Telescope Reviews: Have telescopes made a big step forward, or BACK

Though I haven't been observing for as long as some, I have been at it since the early 80s, with manual scopes-- an alt-az 60mm Focal refractor and a 6" f/10 Newt with no mount whatsoever-- so I learned my way around the sky by eyeballing, sweeping and starhopping. I didn't have an eq scope until around 2000 or so and didn't have a computerized one until about 2005 or 2006. I know that I can do without goto just fine, but I find I enjoy observing more with it and see a lot more with it. I'll admit I'm a lazy astronomer, even though I'd be out there observing, electronics or not. So, basically, I think I have enough experience both ways to throw my own 2 cents out there.

If anything, the title of this thread is misleading. It's not so much the telescopes that are in question as it is the mounts for them. Nostalgia aside, it's obvious that great strides forward have been made in the availability, diversity, and price of commercially made telescopes. I'd wager that Dob mounted Newts make up a significant percentage of new scopes sold today, at both the higher end and lower end of the price scale, and even those with electronics, whether push-to or goto, can be used just fine without the electronics. It also seems that useability of these scopes and consistency of their optical quality, at either end of the price scale, is higher than what was around Dob-wise when I first drooled over the ads in Astronomy and S&T. They may not be perfect, but I think you get a more useable scope from the Chinese imports than from the Coulters of old, and, as far as I can recall, there really wasn't a high-end Dob market back in the 80s and before. So, as far as Dob mounted Newts go, the steps have clearly been forward.

Refractors... well, this is a wonderful time for refractor enthusiasts, whether you're into old school long-focus achros or high tech, short-focus apos... or even short-focus sky-sweeping achros. The range of sizes exceeds what was easily available in years past and the prices are very reasonable for what you get. A 6" long-focus, high quality achro from D&G for $2k? Sure, there's a decent length wait, and without a mount, but, still... better mechanicals than the refractors of yore and quite a bit cheaper, to boot. Some 6" apos are probably more in line price-wise, adjusted for inflation, with the 6" achros of yore. At any rate, most refractors are sold without mounts, so, again, the question of electronics and their durability and such don't apply, and I see nothing but steps forward in the refractor world.

SCTs are probably the most commonly sold scopes today that feature the potentially troublesome electronics infested mounts in the package you buy, though you can always buy the OTAs by themselves. Even those with the goto mounts, the OTA can nearly always be removed from the mount and used on another, so far as I know, whether due to electronics failure or the desire to move up to a higher quality or higher capacity mount, so, really, the problem of potential electronics failure is at least minimized. 10 years or 20 years down the road, if the electronics fail, you can remount the OTA.

As I indicated before, the real issue is the mounts themselves, not the telescopes. If the electronics fail, they usually are not as easy to use manually without some modification, such as adding some sort of slow motion control and/or a simple, non-goto, drive system. Not that tough with at least some mounts I know of. Other than the electronics part, modern inexpensive mounts, such as the CG5 type, work reasonably well within their limits. Sure, they're not quite the high quality, precision machinery that, say, Astro Physics mounts are, not by a long shot, but they do the job asked of them within their limits. They're not a premium, ultra-high precision, ultra-heavy duty mount... but they're not priced like one, either. From what I recall of the mounts advertised when I was first getting into astronomy, they're heavier duty and less expensive in inflation adjusted dollars than those back then. Plus... you get the magic of goto, even if it may not work forever. I know mine has been going strong with no problems for around half a dozen years, all that time being kept in an attached garage when not in use, so, while it hasn't been abused, it hasn't been pampered, either.

I think nostalgia also clouds the view of many of the mounts of years past, too. They sure looked impressive, the big ol' German eq mounts from Parks, say, and those big Meade reflectors on their big German eq mounts... even the "lowly" Edmunds and the Criterions. From my own little experience with older mounts and from what I've heard from others, they tended to be pretty big and heavy for mounts that still ended up with vibration problems of varying degrees. I'm not saying there weren't any good ones-- there no doubt were-- but it seems we haven't necessarily lost much as far as stability goes and the weight of today's mounts, I'd argue, is less for the same capacity as compared to the mounts of 30 or 40 years ago. And it also seems that the high-end, expensive mounts of today offer much, much more than their counterparts years ago... and I'll assume that their electronics will be more robust than most of the lower end, CG5 class goto mounts, in the long run. I've always thought it a bit ironic that in these days of relatively short exposures via digital cameras, the mid and, especially, high-end mounts of today would be so much more suited to the long exposures of the days of film than the mounts of the day were. Out of the box, with tweaking, precise polar alignment, even without auto-guiding, a new Astro Physics eq mount could do comparably to a poor astrophotographer in 1980, staying out in the cold painstakingly guiding an hour long exposure. Add auto-guiding into the mix and I know it'd be no contest.

I'm just glad I appreciate a bargain at least as much as I appreciate quality, because I'd hate to think of all the observing I might've missed if I refused to buy anything other than one of the current high-end, high quality mounts. I'd still be waiting and saving for it, I'm sure, missing out on all the observing I can get done now with my lowly CG5 goto mount.

I think we live in great times and have made many more steps forward than we've made back. Though some have more problems than others, there are moderately priced goto mounts that have proven very reliable, if not up the standards of the high-end mounts-- but that comes with the low price. Always has been the case and always will be the case. We just have so many more choices now, both as far as the telescopes and mounts that are commercially available now. The variety of telescopes you can buy today would be dizzying to an amateur plucked out of the 1960s... and, once that amateur figured in inflation, he'd be amazed at how cheap they are. A 6" achro for $2k? A 7" MCT-- on a computerized mount-- for under $2500?? Amazing. As far as mounts go, the lower end (not counting the *BLEEP* department store type scopes available now) is arguably better in most respects than their counterparts of 30 or 40 years ago. The upper-end is even further ahead of their counterparts of the past. I understand those who bemoan the rough quality of today's lower end mounts when compared to their high-end stuff... but I say they still mostly beat the lower end mounts of years ago, including features not available in the past, they just suffer by comparison to the amazingly high levels of quality and precision achieved by the high-end gear of today.

Post Extras: