| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.156.22 By: webmaster In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.156.22) (Original Vote) Date: 04/29/2003 06:35:28 am PST I'm not quite sure what you are refering to as "misleading" considering all of the reviews of the MN66 have been quite positive. If you are refering to the fact that the MN56 has a higher overall rating than the MN66, then I don't see why it would be misleading considering that "overall" rating takes price, size, and any other minor factors into consideration. Otherwise,the ratings would become directly proportional to resolution capability (aperture) and thus your MN66 would get womped by a 16" dob (but because SIZE and PORTABILITY are usually issues, it doesn't...). >The ratings on the Intes and Intes Micro scopes on this site are really misleading. The MN66 is really superior in every way, except weight and portability, to the MN56. It is also superior to the MN61 by Intes and better too, except for astrophotography, than most of the other types of Intes and Intes Micro scopes rated here that are equal to or smaller to it in aperture, in regard to the quality of the visual image presented on not only planets, but deep sky objects as well. Views thru the MN66 are very refractor-like, with pin point stars, sharpness to the edge and good dark backgrounds. It really is the equivalent to a good 5" or 6" refractor at a very much reduced price. The optical system is really superior. The focuser and finder do need to be upgraded, however, so budget those items in. I use a JMI DX3 and a Telerad and like both. Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.156.22 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.120.214) In Reply to: webmaster (Original Message) Date: 04/30/2003 01:57:35 am PST I think other factors are at work to make them misleading. Those newly initiated tend to rate entry level equipment much higher than more knowledge, experienced users tend to rate even better equipment (e.g., MN56 vs. MN 66, MN76 and MN 86) Also, they don't always get the portability, size and price issue correct. The MN66, for example is lighter, more portable and optically better than the MN61 (equal to the Deluxe version of the MN61, optically) and cheaper for the same optical quality, yet fairs only as well or worse in the ratings. The problem is more savey and experienced users rate equipment more conservatively than relative newbies, but tend to buy better equipment than the newbies, with the result I have identified. However, higher quality, larger aperature should have a strong tendency to win out in the ratings because quality and aperature really do matter to serious users if you want to see better, as most of that group does. Yet, because of the biases I identify, lesser equipment is often rated much higher than it should be, and price, portabilty and the like don't really fairly account for the differences >I'm not quite sure what you are refering to as "misleading" considering all of the reviews of the MN66 have been quite positive. If you are refering to the fact that the MN56 has a higher overall rating than the MN66, then I don't see why it would be misleading considering that "overall" rating takes price, size, and any other minor factors into consideration. Otherwise,the ratings would become directly proportional to resolution capability (aperture) and thus your MN66 would get womped by a 16" dob (but because SIZE and PORTABILITY are usually issues, it doesn't...). > > > > >>The ratings on the Intes and Intes Micro scopes on this site are really misleading. The MN66 is really superior in every way, except weight and portability, to the MN56. It is also superior to the MN61 by Intes and better too, except for astrophotography, than most of the other types of Intes and Intes Micro scopes rated here that are equal to or smaller to it in aperture, in regard to the quality of the visual image presented on not only planets, but deep sky objects as well. Views thru the MN66 are very refractor-like, with pin point stars, sharpness to the edge and good dark backgrounds. It really is the equivalent to a good 5" or 6" refractor at a very much reduced price. The optical system is really superior. The focuser and finder do need to be upgraded, however, so budget those items in. I use a JMI DX3 and a Telerad and like both. Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
