Sick of rich *******s in astronomy setting the baseline.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 15:26:13 -0600, jafo
stepped up to the plate and batted:

Actually, I agree, although I wouldn't
have put it so crudely.

No kidding? ; )

When I started in astronomy, Cave & Unitron
represented premium equipment. They were expensive
by the standards of the time, but not *insanely*
expensive.

If you consider that one can now get an 8" reflector on a decent dob
base for less than $500, eyepieces included, the good ol' days
argument is sorta moot. The amateur has a lot more choices in today's
market.

"Premium" is a qualifier that only resides in the eyes of the
beholder. I've had the chance to look through a Questar once during a
star party and, although the view was nice and sharp, I couldn't see
enough of a difference with my synta 8" dob to merit the added $$$.
The questar owner, however, was very happy with his instrument. That
didn't keep him from enjoying the views through my comparatively
modest telescope as well.

As for TV eyepieces, especially Naglers, they cost
more than any OTA I own, since I build my own,
or buy used equipment. Besides, the best eyepieces
are Circle T Orthoscopics. If you look at
the spot diagrams in "Telescope Optics," Ortho's
(& well designed Plossls) have a tighter image
ON-AXIS than Naglers. You pay a price for all
that extra glass.

Yeah but the upside is that you gain all that extra FOV. It's a
tradeoff. I prefer a simpler design for planetary viewing and switch
to the widefields for deep-sky observing. There is a place for all
these designs, even if some of them cost more than my car! : )


The only thing I find important to clarify in this troll-induced
argument is that you don't need a $5000 scope to enjoy the heavens.
There are decent instruments in every price range.

If you so wish to drop half a mortgage on a prime APO refractor, it's
nobody's business but yours and maybe your bank manager. One way or
another, if it makes you happy and you can observe the things you want
to see, good for you. It's all good.


G../0

Yes, CCD's
represent an advance over film, but one only the wealthy can take advantage of.


I think if one can manage to save enough $$ for a Canon 10D or 300D digital
camera, one can certainly take some very good astrophotos.

Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.members.aol.com/tdcarls/s...otography.html

Yes, CCD's
represent an advance over film, but one only the wealthy can take advantage of.


I think if one can manage to save enough $$ for a Canon 10D or 300D digital
camera, one can certainly take some very good astrophotos.

Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.members.aol.com/tdcarls/s...otography.html

Dear Troll
You would prefer poor *******s setting the baseline????

Dear Troll
You would prefer poor *******s setting the baseline????

I think if one can manage to save enough $$ for a Canon 10D or 300D digital
camera, one can certainly take some very good astrophotos.

Having invested over 20 years in
learning darkroom techniques to the
point where I get consistent
high quality results,
I am not about to go digital yet.
Only if film becomes extinct.

That's what irks me - spend all this time
learning a skill & suddenly it's obsolete.
Why bother then?

I think if one can manage to save enough $$ for a Canon 10D or 300D digital
camera, one can certainly take some very good astrophotos.

Having invested over 20 years in
learning darkroom techniques to the
point where I get consistent
high quality results,
I am not about to go digital yet.
Only if film becomes extinct.

That's what irks me - spend all this time
learning a skill & suddenly it's obsolete.
Why bother then?

Is your telescope made out of plumbing, the optics from a broken coffee
table top?
If you calculate the labor and hours you put into to build it, the Astro
Physics scope is cheaper, not even countin the the re-sale value, compare to
yours.

Julius

"The Robilator" wrote in message
...
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success"
and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

Is your telescope made out of plumbing, the optics from a broken coffee
table top?
If you calculate the labor and hours you put into to build it, the Astro
Physics scope is cheaper, not even countin the the re-sale value, compare to
yours.

Julius

"The Robilator" wrote in message
...
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success"
and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

The Robilator wrote in message . ..
You know I've had it up to my neck with you rich idiots that try and
pretend that your overpriced astronomical gimcrack is the baseline of what
makes a useful scope.
Who gives a flying f$$k that you blew $4000 stolen from the rest of us on
some pretty useless telescope. Then you crow about how perfect it is
compared to the scopes the rest of us do useful work with.My god the damn
thing ought to be 1/10 wave. wop de do. It might be news if it wasn't.

Questars, and just about anything from Nagler, all over priced techno crap
for those with too much money to spend and a lack of any sort of moral
sense. Junk who's only real use is to show of your "financial success" and
utter lack of modesty and good taste.

Which kind of explains the explosion of posts from newbies who buy
fully-outfitted 6" or larger apos, then they slowly disappear as the
initial
cheap thrill wanes and the fact they really aren't that interested in
observational astronomy sinks in.
I have known observers (few,thankfully) who literally buy a great
scope,
drool over it and do not observe! I remember one nitwit who was too
paranoid to take his brass refractor out for fear of damaging it.

I guess if you must have a scope to brighten up your living room there
is
nothing wrong with it; But why not stick to crap that looks good,
like
the Bausch & Lomb Harbourmaster or one of it's Indian made clones and
not relegate something like an Astro-Physics apo to non-use???
-Rich