Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck

From: Bor (borinovsky_at_kuri.net)
Date: 10/29/04 

Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:20:09 -0500

well what do you want - an economic collapse of the American retail
telescope industry, based on truth?

> 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

  • Why magazine equipment reviews suck
    ... this scope compare to it's logical competition. ... then say NOTHING to the community at large ... So where are the magazine reviews saying "You don't need to spend ...
    (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)