Borg 76ED


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



Page 1 of 1


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.252.161
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.214.11)
Date: 05/16/2003 07:17:59 am PDT
Exactly what are you trying to say here? "Not up to the class of Mitsubishi"..."I can't look at this telescope twice." What in the heck do those two sentences mean? If you can't communicate what you mean in English, why bother?

>Guys I've only heard of Borg once and saw it on a Mitsuboshi
>camera (not even up to the class of Mitsubishi)
>I can't look at this telescope twice. Tell me someone, am I wrong???
>
>
>by daSentinel


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.7.62
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.133.178)
Date: 06/25/2003 02:33:33 pm PDT
"A test on a polychromat ic source at 300m (~300 yards) showed that the optics were not collimated: both lenses had moved in the cell"

You based your scathing review on a scope that was obviously out of collimation??
Just because you couldn't change it doesn't mean it can't be done. And by the way- do you even know how it lost collimation? Perhaps your French friend screwed it up somehow-
I highly reccomend that you at least try to review a scope that is functioning as it is designed to- that's what this site is for! Not to bitch about how your scope is "broken"

Frankly your review 'frightens me'- I give it a zero.

And no, I don't own one of these.o


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.7.62
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.7.62)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.133.178) (Original Message)
Date: 06/27/2003 02:22:46 pm PDT
>You based your scathing review on a scope that was obviously out of collimation??
>Just because you couldn't change it doesn't mean it can't be done.

Sure it certainly can be done: send the defective objective back, get a new one and pray that it won't fail to keep the lens collimated. The trouble is, I obviously do not have the same standard of quality as you have. If you can't collimate a simple doublet yourself (dismount it completly using simple standard tools and tweak the lens' relative positions by playing on the spacers for instance), the objective better has to keep its collimation in normal use, otherwize it's not worth much in my opinion.


> And by the way- do you even know how it lost collimation? Perhaps your French friend screwed it up somehow-

I doubt he did. Even if this was the case, the guy's more than good enough to collimate a Tak FS 128 objective or to make a mechanical spare part for a 3.5in Questar. If the objective could have been dismounted using standard and not so standard tools, he would have done so, and re-collimated the whole thing on his optical bank before he gave it to me for testing.


>I highly reccomend that you at least try to review a scope that is functioning as it is designed to- that's what this site is for! Not to bitch about how your scope is "broken"

I got a Borg 76ED with its accessories. Tested it as it should operate. If the objective had been good, I would still have called the mechanical parts "a joke". Period. Beside it's not my scope: I merely tested it. Nothing personal in my review.


>Frankly your review 'frightens me'-

I do hope so.


>I give it a zero.

Fine with me.


>And no, I don't own one of these.o

Glad you do not.


Regards.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.7.62
By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.112.114)
In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.7.62) (Original Message)
Date: 10/01/2003 12:28:27 am PDT
>Regards.

Regards, sure-

maybe you just don't get it, but your review was hardly objective and was supremely unhelpful. everyone hates it. everyone.


Reply
Post Un-related Message


Page 1 of 1

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