Re: buying an inexpensive scope...

tkuniok@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Those things on an alt-azimuth mount with either no slow motion
> controls or just an altitude slow motion control are going to be an
> exercise in frustration ...
>
> Between a three inch reflector and a 60 mm refractor, I'd pick the
> refractor because it's more intuitive to use ...

Curious, I would have given precisely the opposite advice. I find those
funny alt-az mounts quite easy to use, assuming that they're well
built.
And although I've seen plenty of 60-mm refractors with good optics,
I've
had better luck (on the whole) with 3-inch reflectors.

Really, I think, it's mostly a matter of taste and personal preference.
The only objective argument I can muster with respect to the alt-az
versus EQ debate is that the learning curve for a beginner to master
an alt-az is clearly less than for an EQ. On the other hand, one could
reasonably argue that an EQ mount can always be used in alt-az mode,
but not vice versa.

But the real bottom line is that in this price range, it is essential
to shop carefully -- which is easier said than done. In the December
issue of Sky & Telescope, Gary Seronik reviews 12 telescopes ranging
in price from $75 to $200. The big surprise (to him and me) is that
there are large differences in quality between scopes that are
outwardly identical, or nearly so. I would have to say that this
article renders obsolete my "cheap scope review" which is posted
in several places on the Internet.

- Tony Flanders

.