Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck
From: RichA (none_at_none.com)
Date: 10/30/04
- Next message: RichA: "Re: Telescope testing - blind trials?"
- Previous message: CHASLX200: "Re: New AP scope and more"
- In reply to: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Next in thread: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Reply: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Reply: Stephen Paul: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:47:58 -0400
On 30 Oct 2004 19:54:47 GMT, jonisaacs@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
>>
>>I think it comes down to this; If you want excellent fit, finish and
>>mechanics, my Tak FS-78 was the best, then my TV85. But
>>considering cost versus performance, the Tak cost 3x what the Orion ED
>>did and the TV cost 4x what the Orion did and not even the Tak was
>>noticeably superior to what I'm seeing in the Orion.
>>Given that the Orion has a serviceable Crayford focuser (though some
>>find it not up to what they would like) is light weight, costs $500,
>>performs excellently, I just don't see spending many times as much
>>anymore for another apo.
>>-Rich
>
>Rich:
>
>Both Clyde and I pointed out that this was the exact conclusion of Ed's article
>in Sky and Telescope regarding the ED80.
>
>While I agree that sometimes reviews gloss over the important stuff and are not
>willing to be honest, you chose a poor case for an example because Ed Ting did
>a serious review and did not hold any punches.
>
>jon
I've got to read that review, which ed. of the mag. was it in?
Alan French is right; There are good and bad reviews. Some of the
bad comes from the reviewer basically not knowing what they are
doing, but some (independent reviews) come from people who have
a vested emotional interest in a product they are reviewing.
They'll dispense with logic in order to protect the integrity of
their choice.
Your current election partisanship seems to really illustrate this
human flaw.
Myself, I couldn't care less about any particular scope. I buy
them, test them, use them and if they don't do what I want, I get
rid of them. Which is why I can say "X" is better than "Y"
and then give reasons why that is my opinion.
I'll never keep a scope just because I spent money on it or defend
it because it cost alot of money. It's all a trial and error thing,
and there is no stigma to buying "bad" if you are willing to
correct the problem because you are simply trying to find out
what the truth is.
Even with top flight scopes, people tend to make statements that are
absolute, when that is not the case.
Example; Everyone was saying how Tak focusers are better than
TeleVue. But they aren't, at least all aspects of them aren't.
TeleVue's when working properly are smoother. But if you listen
to the Tak people, better means in every aspect of focuser build
and operation.
The crazy "brand loyalty" that infects the scope market is just
that, crazy. Defending every aspect of a scope with a willful
blindness just because it carries a certain brand name.
There simply is no one brand that exemplifies perfection
in every aspect of it's operation.
- Next message: RichA: "Re: Telescope testing - blind trials?"
- Previous message: CHASLX200: "Re: New AP scope and more"
- In reply to: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Next in thread: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Reply: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Reply: Stephen Paul: "Re: Why magazine equipment reviews suck"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|