Apo Refractor vs. Questar

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

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.

You're 100% right, I never go over there.

That sort of conversation makes my skin crawl.

That about covers it! I suspect the next one will deal with eyepieces.

David

It's the difference between a Rolex, and a Timex digital. The Timex generally keeps better time, costs much less initially, and doesn't need expensive maintenance to keep it accurate. However, wearing that Rolex somehow makes you feel special...

Aside from any "bling" factor, I think the draw of the Rolex, and other Swiss watches, is that they're Swiss watches. Hand made movements. Old world craftsmanship. "They just don't make 'em like that, anymore!" There's a certain fascination about that kind of thing that can be very easy to succumb to... provided you can afford it!

Same with the Q. For me, I could easily be seduced by the apparent quality of its construction, its fit, and finish! Of course, the idea of the "portable observatory" appeals to me as well. Everything you need, all in that little, leather case. That leather case!

I had a chance to finally see a Q up close, and personal this past weekend. Didn't get to look through it, but did get to look at it. It was purdy... Real purdy!!! I then looked at my Timex, and saw that it was time for me to go...

Sometimes I look at the ads, and the pictures, and I say, "Someday... Maybe..." But then I look at what I already have, including the "poorman's Q" I have sitting in the closet (original ETX Astro), and I think to myself, "Maybe, but not today."

It's the difference between a Rolex, and a Timex digital. The Timex generally keeps better time, costs much less initially, and doesn't need expensive maintenance to keep it accurate. However, wearing that Rolex somehow makes you feel special...

Aside from any "bling" factor, I think the draw of the Rolex, and other Swiss watches, is that they're Swiss watches. Hand made movements. Old world craftsmanship. "They just don't make 'em like that, anymore!" There's a certain fascination about that kind of thing that can be very easy to succumb to... provided you can afford it!

Same with the Q. For me, I could easily be seduced by the apparent quality of its construction, its fit, and finish! Of course, the idea of the "portable observatory" appeals to me as well. Everything you need, all in that little, leather case. That leather case!

I had a chance to finally see a Q up close, and personal this past weekend. Didn't get to look through it, but did get to look at it. It was purdy... Real purdy!!! I then looked at my Timex, and saw that it was time for me to go...

Sometimes I look at the ads, and the pictures, and I say, "Someday... Maybe..." But then I look at what I already have, including the "poorman's Q" I have sitting in the closet (original ETX Astro), and I think to myself, "Maybe, but not today."

Mr Dunk, dont sell that Origonal ETX Astro. The first launch series had exceptional mirrors, better than later ones. I know first hand. I spent $360.00 for mine in late 1996 when they first came out.I was surprised about the Plastic, but amazed by the views.
I still have it,and the origonal box. I will NOT get rid of it!
I have taken 5 or 6 in trade and tested them ALL side by side, none have been able to beat it.
Read Sky and Telescopes review of them.
http://www.analytica...ETX90/0_ETX_...
MayIdunk I am in complete and udder agreement with you.
I did have to work on my motor drive a to keep it from drifting clear out of the field, before tracking. Now it engages in 2 seconds. I could have sent it back but a buddy of mine bought one at the same time and his lagged too. After looking through mine, there was NO WAY Meade was getting it back. I simply enlarged the motor mount holes and pushed it tighter against the drive gear. I use it as a White Light Solar Scope now.
It got somewhat put on the back shelf when I bought my superb 127 Nexstar SE Maksutov.
I was even able to find a special Aluminum Dew Shield with Constellations and Planetary data on it. It's felt lined & slides over the tube like a Questar.

I would have never spent the money on a Questar either. When the one I ownde was given to me I had never heard of one.

It's the difference between a Rolex, and a Timex digital. The Timex generally keeps better time, costs much less initially, and doesn't need expensive maintenance to keep it accurate. However, wearing that Rolex somehow makes you feel special...

Aside from any "bling" factor, I think the draw of the Rolex, and other Swiss watches, is that they're Swiss watches. Hand made movements. Old world craftsmanship. "They just don't make 'em like that, anymore!" There's a certain fascination about that kind of thing that can be very easy to succumb to... provided you can afford it!

Same with the Q. For me, I could easily be seduced by the apparent quality of its construction, its fit, and finish! Of course, the idea of the "portable observatory" appeals to me as well. Everything you need, all in that little, leather case. That leather case!

I had a chance to finally see a Q up close, and personal this past weekend. Didn't get to look through it, but did get to look at it. It was purdy... Real purdy!!! I then looked at my Timex, and saw that it was time for me to go...

Sometimes I look at the ads, and the pictures, and I say, "Someday... Maybe..." But then I look at what I already have, including the "poorman's Q" I have sitting in the closet (original ETX Astro), and I think to myself, "Maybe, but not today."

Mr Dunk, dont sell that Origonal ETX Astro. The first launch series had exceptional mirrors, better than later ones. I know first hand. I spent $360.00 for mine in late 1996 when they first came out.I was surprised about the Plastic, but amazed by the views.
I still have it,and the origonal box. I will NOT get rid of it!
I have taken 5 or 6 in trade and tested them ALL side by side, none have been able to beat it.
Read Sky and Telescopes review of them.
http://www.analytica...ETX90/0_ETX_...
MayIdunk I am in complete and udder agreement with you.
I did have to work on my motor drive a to keep it from drifting clear out of the field, before tracking. Now it engages in 2 seconds. I could have sent it back but a buddy of mine bought one at the same time and his lagged too. After looking through mine, there was NO WAY Meade was getting it back. I simply enlarged the motor mount holes and pushed it tighter against the drive gear. I use it as a White Light Solar Scope now.
It got somewhat put on the back shelf when I bought my superb 127 Nexstar SE Maksutov.
I was even able to find a special Aluminum Dew Shield with Constellations and Planetary data on it. It's felt lined & slides over the tube like a Questar.

Thanks!

I fully agree with you on never selling the ETX! My secondary baffle did wander on me once. I just flipped the OTA, waited about a year, and it migrated back into position, taking all the adhesive back with it! I also had to replace the trunnions, as the bottoms of the mounting screw holes had started to disintegrate. After replacing them, I made sure that the mounting screws were just snug. I was able to find the original screw-on dew shield that Meade originally sold for it, and the right-angle finder scope they were selling for a short time afterwards. Other than replacing the straight-thru finder scope (which I still have), I also installed a flex cable on the focus rod.

I have the original box (in perfect condition), both halves of the cardboard and foam insert, the legs, the users manual, the tools, the little box that the original finder scope came packed in, and the sales receipt, all snug in the plastic bags they originally came in! If I were to pack it all back into the box, it would all look just like it did the day that I first opened it. Someday, after I'm gone, someone, someplace will have that same experience I once had opening that box for the first time! I also have the boxes for the right-angle finder, and the dew shield.

I now keep it in the closet with the tube pointing up, and I make sure that the temps at the meniscus never get above 75*, lest I one day find the secondary baffle hanging by a thread! As for the RA slop, I learned early on how to compensate for it, and so never bothered to tear into it to fix it.

It's an excellent scope, it's still in use, and (the Good Lord willing...) it ain't going anywhere!

I would have never spent the money on a Questar either. When the one I ownde was given to me I had never heard of one.

As Daffy would have said... "You'rrre dithpicable!"

You take care of things like I do! It drives Tracy Crazy, I keep all original packing. I put the Motor focus on mine.
It is 2 speed.
You may want to thing about cleaning the old grease out of yours and replace it with PAO (Polyoiefin) Grease. It is made for Plastic on Plastic lubrication. It wont degrade Plastic like Petro Based lubes! I even put some on my RA setting circle band, I can finally use it! Before it was sticky.
Now both axis movement are silky smooth. My Dec had a bad sticking problem, no more.
My secondary baffle also started coming free. The front cell screws off, I re-glued it with a thin film of Silicone
adhesive.
The best thing about PAO is it does not thicken in the cold, or thin in the heat! My RA motor used to drag a bit causing me to advance the RA every few minutes, now it is dead on!
I owned a mint 1958 Questar, it was beautiful, the Mechanics were the best I had ever touched in anything these fingers had been close to. The people that fabricated the Questars are truely Artists. BUT the optics were Horrible, BAD SA! There were about 5 rings around every Star! I found out Questar didn't make the optics themselves
back then. Now they are as good as the rest of the mount.

I sold it for 2K after my ETX beat it optically! I'd love to have another some day. It is the first scope that I can honestly say gives as much pleasure or more, in the daytime just looking at it, and touching it.
Cool factor and portability the Q wins hands down. APO gets it optically.

...

Same with the Q. For me, I could easily be seduced by the apparent quality of its construction, its fit, and finish! ...

It is a lovely product for sure. Any high end product has to deliver more than performance. Even the Canon L lenses are marked so others know you have an L lens, either the red line or the body of the lens being off-white. I have an EF-S lens that is essentially an L lens for an APS-C camera (like my 7D) - but it doesn't have the red line and the body is black. It mostly looks like a kit lens - but the performance shows otherwise. Anyway, why not a red line? Because it's not a full frame lens. STATUS!

In this world, status is important at times - you might need it to enter a room - even though most of resist it or don't really care at all. No one is really immune to the siren call of status and image: we just resist the call. Or maybe one simply can't afford it - which is often true for me.

What's his name... Oh yeah, when Jay Leno was on Top Gear some time ago, it was mentioned he owns something like 125 cars. His statement to the crowd was, "If you could afford it, you'd do it, too, wouldn't you?" The crowd whooped and yelled yes. But honestly, hardly anyone owns 125 cars, even those who have 100 times more money than Leno. There is something weird about owning all those cars, but whatever floats his boat.

But it IS nice to own a fine instrument and to appreciate it for what it is, whether it's a Televue 31mm Nagler, an AP refractor, or an Omega watch.

It is a lovely product for sure. Any high end product has to deliver more than performance. Even the Canon L lenses are marked so others know you have an L lens, either the red line or the body of the lens being off-white. I have an EF-S lens that is essentially an L lens for an APS-C camera (like my 7D) - but it doesn't have the red line and the body is black. It mostly looks like a kit lens - but the performance shows otherwise. Anyway, why not a red line? Because it's not a full frame lens. STATUS!

In this world, status is important at times - you might need it to enter a room - even though most of resist it or don't really care at all. No one is really immune to the siren call of status and image: we just resist the call. Or maybe one simply can't afford it - which is often true for me.

What's his name... Oh yeah, when Jay Leno was on Top Gear some time ago, it was mentioned he owns something like 125 cars. His statement to the crowd was, "If you could afford it, you'd do it, too, wouldn't you?" The crowd whooped and yelled yes. But honestly, hardly anyone owns 125 cars, even those who have 100 times more money than Leno. There is something weird about owning all those cars, but whatever floats his boat.

But it IS nice to own a fine instrument and to appreciate it for what it is, whether it's a Televue 31mm Nagler, an AP refractor, or an Omega watch.

With the lens you mention, I think it's a little more than just status. I think a lens that gives a great full frame image is to be counted a notch above one that provides that quality image over a smaller frame. If nothing else, it adds to its versatility as a full frame lens will perform well with either an APS-C or full frame camera.

As for Jay Leno and his collection of cars, while I'll agree a lot of car collectors do collect for status' sake as much as anything, and they choose what cars they collect accordingly-- and most likely never or almost never actually drive them. Leno, though, has always loved cars and motorcycles and things mechanical and just happens to have the money to indulge his passion. He's got a wealth of knowledge of the cars and actually drives them and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty in them or get them dirty driving them. It takes a certain kind of car nut to take over 100 year old steam powered cars out for a pleasure drive.

I think a love of cars (much like astronomy) is something you either get or not.

By the way, for those who like well-engineered interesting and "different" machines, go to his Jay Leno's Garage website and check out the 1925 Doble steam car. This one certainly changed my opinion about what steam powered cars could achieve.

Come to think of it, I know more than a few amateur astronomers who collect a lot of scopes that very rarely, if ever, see the night sky.

Come to think of it, I know more than a few amateur astronomers who collect a lot of scopes that very rarely, if ever, see the night sky.

Some pathologies are more damaging than others.

I can hardly wait for the next animation on binoviewers.....God do we ever need one! Plenty of ammo there. Mike

Dob :dob: :dob:

Phil, Tom said: "I think a love of cars (much like astronomy) is something you either get or not." If you like to mess with mechanical things in your garage, you will understand the collection of those things, I like old Gravely tractors, I have one for plowing snow,blowing snow, and one for mowing. I enjoy working on and with them. In todays world a Questar is not about status, if you get a used one. Its about the highest quality optics in a small package. The built in barlow, Star diagional, and over all quality makes that telescope a joy to use even when you have much bigger ones that will show much more. You really have to spend some time with one to understand.

FYI...I still have my 90ETX spotter from 1998 that I have used to photograph two Solar eclipses and still works great. Loved the pretty blue anodized aluminum tube, pretty scopes!

Bob