Jump to content


Photo

Questar Opinion

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
236 replies to this topic

#101 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6194
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:06 PM

Now that is what I like. An abjective opinion that actually that I agree with. As good as they are I would never spend $6400 on one. I would buy a high quality refractor for $6400.
 

#102 strdst

strdst

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3956
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Oregon Territory

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:07 PM

Just had some enchanting Jupiter observing with my 90 mm equivalent of the Q 90, ETX 90, C-90... My Royal Astro (Sears 6345) 90mm x 1400mm. Set up time was a few seconds which gave me a few minutes of wow time before the freezing fog screamed in. In my hood it isn't aperture as much as freaking moisture way high or way low that controls the experience.

As I thought my Apo is still more expensive than that Questar. Hell my 90mm classic Achro is way more expensive than than that Questar. :lol:
 

#103 EJN

EJN

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2241
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: 53 miles west of Venus

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:37 PM

I will never, ever in this lifetime or the next own a dobsonion telescope of any size, shape, color, or make. For those who do and will, fine for them. Not for me.


I started out in amateur astronomy in the late 60's. When I first saw pictures of
the San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers Dobsonians in Sky & Telescope in 1973, I
thought it was some kind of a joke. Cardboard tubes? Plywood altazimuth mounts?
A "serious" scope was a Cave or a Unitron.

In 1976, I was at the Grand Canyon and the SFSA were set up there, 2 12" scopes, an
18", and the 24." It was clear that night, and when I climbed the ladder to look
through the 24" at M13 I nearly fell off the ladder. To say the view was spectacular
is an understatement. So cardboard scopes with plywood mounts weren't snake oil
after all. Needless to say I became a huge proponent of the Dobsonian design.

But 37 years later, I'm not young anymore and value portability and quick
setup. But an 8" dob fits that bill perfectly.


 

#104 greedyshark

greedyshark

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2005
  • Loc: 3rd Rock

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:50 PM

Is this a great forum or what?! :rockon:

Charles
 

#105 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:54 PM

Just a thought...

I don't know how many times I've seen computer gamers spend thousands on computers, only to give them away for pennies on the dollar a few short years later. Good for me, good for them (I guess), and good for the companies that build computers. Win, win, win, I guess. Of course, if the original buyer held out a little too long, the computers weren't even worth giving away.

That Questar, however, even though it looked like it spent the better part of its life at the bottom of a well, still brought close to its original purchase price.

I guess it's all just a matter of perspective...

Bill
 

#106 Datapanic

Datapanic

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3292
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Tucson, Arizona

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:54 PM

Is this a great forum or what?! :rockon:

Charles


I think so - we survived a Questar vs. Everything thread quite well, so far :)
 

#107 Joe Bergeron

Joe Bergeron

    Vendor - Space Art

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1634
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2003
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:15 AM

There is a lot of imagination, beginning with "resolution." The C5 will easily out resolve the Questar, good though the Questar's optics might be. That's optics, and there is no way around it. I'd suggest you're unclear about the definition of "resolution," which is a function of aperture. ;)


I believe resolution is a function of aperture and optical quality. Your assumption is that the C5 is as well made as the Questar. That may not be the case. If aperture was the only consideration, I could resurrect some old 13.1" Coulter and have a cheap planetary telescope twice as good as my 6" refractor. Somehow I doubt it would work out that way.

As for image brightness…you appear to be assuming that the ETX has coatings equal to the Questar's on all surfaces. Maybe this is the the case. Maybe not.
 

#108 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5232
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: The Bluegrass State

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:45 AM

:like: :bow:
 

#109 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5232
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: The Bluegrass State

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:47 AM

:lalalala:
 

#110 Mike E.

Mike E.

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2395
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Moonstone Observatory

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:49 AM

Is this a great forum or what?! :rockon:

Charles


Yes indeed, and Questar threads brighten my day. :)
 

#111 Mike E.

Mike E.

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2395
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Moonstone Observatory

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:57 AM

Vindication involves facts...not opinion. If I think looking through a toilet paper tube is better than a Questar then it is for me. As for me less than an 6" scope of any brand or sort is basically a waste of time.


For those who have evolved beyond toilet tubes, or prefer more aperture, Questar has a 7" solution.

Attached Files


 

#112 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6194
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:48 AM

Yes, this is a great forum as long as we keep our opinions related to the equipment and not to the person making them :bangbangbang: :bangbangbang:
 

#113 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6194
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:55 AM

Look at the 10" mak that Astro Physics made a few of. That scope is so good that people stand in line for a chance to buy it at almost any price. Once again it is not about aperture ruling the day. It is about the quality of the optics and the build of the equipment. As long as I can afford excellent optics that is what I am going to buy. The other scopes that have been mentioned are good scopes and do provide the best bang of the money being spent. Not to go off subject. I tell people it does now matter in what kind of car you get from point a to point b, if it gets you there you love the car. scopes are the same way. As long as you can see a decent image you love it and that is what matters.
 

#114 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:31 AM

The great violinist Isaac Stern once commented on the multi-million dollar violins made by the old masters that the importance of the violin is not so much how it sounds to the audience, but in how the violinist responds to the violin.

Bill
 

#115 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6194
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:34 AM

That is one beautiful scope and also has been debated to death being compared to other scopes of similar aperture.
 

#116 Joe Cepleur

Joe Cepleur

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2056
  • Joined: 18 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Dark North Woods

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:25 AM

The great violinist Isaac Stern once commented on the multi-million dollar violins made by the old masters that the importance of the violin is not so much how it sounds to the audience, but in how the violinist responds to the violin.


Hadn't heard that one from Stern, but I know it's true. Continuing the analogy with telescopes, there is a double-pass, auto-collimation test for violins. The same musician will play many violins behind a screen, so the jurors can not see which is being heard. This has proven beyond doubt that many modern violins of comparatively low cost sound as well or better than the old masters. Many people refuse to believe this, in violins as in telescopes.

I'd rather view through an okay telescope with someone who is a real master of the skies than through the finest scope with someone who knows nothing. A C90 pointed at the planets or the Orion Nebula surely shows more than a Questar pointed at nothing. Silly comment, I suppose, because only connoisseurs buy Questars.

With apologies for having lost the link, I once read that there were quality control issues with the ETX90. If that source were correct, good ones were as good as claimed, but many were terrible. Looking at the C90's passage from Torrence to Japan to Taiwan and then China, there are likely a variety of qualities with those also. There may be lesser Questars, but likely fewer of them. Taken together, a mass of mediocre low-cost scopes amidst a rare and typically excellent exotic could create the impression that magic rules, not physics. Truth is likely that, optically, a good ETX90 or C90 is a lot like a Questar, but finding a good Questar is a lot less of a roll of the dice.

This would not explain DaveG's experience testing the ETX versus the Questar, but he may have been lucky with his selection of ETXs. Put it this way: If Questar were to machine ETXs and C90s to their standards, and choose their optics with equal care, those Questar-ETXs and Questar-C90s would be the equal of real-world Questars on the double-pass, auto-collimation stand. The physics says so. The main difference in real-world Questars is the quality of the build, and its consistency... not to mention the jewel-like quality that makes so many of us want one!
 

#117 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2330
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

The great violinist Isaac Stern once commented on the multi-million dollar violins made by the old masters that the importance of the violin is not so much how it sounds to the audience, but in how the violinist responds to the violin.



There's a reason those rare violins command such high prices: rarity and unfailing quality of tone. While it's true that any of the few great solo violinists at the top of their professions could probably squeeze commendable performance out of a lesser instrument, they choose not to. Name one of them who doesn't play a world-class fiddle.

My father was privileged for a few years to play a borrowed Guarneri Del Jesu (the de Beriot, 1744), one of the fifteen premier instruments which was compared in the Glory of Cremona study and featured on the recording. He could certainly tell the difference between it and the instruments he otherwise owned and played, and so could those who heard it in concert. He also had recurring nightmares about losing it in strange places while on tour.
 

#118 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:19 PM

Here is a Link to a website that contains mp3 files of the program I was referring to if you're interested. They're from a BBC program where various violins were compared in a blind test.

Bill
 

#119 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6194
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:43 PM

http://www.princeton...images/Questar/

there pics were taken by a 3.5 inch questar. I think I can rest my case.
 

#120 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:06 PM

My father was privileged for a few years to play a borrowed Guarneri Del Jesu (the de Beriot, 1744), one of the fifteen premier instruments which was compared in the Glory of Cremona study and featured on the recording. He could certainly tell the difference between it and the instruments he otherwise owned and played, and so could those who heard it in concert. He also had recurring nightmares about losing it in strange places while on tour.


I can't even imagine the responsibility that would go along with something of that magnitude. I can say that I've only been privileged on one occasion to hear an original Stradivarius in concert. It truly was a magical performance.

Bill
 

#121 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:19 PM

Starman, or Johann if I may call you this - relax, the storm has passed. Besides, those who understand need no explanation. Those who don't, unfortunately, probably never will.

I might add that I used to ride Harleys (again, no apologies) and still would, if not for certain health problems.

Bill
 

#122 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6194
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:58 PM

I would have rode Harleys also except for one thing. I love speed and I knew I would kill myself. So I kept to fast cars that would allow me to live anotherday if I crashed. One thing I have learned after all these years. You buy a product built by a master at their art you get quality results that only a master in their craft can provide. Does not matter what in life you obtain. If you follow that rule you will always be happy. I feel lucky that God is a master at what he provides and he finally blessed me with a partner that is truly a master at providing me with happiness. I wish that all my fellow astronomers are blessed with happiness in their views of the heavens and good health.
 

#123 kansas skies

kansas skies

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 491
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • Loc: Kansas, USA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:05 PM

:waytogo:
 

#124 Compressorguy

Compressorguy

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Clayton, NC

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:25 PM

AMEN! To that.
 

#125 greedyshark

greedyshark

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2005
  • Loc: 3rd Rock

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:42 PM

Yep.

Charles
 






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics