Why magazine equipment reviews suck

From: RichA (none_at_none.com)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:37:41 -0400

Because they DO NOT provide those reviews in a context that is
important to the consumer, namely, how does
this scope compare to it's logical competition.
For instance, instead of bull-s-------. people by saying
the scope produced "fine, pin-point star images"
and then show a "ronchigram" to try to prove
the optics are good, why not something like this:
"This scope bests a previously reviewed scope that
costs many TIMES what this scope costs and here is
why."

The reasoning is obvious, they don't want to
P.O. any advertisers, but I think it would
be important for someone about to spend "X"
to know they can get the same performance from
another company, or better and perhaps only
have to spend "Y."

Probably worst of all though are the people whose
voices carry weight in the astronomical community
who have access to all sorts of equipment, who find
out certain things, are able to ascertain quality
first hand, then say NOTHING to the community at large
about it! Their fear is that voicing those opinions
could possibly have some negative effects down the
road. So it comes down to this; Is not telling the
same as lying or, do you do a disservice to the
community as a whole by keeping mum?

Lets take the new Chinese ED apos from Orion as a
case in point. These scopes are not like the achros
that came out of China. The achros broke big ground
because they were inexpensive as can be, allowing people
to buy a big refractor for the proverbial peanuts.
But, it was clear they were not optically (at least not
all, due to consistency reasons) a match for something
like a much more expensive Vixen achromat.
But, these EDs are as good or BETTER than any other apos out there
aside from the very top doublets and triplets offered by companies
like TMB, TEC and AP.
So where are the magazine reviews saying "You don't need to spend
$2000 on an 80mm apo to get good results?" Don't expect any.
Where are the direct comparisons BY those magazines?
Would they say what I found out, that the Orion 80mm ED is BETTER
than my TV-85 was by a good margin?
Not likely.
What about the second parties, the individuals whose voices carry
weight in the community? I know of TWO who have verified the quality
of the Chinese apos but you will NEVER hear them say "they compare
to "X" this way."

For this, the only source of information of any REAL value are the
experienced amateurs who have no worries about voicing their opinions.
They buy scopes, use them, review them, etc. That's it.

Meanwhile, there are people out there who could contribute hugely to
the amateur community if they had the guts to. It's infuriating.
I hear these little tidbits of key knowledge all the time, then
I'm told, "keep it on the Q.T." Like it's some @#$$$# state secret.

I don't want to "out" the opinions of these people, I want them, as
influential members of a community to STEP UP!

As far as the magazines go, I've given up on them. I read them for
whatever scrap of interesing information I can get, or astronomy
news. If I'm interested in the life of carbon stars, they serve, but
not for solid reviews of products.

The latest thing; There are three full sets of Meade 5000 series
eyepieces that will shortly find their way into the hands of three
prominent members of the astronomical community.

Will the fruit of this be what we want, a knock-down drag out
comparison between eyepieces we KNOW, TeleVue and Pentax and
the old Meades?

No, that would be too useful. Instead, we'll see an abbreviated
review of a few of them, comparing them to nothing, using all
the typical "sales" terms like "pinpoint stars" "diamonds on black
velvet" etc. We'll even be lucky if they mention what scope
they use them in.

As usual, the average experienced amateur is left to provide the
substantive information the rest of us need.
-Rich

 

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck
    ... > this scope compare to it's logical competition. ... then say NOTHING to the community at large ... > not for solid reviews of products. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Laser printer recommendations
    ... But I wouldn't compare it to a top of the line mac pro - ... It's lovely - and no-one's come up with a better analogue 'scope control ... But unless you have instruction on the operating principles, ... Colleges are for learning operating principles, not equipment manuals. ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Cabelas Scope for LeverEvolution shells
    ... reviews out of curiousity. ... The reviews tell me first that this is an $89 scope with the quality ... eye relief as just what a scope needs on a lever gun with a smaller ... if you put a Leupold on your lever gun ...
    (rec.hunting)
  • Re: Laser printer recommendations
    ... If you're looking at the price of a BBC Model B, you want to compare it ... It's lovely - and no-one's come up with a better analogue 'scope control ... Engineers need to take the same line that I took - technicians don't. ... engineers are more like experimental scientists than theoretical ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: S&T C-6 Review
    ... good scope is a crap shoot. ... I like to read reviews by individuals (Astromart, Cloudynights, Ed ... Many of the reviews on the internet seem very subjective and ... objective information is still sadly lacking." ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)