Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137
On Monday, 21 November 2022 at 17:55:31 UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Sorry, $7500 Can. U.S. is $5500.
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Is that a Questar wannabe?
I'm sorry but my wife's $7500 20" f5 dob will blow this guy completely out of the water... but it is not nearly as portable... :>)
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glass
is concerned.
On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 9:39:56 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:253BmBswag6VehPd9M%252C9uEBWAa8a4qbjM%252C_%253BlIEIlh_NgMQCHM%252CgUM72N0ZB6thKM%252C_%253BYPq-XGW9j5Y1jM%252C9uEBWAa8a4qbjM%252C_%253BXqod_x7S4eS9YM%252CgUM72N0ZB6thKM%252C_%253Bqv-fF66EDXiXFM%252CjGilK1625fuTDM%252C_%253BFFzY0DiRbQSYGM%
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
https://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glassAFAICT, the thing sold for just over $5700... and down in the details the seller admits that there is no controller or power supply and he has no idea if the thing even works!
is concerned.
This page...
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GTPM_enUS1017US1018&sxsrf=ALiCzsaf-7970-NuykTBhsIMBAPx3sBkPQ:1669324464507&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=goto+brand+eyepieces&fir=WLUR43Am3TDlQM%252CgUM72N0ZB6thKM%252C_%253BvGAVlrLx5Yb_gM%252C9uEBWAa8a4qbjM%252C_%
... shows lots of the Goto brand eyepieces, most selling for abour $55 or so... and they are, in fact, mostly with a 0.965 barrel diameter.
Finally, the seller clearly says that there is zero warranty and zero returns...
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.
On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 09:54:40 UTC-5, W wrote:variation in the consumer telescope field.
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.After seeing German and Russian tests of various scopes, including some expensive "sacred cow" telescopes, they proved that unless you build it yourself, there is a lot of
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:***
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 09:54:40 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
variation in the consumer telescope field.Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.After seeing German and Russian tests of various scopes, including some expensive "sacred cow" telescopes, they proved that unless you build it yourself, there is a lot of
*****
So? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderately larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
A 1/20-wave, 4-inch Mak is still just a 4-inch Mak. All-spherical optics tend to help the cause with these long focal ratio Maks, but they are not magic.They have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 09:54:40 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
variation in the consumer telescope field.Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.After seeing German and Russian tests of various scopes, including some expensive "sacred cow" telescopes, they proved that unless you build it yourself, there is a lot of
*****
So? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderately larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
A 1/20-wave, 4-inch Mak is still just a 4-inch Mak. All-spherical optics tend to help the cause with these long focal ratio Maks, but they are not magic.
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 9:18:50 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 09:54:40 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
variation in the consumer telescope field.Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.After seeing German and Russian tests of various scopes, including some expensive "sacred cow" telescopes, they proved that unless you build it yourself, there is a lot of
*****
So? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderately larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
***A 1/20-wave, 4-inch Mak is still just a 4-inch Mak. All-spherical optics tend to help the cause with these long focal ratio Maks, but they are not magic.They have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
They don't have to perform to their potential, they just have to perform better than the smaller scope.
Even an 8-inch Newt is quite manageable, compared to a 4-inch Mak. And that little 4-inch needs some type of pier, tripod or (yikes!) sturdy table, none of which were included.
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:
So? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderately
larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
They have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out
of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder
to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
On Monday, 28 November 2022 at 21:31:21 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 9:18:50 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 09:54:40 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
variation in the consumer telescope field.Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.After seeing German and Russian tests of various scopes, including some expensive "sacred cow" telescopes, they proved that unless you build it yourself, there is a lot of
*****
So? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderately larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
***A 1/20-wave, 4-inch Mak is still just a 4-inch Mak. All-spherical optics tend to help the cause with these long focal ratio Maks, but they are not magic.They have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
They don't have to perform to their potential, they just have to perform better than the smaller scope.
Even an 8-inch Newt is quite manageable, compared to a 4-inch Mak. And that little 4-inch needs some type of pier, tripod or (yikes!) sturdy table, none of which were included.I don't think an 8 inch Newt, even on a Dob mount is as easy to handle as a 4 inch Mak. The two easiest scopes to manage I've had would be a 70mm f6 apo on a camera tripod
with a pan-tilt head and a 90mm Questar Standard on a stationary tripod in my backyard.
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:18:50 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:
Oh, yes. Those people who spend a fortune on apochromats with a 100 mm apertureSo? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderatelyThey have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out
larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder
to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
must have _some_ reason for doing so. And there are less expensive Maksutovs out
there, as well.
And an 8-inch telescope that hasn't cooled down yet isn't performing better than
a 4-inch Mak; even if one can see through it at all. But an 8-inch telescope of a
less expensive design is _still_ a better choice than an expensive 4-inch telescope
for most people. Since, for one thing, most of us have to worry about money, and
for another, for many people, the things they would like to see with a telescope aren't
really accessible with a small telescope. Even just the planets, never mind deep sky.
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 10:51:12 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 28 November 2022 at 21:31:21 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 9:18:50 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 09:54:40 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 12:39:56 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 09:17:12 UTC-5, W wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:55:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
Admittedly a RARE scope.
The perforation in this f/14+ telescope's primary is so small that you'll never get much of a wide field view out of it anyway.Could be 0.965. Normally, with Plossls, etc., 1-1/4 are only really needed for eyepieces over 25mm, at least as far as the glasshttps://zenmarket.jp/auction.aspx?itemCode=p1071957137Those eyepieces seem rather small....
is concerned.
variation in the consumer telescope field.Maybe the optics are really, really good. At f/14 they should be.After seeing German and Russian tests of various scopes, including some expensive "sacred cow" telescopes, they proved that unless you build it yourself, there is a lot of
*****
So? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderately larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
***A 1/20-wave, 4-inch Mak is still just a 4-inch Mak. All-spherical optics tend to help the cause with these long focal ratio Maks, but they are not magic.They have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
They don't have to perform to their potential, they just have to perform better than the smaller scope.
---Even an 8-inch Newt is quite manageable, compared to a 4-inch Mak. And that little 4-inch needs some type of pier, tripod or (yikes!) sturdy table, none of which were included.I don't think an 8 inch Newt, even on a Dob mount is as easy to handle as a 4 inch Mak. The two easiest scopes to manage I've had would be a 70mm f6 apo on a camera tripod
with a pan-tilt head and a 90mm Questar Standard on a stationary tripod in my backyard.
I didn't say that the Newt was as easy, just that it is manageable. Most people with a modest amount of strength can deal with setting up such a telescope. And that Mak still needs a sturdy tripod that has to be carried and set up.
On Tuesday, November 29, 2022 at 2:44:08 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2022 at 7:18:50 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 08:05:30 UTC-5, W wrote:
Oh, yes. Those people who spend a fortune on apochromats with a 100 mm apertureSo? All one needs to do is buy an "average quality" telescope that is moderatelyThey have their own problems. A six inch scope only performs to its potential about 1 out
larger and the "problem" goes away. You get more resolution and light-gathering power too.
of 5 nights, an 8 inch 1 out of 7 nights or so, depending on your location. They are harder
to handle, weigh more and take time to cool-down.
must have _some_ reason for doing so. And there are less expensive Maksutovs out
there, as well.
And an 8-inch telescope that hasn't cooled down yet isn't performing better thanFor some reason, I visualize the OP as living on an upper floor apartment in a light-polluted area. His perspective would be skewed in that case.
a 4-inch Mak; even if one can see through it at all. But an 8-inch telescope of a
less expensive design is _still_ a better choice than an expensive 4-inch telescope
for most people. Since, for one thing, most of us have to worry about money, and
for another, for many people, the things they would like to see with a telescope aren't
really accessible with a small telescope. Even just the planets, never mind deep sky.
You said a 10 inch scope is "quite manageable" compared to a 4 inch Mak, implying if I understand English, it is easier to manage than the Mak, which is not true. No 10 inch scope handles as easily as
a 4 inch Mak with a foot long tube.
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:12:15 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
You said a 10 inch scope is "quite manageable" compared to a 4 inch Mak, implying if I understand English, it is easier to manage than the Mak, which is not true. No 10 inch scope handles as easily as--
a 4 inch Mak with a foot long tube.
No, actually I mentioned an 8, not a 10.
And I didn't use the word "easier" either, just "manageable."
So, maybe work on your English a bit.
What you keep leaving out of the equation is the tripod or other support needed for the small Mak. These are going to add to the bulk, weight and expense of the small telescope, making them a less attractive choice than they might first appear.
On Thursday, 1 December 2022 at 07:57:39 UTC-5, W wrote:--
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 2:12:15 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
You said a 10 inch scope is "quite manageable" compared to a 4 inch Mak, implying if I understand English, it is easier to manage than the Mak, which is not true. No 10 inch scope handles as easily as--
a 4 inch Mak with a foot long tube.
No, actually I mentioned an 8, not a 10.
And I didn't use the word "easier" either, just "manageable."
So, maybe work on your English a bit.
What you keep leaving out of the equation is the tripod or other support needed for the small Mak. These are going to add to the bulk, weight and expense of the small telescope, making them a less attractive choice than they might first appear.Dobs have mounts as well, heavy mounts. Unless you stand it on its end and watch stuff drift by the zenith...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 403 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 111:19:03 |
| Calls: | 8,465 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,181 |
| Messages: | 5,909,866 |