Jump to content


Photo

Apo Refractor vs. Questar

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 jca345

jca345

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2013
  • Loc: SE Pennsylvania

Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:45 PM

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=THV1OEKqw98

*BLEEP*...

I love my Apo, but I wouldn't turn down a nice view through anything!

#2 Geo31

Geo31

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Kingwood, TX

Posted 26 November 2013 - 07:01 PM

OMG, that's about right.

#3 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: St. Louis area

Posted 27 November 2013 - 05:31 AM

That is a classic. I think it would be cool to have a questar, but it's pretty hard to drop a lot of money on one new or used. Almost more of a piece of art to me than something I would regularly use.

#4 A6Q6

A6Q6

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 31 May 2011
  • Loc: Stroudsburg,Pa,U.S.A

Posted 27 November 2013 - 03:08 PM

Yes, it is a classic that's always fun to watch. :grin:

#5 StarStuff1

StarStuff1

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3847
  • Joined: 01 Apr 2007
  • Loc: South of the Mason-Dixon Line

Posted 27 November 2013 - 06:13 PM

The first time I looked through a Questar was about 30 years ago. Seeing a diffraction ring around Regulus with such a small scope was an unexpected treat.

#6 Billytk

Billytk

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1274
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2012
  • Loc: Geneva, Fl.

Posted 27 November 2013 - 07:18 PM

I had one briefly. It was beautiful.

Attached Files



#7 Eric P

Eric P

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 489
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2005

Posted 28 November 2013 - 03:53 PM

lol... I made that a few years ago. Literally scripted from the endless bickering on the old SAA news group.
  • A6Q6 and khendrix2 like this

#8 kkokkolis

kkokkolis

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2089
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Piraeus, Greece

Posted 28 November 2013 - 04:05 PM

On that video I see what we should never do with beginners.
We are all beginners one way or another as we evolve in the hoobby and we expand our activities in several branches of it.

#9 dyslexic nam

dyslexic nam

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2008
  • Loc: PEI, Canada

Posted 28 November 2013 - 05:29 PM

That is pretty funny. Though my kids were (and still are) looking over my shoulder and were a bit disappointed...

#10 WOBentley

WOBentley

    Deep Sky Denizen

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2174
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest USA

Posted 28 November 2013 - 07:32 PM

I agree that as an experienced adult it is somewhat funny, but it needs to be seen as an example of how not to approach Astronomy for Beginners IMHO.

#11 Paco_Grande

Paco_Grande

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Joined: 14 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Banana Republic of California

Posted 28 November 2013 - 09:25 PM

I don't find the video humorous at all. No one in their right mind would hold such a conversation, and if they did, well, I say you need to get a life. No one cares what kind of telescope you own! :lol:

#12 orion61

orion61

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4500
  • Joined: 20 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk

Posted 28 November 2013 - 10:09 PM

WELL, Tho it's not a great thing here in the beginners, I find it to be astonishingly true! I believe I laughed my way through that thread.. Unfortunately in life, there are those that live to rub it in to people who have "less". My car is more expensive, my House is bigger etc." It is even worse in the Camera forums. That video really hit a home run to me.
It is too bad it offends some people, but I have actually had my old 8" F6 Meade Sono-tube Newtonian LAUGHED AT, and made fun of, by a person like that at a Star party! Even tho it blew away the views through their scope.. I have owned both a Questar and an expensive APO, they are flat out beautiful!
I couldn't justify the cost per inch of performance.
And like someone said, "It is pretty heartbreaking, seeing a Refractor you would die to own, being used as a Finder on a large Dob" That is a direct quote.
Unfortunately our Society applauds Narcissistic, materialistic, tendency..
That video was just plain FUNNY, it's just a good thing the VAST majority of people here don't act like that!
But it does prepare newcomers for a lesson in life.

#13 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 28 November 2013 - 11:06 PM

I don't find the video humorous at all. No one in their right mind would hold such a conversation, and if they did, well, I say you need to get a life. No one cares what kind of telescope you own! :lol:


Haha. You don't visit the refractor and questar forums then. That was typical convo. I find the video funny because it is really mirroring some threads I've seen.

#14 rdandrea

rdandrea

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2860
  • Joined: 13 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Colorado, USA DM59ra

Posted 29 November 2013 - 12:13 AM

I find the video funny because it is really mirroring some threads I've seen.


Yep.

#15 Zedwardson

Zedwardson

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2013

Posted 29 November 2013 - 12:34 AM

Funny enough, if you where to get the same views from a $400 dollar scope, and a $4000 dollar Scope, I would be more impressed with the $400 dollar one.

#16 SpooPoker

SpooPoker

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2013
  • Loc: North Bay CA

Posted 29 November 2013 - 02:39 AM

*** Happy Thanksgiving folks from a tipsy man at a keyboard. I am supposed to be going outside to look at Jupiter, my wife says it is good seeing but I prefer a good old rant ****

WELL, Tho it's not a great thing here in the beginners, I find it to be astonishingly true! I believe I laughed my way through that thread.. Unfortunately in life, there are those that live to rub it in to people who have "less". My car is more expensive, my House is bigger etc." It is even worse in the Camera forums. That video really hit a home run to me.
It is too bad it offends some people, but I have actually had my old 8" F6 Meade Sono-tube Newtonian LAUGHED AT, and made fun of, by a person like that at a Star party! Even tho it blew away the views through their scope.. I have owned both a Questar and an expensive APO, they are flat out beautiful!
I couldn't justify the cost per inch of performance.
And like someone said, "It is pretty heartbreaking, seeing a Refractor you would die to own, being used as a Finder on a large Dob" That is a direct quote.
Unfortunately our Society applauds Narcissistic, materialistic, tendency..
That video was just plain FUNNY, it's just a good thing the VAST majority of people here don't act like that!
But it does prepare newcomers for a lesson in life.


It is a disgrace that someone shows another disrespect over something as vainglorious as equipment.

It is very very common problem with folks that get a branded item and then try turn it into a religion, vangloriously telling others to follow suit, etc etc...

In archery 3D, I was shooting with an old 2005 bow and got ribbed that my bow was a piece of "insert expletive". You have to shoot Mathews or Bowtech he says. Guns = same deal, my gun is bigger than yours. My truck is bigger than yours. I even once lived in a neighborhood where I carefully landscaped my front lawn and within 6 weeks at least two other neighbors followed suit with something more elaborate - I suppose one cannot exist on this little planet unless you are showing yourself to be one better / one up on another. I can understand this attitude / dog eat dog mentality when professional careers are at stake, but outside of "survival instinct", what does it matter if someone has a nicer garden or truck or rifle or telescope than another?

There is also a placebo like effect involved in luxury goods / purchases (or what is considered by ones peers as being the cream of the crop). I just finished reading a pile of drivel about how one fellow paid a large amount of money on a Unitron (a well respected vintage brand marketing Japanese made long focal length achromats). Pleased as punch, he went on about how great this scope was and how utterly fabulous the images appeared through the eyepiece, rubbing the noses of those reading about how these images were running neck and neck with the best scopes of today and yesteryear. The scope? A 50mm achromat, a complete waste of metal, plastic and glass Unitron sold as a kids scope back in the 1950's. Needless to say, fueled by a "Model Railway Club" mentality, happy at his score (because he has it and few other people have it), he conveys asinine misconceptions to the public that somehow a 50mm Unitron is worthwhile to own. I believe him that the images were wonderful - it is like a placebo effect. He paid a bunch of money on an old kid's scope, he was convinced beforehand that Unitron represented the best out there, and henceforth his observations would confirm his beliefs. I have looked through a variety of Unitron's, and outside of their 6" f/15, 4" f/15 and 76mm f/16, all of their scopes are totally overrated. The 50mm scope they marketed was absolutely awful and virtually unusable. The 60mm model 114 was also a particularly poor scope.

Funny enough, if you where to get the same views from a $400 dollar scope, and a $4000 dollar Scope, I would be more impressed with the $400 dollar one.


I would expect the optics and focuser to be better in a more expensive scope. Whether the stars / objects will see a $3600 difference is another matter - maybe slightly better maybe not. Such expensive rigs, particularly at small aperture, are perhaps more inclined towards astrophotography where details are shown that the human eye cannot detect. I only say this because I did a bit of observing through a guy's 4" Takahashi APO and while the quality and images were wonderful through the eyepiece, I was not convinced this 4" scope really was much better than other cheaper 4" examples out there (i.e. an Orion 4" ED). Perhaps in better than 1" seeing or astrophotography the high end Takahashi may flex its muscles a little better than the much cheaper Orion.

Brand names, one must be careful. A lot of the cost is not on the craftmanship or components. Example, go to Saks, grab a Gucci suit costing $3K. You will notice it is a quality suit but... go to a Brooks Brother store, grab a Golden Fleece suit (not seen in brand *BLEEP* circles as being a major luxury brand) marked at $1.8K and note that the suit has the same quality. Easy to tell - look at the material (what kind of wool), the pick stitching, the canvassing, and it is quickly apparent the Brooks Brothers and Gucci suit are made to the same standard, except one costing a heck of a lot less than the other at retail. We will ignore the aesthetic aspects such as cut, lapel style, venting, and fit in this example.

Brand Names :- the workmanship and craft may be first rate, but another brand can match that for far cheaper. It begs the question where did the overhead go?

I am sure the same analogy applies to telescopes. That is not to say a Takahashi or Astrophysics is not worth the investment or have their equals, but it would not surprise me if both companies were selling something that could be made to same standard at half the price. Both are name brands, make no question about it. Astronomers want an Astrophysics for the same reason a banker wants a $7K Hermes suit or Louis Vuitton Briefcase. Great quality and craftmanship, but totally and utterly overpriced. It is pure branding and the customer is paying to wear / use that brand. An optician could hypothetically be so skilled so as to blow the quality to another prestigious level - yet many astronomer's would rather use the branded equipment that all their friends and peers are telling them to get. The way it goes, even if practically it makes no sense.

I would be highly interested in a poll: Takahashi have a high quality scope figured to 1/30wave ever so slightly undercorrected for example. Mark, a small bespoke maker in London, has a similar scope figured to 1/100th wave and perfectly corrected. Both scopes have similar quality build(i.e. focuser, metal, flocking, baffles etc). Price wise, Mark's scope sells for $2500, and Takahashi's scope retails at $3900. My bet would be at least 80% of folks would go to the brand name, even though Mark's scope is cheaper and better.

#17 drago

drago

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Latvia

Posted 29 November 2013 - 04:20 AM

very agree with you

#18 drago

drago

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Latvia

Posted 29 November 2013 - 04:29 AM

you write very large texts.
all that can be say very short: tendency to flaunt, boast based on a goods they have, in a very large degree, is a plebes, negligible, small peoples attribute. he measure all to a money or social statuses, because he not have and cannot imagine any another.
and there is also a great thing - a Sturgeon's Law - "ninety percent of everything is *BLEEP*." - it is work on peoples too. sadly, but that's it this world...

#19 A6Q6

A6Q6

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 753
  • Joined: 31 May 2011
  • Loc: Stroudsburg,Pa,U.S.A

Posted 29 November 2013 - 05:13 AM

Man, there is nothing like a Questar or Brandon thread to get people going. :lol: You'd think they were related. But wait! Questar uses Brandon eyepieces. :foreheadslap: We will never change how others act toward each other. But you and I can only try to do our best. It seems the quality of optics from a $400 dob from China have been very good lately. But the telescope can be the size of a hot water heater. The Quester is the closest thing to having something you can put in you back pocket. I don't see much difference in the cry, "get a dob get a dob" for every answer about what telescope to buy, then if I said get a Questar. Its a point of view. ;)

#20 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43431
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 29 November 2013 - 07:13 AM

I don't see much difference in the cry, "get a dob get a dob" for every answer about what telescope to buy, then if I said get a Questar.



The difficulty with the Questar is that as a telescope, it is very expensive for what you get. A 90mm Maksutov-Cassegrain, no matter how perfect, is still a 90mm Maksutov Cassegrain with limited resolution, limited field of view, limited contrast.

jon

#21 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 29 November 2013 - 07:43 AM

I think of a dob as a standard first scope because of cost effectiveness with mass produced type dobs. I think of Questar as a connoisseur scope you would buy after some years in the hobby. Same with an equivalent expense Apo. Something you buy after spending a few years to see if you are going to be in it enough to spend like that.

Same with the funny animation. The longer you been around the hobby and talking with other equipment enthusiasts, the more you'll get exactly what they are saying to each other and the funnier it seems.

When I first saw a Questar and the price they charge, I thought, now there's something I would never buy. A little scope on an odd looking base for so much money.

After some time I'm still not ready to spend, but the thought of owning one becomes more intriguing. If I had the disposable income, I think I might like a small well crafted telescope that was also beautiful enough to use as a decorative piece in your home. I could see myself getting a lot of use from that small scope.

:cool:

#22 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 43431
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:00 AM

I think of Questar as a connoisseur scope you would buy after some years in the hobby. Same with an equivalent expense Apo.



For what it's worth...

Optically, an apo can do things no other scope can, the short focal length combined with the 2 inch focuser and color free optics, an apo can be an excellent all around performer, from the lowest magnifications and widest fields to the highest powers possible for a given aperture. This is not the case with the Questar.

I see the Questar as a dilettante's scope more than an observer's scope.

Jon

#23 drago

drago

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Latvia

Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:01 AM

I think of a dob as a standard first scope because of cost effectiveness with mass produced type dobs. I think of Questar as a connoisseur scope you would buy after some years in the hobby. Same with an equivalent expense Apo.



i think, questar buying in no accordance of years in astronomy and so on - it is more to buy a cult thing, like as a fine 1800's gun not shown for selfdefense or so on - there always are a more efficient, and far cheapier solutions for that.
as i understand, questar 3.5" is about 3000 USD?
you can buy a 4" apo, who outperform that questar in all ways, except a its status, and thing, for example, an Arthur Clarke see in one of that questars - and that apo pricey in only a fraction of that questar - about an 600 - 1200 USD in average, as i understand?

#24 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3034
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: St. Louis area

Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:19 AM

I think of questars as being more a piece of art than something you'd want to use too much. It really is a beautiful scope if one was on a desk or something. Kind of like those old school brass telescopes which are mostly for decoration. They still work, but are generally for show.

As far as observing goes I'd take a refractor. But it would be fun to do a side by side.

#25 Vondragonnoggin

Vondragonnoggin

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4884
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Southern CA, USA

Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:23 AM

I bet by the time this thread is done, there will be enough material to make another funny animation.

;)






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics