Great, just what we need: another petty and ridiculous sectarian divide.
First, let me say I’ve owned all kinds of telescopes. I don’t think it appropriate to disparage a particular type of telescope, as they all have their pluses and minuses. SCTs offer a large aperture in a compact size, among other advantages. However, they can also have their limitations and issues, and indeed often can be made to perform even better by modifying them – both optically and mechanically. Where does the concept of “believing in their SCTs” (or any telescope for that matter) come into play? Perhaps I’m just an atheist when it comes to material objects, or at least telescopes
That said, I’m having a little trouble understanding your post Ed.
I have just been so thrilled with my SCTs in the past. Most of them were really able telescopes that presented me with hundereds of hours of wonderful observing. And none of the mods I tried seemed to make any meaningful difference for my own observing needs that I stopped chasing the "Mod of the day" a long time ago. And the bigger I went, the more I enjoyed them. The more I could see. More deep sky, more planetary detail, more stars in clusters. No mods or anything. I just went bigger and bigger and saw more and more... At least one person loves them just the way they are...
If you were so thrilled
with the SCT’s you had in the past and loved them just the way they are
, why did you get an Edge HD as listed in the signature? Could it have been OTA/mirror venting, a new secondary mirror and corrective optics to eliminate coma and flatten the field, and a primary mirror clutch/lock to eliminate mirror shift?
It seems you have “voted with your feet” and abandoned the very scopes you love “just the way they are.” So if someone with an older version SCT attempts via modification to gain some of the same advantages you have obtained by buying an newer version of the SCT, doesn’t that mean you have simply paid to have the mods done for you rather than attempting them yourself? Hasn’t your very action demonstrated that which you are concerned with -- enhancing the perception that there is “so much wrong” with SCTs? If you have chosen a “better mouse trap” via a manufacturer, why shouldn’t someone try some of the same via modification of their existing scope -- without being subjected to the claim that they are denigrating the SCT?
Lastly, let me just say some of us like to tinker and experiment to see what improvements we can make on our own, and how the incremental improvements can add up...
Best wishes to one and all,