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

After 0.25 century and six weeks...

  • Please log in to reply
153 replies to this topic

#76 daquad

daquad

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,805
  • Joined: 14 May 2008

Posted 14 December 2019 - 02:03 PM

The Skywatcher ED150 got a huge amount of critisism when the early examples were delivered with some packaging and objective cell design issues that needed sorting. Why are we being so forgiving of these APM 152mm F/8's that have issues when they cost a good chunk more than the Skywatcher ED150 and have been around for a lot longer ?

The APM costs more than the Skywatcher because the OTA mechanics, fit and finish are superior to the SW.  Optically, all I can surmise is that they are probably equal, and one poor example does not negate the overall excellent price to performance ratio (value) of the APM -- or the SW for that matter.

 

Dom Q.


  • RogerLaureys, stevew and Bomber Bob like this

#77 John Huntley

John Huntley

    Mercury-Atlas

  • ***--
  • Posts: 2,729
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2006
  • Loc: SW England

Posted 14 December 2019 - 02:11 PM

The APM costs more than the Skywatcher because the OTA mechanics, fit and finish are superior to the SW.  Optically, all I can surmise is that they are probably equal, and one poor example does not negate the overall excellent price to performance ratio (value) of the APM -- or the SW for that matter.

 

Dom Q.

Thanks Dom.

 

Having used a couple of Skywatcher ED150s and a couple of examples of the APM 152 F/8 ED I'm aware of the similarities and differences.

 

Both do offer a heck of a lot of refractor "bang for the buck" smile.gif 


  • daquad, Kunama, Bomber Bob and 1 other like this

#78 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,361
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 14 December 2019 - 07:27 PM

I hear you.  But when you expect everything to go right, more often you are just setting yourself up for disappointments or frustrations in life IMO.  But some folks like it that way, not something I like though.  I've just made it a practice to remember that no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, many people are lazy so do not do their assigned tasks well, etc.  I also generally will not purchase something if I am unwilling to roll my sleeves up and correct issues discovered.  IMO "problems" in life are just opportunities to learn more and become more skilled.  I probably became this way as a consequence of some of my past professions, some of which were operational in nature and when stuff went wrong, more often than not the expedient thing to do was to fix it yourself. lol.gif

 

My 152 was badly out of collimation after the long trip from China to Germany, then Germany to western US, then truck to eastern US.  Since it was a new product back then there was no manual for it, or how to collimate it.  I never saw 3 push-pull screws before but figured it out and did the collimation.  After that it was and is a sublime performer. Not really an "issue" though as if a refractor has a collimatable cell, then collimation is generally a user maintenace item.
 

Any product that is not fit for purpose out of the box is a lemon. 

 

Thomas was remarkably patient and forgiving. He also has the skills snd experience, as you do BillP,  to know, communicate & fix. You both and others with experience, or knowing people with expertise are the exceptions. 

 

Selling lemons, either from a factory, or with no travel settings for protection, are products not fit for purpose. APM in your cases, got away lightly. But Joe Public buyer would be stuck with a flawed scope. They might be priced well for what they are, but they still cost a pretty penny, and consumers are entitled to expect working quality, not disappointment for dollars or needing DIY refractor optic expertise.              


  • GlenM, Fomalhaut, Heywood and 6 others like this

#79 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,370
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 15 December 2019 - 04:57 AM

Any product that is not fit for purpose out of the box is a lemon. 

 

Thomas was remarkably patient and forgiving. He also has the skills snd experience, as you do BillP,  to know, communicate & fix. You both and others with experience, or knowing people with expertise are the exceptions. 

 

Selling lemons, either from a factory, or with no travel settings for protection, are products not fit for purpose. APM in your cases, got away lightly. But Joe Public buyer would be stuck with a flawed scope. They might be priced well for what they are, but they still cost a pretty penny, and consumers are entitled to expect working quality, not disappointment for dollars or needing DIY refractor optic expertise.              

I think that, over the years, there has grown to be a misunderstanding about telescopes, even among amateur astronomers. 

 

People have started to see them as some sort of implement or tool, like a washing machine or a TV, that you simply buy and then it works. And if it doesn't, it simply doesn't and you return it. In the case of a TV or a washing machine, it's pretty simple to identify a malfunction and get a return or a refund, but it seems that people, even amateur astronomers, have forgotten that telescopes are very different than common implements and that errors may not be so easy to identify, because a telescope depends solely on user input to give an output. Your telescope is what you put into it. It's more like a violin or a harp, than a TV. And no serious musician expects to buy a violin without knowing how to tune it, yet I constantly hear about amateur astronomers, who have multiple years or even decades in this hobby, complaining about difficulties with collimation or who are even completely unable to collimate their telescopes or identify a miscollimation. Can you imagine a musician playing the violin for twenty years and not having learned how to tune it?    

 

People have simply forgotten that a telescope is a scientific measuring apparatus and should be treated as such. This also includes EDUCATING YOURSELF ABOUT TELESCOPES AND OPTICS BEFORE BUYING ONE, so that you may identify errors, should they appear, and know how to properly use it, including collimation, if the telescope can be collimated by the user. Astronomy is a hobby of science and science means education. Without education in astronomy, you're not even getting started. Astronomy is a knowledge-intense hobby and the more you know, the easier it becomes. If you think you can cruise through amateur astronomy without studying, reading and practicing skills and still become a reasonably skilled telescope user, you're delusional. 

 

I am of the opinion, that if you buy a very expensive optical instrument (and let's face it, something that costs $3000 is expensive, even if it is relatively inexpensive), you need to educate yourself enough that you're able to identify a lemon, should you receive one, OR TO FIND SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY A LEMON. If you don't educate yourself about what you're buying, regardless of whether it's washing machines or telescopes, the fault is ALWAYS 100% yours, if you're not able to identify an error, before the end of the warranty period. 

 

It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to let as few lemons through as possible, in a perfect world zero, but the real world is less than perfect and freak accidents can and do happen, both with washing machines and telescopes, regardless of the amount of quality control. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark 


  • Daniel Mounsey, punk35, RogerLaureys and 21 others like this

#80 Bomber Bob

Bomber Bob

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,122
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • Loc: The Swamp, USA

Posted 15 December 2019 - 07:32 AM

Thank You Thomas!

 

I wasn't a lab tech, but I ran the data-collection and/or analysis computers in a bunch of labs, and saw â€‹calibration & correction first-hand.  Some of the new stuff ran well over $100K, yet arrived with "issues" that had to be fixed.

 

Yes, when you plunk down $2000 or more on a brand new scope, it should arrive Ready To Use.  BUT, you need to know enough to recognize problems, fix what you can, and return if there a clear defects.

 

My APM 152ED ain't perfect.  Heck!  APM made that clear in the test report they bundled with it.   But it did arrive collimated & undamaged (from China to Germany to The Swamp).  It gave an acceptable DPAC pattern (a part of the hobby I highly recommend - takes all the guess work out of judging optical quality), and the star & sky tests met / exceeded my expectations.  Y'all see the work I did on a brand new scope?   You can take ownership of the scope - and accept it as delivered; or, you can take ownership of the scope and the assessment process.  That's what Thomas did, and APM made it right.


Edited by Bomber Bob, 15 December 2019 - 07:32 AM.

  • daquad, Astrojensen, salico and 1 other like this

#81 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,505
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 15 December 2019 - 04:05 PM

Any product that is not fit for purpose out of the box is a lemon.

No, that is not the definition of "lemon".  When a product arrives and it is not fit for its "intended" purpose, then it is simply unfortunate.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As consumer protection legislation typically labels "lemons", it is when the same problem recurs despite multiple repair attempts.  Arriving with a problem is simply unfortunate, and not an issue at all really when 1) the seller is a quality seller that makes things right, and 2) the initial flaws did not cause loss of life or limb.  Let's face it, amateur telescopes are for the entertainment of their users.  They are not a necessity by any stretch.  So in the end, when someone loses a little of their opulent "fun" time, all it is is extremely minor and on the whole entirely unimportant.


Edited by BillP, 15 December 2019 - 04:07 PM.

  • RogerLaureys, Astrojensen and Bomber Bob like this

#82 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,370
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 15 December 2019 - 04:15 PM

 

They are not a necessity by any stretch.

My soul and mind politely, but firmly disagrees. smile.gif

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • Don Taylor, dUbeni, Kunama and 2 others like this

#83 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,370
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 15 December 2019 - 04:41 PM

Many good points.

 

But if a dealer with a good reputation warrants a particular telescope as having been tested and found to be good, should it still be incumbent on the purchaser to educate himself to make sure he has not been misled? 

In my opinion, yes. As I've already said, mistakes can and do happen. The dealer/maker may have tested the scope, but a lot can happen during shipping, even if the dealer has the best intentions and have tested the instrument prior to shipping. The person doing the testing can also make mistakes. 

 

The ONLY way the purchaser can be absolutely sure to receive an instrument he/she is satisfied with is to only buy from a reputable dealer, learn how to test it and thoroughly do so. 

 

I see no other options. Even companies like Takahashi let an occasional lemon slip through or get a scope damaged in shipping.

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • RogerLaureys, turtle86, HCR32 and 2 others like this

#84 Steve Allison

Steve Allison

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,278
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Olympia, Wash. 98502

Posted 15 December 2019 - 04:45 PM

You are right, Thomas. Some of what you are saying occurred to me right after my post, which is why I deleted it.


Edited by Steve Allison, 15 December 2019 - 04:45 PM.


#85 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,370
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:00 PM

A prime example of how meaningless a test certificate can be, is found currently orbiting the Earth... The purchaser was NOT happy, when he first tested the optics, despite the maker guaranteeing 1/100th wave optics or some such number. Fortunately, a solution was found. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • Daniel Mounsey, RogerLaureys, stevew and 7 others like this

#86 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,505
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:04 PM

My soul and mind politely, but firmly disagrees. smile.gif

lol.gifflowerred.gif


  • Daniel Mounsey and Astrojensen like this

#87 25585

25585

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,361
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 15 December 2019 - 05:43 PM

I think that, over the years, there has grown to be a misunderstanding about telescopes, even among amateur astronomers. 

 

People have started to see them as some sort of implement or tool, like a washing machine or a TV, that you simply buy and then it works. And if it doesn't, it simply doesn't and you return it. In the case of a TV or a washing machine, it's pretty simple to identify a malfunction and get a return or a refund, but it seems that people, even amateur astronomers, have forgotten that telescopes are very different than common implements and that errors may not be so easy to identify, because a telescope depends solely on user input to give an output. Your telescope is what you put into it. It's more like a violin or a harp, than a TV. And no serious musician expects to buy a violin without knowing how to tune it, yet I constantly hear about amateur astronomers, who have multiple years or even decades in this hobby, complaining about difficulties with collimation or who are even completely unable to collimate their telescopes or identify a miscollimation. Can you imagine a musician playing the violin for twenty years and not having learned how to tune it?    

 

People have simply forgotten that a telescope is a scientific measuring apparatus and should be treated as such. This also includes EDUCATING YOURSELF ABOUT TELESCOPES AND OPTICS BEFORE BUYING ONE, so that you may identify errors, should they appear, and know how to properly use it, including collimation, if the telescope can be collimated by the user. Astronomy is a hobby of science and science means education. Without education in astronomy, you're not even getting started. Astronomy is a knowledge-intense hobby and the more you know, the easier it becomes. If you think you can cruise through amateur astronomy without studying, reading and practicing skills and still become a reasonably skilled telescope user, you're delusional. 

 

I am of the opinion, that if you buy a very expensive optical instrument (and let's face it, something that costs $3000 is expensive, even if it is relatively inexpensive), you need to educate yourself enough that you're able to identify a lemon, should you receive one, OR TO FIND SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY A LEMON. If you don't educate yourself about what you're buying, regardless of whether it's washing machines or telescopes, the fault is ALWAYS 100% yours, if you're not able to identify an error, before the end of the warranty period. 

 

It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to let as few lemons through as possible, in a perfect world zero, but the real world is less than perfect and freak accidents can and do happen, both with washing machines and telescopes, regardless of the amount of quality control. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark 

I accept what you say for reflectors due to their designs, but not refractors. Refractors can and should be made as binoculars, spotting scopes, camera lenses. Refractors are a whole, that only user operation for purpose & accessories is ever required. That simplicity is one of their greatest attributes. 

 

A new refractor as a unit should work perfectly before leaving a factory, constructed and packaged, to remain so during shipping, so fit for use straight out of its box. Better anything else is junk if the optics are bad.

 

APM & other owner-identified businesses, because their owners' names & associated brands are linked to them, are on the line more. Those from mass-production faceless firms, as for the Sky-Watcher ED150, can make changes, or not. But as firms like Tele Vue know & demonstrate, reputation is very important in niche markets. Every lemon report damages much more than just its single item, doubt is sown, scepticism on all "X" brands quality arises. Marcus does his reputation and his business a disfavour by selling any scope with bad optics. Big Chinese companies can shrug off much more than smaller ones. The latter are patronised because they are expected to be better quality, justifying their higher prices, any let-down is much more serious.


Edited by 25585, 15 December 2019 - 05:45 PM.

  • salico likes this

#88 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,123
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 15 December 2019 - 06:07 PM

A prime example of how meaningless a test certificate can be, is found currently orbiting the Earth... The purchaser was NOT happy, when he first tested the optics, despite the maker guaranteeing 1/100th wave optics or some such number. Fortunately, a solution was found. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

I am guessing that Perkin Elmer DID get a nasty note from the government on that one:-) 

 

I thought the way you handled the situation with the vendor was patient but firm. It was clear in your initial posts that you were deeply disappointed with what you had found.  In no way were you giving the vendor a "pass", and if they had NOT fixed things to your satisfaction, I am sure you would have returned the scope.  More to the point, because you were able to accurately diagnose what is going on, you were in a much stronger position to "hold the vendor's feet to the fire", as it were, without resorting to vitriol (which in my experience rarely works).  As I understand your posts, you really did not do anything other than look through the telescope to rule out the usual suspects, like collimation, etc...  As the saying goes, Caveat Emptor.  

 

JMD


  • stevew, Astrojensen and 25585 like this

#89 Wildetelescope

Wildetelescope

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,123
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Maryland

Posted 15 December 2019 - 06:36 PM

I accept what you say for reflectors due to their designs, but not refractors. Refractors can and should be made as binoculars, spotting scopes, camera lenses. Refractors are a whole, that only user operation for purpose & accessories is ever required. That simplicity is one of their greatest attributes. 

 

A new refractor as a unit should work perfectly before leaving a factory, constructed and packaged, to remain so during shipping, so fit for use straight out of its box. Better anything else is junk if the optics are bad.

 

APM & other owner-identified businesses, because their owners' names & associated brands are linked to them, are on the line more. Those from mass-production faceless firms, as for the Sky-Watcher ED150, can make changes, or not. But as firms like Tele Vue know & demonstrate, reputation is very important in niche markets. Every lemon report damages much more than just its single item, doubt is sown, scepticism on all "X" brands quality arises. Marcus does his reputation and his business a disfavour by selling any scope with bad optics. Big Chinese companies can shrug off much more than smaller ones. The latter are patronised because they are expected to be better quality, justifying their higher prices, any let-down is much more serious.

Refractors are no different than any other optical device, and can become misaligned via a variety of mechanisms. If a scope is designed to be collimated by the user, then the user should expect that they will have to collimate it once and a while.  And Quality control issues can happen for ANY brand.  As you say, firms like TV and AP charge SIGNIFICANTLY more per inch of aperture, in part because they maintain a very high QC standard.  The reality is that the APM ED scopes ARE mass produced Chinese products.  This is why they cost <3000 dollars, instead of 13,000 dollars in the 6 inch aperture region.   It is not surprising that the occasional dud slips through.  Thomas evaluated the scope, presented his complaint to the vendor, and the vendor fixed it.  I agree, one would hope that such an obvious defect would have been caught at the factory, but if Thomas was the first one to look through it, no one might have noticed.  I have no idea if his vendor claims that every scope they sell is star tested.  If they do then I would guess the scope would cost more than it does.  

 

In any event, Thomas' approach to the vendor was successful.   I am reminded of another old saying that you catch more flies with Honey than Vinegar.

 

 

JMD


  • stevew, BillP and Astrojensen like this

#90 aneeg

aneeg

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,319
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Nesodden, Norway

Posted 16 December 2019 - 02:53 AM

Altair Astro sell the exactly the same scope, but it comes with an interferometry test report matching the serial number.

Then you have a kind of QC.

 

Arne



#91 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,505
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 December 2019 - 10:10 AM

In any event, Thomas' approach to the vendor was successful.   I am reminded of another old saying that you catch more flies with Honey than Vinegar.

 

This is indeed true.  Others should take note of his approach!

 

On another note, I find it curious that so many want to continue to dwell on the least important aspect of Thomas' journey, the initial steps of testing the waters which were an unhappy experience all of which lay firmly in the past and are no reflection of the present.  Why not focus on the much greater and longer part of the journey, the "important" part, which is what happens when one overcomes their initial hardships?  These parts, after all, are where the future lays!  And it is indeed a bright one!  While there is no denying that "in the beginning" the waters were rough, they did not kill nor harm.  And now that the initial storm has passed, the sailing is simply beautiful!  I find it of more benefit to focus on the joy Thomas has fought for and won.  Well deserved too!  I want to hear more of his adventures as I am sure they will be intensely interesting as he courses his way through the heavens with his new found 152mm friend smile.gif

 

From my own experiences some of Thomas' reactions have been interesting to read as they mimic exactly how I feel as well with this product.  And how I continue to feel after many years of use!  His sentiments that I feel most aligned with still to this day are:

  • ...the scope is turning out to be remarkably easy to use...as long as you can...put it out half an hour or more in advance
  • Images are startlingly clear, sharp, bright and with stunning contrast.
  • The color correction is astoundingly good.
  • Low power views were insanely good in a 17mm ES92 (although for me it is with the 17.5mm Morpheus!)
  • ...it's remarkably trouble-free. It just plain works. hamsterdance.gif

 

As a reminder of the times to date, some excerpts from his posts...

 

FIRST LIGHT...

  • Okay, the first light is done. And the result is not very good.
  • The scope has spherical aberration and quite a lot of it.
  • This is NOT what I expected. Especially from seeing how much care went into the mechanical construction.
  • I am really not very happy right now.
  • I will contact Markus Ludes tomorrow, after I come home from work, and see what we can arrange.
  • The lens needs to be replaced.
  • I wrote them an email several days ago and haven't received a reply yet...I'm getting a little miffed here.
  • Markus has agreed to replace the lens. The reason for his delayed response was that he was on a business travel and his employees had not responded to me, despite seeing my email.

 

THE NEW FIRST LIGHT...

  • Low power views were insanely good in a 17mm ES92.
  • Contrast was through the roof...
    • - M33 spiral arms and NGC 604 as a clearly visible little glow (71x)
    • - NGC 206 in M31. Hints of dark bands in M31 (71x)
    • - NGC 404 extremely obvious near Mirach (71x)
    • - NGC 7789 a huge cloud of pinpoint stars
    • - details in NGC 7662 at 600x
    • - details in IC 2149 at 600x
    • - NGC 2158 near M35 partially resolved (71x)
    • - hints of details in NGC 2022 (179x)
  • Theta Aurigae was extremely easily resolved at 179x.
  • I looked at Gamma Andromedae at 600x and the spurious disks were tight and sharp with hard outlines, albeit with maybe slightly too prominent diffraction rings.
  • A downside is that it apparently takes a very long time to cool down. I had not expected a cooldown time in excess of 1.5 hours for a doublet.

 

AND ANOTHER JOURNEY...

  • Had second light this evening.
  • In short, it performed very, very well indeed.
  • Very sharp, clean views (as far as the seeing allowed), with very little false color that was basically only faintly visible at 255x and not at all at 179x or lower.
  • It doesn't take longer to set this scope up, than it does for the 4" f/11 ED on the same mount.

 

AND ANOTHER JOURNEY...

  • It suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, cleared again this evening, around 8 P.M.  Half an hour later, I had the scope set up. Setup takes less than ten minutes.
  • That the scope is usable at a magnification of 120x after just half an hour cooldown is great news. This means it has potential to be used a lot more often than I thought at first.
  • Images are startlingly clear, sharp, bright and with stunning contrast. The color correction is astoundingly good.
  • I am starting to like this scope A LOT.

 

AND ANOTHER JOURNEY...

  • With a bit of forethought, the scope is turning out to be remarkably easy to use on a normal weekday evening, as long as you can plan so far ahead, that you can put it out half an hour or more in advance. An hour is better.
  • And the scope is so good, you'll want to use it at every opportunity. I'm falling in love with the mechanics of the scope, as well as the optics. The focuser is just sublime and everything reaches focus easily.
  • Once you get it cooled down, it's remarkably trouble-free. It just plain works.

 

AND MORE AND MORE EXCITING OBSERVATIONS TO COME I AM SURE waytogo.gifwaytogo.gif


Edited by BillP, 16 December 2019 - 10:17 AM.

  • RogerLaureys, Moravianus, daquad and 6 others like this

#92 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 13,370
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 16 December 2019 - 11:16 AM

I accept what you say for reflectors due to their designs, but not refractors. Refractors can and should be made as binoculars, spotting scopes, camera lenses.

I have seen defective binoculars, spotting scopes and camera lenses that all needed to go back to the manufacturer for a repair or where simply replaced. Even expensive ones. So your point is exactly what? How is that different to the current situation?

 

 

A new refractor as a unit should work perfectly before leaving a factory, constructed and packaged, to remain so during shipping, so fit for use straight out of its box.

And this is also true in most cases, even for inexpensive brands. There are brands where this is virtually always the case. They do not make $3000 6" ED apochromats... They make +$10k 6" apochromats. 

 

And even then, you can't be 100% sure. If you ALWAYS want to be 100% sure the telescope works as advertized after shipping, you basically need someone from the factory to come along with it and install it, like in the early 20th century. I don't think most people are prepared to pay what that costs. 

 

 

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark


  • daquad, eros312, Kunama and 1 other like this

#93 garret

garret

    Surveyor 1

  • ****-
  • Posts: 1,649
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2009
  • Loc: Netherlands

Posted 16 December 2019 - 02:21 PM

 

And this is also true in most cases, even for inexpensive brands. There are brands where this is virtually always the case. They do not make $3000 6" ED apochromats... They make +$10k 6" apochromats.

 

And even then, you can't be 100% sure. If you ALWAYS want to be 100% sure the telescope works as advertized after shipping, you basically need someone from the factory to come along with it and install it, like in the early 20th century. I don't think most people are prepared to pay what that costs.

The APM 140mm F7 is tested thoroughly before shipping from Germany, Mark Ludes explains it clearly in the Vendor section 2 1/2 years ago : https://www.cloudyni...-controle-info/


Edited by garret, 16 December 2019 - 02:23 PM.


#94 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,505
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 December 2019 - 02:56 PM

The APM 140mm F7 is tested thoroughly before shipping from Germany, Mark Ludes explains it clearly in the Vendor section 2 1/2 years ago : https://www.cloudyni...-controle-info/

IMO, when one finds things like this, they cannot be taken to be true today.  Two and a half years ago, when this was said, I am certain it was true.  But a lot can change with a business operation over time.  Is it still done this way today?  No way of knowing unless the vendor is re-affirming what they said in the current day.  I too often see others pull up 10 year old discussions from RC and others related to business operations and make the rather large leap of faith that what was said as true in the far past is still the same today.  You just cannot make that assumption with any level of confidence.  In the business world I come from standards of business operation are reaffirmed annually.  If they are not then those old process standards are just a wish list.


  • Astrojensen, eros312, Bomber Bob and 2 others like this

#95 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,505
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 16 December 2019 - 03:04 PM

Thomas, Have you taken a gander at M42 yet?  Especially with your 17mm ES92?  If your site is semi dark (i.e., Milky Way clearly visible) then you are in for a nice treat.  Quite spectacular to see.  I can see the wings wrap completely around to form a circle as it does in this image - https://upload.wikim...rion_Nebula.jpg!  Just an amazing high contrast view!


  • Astrojensen and salico like this

#96 WyattDavis

WyattDavis

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,179
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2013
  • Loc: Rye, NH, USA

Posted 16 December 2019 - 03:11 PM

Thomas, it sounds like things are turning out very well and that the really journey is just beginning! May we have a picture of the esteemed astronomer with this fabulous new instrument?


  • Astrojensen likes this

#97 salico

salico

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 749
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2016
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 16 December 2019 - 03:40 PM

Thomas, Have you taken a gander at M42 yet?  Especially with your 17mm ES92?  If your site is semi dark (i.e., Milky Way clearly visible) then you are in for a nice treat.  Quite spectacular to see.  I can see the wings wrap completely around to form a circle as it does in this image - https://upload.wikim...rion_Nebula.jpg!  Just an amazing high contrast view!

I once could under a very dark sky (Bortle 2/3)  with my ED 120 Binocular Telescope. A true miracle! Wings closed, incredible contrast, subtle colours. Now, under my mid Bortle 4 skies still nice, but far away from what is possible. Dark sky rules...
 


  • BillP likes this

#98 Kunama

Kunama

    Aussie at large

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,722
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Canberra, Australia

Posted 16 December 2019 - 04:16 PM

Any product that is not fit for purpose out of the box is a lemon. 

 

Thomas was remarkably patient and forgiving. He also has the skills snd experience, as you do BillP,  to know, communicate & fix. You both and others with experience, or knowing people with expertise are the exceptions. 

 

Selling lemons, either from a factory, or with no travel settings for protection, are products not fit for purpose. APM in your cases, got away lightly. But Joe Public buyer would be stuck with a flawed scope. They might be priced well for what they are, but they still cost a pretty penny, and consumers are entitled to expect working quality, not disappointment for dollars or needing DIY refractor optic expertise.              

I disagree, I consider a 6"ED Doublet like the APM to be almost a gift at the price.  Though Thomas's scope was not performing as he expected, it seems it was an outlier compared to the norm for the particular model.  Whilst $3K sounds like a lot of money, it is an absolute bargain basement price for a 6" ED refractor.  If you want all the guarantees on optical quality and packaging etc you better be prepared to pony up a few more $$$.  

 

Consider what a top tier 6" refractor costs (TOA150, APM-LZOS 152, Agema 152 come to mind) then ask yourself is it reasonable to expect everything to be perfect out of the box if you're paying only 30% of the price......

 

Regarding Thomas's scope, I think he handled the situation well overall.  I look forward to more observing reports, hopefully his skies are not shrouded in wildfire smoke like ours at the moment.....


Edited by Kunama, 16 December 2019 - 09:12 PM.

  • 3 i Guy, daquad, Astrojensen and 3 others like this

#99 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,560
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 16 December 2019 - 09:52 PM

Altair Astro sell the exactly the same scope, but it comes with an interferometry test report matching the serial number.

Then you have a kind of QC.

 

Arne

Can you post a link to it? I only see the 152 triplet, and 150mm FPL53 doublet...


Edited by stevew, 16 December 2019 - 09:56 PM.


#100 aneeg

aneeg

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,319
  • Joined: 24 Jan 2016
  • Loc: Nesodden, Norway

Posted 17 December 2019 - 04:51 AM

It is on their web site, next to their 150 apo triplet.

 

Arne




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