Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?
From: Brian (broghy_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/11/04
- Next message: Brian: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Previous message: Mark D: "Re: New AP scope and more"
- In reply to: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Next in thread: Duff Couillard: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 00:17:39 -0600
I agree with your evaluation and your sentiments - T O T A L L Y!
Jon Isaacs wrote:
> Rich A. wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Actually, Meade does produce such a telescope, 60AZ-A and it costs $50 at
> Walmart. After reading the Sky and Telescope editorial, I decided I would see
> exactly how bad these scopes are.
>
> What do you get for your $50?
>
> A color free 60mm F11.7 objective, a metal tube, and a surprisingly smooth 1.25
> inch plastic focuser. It comes with 2 decent 1.25 inch MA eyepieces, a 25mm
> and a 9mm, it has a full aperture, reasonably sharp 5x24 finder (unlike finders
> of the past that were stopped down), a real mirror diagonal, a chincy but
> workable barlow, and a mount that takes a while to settle down, probably a true
> 5 second settling time.
>
> An experienced observer can see a variety of DSOs from Mag 3.5- 4 skies
> including the ring, the dumbbell and the Andormeda galaxy. It seems to split
> double stars rather nicely, Castor at about 4 arc seconds is doable though so
> far the double-double has eluded it even at 140X. It shows 4 stars in the
> Orion Nebula, the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, hints of the cloud
> belts, Venus and Jupiter in the same FOV on a morning like this....
>
> This scope also focuses to about 16 feet which allows it to be used as a
> spotting scope. Unfortunately my guess is that the long focuser drawtube
> necessary for this may restrict the aperture.
>
> The good points are that the objective and eyepieces seem decent, the
> eyepieces, including the barlow are nearly Parafocal, and the finder actually
> works. It was really quite a surprise to look through the focuser and realize
> that it was actually quite good. I also think the fact that the eypieces and
> barlow are parafocal is important for a beginner because it means after
> changing eyepieces one can still see the target.
>
> The biggest problem with this scope is that the mount is quite shaky,
> improvements are possible with various techniques, mostly patience on the part
> of the observer, waiting for the shakes to end is actually possible. An
> upgrade of the diagonal and barlow would probably be in order at some point.
>
> But the bottom line here is that this is a scope that a competent observer
> (with the right attitude) can use and enjoy and it costs $50.
>
> So, have cheap refractors hurt or helped the hobby?
>
> A couple of years ago Larry Gilstrap cautioned S.A.A. to be careful with
> elitism. I remember this often. Certainly nice telescopes are nice to have.
> Comparing my Pronto (which some would snub for not being an APO) provides far
> sharper and brighter views than the Meade 60AZ-A.
>
> But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Meade 60AZ-A is capable of
> providing a glimpse of the universe that sparks a person into a life long
> enchantment with the night sky.
>
> I believe it can.
>
> This scope is certainly far better than that $5 garage sale special that
> sparked me, the mount is sturdier, the finder better, the eyepieces far better.
>
> I am one who believes that it is not about the telescope, it is about the
> observer. If such as scope cannot excite you, make you wonder, pleasure in the
> view of a colorful double, gasp at the hint of nebulosity in Orion, wonder at
> the moons of Jupiter, if such a scope cannot do this, then one is probably not
> long for this hobby anyway.
>
> =========
>
> Second bottom line:
>
> I would never recommend that someone buy this scope if there were other
> possibilities. And I would probably recommend that anyone with $50 buy a set
> of Orion World View 10x50s because they are a better overall quality
> instrument.
>
> There is no doubt that this scope and scopes like it (and there are worse
> scopes that cost more money too) have serious drawbacks and serious
> limitations.
>
> So, I encourage anyone and everyone to point people towards binoculars, Orion
> scopes, Apogee Inc scopes, quality telescope vendors like OPT, AT&WB and all
> the rest.
>
> But the reality is that there are going to be a lot of folks with 60mm
> refractors this Christmas and that with some guidance and patience, they too
> can actually use their scopes to tap into the joy and excitement that comes
> from viewing those far away distant objects.
>
> It is my intention to follow Larry Gilstrap's path and rather than bemoaning
> the quality and difficulties inharent in these scopes, I hope to provide
> guidance and encouragement for those with these scopes.
>
> As I see it, as experienced amateurs, the worst thing we can do is snub these
> scopes and thus the people that own them. If we want to encourage people to
> learn the joys of astronomy then we need to embrace everyone regardless of
> their equipment or their skills.
>
> One comment that is often made regarding these scopes is that they are far
> better than the ones that Galileo used, this maybe a cliche but there is a
> great deal of truth in this. A 12 inch scope gathers about 25 times more light
> than a 60mm refractor.
>
> But a 60mm refractor gathers about 100 times more light than the human eye, and
> that is what is important.
>
> So, I hope that rather than dismissing these scopes as junk, each of you takes
> a second look.
>
> Last night I had the 10 incher setup and I spent a couple of hours with it.
> When I put it away I took out the Meade 60-AZ-A and spent another hour just
> looking.
>
> I had a great time.
>
> Jon Isaacs
- Next message: Brian: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Previous message: Mark D: "Re: New AP scope and more"
- In reply to: Jon Isaacs: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Next in thread: Duff Couillard: "Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
