"telescope wars??"

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:57:54 GMT, "mikeS" wrote:

The only real issue with telescopes is what do you want to do? Refractors
are short on resolution
but big on wide field / magnification potential and portability and price if
it's an APO or semi-APO. SCT's and Newts are big on
resolution/magnification/color correction and short on wide field and
portability and priced well.. It's that simple. When you look up, just ask
yourself, "Why T F am I doing this?" "What do I want out of all that above
me?" Do I want resolution and magnification of DSO's? or Do I want so see a
wide field of stars?

Personally, I can't imagine anyone paying out thousands of dollars for
anything smaller than 6" of aperture just to get larger images of a field
of stars. If they do, they must be big on money to burn and short on reason.
A 4" scope is just that...4" with a restricted light gathering power.

well as others have pointed out it's not size that counts it's bucks that
count to the types that but tiny refractors.

It's unbelievably stupid to buy a meager 76mm of aperture and pay out the
kind of money a TV pronto commands along
with it's accessories too. The real coup de gras is that most people
wouldn't see anything different in the EP looking at say M42
with a 4" TAK or a 4" Synta or a 8" SCT at the same magnification or field
width. You will see a well defined smudge with the 4 stars
of the trapezium. And, if you want to do astrophotography, you would have
to pretty much take a course in it AND become
experienced AND spend even more dollars on "the proper equipment and
accessories" just to actually see what M42 is really all about.

face it most guys are only looking for a few kicks. it's a way to get away
from the family for an evening and just about any damn excuse will do.
You know I've looked through the eyepiece a few times and gone on and on
about a little wispyness here or a swirl there and tried ever eyepiece in
my case all the while knowing as does everyone else that there isn't a
damn thing there.

The average person also would not want to spend the necessary time to
properly polar align a telescope to make those photos anyway.
And you would have to be a real seasoned verteran to look into the EP and
know wave errors of1/4 or 1/6 or 1/ whatever!

MS

And even then so what who gives a rats ass anyway. Most guys have such bad
eye site from too many years of intense wanking off that they can't see
**** so who are we fooling anyway?

Do you happen to work for Senator Grassley of Iowa? Oink Oink?
Jerry



mikeS wrote:

The only real issue with telescopes is what do you want to do? Refractors
are short on resolution
but big on wide field / magnification potential and portability and price if
it's an APO or semi-APO. SCT's and Newts are big on
resolution/magnification/color correction and short on wide field and
portability and priced well.. It's that simple. When you look up, just ask
yourself, "Why T F am I doing this?" "What do I want out of all that above
me?" Do I want resolution and magnification of DSO's? or Do I want so see a
wide field of stars?

Personally, I can't imagine anyone paying out thousands of dollars for
anything smaller than 6" of aperture just to get larger images of a field
of stars. If they do, they must be big on money to burn and short on reason.
A 4" scope is just that...4" with a restricted light gathering power.

It's unbelievably stupid to buy a meager 76mm of aperture and pay out the
kind of money a TV pronto commands along
with it's accessories too. The real coup de gras is that most people
wouldn't see anything different in the EP looking at say M42
with a 4" TAK or a 4" Synta or a 8" SCT at the same magnification or field
width. You will see a well defined smudge with the 4 stars
of the trapezium. And, if you want to do astrophotography, you would have
to pretty much take a course in it AND become
experienced AND spend even more dollars on "the proper equipment and
accessories" just to actually see what M42 is really all about.

The average person also would not want to spend the necessary time to
properly polar align a telescope to make those photos anyway.
And you would have to be a real seasoned verteran to look into the EP and
know wave errors of1/4 or 1/6 or 1/ whatever!

MS

Do you happen to work for Senator Grassley of Iowa? Oink Oink?
Jerry



mikeS wrote:

The only real issue with telescopes is what do you want to do? Refractors
are short on resolution
but big on wide field / magnification potential and portability and price if
it's an APO or semi-APO. SCT's and Newts are big on
resolution/magnification/color correction and short on wide field and
portability and priced well.. It's that simple. When you look up, just ask
yourself, "Why T F am I doing this?" "What do I want out of all that above
me?" Do I want resolution and magnification of DSO's? or Do I want so see a
wide field of stars?

Personally, I can't imagine anyone paying out thousands of dollars for
anything smaller than 6" of aperture just to get larger images of a field
of stars. If they do, they must be big on money to burn and short on reason.
A 4" scope is just that...4" with a restricted light gathering power.

It's unbelievably stupid to buy a meager 76mm of aperture and pay out the
kind of money a TV pronto commands along
with it's accessories too. The real coup de gras is that most people
wouldn't see anything different in the EP looking at say M42
with a 4" TAK or a 4" Synta or a 8" SCT at the same magnification or field
width. You will see a well defined smudge with the 4 stars
of the trapezium. And, if you want to do astrophotography, you would have
to pretty much take a course in it AND become
experienced AND spend even more dollars on "the proper equipment and
accessories" just to actually see what M42 is really all about.

The average person also would not want to spend the necessary time to
properly polar align a telescope to make those photos anyway.
And you would have to be a real seasoned verteran to look into the EP and
know wave errors of1/4 or 1/6 or 1/ whatever!

MS