| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.23) Date: 02/24/2001 12:11:54 pm PST I never said I don't accept that some people have a different opinion. I just disagree with yours. There is a difference. Great country isn't it? We are free to agree or disagree on anything. From politics or religion, to something as minor as what telescope is better. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.27.208) Date: 02/24/2001 02:18:42 pm PST Different country mate! Outside of the USA the scopes may not be quite as popular. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.92) Date: 02/26/2001 03:55:51 am PST I agree with the above comment. My argument was with the "1" rating given by the previous individual. His judgement was subjective and tainted by his own concept of what would justify spending the money to buy a Questar. Some people seem to want to denigrate excellence simply because they are unwilling or unable to achieve it. I drive a pickup truck and have a cheap Seiko strapped to my wrist, and they perform admirably. However, if I didn't spend a lot of money on great telescopes I probably would have a Mercedes and Rolex. I certainly would not rate Mercedes or Rolex "1" on a scale of 1-10. A Questar is an excellent, highly portable telescope. It is at the pinnacle of its class and a standard for others. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.250.68) Date: 02/26/2001 05:28:32 am PST Yes but too expensive!! It isn't a question of the amount people are willing to spend, I've spent a lot more than the price of the Questar on other telescopes, but they have been worlds apart in every respect. Superb it may be, the best in it's class, sure, but the biggest differences are mechanical rather than optical. Like I said before, this obviously doesn't come in line with your way of thinking, but to others the optics are the most important thing. If a performance to cost ratio played no part in how telescopes are rated there wouldn't be much need for forums like this. Look I'm never going to change your opinion and there's no way on this earth you're going to change mine so just accept that not everyone likes the things that you do or shares your thoughts of importance of features such as mechanics, certainly not at the premiums we're talking here. Oh and I've got a Tag Heuer and if this was a watch rating site I'd give that a 1 as well because it doesn't keep time as well as my Sekonda and was too expensive for what you get. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.141) Date: 02/26/2001 02:25:38 pm PST I've used a number of ETXs and Questars and Quantums. In my opinion the Questars outperformed the ETX in both mechanics and optics. As everyone knows, Meade occasionally gets lucky and produces a set of outstanding optics. In the Meades that my friends and I have owned, this has just not happened. I also believe that a subjective opinion about affordability has no place in a telescope rating. Everyone's financial situation is different. What will remain constant and understandable to everyone is an objective statement about how the telescope performed in the field. Did the telescope have astigmatism, or was the mount flimsy. Was there proper documentation with the scope. Did the focuser move easily. Was the scope easy to set up. These and other facts cannot be disputed. Such facts as these are stated in magazine reviews and on other internet sites. I don't care what a person thinks about affordability. My bank account will decide that. Rate a scope on how it performs and I will understand if the scope meets my needs. Telling me its "too expensive" tells me nothing. I can read a price tag just as well as anyone. Hell, if I was dirt poor I might rate Coulter as too expensive. But that would only tell you I was dirt poor, and nothing about the scope. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.124) Date: 02/26/2001 03:54:20 pm PST Sorry, I had to take a break from my rambling for dinner. Anyhow, if your experience shows that Questar has better mechanics but similar optics, then under an objective rating (all amateur scientists should strive for objectivity) ETX should be rated somewhere below Questar) In fact, that is how Questar and ETX fall out in the ratings on this site, as I mentioned before. When I was a kid, all I could afford was a department store 60mm Tasco refractor. I loved that scope and it opened my eyes up to the heavens. The mounting was a little wobbly, but it worked. What I wanted though was a Unitron. However, Unitron was a very expensive telescope and "too expensive" for my purse. If I had used your criteria for rating my Tasco against the very superior Unitron, I would have to give the Unitron a "1". What a shame. My opinion about affordability would have artificially lowered the rating of a very fine scope. Someone else in a different financial situation would certainly rate it differently. Rate a telescope objectively, with facts about the mechanics and optics and how how they relate to other scopes, and there will be meat on the table. Give me some subjective opinon that relates only to your financial situation and I will be eating air. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.250.68) Date: 02/27/2001 12:23:06 am PST My God have you got nothing better to do?! One bad rating and you all get over excited that the scope with "real US heritage" has been slurred!!! To answer your question, If I bought a Unitron and it only performed optically on a par with a scope 1/7th of the price then yeah you bet it would get a 1 as well. My ratings are based on worth as well as quality and THE QUESTAR IS OPTICALLY ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ETX!!!!! AS WAS SHOWN ON An INDEPENDANT LABORATORY ZYGO REPORT CARRIED OUT!!!! End of story, over and out. Now if you've not got much of a life you can continue talking to yourself for a while, but I'm bored of it and don't feel I have to justify my opinion any more than I already have. 1 out of 10 based on it's overall value compared to much more reasonably priced opposition. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.102) Date: 03/01/2001 05:01:18 pm PST (laughing) My God man, don't have a cow! What happened to that famous British sense of humor? By the way, I believe Meade and Questar are both US companies. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.198.92) Date: 03/05/2001 12:21:08 pm PST I wanted to get a few words in edgewise between this ranting. Obviously neither of you is able to convince the other that you are right. My view is that comparing the Questar to the ETX, mechanically and just in concept, is like comparing apples to oranges. Here are some things to think about: 1. Optical quality. Numerous reviews have shown that the ETX and Questar's optical quality is nearly equal, indistinguishable in some cases. We're talking 1/10th wave vs. 1/8 wave, about. No one but the most experienced star tester would see any difference in the optics, and only during the star test, not normal observing. So the ETX wins here, since the OTA costs less. 2. Mechanical quality. This is where the ETX doesn't have a prayer. The ETX is toylike, mechanically. The good news is that most of the flimsy plastic used in its construction is on the base, which you don't have to buy (if you get the spotter version). The bad news is that a small amount is on the OTA, like the flip mirror and focuser. But the focus is smooth and has little image shift, nearly undetectable (I've briefly looked through an ETX). In very sharp contrast to the ETX, each Questar is a little hand-crafted mechanical wonder, spared absolutely no expense. Sure, the most advanced control system is a dual axis drive and not a go-to, but so what? The target markets for the two companies couldn't be farther apart. Meade markets the ETX to the general public. In fact, the "ET" in ETX means "everyone's telescope." There are TV ads for it. It appears in many non-astronomy magazines. Jeopardy has given away lots of them as third place prizes. It's mass-produced and sold by the thousands. Then take the Questar. They have some ads in S&T and a couple other magazines, but not nearly as many as the ETX does. I'm sure that Questar would never even consider airing TV ads! Questar's market is incredibly narrow, catering to the every want of that small group of astronomers who want the absolute best in a travel scope and are willing to spend any amount of money (yes, ANY amount of money!). I'm willing to bet that Questars are built to order and star-tested by the company, and rejected if they aren't as perfect as they should be. In short, the ETX is very sufficient for most people, and a better choice if you want the spotter version with a Tele-Pod or Bogen or other photo tripod, simply because the optical quality is as good as the Questar for a much smaller price. The astro version of the ETX can even perform well enough if some minor modifications are made to the mechanics. The Questar needs no tinkering. It is nearly perfect in every respect, and trying to improve upon it would more than likely do some damage. It is a scope that you can buy now and know that it will still be one of your favorite telescopes 50 years from now. I doubt someone can say that for the ETX. After all, why else would there be multiple ETXs for sale on Astromart for very low prices whereas I have never seen a single Questar for sale? I hope this helps everyone see a little straighter. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.70.91) Date: 03/09/2001 08:09:58 am PST Very expensive toy! It wont stop CRIME or lead to the SECOND COMING! Sorry. I know! I miss the point! jw First Prev Page 2 of 7 Next Last | ||||||||
