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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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