Re: Users of CG5 mount
From: Jon Isaacs (jonisaacs_at_aol.com)
Date: 08/21/04
- Next message: Sketcher: "Happiness: A State of Mind"
- Previous message: Roger Hamlett: "Re: CCD with a Dob?"
- In reply to: Bettrel: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Next in thread: Chris1011: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Aug 2004 21:23:40 GMT
>While I think you're overstating the deficiencies of the mounts, it's easy to
>point out how "bad" they are in many ways without pointing out where one can
>get a comparable mount with comparable load capacity for the same price.
>Not
>everyone is in the position to afford a mount made my Losmandy, Takahashi,
>AP,
>Software Bisque, etc.. Would it be better to not be able to observe at all
>because of the complete lack of a
>mount until you can afford one that passes
>your criteria for quality?
Tonya:
You make some very good points.
I like the word "decent", meaning not fancy necessarily but adequate to do the
intended job.
One can buy a decent bicycle for around $300, one that will get you where you
want to go, reliably, comfortably and safely. Such a bicycle will last 20
years or more with some care and maintainance. $100 doesn't buy a decent
bicycle.. Of course one can spend more and get something with slicker
shifting, lighter weight, fancier paint, more durable components, but that $300
bike will do the job. And of course that $300 bike will not suffice in the
Tour de France....
I think astronomy equipment can be considered from the same point of view. Does
it do a decent job? it is optically acceptable? is it reasonably reliable?, can
it provide hours and years of learning and enjoyment?
>From that point of view, I think the evidence is that the Chinese stuff that
for example Orion sells, is indeed "decent" for visual observing as well as
some basic photography too.
Just as most of the skill that Lance Armstrong used to win the Tour de France
had nothing to do with the sophistication of his bicycle, most of the skills
the differentiate a skilled observer from a inexperienced one have little to do
with the telescope. Given Roland a 6 inch F8 Achromat on a CG-5 mount, he
will see things that guys like me can't see in a much better setup.
One of the questions I ask myself when trying to distinguish whether something
is "decent" or not is to step back then consider what an experienced amateur
say 60 years ago would have thought about say a CG-5 mount with an 8 inch F5
Newtonian with a couple of Plossls. I figure if someone 60 years ago could
enjoy it, then its a good start to being enjoyable today.
My guess is that most would be quite estatic. After reading what Jean Texereau
said in "How to Make a Telescope" about Plossls, I am pretty sure anyone would
have been pretty happy with the eyepieces.
And after having owned an Edmunds 6 inch F8 on an EQ mount, I am quite sure our
hypothetical amateur would be quite happy with todays 8 incher.
---- I think it is important to discuss the more sophisticated equipment in a group like this because it is indeed a technical forum and discussing what is at the fore-front is important. But at the same time I think it is important to acknowledge that there is plenty of quite "decent" equipment that really is capable of providing a great deal of learning and joy without costing someone a great deal of money... Best wishes, clear skies jon isaacs
- Next message: Sketcher: "Happiness: A State of Mind"
- Previous message: Roger Hamlett: "Re: CCD with a Dob?"
- In reply to: Bettrel: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Next in thread: Chris1011: "Re: Users of CG5 mount"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
