How much does the way a telescope looks play a role in whether you buy it?

I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

When I got my first dob while living in Hawaii, it was from Orion because
they had it IN STOCK and could ship it out right away.

Nuff said.


--


SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord


wrote in message
oups.com...

I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

There is a GENERAL correlation between fit, finish and optical quality.
Designers and manufacturers who take the trouble to perfect fit and
finish are more likely to equip their scopes with good optics (with an
appropriately higher cost of course).

It is much more common to find a mediocre scope (in the mechanical
sense) outfitted with good optics (i.e. a Meade Dob) than to find a
well-built scope with mediocre optics. Hence the common practice of
ATMers to build their own scope and use a set of Meade mirrors.

Mark



wrote:
I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was
the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

I don't know if I ever bought a scope because it was pretty, but I know
I dumped some eyepieces by a well know, albeit small, EP maker because
they were FUUUGLY! Spray painted copper barrels with the focal length
written happlessly on the side in white marker. Yuck! I have watched
his stuff since then, and he is improving, so I may try another EP out.
IMHO, attention to outside detail is directly proportional to attention
to inside detail, or lack thereof.

wrote:
I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was
the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

So true, back when we did not have a Meade dealer in Australia many like me
brought optics direct from Meade (yes they used to just sell optics sets to
us in Asutralia and that was up too about 4-5 years ago), I can say I never
heard of anyone being disappointed with the optical quality of their
mirrors, myself included. Then they sorted out a dealer, now we can't buy
just the optics anymore, the number of people I've seen people buy the dobs
just for the mirrors and rebuild the rest of the scope or take the mirrors
out to put in another telescope they made. Also I've noticed another tend
here (well in this part of Australia), even the LX200 and LX200 GPS, the
mounts are being shelfed and the OTA's gets re mounted. The LXD mounts are
consider a joke, but they come with Astro star and that can be retro fitted
to a EQ-5, HEQ-5 or EQ-6 which when modified slightly are not bad mounts.
Optically I have never seen a bad Meade (some average, but mostly good to
excellent), mechanically they okay or a are a nightmare. We are at the end
of the earth here, so after sales support does not exist for us from Meade.

Phil
Darwin Australia
"Mark" wrote in message
oups.com...
There is a GENERAL correlation between fit, finish and optical quality.
Designers and manufacturers who take the trouble to perfect fit and
finish are more likely to equip their scopes with good optics (with an
appropriately higher cost of course).

It is much more common to find a mediocre scope (in the mechanical
sense) outfitted with good optics (i.e. a Meade Dob) than to find a
well-built scope with mediocre optics. Hence the common practice of
ATMers to build their own scope and use a set of Meade mirrors.

Mark



wrote:
I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was
the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

I suspect the general trend is that looks and finish are more important, in
general, to novices and more casual observers, but that as experience and desire
to do more viewing creep in, the optical performance becomes a bigger factor, in
general. As hinted at by my use of "in general", this is not always the case,
but it is a trend.

Of course, other things also come into play if and as one's development as an
observer continues, such as mount and ancillary equipment quality.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
oups.com...

I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:48:15 -0600, wrote
(in article .com):


I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe


Mechanical performance is almost as important to me as optical performance.
I would reject a scope that wasn't up to snuff mechanically. Wobbly or
sticky focusers take away a lot of enjoyment for me. So does a poorly
designed mount or finder.

So if you include mechanical quality as part of "fit and finish" then it is
pretty important to me. If it also happens to look really nice, well that is
just icing on the cake.

Your question is a good one...and in my opinion the answer is one that
many do not like to admit to.

Many times what you are seeing is that people will focus on what they
can relate to. A poor finish, rough mechanical fittings, paint chips,
etc. are things that many reviewers will go on and on about because
they are unable or unwilling to do a respectable optical or mechanical
review.

It takes time, money, equipment and experience to do a complete review
on any product. Most reviewers are short on one or more of these
resources.

Stop and consider how many reviews you see for other consumer products
that are superficial and shallow. Reviewers will go on and on about
small insignificant details while refusing to review the actual
functionality of the product.

Many small refractor discussions are an example of the non-review in
the astronomy hobby. Take any review and highlight the actual physical
optical data that the review offers...it will be little to nil. How
really good or bad are the optics? Numbers please. Is there color where
none should be? If so, then how about pictures and graphs measuring
exactly how much? If the mount is shaky, then how much vibration is
there? How much weight will the mount take before performance actually
suffers? I would sure like to know all these details...so would others.

Meanwhile, the reviewers will go on and on about the finish, the feel,
the look, the...well, you get the idea. Funny how it is always stuff
that you can't see in the dark. Isn't the whole idea of this hobby is
to look at the sky and not at the scopes. Scopes are merely a means to
that end.

There is a saying, "You can't know what you won't measure."

no dangling chads!



wrote:

I am wondering because I thought the view through the eyepiece was the
all-important factor yet I read reviews by people who seem to include
fit and finish as a performance factor.
chloe

Mechanical issues ARE important, especially so in the dark when you are
doing many things more by touch than by sight. Attributes such as slop
in the focuser, the type and size of the finder, the length of dew
shield and the weight and sturdiness of the mount are very important to
having an enjoyable and productive time in the field. Even accessory
trays and transport cases or bags are important when it comes time to
pack up and go home. If you have a hard time packing up or lose
something important while you are out you are less likely to go back.

So it's NOT all about the view through the eyepiece, it's the total
experience. And Yes, there are people who go equipment crazy and know
LESS about what's in the sky as a result.

Mark


Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Your question is a good one...and in my opinion the answer is one
that
many do not like to admit to.

Many times what you are seeing is that people will focus on what they
can relate to. A poor finish, rough mechanical fittings, paint chips,
etc. are things that many reviewers will go on and on about because
they are unable or unwilling to do a respectable optical or
mechanical
review.

It takes time, money, equipment and experience to do a complete
review
on any product. Most reviewers are short on one or more of these
resources.

Stop and consider how many reviews you see for other consumer
products
that are superficial and shallow. Reviewers will go on and on about
small insignificant details while refusing to review the actual
functionality of the product.

Many small refractor discussions are an example of the non-review in
the astronomy hobby. Take any review and highlight the actual
physical
optical data that the review offers...it will be little to nil. How
really good or bad are the optics? Numbers please. Is there color
where
none should be? If so, then how about pictures and graphs measuring
exactly how much? If the mount is shaky, then how much vibration is
there? How much weight will the mount take before performance
actually
suffers? I would sure like to know all these details...so would
others.

Meanwhile, the reviewers will go on and on about the finish, the
feel,
the look, the...well, you get the idea. Funny how it is always stuff
that you can't see in the dark. Isn't the whole idea of this hobby is
to look at the sky and not at the scopes. Scopes are merely a means
to
that end.

There is a saying, "You can't know what you won't measure."