruments were used also, Craig.
Nevertheless, from long years of planetary observing (my prime mover),
I feel qualified to state that the kind of aberration noted
(astigmatism) is not exacerbated by decreased focal lengths. Coma,
certainly yes, but *not* astigmatism. Thus I felt my observations to
be relevant.

To restate, in all areas upon which I feel qualified to comment
(throughput, on-axis distortion, off-axis distortion, lateral color,
scatter, internal reflections), the SuperMono EPs are either equal to
or better when compared to *my own* Pentax, Tak, and Televue EPs.
Since making my comparisons, I have purchased SMs in two focal lengths
and will gladly trade a few Pentax and Taks for others.

Best regards...

Wayne Hoffman
33° 49" 17' N 117° 56" 41' W
"Don't Look Down"

http://users.adelphia.net/~w6wlr/

(Bettrel) wrote:
From my personal experience, the review contains nore than a bit of hogwash
Now, understand, I don't have any stake one way or the other and don't really
have an opinion on whether the Mono's are good, bad or indifferent... but isn't
it just a bit funny that S&T, which routinely gets panned by many on here for
their glowing reviews of products is now going to get panned for a negative (to
a degree, of course) review?

AFAIK, (from the yahoo tmb group) two of the eyepieces were found to be
defective (astigmatic) at TMB upon return from S&T.

The eyepieces were sent to S&T from general inventory and purposely not
hand-picked, a commendable act.

Had Thomas Back done otherwise, and had S&T contacted TMB about possible
problems, I am sure that Gary Seronik's findings would have been more in
line with the general concensus.

I have not received my August issue of S&T yet, but this is what has
apparently happened.

I am glad that S&T has adopted a policy of pointing out flaws, a gutsy move.
However, it's always difficult to read between the lines w.r.t.
motive, integrity, and competence.

-Gavin