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

Dust and speck of paper inside a new triplet

  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#51 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 26 February 2020 - 05:44 PM

If the patterns appear to be the same (relative to the frame “coordinate system”) when you rotate the camera, that means they are generated by something that moves with the camera, and not by the objective lens.

Absolutely



#52 Mr. Mike

Mr. Mike

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,123
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Churchville, NY

Posted 26 February 2020 - 08:38 PM

Geesh - theres a lot of threads about this happening lately.  Whats going on out there?  Is this a new thing?  Ive bought several refractors from several different mfgers and have never had this happen.  And thats from "middle tier" companies, not the uber high-end scopes.  My goodness. frown.gif


Edited by Mr. Mike, 26 February 2020 - 08:38 PM.

  • beanerds likes this

#53 skyward_eyes

skyward_eyes

    Vendor - Sky-Watcher USA

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 5,109
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2006

Posted 26 February 2020 - 11:23 PM

In order for objects in the objective to show up in an image it would have to be very serious.

Anything that generally shows up in an image: dust bunnies, fibrous objects, shadows, etc... usually have to be near the focus point where they would obstruct light. This means filters, flattener and camera.

We have customers ask about this all the time. There is a telescope at McDonald observatory that has six bullet holes in the mirror and it is still completely functional and used nightly for research. It would take a lot to seriously affect an image via an objective issue.

Edited by skyward_eyes, 26 February 2020 - 11:24 PM.

  • m9x18 and Steve Allison like this

#54 Erik Bakker

Erik Bakker

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 8,743
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2006
  • Loc: Netherlands, Europe

Posted 27 February 2020 - 04:02 AM

Regardless of effects on the final image, it seems the OP is not happy with his new scope. Return for a refund is perhaps the best solution shrug.gif  


  • peleuba and m9x18 like this

#55 m9x18

m9x18

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,812
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Abilene, Texas USA

Posted 27 February 2020 - 09:15 AM

Small filaments of dust get caught in the tubes during assembly. They are blown out but at times you cannot clear out every piece with the baffles installed. Shipping will move these around. They won't cause any issues. 

 

Now, that being said, the paper is something that should not be there, period. The scratches on the optics are also not acceptable in anyway. This is a $6000+ scope and should arrive as such. 

You're right Erik and most if not all of us agree with you and I think he indicated this sentiment earlier saying this is unacceptable.  See the quote above.


Edited by m9x18, 27 February 2020 - 09:22 AM.


#56 XM381

XM381

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2019

Posted 27 February 2020 - 09:44 AM

I had to look up the McDonald Observatory incident, crazy!

 

I won't be complaining about dusk specks anymore!

 

https://astroanecdot...oting-incident/

 

 

dscn0341.jpg

 

Mike W


Edited by XM381, 27 February 2020 - 09:45 AM.

  • tog, m9x18 and ken30809 like this

#57 m9x18

m9x18

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,812
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Abilene, Texas USA

Posted 27 February 2020 - 10:17 AM

This is what happens when your wife finds out about your latest covert purchase.  : )


  • MikeRatcliff and ken30809 like this

#58 ngc7319_20

ngc7319_20

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2015
  • Loc: MD

Posted 27 February 2020 - 10:44 AM

Geesh - theres a lot of threads about this happening lately.  Whats going on out there?  Is this a new thing?  Ive bought several refractors from several different mfgers and have never had this happen.  And thats from "middle tier" companies, not the uber high-end scopes.  My goodness. frown.gif

It's February and people are too busy looking "at" their scopes rather than through them...


  • Mr. Mike and BFaucett like this

#59 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,763
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 27 February 2020 - 12:51 PM

Honestly his initial picture looked pretty good to me other than that speck of paper or something that eventually fell off. Now it has been cleaned and might have scratches as a result. The picture indicating scratches was taken with a flashlight so not sure if they are even visible under normal lighting conditions.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t consider legal action myself, but remember the vendor is probably already out some shipping money, and now could be forced to take a scope back and sell as a return, losing money in the process. Maybe even $1,000. As has been discussed, the margins are thin and the dealers are mostly small vendors who are in it for the love of the hobby, not to get rich. It is easy in our society to side with the little guy against the big heartless corporations, but that probably isn’t the case here. I can understand the vendor being upset about having to take a loss on a fantastic scope due to a nearly invisible defect that has no apparent effect on performance. Should the vendor take it back? Probably. But I can understand why they are resisting.

Scott

#60 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 27 February 2020 - 04:35 PM

Honestly his initial picture looked pretty good to me other than that speck of paper or something that eventually fell off. Now it has been cleaned and might have scratches as a result. The picture indicating scratches was taken with a flashlight so not sure if they are even visible under normal lighting conditions.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t consider legal action myself, but remember the vendor is probably already out some shipping money, and now could be forced to take a scope back and sell as a return, losing money in the process. Maybe even $1,000. As has been discussed, the margins are thin and the dealers are mostly small vendors who are in it for the love of the hobby, not to get rich. It is easy in our society to side with the little guy against the big heartless corporations, but that probably isn’t the case here. I can understand the vendor being upset about having to take a loss on a fantastic scope due to a nearly invisible defect that has no apparent effect on performance. Should the vendor take it back? Probably. But I can understand why they are resisting.

Scott

Yes you are absolutely correct, the scratches are not visible under normal lighting conditions and it does require a flashlight being directed at the right angle in order to see them.

Also I must say the selling price is indeed very good, thus very thin margin.

 

Now that being said, the scope was sold as being selected among several 150ED and only the best taken.

 

Even though it probably might not affect image it still could. I am pretty sure resell value is affected. I still paid big bucks and expect pristine material, no paper bits moving around, no cleaning marks/scratches.

 

I don't have any issues per say to the shop cleaning and getting the scope right rather than replacing it. But in this case I should be informed about it and assured things are done right.


  • ken30809, Kunama and j.gardavsky like this

#61 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,763
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 27 February 2020 - 06:00 PM

Those pictures of the Ronchi test looked really good. It is probably a fantastic performer. Generally I would say any defect that is that hard to see would not affect resale value. Honestly someone would probably never know if you didn’t disclose it.

I had a brand new scope where the finderscope got loose in shipping and caused a couple hairline scratches in the paint. Wasn’t able to get any resolution. Granted it didn’t cost $6000 but it was still a high quality scope from a respected brand. Another time with an ES scope the finder arrived with a couple short but wide scratches in it. I didn’t pursue resolution. I just turn the finder so they don’t really show. At that price point I was able to accept a scratched finder.

But my point is, it can happen.

FWIW I have been quite impressed with the performance of the scope with slight scratches, and even the finderscope was surprisingly good and is still around, after the scope it came with has been sold.

Scott

Edited by SeattleScott, 27 February 2020 - 06:19 PM.


#62 Mr. Mike

Mr. Mike

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,123
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Churchville, NY

Posted 27 February 2020 - 06:16 PM

It's February and people are too busy looking "at" their scopes rather than through them...

Cant argue with that.  Ive had ONE session in the last 2 months.  Winter sucks.  :).  Almost done, I hope.


  • ken30809 and Steve Allison like this

#63 RichA

RichA

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,399
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Toronto, Canada

Posted 28 February 2020 - 12:32 AM

Stuff can move around during shipping. Maybe a speck of dust starts out on the focuser plug, and is on the back of the glass when it arrives. Maybe if the focuser is not air-tight, it can start out in the packing material. 

 

If the scope and views are otherwise ok, I'd forget about it. The speck of dust will affect absolutely nothing.

 

In the old days, manufacturers would sometimes put sticky glue everywhere inside optical instruments to capture loose dust.  This is why.

Some have actually greased things like stop rings to get them into the tube.  Likely only cheap scopes though.



#64 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 28 February 2020 - 03:39 PM

So I have contacted SkyWatcherUSA to get their opinion on this.

 

They have confirmed that if dust on the rear side of the lens is perfectly normal the scratches/cleaning strikes are not.
Also they said that if image quality is indeed not impacted, resell value is.
In conclusion I have been recommended to get the refractor exchanged.

 

They have answered really fast and as a matter of fact were already monitoring this thread.
Wow such great support! I am happy I started true astrophotography with them, a StarAdventurer, and years later ended up with a Losmandy G11 coupled with an Esprit 150ED. What a ride!
I say true astrophotography, because in fact I really started with a tripod and a DSLR, recentering every 3 minutes during the course of several summer nights (5Dmk4/400mm/0.8s-1.3s/ISO3200 subs).
I managed to capture Andromeda, really not a great shot TBH, but that got me caught into this.

 

Meanwhile, I have had the time to start processing acquired subs with the Esprit 150ED and man what a beast!

 

This is 6.5h integration of Hearth Nebula from a Bortle 5 zone!
Best viewed in HQ: https://www.astrobin.../full/ru990h/0/

 

LHOS_cmp.jpg


  • CounterWeight, eros312 and Steve Allison like this

#65 Bill Arden

Bill Arden

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2009
  • Loc: State College, PA

Posted 05 March 2020 - 09:37 PM

Thought you folks might enjoy this: https://www.lensrent...h-a-fly-inside/
  • drprovi57 and Palmito like this

#66 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 10 March 2020 - 12:29 PM

Thought you folks might enjoy this: https://www.lensrent...h-a-fly-inside/


No way!!! And I am complaining about slight scratches :')

#67 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 10 March 2020 - 12:48 PM

Thanks again for all your inputs, advises and support!

 

 

So just to follow up.

 

A few days after I forwarded the mail I received from SkyWatcher, I received an answer from the shop, they said something along the lines of:

"of course, if it is unacceptable to you, send it back for a refund. But we won't replace it, as new one will also have dust or other transport issues or I will find things with my flashlight they didn't find. And the second one was nearly a perfect instrument (as per ronchi test)"

 

Dust... lol.gif No my issue is resell value.

 

In a last attempt, I proposed a compensation for the loss in resell value.
I have been offered EUR 250.- as an absolute maximum.

 

 

I estimated that a second hand Esprit 150 should sell for about USD 3300. Also after reading many threads I estimated the loss around 30% (lowest figure I found).
Which is roughly USD 1000.- loss.

 

 

So I refused the offer and the refractor is going to be sent back for a refund.

 

 

Now the issue is going to be able to find a new one with the Covid-19 around, deliveries have been basically frozen.
I am given a 1 to 2 months waiting time at best before I can get my hands on one...

 

 

Please let me know what you think about my "loss estimation", does it seem realistic to you guys?

Also if you have any good shop to recommend which has stock and ships to Switzerland I would be very grateful!

 

 

Cheers and clear skies!


Edited by Palmito, 10 March 2020 - 01:39 PM.


#68 Reid W

Reid W

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Shreveport, LA

Posted 10 March 2020 - 02:10 PM

With dust there's alway hope for rehabilitation, with scratches, no. 

 

Wise choice to send it back.


  • MortonH, GlenM and Palmito like this

#69 ngc7319_20

ngc7319_20

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2015
  • Loc: MD

Posted 11 March 2020 - 02:27 AM

Based on the excellent auto-collimation test, I would say it is worth MORE than you paid -- perhaps 10% to 15% MORE.  It is a superb lens with minimal zones and good spherical correction. And you've got the report to show it.  (I wish all scopes came with similar test results.)

 

In my opinion these "scratches" are minor sleeks and are perfectly normal and unimportant. You've engineered the picture to make the sleeks look as bad as possible -- you've got a super-bright lamp positioned perpendicular to the sleeks -- that always makes them look their worst.  What exactly is this lamp?  How far is it from the lens? I'm wondering how well my own AP / TMB / Tak / TV APOs would stand up to the same treatment... Probably not as well.  It's normal to see scratches, swirls, coating defects, dust, metal shavings, etc. on brand new lenses if you look hard enough.  I've come to accept this as pretty much normal.

 

I think you would do well to keep it, not waste another minute on this nonsense, and get on with taking more spectacular images.  You are clearly talented and getting nice results with it. 

 

It's a telescope...  I'ts not some device for testing bright flashlights.  Sorry, I just don't understand this obsession with looking for surface imperfections...  Maybe you have some beef with the vendor or something.  I would suggest letting it go, and get back to imaging.  That's my advice.


  • beanerds, BFaucett and Palmito like this

#70 MikiSJ

MikiSJ

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2006
  • Loc: San Jose, CA

Posted 11 March 2020 - 02:59 AM

Some amount of scratches and pits on optics is normal. 

NO! It is not normal. Maybe if you took a microscope at a very high power would you find any pits or scratches - but not with an unaided eye.

 

I have had 4 Taks and one APM/TMB scope and none had any scratches or pits or pieces of paper stuck to the lens.

 

I have had 5 NIKON hi-end Nikkor lenses and not one had a pit or scratch.

 

I currently have a C11 EdgeHD and I have not found a piece of paper stuck to the corrector plate or mirror and neither have I found any pits or scratches.


  • ken30809, Palmito and mtminnesota like this

#71 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 11 March 2020 - 03:14 AM

Based on the excellent auto-collimation test, I would say it is worth MORE than you paid -- perhaps 10% to 15% MORE.  It is a superb lens with minimal zones and good spherical correction. And you've got the report to show it.  (I wish all scopes came with similar test results.)

 

In my opinion these "scratches" are minor sleeks and are perfectly normal and unimportant. You've engineered the picture to make the sleeks look as bad as possible -- you've got a super-bright lamp positioned perpendicular to the sleeks -- that always makes them look their worst.  What exactly is this lamp?  How far is it from the lens? I'm wondering how well my own AP / TMB / Tak / TV APOs would stand up to the same treatment... Probably not as well.  It's normal to see scratches, swirls, coating defects, dust, metal shavings, etc. on brand new lenses if you look hard enough.  I've come to accept this as pretty much normal.

 

I think you would do well to keep it, not waste another minute on this nonsense, and get on with taking more spectacular images.  You are clearly talented and getting nice results with it. 

 

It's a telescope...  I'ts not some device for testing bright flashlights.  Sorry, I just don't understand this obsession with looking for surface imperfections...  Maybe you have some beef with the vendor or something.  I would suggest letting it go, and get back to imaging.  That's my advice.

 

I wouldn't say I have engineered the picture. When I sent an email to Sky-Watcher I have been perfectly clear that it required to be shined in a certain angle. I have also explained they could either be slight scratches or cleaning strikes.

 

Sky-Watchers answer is very clear, says it is not normal or acceptable. I do not think the manufacturer would say that unless it is true.

 

For transparency here is their complete response:

 

"Carl,

 

Yes, we have been monitoring your thread on Cloudy Nights on this.

 

Dust particles behind the objective are normal. These are not assembled in a clean room however great care if make to ensure the lenses are clean before shipment. Particles can still get stuck in the tube and baffles and come loose during shipping. None of this will harm the lens and can simply be blown off. Our optics are hard coated so damage from dust is not an issue, this will also not show up in your images being on the objective so anything such as this is merely cosmetic. Larger particles like paper should not be there but can be addressed by being blown off. We will report this to the factory and assembly.

 

The scratches on the lens are another issue. While they will not affect the telescope's performance in any way they will affect the value of the scope if you choose to resell it. We are surprised that these are there and would have thought an inspection team would have caught this. We know this was purchased from a European dealer so we would ask if these are scopes are inspected before shipment? Here in North America once a shipment arrives the products go through our QC team to ensure everything is as it should be. The scratches in our view are not acceptable and we have never had one arrive like this. This is not something that occurs on every scope.

 

We would recommend exchanging this for another sample.

 

Thank you!

 

Sky-Watcher Support"


Edited by Palmito, 11 March 2020 - 03:14 AM.

  • AdamJ likes this

#72 AdamJ

AdamJ

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2018

Posted 11 March 2020 - 06:33 AM

Here is a nebula shot done last weekend: https://www.astrobin.com/wokbpc/0/

I am shooting from a Bortle 5 zone. Guiding was going very good.

SubframeSelector in PixInsight shows:

- eccentricity between 0.22 and 0.58 with median at 0.37

- FWHM between 2.75" and 3.92" with median at 3.47*

 

So to be honest it performs so much better than my previous setup, but it cannot be compared and those marks just don't feel right to me. I have sought for legal advise to ensure I get the support I might be entitled to. Some of you believe, like the shop, it is normal but most of you, like me, believe it doesn't look right.

 

Currently, I am using a 4/3" ASI 1600. So I am covering only 1/4 of the circle surface. I am worried I could find surprises when I use a full frame sensor.

I plan to upgrade later to a full frame cooled astrocamera. Meanwhile I should maybe buy extension tubes and a canon EF-T2 adapter in order to check this. But it is a pain to spend more bucks for something I'll never use again

Ok so that is a fantastic result in the test shot of the Heart nebula. It sounds like you have got a good lens to me, if i got a result like that then you could not pry the thing out of my hands. If you get a replacement and its perfectly clean but it has either poor figure or poor colimation or some other issue you are going to really regret getting rid of this scope. Forget about the little bit of paper, once the lens is completed its wrapped in paper and the scope itself is not assembled in a clean room so getting a couple of specs on the back element is not uncommon. As for the water marks etc...I had dew marks on my Esprit only visible when fogged up after 1 week of use, so who cares, its going to happen anyway very quickly after normal use. It looks optically good so stop being a perfectionist and keep it, you could have had a scope with fundamental lens issue much than this. 

 

The only caveat is that if those are scratches then I think that you are right to send it back (solely due to resale value), the only thing I have to say is that I have seen scratched lenses first hand before and those don't look like what I have seen in the past, they look like cleaning streaks to me. If they have a shimmer to them when you examine them by eye as opposed to a flat mat appearance like a dew spot then that will tell you they are scratches. 

 

Adam 


Edited by AdamJ, 11 March 2020 - 06:44 AM.


#73 ngc7319_20

ngc7319_20

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Joined: 25 Oct 2015
  • Loc: MD

Posted 11 March 2020 - 10:11 AM

 

Sky-Watchers answer is very clear, says it is not normal or acceptable. I do not think the manufacturer would say that unless it is true.

 

Well, I don't know what their response would be.  It places them in a difficult position to have their product displayed like that.  I kinda doubt they went and tested all their other lenses with that flashlight at different angles like you did for that lens. But the later responses from them are also telling -- that any replacement scope would be no better.  I've posted stuff about lenses before, and that is the usual response from the maker -- that it is somehow one defective lens, and the others are not like that.  (Or some nonsense about how I am intentionally trying to slander them...)   Anyway, if that was my scope taking those images, I'd be very happy...  When you go to sell it someday, just show the auto-collimation test and your nebula images, and there will be no problems.



#74 Palmito

Palmito

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 62
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2018
  • Loc: Lausanne, Switzerland

Posted 11 March 2020 - 11:31 AM

Based on the excellent auto-collimation test, I would say it is worth MORE than you paid -- perhaps 10% to 15% MORE.  It is a superb lens with minimal zones and good spherical correction. And you've got the report to show it.  (I wish all scopes came with similar test results.)

 

In my opinion these "scratches" are minor sleeks and are perfectly normal and unimportant. You've engineered the picture to make the sleeks look as bad as possible -- you've got a super-bright lamp positioned perpendicular to the sleeks -- that always makes them look their worst.  What exactly is this lamp?  How far is it from the lens? I'm wondering how well my own AP / TMB / Tak / TV APOs would stand up to the same treatment... Probably not as well.  It's normal to see scratches, swirls, coating defects, dust, metal shavings, etc. on brand new lenses if you look hard enough.  I've come to accept this as pretty much normal.

 

I think you would do well to keep it, not waste another minute on this nonsense, and get on with taking more spectacular images.  You are clearly talented and getting nice results with it. 

 

It's a telescope...  I'ts not some device for testing bright flashlights.  Sorry, I just don't understand this obsession with looking for surface imperfections...  Maybe you have some beef with the vendor or something.  I would suggest letting it go, and get back to imaging.  That's my advice.

 

 

Ok so that is a fantastic result in the test shot of the Heart nebula. It sounds like you have got a good lens to me, if i got a result like that then you could not pry the thing out of my hands. If you get a replacement and its perfectly clean but it has either poor figure or poor colimation or some other issue you are going to really regret getting rid of this scope. Forget about the little bit of paper, once the lens is completed its wrapped in paper and the scope itself is not assembled in a clean room so getting a couple of specs on the back element is not uncommon. As for the water marks etc...I had dew marks on my Esprit only visible when fogged up after 1 week of use, so who cares, its going to happen anyway very quickly after normal use. It looks optically good so stop being a perfectionist and keep it, you could have had a scope with fundamental lens issue much than this. 

 

The only caveat is that if those are scratches then I think that you are right to send it back (solely due to resale value), the only thing I have to say is that I have seen scratched lenses first hand before and those don't look like what I have seen in the past, they look like cleaning streaks to me. If they have a shimmer to them when you examine them by eye as opposed to a flat mat appearance like a dew spot then that will tell you they are scratches. 

 

Adam 

 

 

Well, I don't know what their response would be.  It places them in a difficult position to have their product displayed like that.  I kinda doubt they went and tested all their other lenses with that flashlight at different angles like you did for that lens. But the later responses from them are also telling -- that any replacement scope would be no better.  I've posted stuff about lenses before, and that is the usual response from the maker -- that it is somehow one defective lens, and the others are not like that.  (Or some nonsense about how I am intentionally trying to slander them...)   Anyway, if that was my scope taking those images, I'd be very happy...  When you go to sell it someday, just show the auto-collimation test and your nebula images, and there will be no problems.

 

 

@ngc7319_20, I have noticed the scratches not by moving my flashlight at different angle but completely by chance.

Because I wanted to know where the piece of paper went when it fell off (I wanted to know if it was on the back or between elements).

Also "any replacement scope would be no better" was said by the shop, not Sky-Watcher.

 

 

I have performed new tests:

- It is daylight and sunny (17h30). The shades are down so I don't get direct sunlight.

- I have been using my phones (Samsung Galaxy Note) flashlight, I don't think we can call this a strong flashlight.

- Scratches can be seen with the phone held between a few centimeters and up to 50 centimeters

- Scratches can be seen with the phone along the optical axis and up to approx. 20°

- They cannot be seen if I hold my flashlight perpendicular. I believe it is because they are on the other side. Also, one is straight the other curved, which tends to make think they might be on different elements.

- There are shimmers. They are not mate and when I move the light the shimmer moves with it.

- PS: scratches are obviously much more visible with a strong flashlight

 

 

I believe this might make the shop look bad but not Sky-Watcher. Moreover my goal was never to make either one of them look bad, only to get an external opinion as the shop suggested. Also I have never said what shop it is. Last but not the least I have only said compliments about Sky-Watcher.

 

 

And, thanks to both of you for your compliments about my picture :-)


Edited by Palmito, 11 March 2020 - 11:35 AM.


#75 helpwanted

helpwanted

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,060
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2007
  • Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Posted 11 March 2020 - 02:05 PM

From what i have read from the vendor to you... my gut says they will put this back on the shelf and sell it to someone else... so this scope could pop up again!




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