Quote:

---

I'm guessing you eiher haven't used an ETX and a Questar side by side, or your ETX was run over by a truck.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I've seen M42 through both a Questar and a C5. The Questar won hands down. It was a good C5 and an average view of M42. The Questar presented what I could only characterize as superb. The contrast, definition, resolution of the trapezium, was handsdown, head and shoulders above the C5 view. Sure, you might see a few more faint fuzzys with a somewhat a larger aperture but you won't be seeing them through a Questar. Of course you won't be spending as much money either.

Terra

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Vindicated again
And the C90 has one of the worst reputations of any small scope.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have had both the cheap ETX-90, the C5 the C6 and Meade 5" scope and they were all your typical optics from a third rate vendor. I bought an ETX when they first came out thinking oh boy here is a scope that they claim is the equal of a questar. I never laughed so hard after I looked through a couple. Surprised they did not sell a bottle of snake oil with it.
It is kind of like comparing a Telementor to a Meade 60mm refractor.
The larger optics of the C5 might show more fuzzies, but I like to resolve what I am looking at rather then imagine what I am seeing. It sounds like there is a lot of imagination here rather then straight facts about the quality of really good optics versus aperture. brighter object because of increase in aperture does not mean you are resolving the object. I would suspect your brain is doing the resolving rather then the second rate optics.

---

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.

Edited by rmollise (02/17/13 06:29 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I am surprised you have made this claim that the ETX is equal optically to the Questar. That's a first for me.

Haven't used them side by side. Uncertain about the truck. But I do know dim when I see it, and the ETX is dim. There is something so lame about that - some scopes just seem so bright and perky. The best thing about the ETX I have is the pretty paint. In fact, it makes a better ornament than anything else.

So that's one thing my ETX has on the Questar being auctioned. ETX wins at last! GW

---

I haven't used your ETX. There might be something wrong with it or your setup. The fact is, an ETX is no "dimmer" than a Questar. I know that's unpleasant for folks who want magic out of the Questar, but it's also a good way to avoid being disappointed when it becomes clear that a Questar is a nice telescope--a nice 3.5-inch telescope no different optically from any other well-made 3.5-inch telescope.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Unless you have looked throuhg one for extended periods and have made serious observations with the comparison scope I would suggest you do not make any comments [/qoute]

Ok I qualify. His comments are all valid and strong testament to why the design dead ended into oblivion. A fraction of the cost in a great number of different designs still yields a highly portable telescope and very often one that trounces the Q performance. Moreover, pardon me, but SERIOUS observers often don't bother with 90mm maksutovs. Oh some do - heck I ADORE my 70mm refractor but when I want to make a serious observation - lol - well most folks would consider the Q90 laughable. I'm an advocate of the one arm carry too - especially at the end of a long day - it'll only take a half breath at focus though to realize that you pay for that convenience with a tiny object and contrast levels routinely had through comparably cheap scopes aren't even hinted at with the 90. It's good you are an advocate of extended periods with Q90 - it's going to be a long wait.

I love the little thing but your assessment of the scope and one persons post is hard to take seriously. It's a nice little scope. That's all.

Pete

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Yes, the C90 has improved dramatically, (for one, they got rid,of that stupid circumferential focus ring) and it does give you bang for your buck. The ETX just needs bang! Shoot it and put it out of its misery.



Terra

---

Who is they? The current C90 has no relationship to the Celestron made model. Have you used the current C90 Terra? As a matter of fact, have you used a Questar 3.5?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

When it comes to the optics quality of Questar and ETX-90 it's difficult to see any difference on a double pass autocollimation test on the my optical bench of ones I have done.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

This is really funny. Comparing caviar to eggs from a carp
Next we will be hearing how sharp that Skywatcher was when compared to an Astro Physics.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Ed Ting says it all.

http://www.scopereviews.com/90mmComparo.html

Terra

---

Quote:

---

The C90 throws up the brightest, most contrasty images, the ETX the dimmest. The Questar is in the middle - just right.

---

Post Extras: