Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

QUESTARs 50th Anniversary commemorating the hype

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
224 replies to this topic

#76 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:51 PM



But, there are nights during which large scopes show no more detail than smaller instruments, and the effect isn't due to OTA thermal equilibration kinetics.


People say that, but it has never, ever been my experience. Even on poor nights the seeing usually settles down occasionally, and if you keep looking an 8-inch will, by the end of the evening have shown far more than a 3.5-inch. ;)


Try living closer to the more turbulent section of the jet stream. The Winter of 2011-2012 was terrible here. There wasn't one clear night I schlepped out a 10" or 12" scope that paid off.

Don't misunderstand me though. On average, we used to have enough good nights that scopes with large objectives or mirrors were put to good use. I hope that particularly bad Winter was an anomaly.

#77 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

Is the $4,625 Quester 3.5 really all that expensive?

Let’s pick a comparable telescope like the TV 85 and compare. The TV 85 OTA package goes for $2,470. To that package you will have to add another eyepiece (the TV Package comes with one but the Q comes with 2). That’s another $130. Then you will need to add a barlow. That’s another $100. The Q comes with a high quality solar filter. Let’s add an 11/4-inch solar wedge to the TV 85. That’s another $250. The Q comes with an optical finder. Let’s add a nice 8x50mm finder and bracket to the TV 85. That’s another $200. The Q comes with a motor drive. So let’s add a nice GEM to the TV 85. Not the most expensive but something well machined like the standard GM8. That’s another $1,300 (for the head only NOT including the tripod)

Grand total to get a TV 85 accessorized close to a standard Q… $4,450.

Of course you could find cheaper accessories for the TV85 but that’s not in keeping with what the Quester is offering. Sure you can quibble with this or that selection but I think the point is that getting a TV 85 up to the level of what the Q offers out of the box will not be cheap. Try using Takahashi accessories!

Bob


True but (there is always that consarned "but"). The finder on the Questar is one of the worst I have ever used. A cheapo 50mm will run rings around it. The Questar mount in no way compares to a GM8--not even close. And the solar filter shipped with a Questar is just a Solar filter, not a Herschel Wedge. And, the pachyderm in the front parlor, the refractor is a just a more versatile, useful instrument.

Again, the Questar is beautiful. That's its stock in trade, not useability (if you live at lower latitudes the design of the fork/base will see to that), and comparing it to telescopes where function, not form is the idea really don't make it... ;)


The Q 3.5 finder, star chart on the OTA, and setting circles are an excellent match for that size scope.

#78 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,278
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:53 PM


Try living closer to the more turbulent section of the jet stream. The Winter of 2011-2012 was terrible here. There wasn't one clear night I schlepped out a 10" or 12" scope that paid off.

Don't misunderstand me though. On average, we used to have enough good nights that scopes with large objectives or mirrors were put to good use. I hope that particularly bad Winter was an anomaly.


I believe that's what you've experienced, but it isn't my experience, and I've been under the Jetstream a time or two. The Ozark Mountains don't always furnish steady seeing. ;)

#79 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:56 PM

Is the $4,625 Quester 3.5 really all that expensive?



Uhhh....heck yes. A 6" f/8 Dobsonian will outperform it any day of the week. :smirk:

Comparing the TV85 to the 3.5" Questar is a non-starter.

A 3.5" Mak Cass has a large central obstruction so contrast will be reduced. It has an extremely long focal length (1300mm), so it's pretty much a one trick pony. The TV85 on the other hand is very versatile. It can be easily used as a grab and go scope, an excellent imaging scope, a piggyback scope, a planetary scope, and a wide field DSO scope. It has no central obstruction, so the optics will yield a nice contrasty view. I'd take a TV85 any day over a Questar.

That's 2 cents from this non-wannabe, Questar non-fanboy. :lol:

Patrick


New, the Q 3.5 is pricey. Used, they are well worth their cost.

Try dragging the Dob you cite above on plane trips or even a lot of car trips. Either will get old very fast.

#80 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 01:59 PM



Try living closer to the more turbulent section of the jet stream. The Winter of 2011-2012 was terrible here. There wasn't one clear night I schlepped out a 10" or 12" scope that paid off.

Don't misunderstand me though. On average, we used to have enough good nights that scopes with large objectives or mirrors were put to good use. I hope that particularly bad Winter was an anomaly.


I believe that's what you've experienced, but it isn't my experience, and I've been under the Jetstream a time or two. The Ozark Mountains don't always furnish steady seeing. ;)


I didn't doubt your experience. I simply mentioned what I've observed, and I use my scopes far more than most others I've met.

#81 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,155
  • Joined: 15 May 2003

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:16 PM

New, the Q 3.5 is pricey. Used, they are well worth their cost.



I think that means they don't hold their value well.

Try dragging the Dob you cite above on plane trips or even a lot of car trips. Either will get old very fast.



I've taken a 6" Dob all across the west in a Honda Civic. :smirk: That aside, even a C6 will perform better than a Questar and that scope is airline portable.

As far as being airline portable, a TV85 might be a better fit.

The thing I've noticed in all these threads is that the guys who have been in the hobby since the 70's seem to have this mystic feeling about the Questar's which relates back to the OP's original comment about 'HYPE'. Yep...I think so.

I've only been in the hobby since the late 90's and could care less about owning one of them. Of course, I'm more of a value buyer anyway.

But, shucks, guys, mostly I'm just having fun poking at you... ;)

Patrick

#82 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,816
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

OK guys and gals, when was the last time anyone saw a Questar ad claiming anything?

Questar doesn't spend a penny on advertising, and yet, after almost six decades, the company remains in business, building superb scopes one-by-one in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the heavily-marketed, mass-produced orange and blue companies have fled to China, where they continue to build their scopes down to a price rather than up to a standard of quality.

Like it or not, Questar's been doing something right for a very long time, and that "something" clearly hasn't involved peddling only hype.


The last time? The night I posted this thread.


DOES ANYONE READ THE OP?

I ran a direct qoute from it.
Moreover your claims about telescopes being sent out of the country to cheapen down to a lower price is brashly ignoring the solid fact the telescopes coming out of China are seeing a consistent quality level like never before.

Pete

#83 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,816
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:20 PM



Like it or not, Questar's been doing something right for a very long time, and that "something" clearly hasn't involved peddling only hype.


Maybe not now. In the past? Not so much. For whatever reason, Questar either got to the point where they couldn't afford those full page ads, or decided they didn't need to spend for them, or, probably, both. ;)

The bottom line? The Questar is a beautiful little telescope. It is finely made. Quite a few people love them for those reasons and others of their own. It has also survived for over 60 years, and you can't argue with success, whatever the reasons for that success. And I shall just leave it at that. :lol:


Hi Unc,

Here's the link to the hype I read and posted about:

https://www.astronom...adband-mak-t...

Pete

#84 Patrick

Patrick

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 12,155
  • Joined: 15 May 2003

Posted 22 May 2013 - 02:37 PM

Hi Pete,

Thanks for posting the link from Astronomics. I noticed the 50th anniversary edition is $7350 and they're only making 250 of them. I agree with your original post....lot's of hype there. I've never seen anyone ever claim that their scopes break the laws of physics....I mean other than the one's Meade sells in the department stores. :question:

Patrick

#85 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,278
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 May 2013 - 04:17 PM

I didn't doubt your experience. I simply mentioned what I've observed, and I use my scopes far more than most others I've met.


Well, maybe more than some people. :lol:

#86 jgraham

jgraham

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 21,843
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:20 PM

Ooookay, after reading that I must agree. If I could only get a 5 pound bag of that stuff I could have some killer tomatoes this year. The Questar 3.5 doesn't need that bahooey and it is disappointing that they would take the low road. A 3.5" scope barely grabs enough light to resolve a globular cluster let alone out perform an 8" SCT.

#87 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,816
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:32 PM

Jjk,

Just to reittorate I wasn't making a judgement against the instrument but some of the promotional claims. If I wanted the best Maksutov in the world at 90mm and I had the bread Id get one with certainty.

Pete

#88 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,288
  • Joined: 08 May 2003

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:35 PM

Here's the link to the hype I read and posted about:

https://www.astronom...adband-mak-t...

Pete


I read your OP, you took Questar to task for hype. ColoHank asked for a source for an ad by Questar that involved hype. Your link is an ad by Astronomics, not an ad by Questar. So if that does qualify as hype it is Astronomics, not Questar, that is guilty of hype.

See, we are paying attention! ;) If you can find us an ad by Questar that contains hype I'll concede your point. Otherwise your OP is misdirected.

#89 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,523
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:01 PM


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK guys and gals, when was the last time anyone saw a Questar ad claiming anything?

Questar doesn't spend a penny on advertising, and yet, after almost six decades, the company remains in business, building superb scopes one-by-one in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the heavily-marketed, mass-produced orange and blue companies have fled to China, where they continue to build their scopes down to a price rather than up to a standard of quality.

Like it or not, Questar's been doing something right for a very long time, and that "something" clearly hasn't involved peddling only hype.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The last time? The night I posted this thread.



Post the link.

#90 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:05 PM


I didn't doubt your experience. I simply mentioned what I've observed, and I use my scopes far more than most others I've met.


Well, maybe more than some people. :lol:


I stand by my "most" claim.

#91 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:31 PM

Jjk,

Just to reittorate I wasn't making a judgement against the instrument but some of the promotional claims. If I wanted the best Maksutov in the world at 90mm and I had the bread Id get one with certainty.

Pete


Hi Pete,

I understood, and I agree that such advertising is ridiculous.

I guess I never noticed those claims when I used to peruse their advertisements long ago. I figured if I ever wanted a Q, I'd test it out first.

I did so when someone suggested I consider a 50th Q 3.5 (**** fine optics, but it did not quite outperform my AP 92 mm f/4.9 StowAway on views of the Moon and Jupiter). However, I still needed a more portable setup and was able to test drive a used Q 3.5. It performed exactly as it should (between the StowAway and WO 80 mm f/6 apo), but it offered a much better solution for extreme portability for travel, and I therefore pulled the trigger. There is still nothing like the Q 3.5., and getting one for $2.5K is a bargain, IMO.

Another poster here suggested a TV85 is more versatile instrument. Whether something is more versatile depends on one's needs. I've screwed around with nearly every conceivable configuration of small scopes, mounts, tripods, no tripods, etc. and have traveled much more than I'd like. For highly portable travel with a scope, the Q 3.5 rules. Schlepping a 6" Dob where I've been for work would be absurd.


Best,
jjk

#92 rmollise

rmollise

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,278
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2007

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:40 PM

I stand by my "most" claim.


I ain't "most," :lol: but whatever floats your boat. I have no axe to grind with you.

As for this thread? Locked in 3-2-1 is my guess :roflmao:

#93 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,288
  • Joined: 08 May 2003

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:51 PM


I stand by my "most" claim.


I ain't "most," :lol: but whatever floats your boat. I have no axe to grind with you.

As for this thread? Locked in 3-2-1 is my guess :roflmao:


No! It's just getting fun!

#94 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,222
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:17 PM

Ya, Pete, that ad seems a little over the top.

What doesnt sound right, besides better resolution on globulars, is how 1/50th wave on a spherical surface provides any better correction for SA. The surfaces are, unless aspheric, just more perfect spheres with whatever SA its curves produce. Maybe its aspheric. Cool. Maybe they could hype that feature.

#95 EddWen

EddWen

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,097
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:25 PM

Everyone truly interested in what Questar says about the 50th anniversary model should go to:

www.questar-corp.com

The info is on the first page.

Please find the outlandish claims they make.

Thx,

#96 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,816
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:47 PM

Edd,

as if I didn't supply enough?

Pete

#97 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,288
  • Joined: 08 May 2003

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:49 PM

Edd,

as if I didn't supply enough?

Pete


You've supplied nothing from Questar to support your contention. Ed OTOH showed that Questar's web site is hype-free.

Again, your original post was misdirected.

#98 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,816
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:38 PM

Looks spot on to me.

After decades of inflated claims a web page with some droll specs isn't going to waft it away. My OP isn't misdirected infact its epitomizes the claims they are known for in decades past. I'm not going to start digging up old catalogs but suffice it to say Im hardly alone here.

Pete

#99 EddWen

EddWen

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,097
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:04 PM

Looks spot on to me.

Pete


Pete,

Did you really look at and read what Questar has to say? For some reason, I don't think so. I asked for the hype that you allege Questar makes. Where is the match between your quotes and the Questar claims?

Your quotes are from Astronomics. Not Questar.

Anacortes and Company7 sell the 50th anniversary model. Please see what they say in their presentations. There does not seem to be any, in what seems to be your opinion, outlandish claims. Note also that these vendors presentations are different from each other. To me, this suggests the presentations are local, not originated by Questar.

It seems your criticism is mis-directed.

Oh, and for others, owners of a $8,000 telescope will not impress others of their wealth.

#100 JJK

JJK

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,466
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 22 May 2013 - 11:27 PM

I too looked at Questar's & Company 7's websites last night and saw no hyperbole about the Q 3.5.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics