|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
"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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
"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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Which planetary eyepiece?
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 . |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope? | ValeryD | Amateur Astronomy | 294 | January 26th 04 08:18 PM |
Majority of Planetary Nebulae May Arise from Binary Systems (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 9th 04 05:02 AM |
Chiral gravity of the Solar system | Aleksandr Timofeev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 13th 03 04:14 PM |
*Review: Astrosystems 30mm WIDE SCAN III Eyepiece | David Knisely | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | August 8th 03 05:53 AM |