Takahashi FS-102


 Info  Votes  Messages  More Stats  Up One Level
Switch to Subject View
Post Message



Prev Page 2 of 2


Subject: Re: vote by Bernie
By: Sailcat
In Reply to: Bernard (Original Message)
Date: 09/28/2002 03:03:24 pm PST
While don't believe Bernie's opinions address the issue at hand, I certainly don't think name-calling and sarcasm belong on this site, either. This site is, and should continue to be, a forum on which individuals can post their opinions and experiences regarding scopes and equipment. Bernie deserves the opportunity to express himself and I'm sure he's mature enough to accept reasoned rebuttals and fair criticism. He does not deserve to be attacked.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by Bernie
By: Bernard
In Reply to: Sailcat (Original Message)
Date: 09/28/2002 05:34:57 pm PST
>While don't believe Bernie's opinions address the issue at hand, I certainly don't think name-calling and sarcasm belong on this site, either. This site is, and should continue to be, a forum on which individuals can post their opinions and experiences regarding scopes and equipment. Bernie deserves the opportunity to express himself and I'm sure he's mature enough to accept reasoned rebuttals and fair criticism. He does not deserve to be attacked.


Thank you very much for your comment. You are correct....attack my opinion....prove it wrong if you can....but lets not get personal here. Hey, this stuff is supposed to be fun...right?
Bernie


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: FS-102
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.250.2)
Date: 10/02/2002 01:11:22 pm PST
Horsepower wins. Period. My dragster will outrun anything out there. So when it comes to cars, dragsters win. Period.

Hmmm. Kinda a blanket statement, it seems.

But maybe I want a car that gets good gas mileage and is easy to drive quickly in traffic. I wasn't really considering a dragster. That's a different CLASS of car, isn't it. My VW can corner better in traffic than a dragster, so I believe the dragster loses here.

Kinda like comparing telescopes. I'm reading THIS review and not the big dob review, because I've already got a dob and need something to set up quickly and easily and do some wide field astrophotography. Does aperture "win, period" for this, too?

Just wondering...um...period.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by Bernie
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.57.94)
In Reply to: Bernard (Original Message)
Date: 05/11/2003 07:43:26 am PST
>>While don't believe Bernie's opinions address the issue at hand, I certainly don't think name-calling and sarcasm belong on this site, either. This site is, and should continue to be, a forum on which individuals can post their opinions and experiences regarding scopes and equipment. Bernie deserves the opportunity to express himself and I'm sure he's mature enough to accept reasoned rebuttals and fair criticism. He does not deserve to be attacked.
>
>
>Thank you very much for your comment. You are correct....attack my opinion....prove it wrong if you can....but lets not get personal here. Hey, this stuff is supposed to be fun...right?
>Bernie

Bernie,

I agree fully that this stuff is supposed to be fun, and in no way endorse personal attacks and flames. Everyone has a right to express their opinions.

One item I would like to take issue with is your use of the terms "test" and "double blind test". Having spent a good part of my professional career as a Test Controller, I can assure you that, "based on your postings," at best you did a consumer comparison of dissimilar products.

In other words, the acceptance criteria you stated in one of your posts and your use of the term "the laws of physics do not lie" pre-determined the outcome of any comparison and rendered any further "testing" un-necessary.

It would appear that your primary comparison (highest weighting) was based on the resolution limits of components with different capabilities. If, as an example, your highest weighted criteria was "photographic capabilities or perhaps durability" the outcome might be swayed towards the other item. On the other hand if your criteria was based on a percentage of meeting the theoretical limits established for the item based on its inherant ability (resolving power) (ie optical set number one = 98% of its capability vs. optical set number 2 = 99% of its capability) then there would be a realistic basis for some comparison. If the established criteria was based on the optical characteristics outside of the range or capability of one of the items the acceptance criteria would not be used in a test (again pre-determined outcome).

Another issue would be the criteria established for things like "setup" or "ease of use". These items would be measured based on the target demographic and are difficult to measure without established "control groups". Typically these control groups would be placed in catagories such as Novice (unfamiliar), Experienced (familiar), Advanced (Evaluator). Placing a refractor on an Alt-Azimuth mount and using it might be a hands down winner vs. assembling, collimating, and using a truss Dob. Conversly, a novice may find it easier to set up and use a tube Dob vs. a more complex GEM mounted refractor. It would all depend on the initial product criteria and control group.

Establishing an ATP (Acceptance Test Plan) is a very involved process in most cases, especially when technical specifications are concerned. Frequently when developing the ATP, many contenders are eliminated without ever entering the test process. During the process you attempt to remove as much "subjectivity" as possible without affecting the outcome.

Hope that made some sense. Again this is not meant to be a flame or attack on your opinions or abilities, mearly an attempt to clarify some of the characteristics of "testing". The term "test" is very loosly used here in our community of amateur Astronomers, when in fact we (myself included) are generally doing little more than a comparison based on our personal preferences and knowledge. Not a bad thing but not a controlled test.

As a point of order I own, use, and enjoy both refractors and reflectors, and "yes" in my 35 years of astronomy I have owned at "good number" of scopes (I never really kept count : ).

Keep looking up,

John


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.131.31
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.115.9)
Date: 06/22/2003 07:46:44 am PST
>Too expensive...Alt-az tripod adaption a bit awkward.

This was a voting of a 100% idiot. "it" gave a "1" because "it" was too dumb to set up the mount.
You better go back to Kindergarten!

Lamont


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by Bernie
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.6.191)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.57.94) (Original Message)
Date: 07/26/2003 12:01:35 pm PST
>>>While don't believe Bernie's opinions address the issue at hand, I certainly don't think name-calling and sarcasm belong on this site, either. This site is, and should continue to be, a forum on which individuals can post their opinions and experiences regarding scopes and equipment. Bernie deserves the opportunity to express himself and I'm sure he's mature enough to accept reasoned rebuttals and fair criticism. He does not deserve to be attacked.
>>
>>
>>Thank you very much for your comment. You are correct....attack my opinion....prove it wrong if you can....but lets not get personal here. Hey, this stuff is supposed to be fun...right?
>>Bernie
>
>Bernie,
>
>I agree fully that this stuff is supposed to be fun, and in no way endorse personal attacks and flames. Everyone has a right to express their opinions.
>
>One item I would like to take issue with is your use of the terms "test" and "double blind test". Having spent a good part of my professional career as a Test Controller, I can assure you that, "based on your postings," at best you did a consumer comparison of dissimilar products.
>
>In other words, the acceptance criteria you stated in one of your posts and your use of the term "the laws of physics do not lie" pre-determined the outcome of any comparison and rendered any further "testing" un-necessary.
>
>It would appear that your primary comparison (highest weighting) was based on the resolution limits of components with different capabilities. If, as an example, your highest weighted criteria was "photographic capabilities or perhaps durability" the outcome might be swayed towards the other item. On the other hand if your criteria was based on a percentage of meeting the theoretical limits established for the item based on its inherant ability (resolving power) (ie optical set number one = 98% of its capability vs. optical set number 2 = 99% of its capability) then there would be a realistic basis for some comparison. If the established criteria was based on the optical characteristics outside of the range or capability of one of the items the acceptance criteria would not be used in a test (again pre-determined outcome).
>
>Another issue would be the criteria established for things like "setup" or "ease of use". These items would be measured based on the target demographic and are difficult to measure without established "control groups". Typically these control groups would be placed in catagories such as Novice (unfamiliar), Experienced (familiar), Advanced (Evaluator). Placing a refractor on an Alt-Azimuth mount and using it might be a hands down winner vs. assembling, collimating, and using a truss Dob. Conversly, a novice may find it easier to set up and use a tube Dob vs. a more complex GEM mounted refractor. It would all depend on the initial product criteria and control group.
>
>Establishing an ATP (Acceptance Test Plan) is a very involved process in most cases, especially when technical specifications are concerned. Frequently when developing the ATP, many contenders are eliminated without ever entering the test process. During the process you attempt to remove as much "subjectivity" as possible without affecting the outcome.
>
>Hope that made some sense. Again this is not meant to be a flame or attack on your opinions or abilities, mearly an attempt to clarify some of the characteristics of "testing". The term "test" is very loosly used here in our community of amateur Astronomers, when in fact we (myself included) are generally doing little more than a comparison based on our personal preferences and knowledge. Not a bad thing but not a controlled test.
>
>As a point of order I own, use, and enjoy both refractors and reflectors, and "yes" in my 35 years of astronomy I have owned at "good number" of scopes (I never really kept count : ).
>
>Keep looking up,
>
>John

Hey John..... Remember, this is supposed to be "fun," or pursued for the love of the hobby (i.e. amateur). I'm hoping you don't refer to observing as "work" (I hate that reference to lunar or planetary "work"). Let's face it....all the complicated lingo aside, ease of use and quality of view are the primary, yet general parameters for this hobby... The Tak 102 can never measure up to an equally well made 5 or 6 inch scope in views, given ideal conditions for each, and a 6 inch refractor will never be as easy to set up, given similar mounting arrangements.... As you alluded to, there are many factors to take into account. All parameters considered, the best scope in one's collection is the one most used and this is largely based upon the personal preferences, moods, strengths and sacrifices of the user.... Don't forget the observer's experience as a factor in what can actually be seen and mentally recorded.... An experienced planetary observer will always see more detail than a next-door neighbor or novice at a star party who stops by for a brief peek through the eyepiece.
Clear steady skies and low dewpoint,
Charles


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.131.31
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.95.48)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.115.9) (Original Message)
Date: 11/16/2004 04:56:20 pm PST
>>Too expensive...Alt-az tripod adaption a bit awkward.
>
>This was a voting of a 100% idiot. "it" gave a "1" because "it" was too dumb to set up the mount.
>You better go back to Kindergarten!
>
>Lamont

I bet you feel really big now, Lamont. Hey, what a guy.

I think that the previous reviewer, although a person of few words, was simply saying that it is not easy to adapt this OTA to an alt-az tripod - a mounting that it was not originally designed for. Makes sense to me. That's not at all the same thing as saying that he/she was not able to set up the mount. And that person reckoned it was too expensive. Maybe for them, it is. I can't get a $2775.00 OTA either (I can easily afford it, but my wife would still never approve it!). But you just wade right in and attack anyway, because we can all see that you are obviously superior.

(Would the good people of the Takahashi community help us out here? I am puzzled....What is it about the class or grouping of "premium-refractor owners", that makes it more prone to have some angry, nasty, arrogant individuals? This is the same Lamont who deliberately voted a '1' for the Orion ED80, in some misguided revenge attempt!).

So Lamont, let's you and I _together_ go back to Kindergarten, then. When I was 4 years old my mother taught me a simple but wonderful rule: "two wrongs do not make a right". It has guided me well through life. You should ponder it too.

Over time, I've come to realise that the _opposite_ of this is a useful definition of someone whose political views are sadly those of the far right: they believe that two wrongs _do_ make a right. Eg. the death penalty for convicted killers. Ah, but yet again, I digress....

Ray Butler


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Televue 60mm Apo Telescope
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.201.153)
Date: 01/24/2005 11:01:09 am PST
I wanted a smaller scope than my 8" sct. I knew from all the reviews of televue telescopes that they are fine telescopes with great optics, so I decided to plop down the $800 for the new televue 60mm apo telescope. The fit and finish are typical televue, top notch. But as usual with 95 percent of the scopes I have bought I MUST tell you that I was indeed very dissappointed to see that the very fine optics in this scope were out of collomation. The stars had tiny tales on them. Also the detail I was seeing on jupiter and saturn were not up to televue standards. So instead of sending it back(I have 43 years of astronomy as a hobby behind me)I knew I could collimate it better. So basically all I did was to loosen the objective locing ring and turn the lens about 1/8" one way and when this made it worse I turned the lens in the opposite direction the same amount. One thing of course is to mark the lenses original position with a little dot. Anyway, it took me 5 mintutes to do this and all I can say is wow, what optics this little 60mm apo has. I can now see in incredible detail everything I look at. The stars are PERFECT pinpoints and the detail on the planets is truely amazing, PERIOD! This truely is one FINE refractor. AWESOME is the best way I can describe it!!


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Prev Page 2 of 2

[Click Here to Login]
Don't have a login? Register!