Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Announcements and News >> Discussion of CN Articles, Reviews, and Reports

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
maknewtnut
Member
*****

Reged: 10/08/06

Re: EIGHT-INCH SHOOTOUT new [Re: star drop]
      #5514152 - 11/11/12 09:35 AM

Well written review and well executed comparison.

Having been a long time proponent of the Russian Maks, Larry's article brings up a point I've been following for a few years now. That issue is image brightness. I've been very curious about the possiblity that I-M's coatings may have changed over the years, as this difference was not one mentioned in reviews and comparisons of earlier model Intes and Intes-Micro Maks.

It leads me to want to test a theory as it might be easy to do. Recoating a primary mirror (and secondary in a Newt based design) is relatively easy, so if there are folks who have done so with I-M scopes made over the past 5 years or so, please let me (or the entire community) know if you noticed any change to apparent reflectivity of your system after doing so.

A comment on Mauro's assertion that Larry's methods (and thereby, results) were flawed by not pushing mag higher... IMO, leading folks towards mags that exceed common standards leans towards bad advice. I realize doing so was not offered as advice, but rather as discussion of methodology. Still, we must always remember that most reading forums and reviews do so to gain knowledge, or at least glean opinions of others. Many may also take away what they believe to be insight on improving their observing experience.

Pushing mag higher than that which provides sharp detail and contrast is IMO, bad advice. Al Nagler's opinon on choosing the right mag for the right object is still sound advice.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: EIGHT-INCH SHOOTOUT new [Re: Larry Carlino]
      #5514368 - 11/11/12 12:06 PM

Quote:

Mauro,
If you would please re-read my last response, you will see that I DID use magnifications of 400-500x and found the results to be the same as for those obtained at 240x(30x per inch of aperture). This was not mentioned in the original review as I wanted to give an impression of the telescopes' performance at powers normally used under mediocre seeing conditions, something, unfortunately, many of us in the NE U.S. are plagued with. I stand by my original conclusions.
I absolutely did not say or imply that visual acuity compensates for poor seeing conditions. Excellent visual acuity, however, DOES allow the use of somewhat lower magnification to obtain the desired angular resolution. That is a scientific fact.




Larry,

Ibe been a fan of yourt reviewsd for a while, indeed it helped me with a Celestron 6SE purchase. My question here is that higher visual acuyity can make for better discerning of details at the eyepiece. In my experience, unless we are talking about astigmatism or some retinal issues, the telescope accomodates all near and far sightedness and with no loss or gain either way.

Without contacts Im very near sighted, not nutty, but I need correction. That said, at the eyepiece all is crisp and cut so long as the sky allows it and the thermal gods arew held at bay.

Please clarify.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
azure1961p
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/17/09

Loc: USA
Re: EIGHT-INCH SHOOTOUT new [Re: cheapersleeper]
      #5514397 - 11/11/12 12:27 PM

Quote:

This venue is not a scientific journal and you are not "peer reviewing" this piece.




One of the effective things about a forum like this is it does "peer review" things, if "peer" means merely another amateur astronomer. The open fuzzy forum that welcomes all and doesnt question and merely hangs its head in quiet gratitude is serving no one, particularly anyone new in the hobby who isnt informed enough to realize some thigns presented are plain wrong. I dumped ALPO's Strolling Astronomer when it became clear all submitted observations and sketches were being published and a whopping fraction of it was unadulterated baloney, the ashen light sightings, ad nauseum, radial spokes on saturn via a 6" reflector at 150x. It became a festival of silliness seemin gly all in the name of keeping readership and heaven forbid if they turn away a patently false or erroneous observation.

Clearly Carlino has submitted nothing false or misleading and some folks have raised fair question in the nature of the comparisons and Id rather have it this way. Peer review in any forum really is unavoidable and shouldnt be avoided. So long as the countering opinions or raised questions are fair and polite its all fairgame.

Ive seen the other non-peer reviewed alternativer and its so silly it makes the good irrelevant if only because what is wrong is so glaring.

Again I enjoyed Larry piece and have with his other things, merely commenting on what I think is appropriate in terms of reply and counter opinion.

Pete


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  iceblaze 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 7283

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics