| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.140.35) Date: 12/20/1999 09:11:44 am PST I wish I had one. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.211.248) Date: 09/11/2000 09:19:17 am PST Is this a real scope or just a yuppie toy? I'm sure it's nice, but is it really 7.5 times better than an ETX? Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.37) Date: 10/06/2000 05:27:41 pm PST Not only is a Questar 7.5 times better than an ETX, it will also last 7.5 times longer. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.67.250) Date: 11/06/2000 01:58:37 pm PST a questar may last 7.5 times more but are you gona last that long Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.121) Date: 02/23/2001 05:10:34 pm PST The individual who made the last comment just doesn't get it. If you want to see a complete discussion of the ETX and Questar, see www.cloudynights.com. The review shows how Questar won hands down under actual observing conditions. You get what you pay for, period. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.24.209) Date: 02/24/2001 04:39:37 am PST I don't need to read what other people's opinions are on this as my own opinions are made up from seeing them side by side in action. I get it completely and if you read my post properly you'd see that I said if you want the best mechanics then this could be for you, but that doesn't make it overly superior optically in fact far from it, I trust a Zygo report more than I trust a Questar user who's trying to justify the ridiculous money he's paid. You pay your 3 and a half grand if you want I would personally prefer to buy a better telescope for less money, so if my opinion differs from yours then you'd better just learn to live with it. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.24.209) Date: 02/24/2001 04:58:30 am PST Just out of interest I read the cloudynight review, and so a few snippets. "Near the terminator, I honestly could detect no difference in the two images at the highest power (270X-Q, 280X-ETX, 4.8 Nagler)." "So, at this point I am still impressed with the ETX's optics. Yet, I am more than ever pleased with the usability of the Questar." "The ETX has truly wonderful optics, but is hardly durable. (Again not a good comparison in any way but the optics.)" So surprise surprise the biggest difference is mechanics - and so it should be better mechanically you're paying 3 grand more!! For many people though, optical quality is what counts and the review showed that there wasn't much difference. He also goes onto mention that on one particular night a C5 out-performed it!!! Admittedly on another night the Questar had the upper hand but it certainly shows it doesn't even have a definite advantage over a mass produced SCT!! Get what you pay for?!? Yeah right!! Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.113) Date: 02/24/2001 05:46:25 am PST Take a look at the ETX review page on this site. With 88 reviews the ETX gets a 8.03. Complaints are about mountings AND OPTICS. Questar gets 9.15 even with your obviously biased 1 rating. Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.155.113) Date: 02/24/2001 05:50:33 am PST By the way, somehow forgot to mention the most important statement in the Cloudynights review. HE BOUGHT A QUESTAR! Subject: Moved Message By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.32.208) Date: 02/24/2001 10:17:13 am PST Why don't you just accept that some people might not like things that you do, I accept that you like the Questar and I accept that it is obviously mechanically superior. I also believe that the difference isn't worth 7 times the cost for a telescope severely limited by its aperture that is VERY close optically to a scope 1/7th of the price. It'd be a pretty boring place if we all had the same opinion wouldn't it. My "obviously bias" mark remains as my comparisons and opinions are worth as much as yours. Page 1 of 7 Next Last | ||||||||
