Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: "Shelldigger" <lilc01f@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jun 2006 06:06:48 -0700
I agree, reviews in S&T and Astronomy have a generalized feel overall.
There is plenty of yapping about this n that but no real down and dirty
details. They seem to tapdance around any real issues. Reading these
reviews is like having Chinese takeout, good stuff, but I need more.
I guess if I put myself in their shoes, Id not want to bite the hand
that feeds me either.
Good thing we have the internet for more information. I would like to
see a more organized approach for testing optics, be they scopes or
ep's. There has to be a way of doing this that removes objectivity and
includes the all of the performance issues we want to hear...
Charles
Doink wrote:
OK, I've brought this up before and it started a flame war. Let's try to
stay cool....
I read the reviews of telescopes in S&T and am always disappointed that they
don't do more rigorous testing or provide some real. The review of the C-6
is no exception. There's a bunch of "writing" about the mount and the
"optically excellent 6x30 finder" and then the write states the OTA has
"excellent optics". He determines this because he can see the Cassini
Division in Saturn. Neat. Those observations are subject to numerous
factors; seeing comes to mind. Why don't they bench test the optics? I'd
like the stats, not the impressions of an employee of the company paid to
sell the stuff.
Doink
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Bob Schmall
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: Alan French
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- From: AM
- Re: S&T C-6 Review
- References:
- S&T C-6 Review
- From: Doink
- S&T C-6 Review
- Prev by Date: Re: AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE
- Next by Date: Re: S&T C-6 Review
- Previous by thread: Re: S&T C-6 Review
- Next by thread: Re: S&T C-6 Review
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|