Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck
From: Craig Levine (Clevine_at_hfx.eastlink.ca)
Date: 10/29/04
- Next message: Carsten A. Arnholm: "Lunar eclipse webcast image archive"
- Previous message: JJK: "Re: New AP scope and more"
- In reply to: RichA: "Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Next in thread: Shneor Sherman: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Oct 2004 05:33:55 -0700
RichA <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<fr43o01ad6jriuscceenjnevbsjjv16mkf@4ax.com>...
> 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."
I mostly agree, but now and then there are passably good reviews i.e.
Alan Dyer's review of 4"-class APOs (5 of them) in the May and June
2002 issues of S&T. Though he said all were very good, he did rate and
compare them in a letter-grade scale, and he did point out some
mechanical and optical things to look out for. That article helped me
decide to pick up a Borg 76 ed APO this week (I like the light weight
and infinitely configurable modular design. My 4" APO is luggable, not
portable). However, this type of article is admittedly the exception
rather than the rule.
- Craig
- Next message: Carsten A. Arnholm: "Lunar eclipse webcast image archive"
- Previous message: JJK: "Re: New AP scope and more"
- In reply to: RichA: "Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Next in thread: Shneor Sherman: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
