Re: Wrong Tools ? TMB review

From: andrea tasselli (atasselli_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: 29 Jun 2004 06:56:09 -0700

aries@mercury.kherson.ua (ValeryD) wrote in message news:<5c4a4ee7.0406282131.459a962e@posting.google.com>...
> Pierre Vandevennne <pierre@datarescue_ns.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9516E930A9CBDpierredatarescue@195.238.3.190>...
> > ngc7789@citynet.net (Leonard) wrote in
> > news:58ee67ec.0406280538.1abfc11d@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > its use ) is the biggest procedural mistake in the review . And this
> > > exclusion comes as a surprise to me since high power is what these
> > > eyepieces are all about .
> > > Can someone tell me where I am wrong here ?
> >
> > You make valid points. This being said, the worst part was Markus'
> > reaction: yes, they were bad because <insert blame someone else>, and that
> > was only those 3 of 600. He admitted they were bad, gave a stat only idiots
> > could believe. Then we had those testimonies of people "deeply hurt" by a
> > negative review. I am sorry, I just find this hilarious... (and I am happy
> > with my 5mm TMB).
>
>
>
> Leeonard and Pierre,
>
> You both are not right. Telescope choice is very important. Why?
> A telescope for such test, where we count a last bit of contrast,
> should
> deliver very sharp and very high conrtast image. It also should be of
> enough
> diameter - at least 6", better 7". Seeing also should be of no
> question.
> Only in such conditions, when a telescope does not scatter too much
> light itself
> (minimum mirrors, minimal to no central obstruction, coatings on
> mirrors as better and as fresh, as possible, when a telescope is big
> enough to show enough planetary details and when a seeing is at least
> very good we can realiably judge about quality of planetary eyepieces
> vs other eyepieces. In average conditions a small difference in
> contrast will be just washed out.
>
> From this standpoint, S&T review instrumentation was not quite
> suitable.

I think quite the opposite. Even if all the above were true, and I
think is not, then all boils down to that such kind of EPs (AP or TMB
or whatever) are only good in such restricted circumstances that
basically any EP will do, provided that is good enough. Therefore
there is no reason to spend 220 bucks when 80 will deliver the same
performance. If it is this what you're saying then I'll agree with you
101%. S&T reviewer just tested them with instrumentation which can be
thought to be available by a large enough number of amateurs, thereby
providing a more realistic testbed than the one you just described.

Andrea T.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wrong Tools ? TMB review
    ... >> exclusion comes as a surprise to me since high power is what these ... Telescope choice is very important. ... enough to show enough planetary details and when a seeing is at least ... very good we can realiably judge about quality of planetary eyepieces ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: A little help needed :)
    ... Concerning high magnifications and telescope cool-down time: ... It takes patience to see planetary details. ... scope hadn't cooled down sufficiently at the start of the session. ... Internet using "H-alpha solar filter". ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)