Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?

From: Eddie Trimarchi (eddiet_at_bigpond.net.au)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 05:35:28 GMT

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my crappy 60mm Tasco is what got me
into the hobby and created my love for it.

IMO if anyone can see Saturn's rings for real (even through a crappy
telescope) and not be filled with awe, then I don't think it matters what
quality telescope they're looking through. It's probably a good thing that
people like this start with a cheap scope, because they probably wouldn't
use whatever they got for very long. At least they saved some money on the
experiment.

I used my Tasco for about 10 years before upgrading and I used it a lot! 

-- 
Regards,
Eddie Trimarchi
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.astroshed.com
http://www.fitsplug.com
"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:8q1mo0pvj1hb6mu6g8612kgmk2gj57sjfd@4ax.com...
> In the Dec. issue, the editor of Sky and Tel in December discusses
> Christmas present telescopes.  He of course makes mention of the junk
> scopes, the 60mm 525x refractors and 76mm reflectors that are
> mechanically and optically (usually by their eyepieces) challenged and
> that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on.
>
> This is undoubtedly true.  But forget the 76mm reflectors, the main
> culprit is the 60mm refractor on it's 9000 year old Tasco alt-az
> rickety mount that is by far the main culprit, along with it's
> dog crap little Huygen eyepieces and 3x plastic barlows.
> So, has the mere presence of these telescopes harmed the hobby,
> by driving many away from it.
>
> I used to have the view that if someone couldn't maintain their
> interest enough to "live" with a 60mm for a few years until they
> sought out something better, maybe they didn't deserve to be in the
> hobby, that their interest was not genuine.  But, after having
> watched the behaviour of amateurs over the past 35 years, I realize
> that some (more now than before) come into the hobby and can be
> turned off by bad equipment.  Whether they "deserve" to be in the
> hobby is purely a judgment call on people's part.
>
> So if most agree that the lowly cheapo 60mm refractor (or worse,
> the fully plastic 40 or 50mm trashfractor) has turned away potential
> devotees, what can be done about it?
>
> About 17 years ago, Meade and Celestron tried to help out here.  They
> both offered only decent (not great, but workable) 60mm refractors
> with reasonable 1-1/4" eyepieces and real finderscopes.  This was a
> noble attempt by them to "upscale" the beginner.  It worked for a bit,
> but ultimately, both companies for whatever reason decided to dispense
> with all pretense at being the hobby saviours and started selling
> the same garbage scopes Tasco and Bushnell and Swift, etc, had been
> selling.  They needed the high margins these scopes offer.
> They probably help offset R&D and production costs of real scopes.
>
> The editor of Sky and Tel offers up the usual advise (which is good)
> about trying educate people about bad versus good telescopes, but
> amateurs are too few in number to influence the bulk of telescope
> buyers who are looking generally for just another Christmas gift to
> offer up and who don't put anymore thought into it than someone
> buying a shirt for someone.  In fact, someone is more likely to know
> a good clothing brand than telescope.
>
> But what if the only scopes offered at the entry level are decent
> quality ones?  Celestron and Meade tried this a decade+ ago, offering
> decent beginner scopes, 1-1/4" eyepieces, good finders, etc, but they
> couldn't sustain it and started selling the junk themselves to compete
> with the odious Bushnell and Tasco.
>
> So, over the past 40 years, had good scopes only been offered, would
> there be more amateurs in the hobby today, or (despite the rejection
> rate of the junk) are there more in the hobby today because of the
> sheer number of cheapo junk scopes that have been turned out?
> If you sell 100,000 good scopes, and 80% of the people stay in the
> hobby, or 500,000 pieces of junk and 200,000 stay in the hobby,
> obviously the junk scopes did a better job.
>
> So have the cheap refractors hurt or helped the hobby?
> -Rich
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?
    ... He of course makes mention of the junk ... > that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on. ... They needed the high margins these scopes offer. ... > a good clothing brand than telescope. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?
    ... He of course makes mention of the junk ... > that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on. ... They needed the high margins these scopes offer. ... > a good clothing brand than telescope. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Have refractors hurt the hobby?
    ... He of course makes mention of the junk ... that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on. ... So, has the mere presence of these telescopes harmed the hobby, ... the same garbage scopes Tasco and Bushnell and Swift, etc, had been ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?
    ... He of course makes mention of the junk ... >> that they do more to turn people off the hobby than turn them on. ... They needed the high margins these scopes offer. ... >> a good clothing brand than telescope. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?
    ... Actually, Meade does produce such a telescope, 60AZ-A and it costs $50 at ... exactly how bad these scopes are. ... The good points are that the objective and eyepieces seem decent, ... have cheap refractors hurt or helped the hobby? ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)