| Info | Votes | Messages | More Stats |
 Up One Level
|
 | ||||
Subject: Re: vote by Thompson By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.102.47) Date: 03/21/2002 02:27:08 am PST IMHO you're absolutely and definitely and totally and 100% wrong. The Rigel works simply great ... I never ever went into the "parallax" problem you're describing and I'm using it for more than a year now on my dob. Some people say the batteries are more expensive - I never had to change it though I must admit, that I always switch it off when I don't use it. I'm not used to a Telrad - this may be the reason that I never missed the 4 degreee circle. Considering the size, weight and it's "unsensitivity" to humid nights I wonder why the Telrad still sells. The bottom line: One of the best accessories I ever spend my money for. Subject: rigel quickfinder By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.60.78) Date: 03/23/2002 03:19:54 pm PST I have both a Telrad and a Rigel Quickfinder on two of my scopes. I do prefer the Telrad better but the Rigel is a fine product. It is much lighter than the Telrad so if you are worried about balance, the Rigel is the one to get. It does have more parallax than the Telrad but it doesn't really bother me. I never use the blinking feature of the rigel. I tend to hit the rigel more and knock it off the scope. It never damages it though. Also, the dimmer knob on the rigel is hard to turn in tghe cold. All in all though, you can't go wrong with either the telrad or the rigel quickfinder Subject: Re: vote by Thompson By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.253.115) In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.102.47) (Original Message) Date: 09/08/2002 07:37:58 pm PST >IMHO you're absolutely and definitely and totally and 100% wrong. The Rigel works simply great ... I never ever went into the "parallax" problem you're describing and I'm using it for more than a year now on my dob. Some people say the batteries are more expensive - I never had to change it though I must admit, that I always switch it off when I don't use it. I'm not used to a Telrad - this may be the reason that I never missed the 4 degreee circle. Considering the size, weight and it's "unsensitivity" to humid nights I wonder why the Telrad still sells. The bottom line: One of the best accessories I ever spend my money for. Telrads still sell because they are preferred by alot of people over the Rigel..... I have two Terads and one Rigel. The Telrads are on my scopes (an 8" Dob and a MN 76 in a carbon fiber OTA) and the Rigel is in my "extra stuff" junk box. :^) Want it? Subject: Rigel Quickfinder By: viperbob Date: 01/01/2003 05:47:55 am PST I can't believe that someone would leave there quickfinder in the Junk box. Let Me say send it to me and let me put it on my LX-90 and then rate it and i'll post the resutls here. To be truthful I don't own a Telrad so I can't compare. But the Rigel has been made for years and seems to be as popular as the Telrad. Hope i've not made anyone mad at me..... viperbob@earthlink.net Subject: Re: vote by Thompson By: viperbob In Reply to: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.253.115) (Original Message) Date: 01/01/2003 05:50:09 am PST >>IMHO you're absolutely and definitely and totally and 100% wrong. The Rigel works simply great ... I never ever went into the "parallax" problem you're describing and I'm using it for more than a year now on my dob. Some people say the batteries are more expensive - I never had to change it though I must admit, that I always switch it off when I don't use it. I'm not used to a Telrad - this may be the reason that I never missed the 4 degreee circle. Considering the size, weight and it's "unsensitivity" to humid nights I wonder why the Telrad still sells. The bottom line: One of the best accessories I ever spend my money for. > >Telrads still sell because they are preferred by alot of people over the Rigel..... I have two Terads and one Rigel. The Telrads are on my scopes (an 8" Dob and a MN 76 in a carbon fiber OTA) and the Rigel is in my "extra stuff" junk box. :^) Want it? Sure I'll take it :-) Take it out of your junk box and send it to me. I'll use it on my LX-90. Looking for one anyway. viperbob@earthlink.net Subject: Re: vote by Thompson By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.52.142) Date: 08/26/2003 10:11:21 am PST I purchased a Rigel as an replacement to the piece of pipe I was using as a finder, so my basis of comparison is limited. However, I also have noticed the object shifting at times in relation to the finder; but I think I know why. I use both eyes while sighting and don't always use my dominate(sp) eye through the finder. I have to test this but it seems that if I were to superimpose the outside dominate eye with the red target, I would get such a shift. M. Lout >The sine qua non of a finder is that it should make it easy to find things. The Rigel falls down badly in two respects with regard to this requirement: > >First, as an earlier reviewer mentioned, the parallax is terrible. If you have your eye in just a slightly different location than when you aligned the Rigel, it's quite possible for an object that appears centered in the Rigel to be outside the field of view of even a medium-power eyepiece. > Subject: Re: vote by xxx.xxx.192.26 By: Anonymous (xxx.xxx.158.7) Date: 04/23/2004 10:33:55 am PST I bought mine in 2000 to replace the el cheapo 6x30 finder on my 8" Dob. I am still using the original battery. No complaints at all. It gets a bit dewy, but so did the finder scope. I made a cover out of a small box to keep the dew off when not actually using it. The so-called parrallax problem mentioned by some reviews does not exist in my experience. Some may prefer the 4 deg. outer circle of the Telrad, but for me, the lighter weight and higher profile of the QF was preferable. I bought a second one for my TV101. I use the mounting tape with no problems. There was one situation that I thought a dot-finder was better. I have a 5" f/12 refractor and stuck a QF mount above the EQ head. I wanted to be able to use the finder either from the position of the EQ lock controls of from the eypiece. At the eyepiece, however, I was so far from the QF that the circles appeared bigger than the window. In that situation the Stellarvue dot-finder was better because the dot looks like a dot from both vantage points. Otherwise the QF is the favorite. Page 1 of 1 | ||||||||
