|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.
As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. Out of interest why two 5 inch ETXs? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 19:24:25 UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote: I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. Out of interest why two 5 inch ETXs? They perform well for their size. I've got a 5" apo too but the ETX's are easier to handle fast. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:30:31 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. Even if you just look at planets, surely something more than 3.5" would be appreciated. I mean, 4" is good enough, perhaps, for Jupiter, but if you want to look at Mars, 8" is what you need, even if you're just a beginner. So, yes, anything more than 3.5" is a good idea for almost any observer, and 5" if one can't afford 7" is helpful. However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. Thus, while a 5" Questar would cost less than a 7" Questar, it would cost more than a 3.5" Questar. For _that_ reason, I am inclined to seriously question whether its existence would actually serve any kind of rational purpose. John Savard |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 23:19:38 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:30:31 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote: Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. Even if you just look at planets, surely something more than 3.5" would be appreciated. I mean, 4" is good enough, perhaps, for Jupiter, but if you want to look at Mars, 8" is what you need, even if you're just a beginner. So, yes, anything more than 3.5" is a good idea for almost any observer, and 5" if one can't afford 7" is helpful. However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. Thus, while a 5" Questar would cost less than a 7" Questar, it would cost more than a 3.5" Questar. For _that_ reason, I am inclined to seriously question whether its existence would actually serve any kind of rational purpose. John Savard Well, lets say you wanted something bigger than a 3.5" and smaller and less expensive and more portable than the 7." 3.5" Standard is $4500 7" (if it can still be had with a mount) is around $20,000. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 13 February 2016 19:24:25 UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: RichA wrote: I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. Out of interest why two 5 inch ETXs? They perform well for their size. I've got a 5" apo too but the ETX's are easier to handle fast. Yes but why two? Are they at two different locations? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
Quadibloc:
However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 05:28:20 UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote: On Saturday, 13 February 2016 19:24:25 UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote: RichA wrote: I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets. As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount. Out of interest why two 5 inch ETXs? They perform well for their size. I've got a 5" apo too but the ETX's are easier to handle fast. Yes but why two? Are they at two different locations? No, one is mounted, the other an OTA. Demounting the OTA from an ETX is difficult. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 3:01:09 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:
Quadibloc: However, while Questars do perform very well for their size, "affordable" and "Questar" are two words that do not go together. I beg to differ. I can afford a Questar and I know lots of others who can afford Questars. Yes, I'm sure that _some_ people can afford them, just as some people can afford Rolex watches. However, the word "affordable" doesn't mean that _someone_ can afford it, it means that it is low in price and many people can afford it. John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
5" Celestron Schmidt-Cass, Mount on Camera Tripod | W. eWatson | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 11th 08 03:59 PM |
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? | [email protected] | Policy | 2 | February 26th 07 07:41 PM |
What made "2001" a "great" SF film? | Rand Simberg | Policy | 0 | February 7th 07 03:58 PM |
Observing the Sun using a home-made "Solar-Shield" | orion94nl | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | August 7th 06 01:15 AM |