Overall Rating: 10 Performance:9 Value:10 Weight: 21 (Notable Vote) Date: 02/10/2002 07:33:08 am PST By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.192.26) Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=66202
I bought mine in 2000 to replace the el cheapo 6x30 finder on my 8" Dob. I am still using the original battery. No complaints at all. It gets a bit dewy, but so did the finder scope. I made a cover out of a small box to keep the dew off when not actually using it. The so-called parrallax problem mentioned by some reviews does not exist in my experience. Some may prefer the 4 deg. outer circle of the Telrad, but for me, the lighter weight and higher profile of the QF was preferable. I bought a second one for my TV101. I use the mounting tape with no problems. There was one situation that I thought a dot-finder was better. I have a 5" f/12 refractor and stuck a QF mount above the EQ head. I wanted to be able to use the finder either from the position of the EQ lock controls of from the eypiece. At the eyepiece, however, I was so far from the QF that the circles appeared bigger than the window. In that situation the Stellarvue dot-finder was better because the dot looks like a dot from both vantage points. Otherwise the QF is the favorite.
Overall Rating: 10 Performance:10 Value:10 Weight: 20 (Notable Vote) Date: 08/18/2008 01:22:43 pm PST By: mte1955 Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=578331
Overall Rating: 7 Performance:7 Value:7 Weight: 18 (Trustworthy Vote) Date: 02/19/2006 10:34:32 am PST By: johnfdean Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=494076
Overall Rating: 10 Performance:10 Value:10 Weight: 11 (Trustworthy Vote) Date: 09/05/2003 11:33:36 pm PST By: TelescopeFan Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=296746
Overall Rating: 8 Performance:8 Value:10 Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote) Date: 08/18/2004 05:52:28 pm PST By: PaulHart Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=376035
Overall Rating: 10 Performance:10 Value:10 Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote) Date: 05/08/2002 03:44:22 pm PST By: Dennis53121 Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=89772
Overall Rating: 10 Performance:10 Value:10 Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote) Date: 02/09/2002 05:52:09 pm PST By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.120.157) Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=66047
Overall Rating: 2 Performance:2 Value:2 Weight: 10 (Trustworthy Vote) Date: 02/06/2002 10:58:24 am PST By: Thompson Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=65098
I purchased a Rigel as an replacement to the piece of pipe I was using as a finder, so my basis of comparison is limited. However, I also have noticed the object shifting at times in relation to the finder; but I think I know why. I use both eyes while sighting and don't always use my dominate(sp) eye through the finder. I have to test this but it seems that if I were to superimpose the outside dominate eye with the red target, I would get such a shift. M. Lout >The sine qua non of a finder is that it should make it easy to find things. The Rigel falls down badly in two respects with regard to this requirement: > >First, as an earlier reviewer mentioned, the parallax is terrible. If you have your eye in just a slightly different location than when you aligned the Rigel, it's quite possible for an object that appears centered in the Rigel to be outside the field of view of even a medium-power eyepiece. >
Overall Rating: 9 Performance:8 Value:10 Weight: 7 (Veritable Vote) Date: 02/25/2002 04:56:23 pm PST By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.91.216) Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=70318
Overall Rating: 9 Weight: 7 (Veritable Vote) Date: 08/29/2001 07:18:03 am PST By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.17.57) Link to this vote: http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/displayvote.php?voteid=44358
©2023 by Excelsis Consulting. All Rights Reserved. E-mail webmaster to report abuse, problems, or comments.