59 replies to this topic

[MarkMittlesteadt]

What would your experience be, if you knew absolutely nothing about your equipment aside from it's specs, your use of it and the view through it?

 

Imagine that none of us know anything about our equipment aside from our scope being a refractor, reflector or some kind of catadioptric of a particular aperture, mounted on a GEM, Alt-Az or Dob that we also have no idea about (as to who designed it, manufactured it or where, what brand it is, or who sold it).

 

Imagine, that in addition to our scopes and mounts of unknown origin , we also have no idea who designed or made any of our accessories. No labels, no brands, no known manufacturer, etc. We only have our experience with them to go on.

 

How would this change your perception, perspective or experience with your equipment if the only thing you relied on was your own personal experience with it? Or would it change?

 

I often wonder about someone like Galileo (or any of his relative, or subsequent contemporaries) who had little (if any) choice in their equipment, and had relatively crude instruments, but very dark skies with which to observe.

 

So in using what you have (not knowing the difference between your own gear or someone else's, besides the basic design itself), would your experience be any different? If not, explain. If so, how?

Edited by MarkMittlesteadt, 06 February 2023 - 10:11 AM.

[MikeTahtib]

It's an interesting question.  I have bought fairly high-end stuff because people who seem to know a lot say it's better, because I do not have the time or resources to buy everything, check it all out, make comparisons, then sell off fthe stuff that isn't worth it.  Time under dark skies is rare for me, and I want to make the most of it. 

 

I will say that I have looked through equipment that I found very unsatisfying, that may only be useful for looking at the moon, and i don't think I would have kept up this hobby if that is the gear I had.  I also had my mirror refigured, and was able to see more after that was done. 

[MarkMittlesteadt]

It's an interesting question.  I have bought fairly high-end stuff because people who seem to know a lot say it's better, because I do not have the time or resources to buy everything, check it all out, make comparisons, then sell off fthe stuff that isn't worth it.  Time under dark skies is rare for me, and I want to make the most of it. 

 

I will say that I have looked through equipment that I found very unsatisfying, that may only be useful for looking at the moon, and i don't think I would have kept up this hobby if that is the gear I had.  I also had my mirror refigured, and was able to see more after that was done. 

What if you didn't know what "high end" even meant? What if your perception of the words "high end" only referred to the end of your scope at it's highest when pointed up?

 

Words and terms like "expensive/inexpensive, value, bang-for-the-buck, high end, budget, low end, etc." have no bearing on your equipment. What would you make of your experience?

Edited by MarkMittlesteadt, 06 February 2023 - 10:53 AM.

[gstrumol]

Some time ago Ed Ting wrote an article comparing the 3.5" Questar to a Celestron C90 and a Meade ETX 90mm. He showed lunar images he obtained from all three, taken with all other factors being equal. At the end of the article he showed three new lunar image sets (2 images in each set) and challenged the reader to correctly associate the sets with the right scope. Let's just say it was an interesting exercise that required some close inspection to come to a conclusion (which might be wrong!).

 

Gary

[Supernova74]

Well isn’t that the hobby all round in the art of learning 

Edited by Supernova74, 06 February 2023 - 11:05 AM.

[MarkMittlesteadt]

Some time ago Ed Ting wrote an article comparing the 3.5" Questar to a Celestron C90 and a Meade ETX 90mm. He showed lunar images he obtained from all three, taken with all other factors being equal. At the end of the article he showed three new lunar image sets (2 images in each set) and challenged the reader to correctly associate the sets with the right scope. Let's just say it was an interesting exercise that required some close inspection to come to a conclusion (which might be wrong!).

 

Gary

This ^^^ does directly speak to my point in posting this thread. I'd really be interested (from a human behavioral POV) what effect our knowledge of specific designs, branding, etc. have on the direct field experience with our equipment (consciously or subconsciously).

 

So, if we did not know of these things, would it change our experience with it?

Edited by MarkMittlesteadt, 06 February 2023 - 11:07 AM.

[siriusandthepup]

 

I often wonder about someone like Galileo (or any of his relative, or subsequent contemporaries) who had little (if any) choice in their equipment, and had relatively crude instruments, but very dark skies with which to observe.

Are you kidding me?

 

I'm Galileo - I am stoked just to have a telescope! How lucky am I? Never mind that, I worked hard to get this telescope! It wasn't cheap.

Crude? Are you mental? This thing is the latest state of the art in telescopes. None better! I feel sorry for all the other people that don't have a telescope.

 

And, of course I observe from dark skies - where else would I observe? Though I do hate winters when all my neighbors are burning their wood fires all night long and smoking me out.

[Jethro7]

Hello Mark,

That is pretty much how I got started with the Astro Hobby. I had no idea what I needed and no Idea how to really use the gear. Some things are intuitive and other things are not.The Astro Hobby has been a wonderful educational and fun adventure dotted with moments of frustrating along the way but this how we learn.

 

 

HAPPY SKIES AND KEEP LOOKING UP Jethro

[TOMDEY]

Well... I'd note that my (unbeknownst generic Chevette) gets me around OK... but/and I'd also notice that my neighbor's (unbeknownst generic Corvette) gets him around faster, safer, and more enjoyably. So, I'd envy my neighbor and lament my station in life.

 

On the other hand... my telescopes... I'd note that they all perform magnificently, and muse that whoever selected and purchased them must be a wealthy genius savant... but/and I'd also notice that all of my neighbors' telescopes look junky and seem to frustrate them to no end. So I'd pity my neighbors (with a dollop of righteous schadenfreude), and celebrate my exalted station on life.    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[jmillsbss]

I can offer a report....

 

I bought a 4" achro of low rank, although I didn't know of it's poor reputation as a "purple haze" instrument, and as a first (refractor) scope wasn't terribly disappointed.  I read much about the flaws of a single lens instrument and began to long for something with no spurious color. A number 8 yellow cleaned it up nicely.  But after much "you want an APO/triplet" influence, my next purchase was a $1000 used triplet, which seemed like the answer.  To my dismay, it was far from APO, as it had claimed to be, and I felt like I'd been hoodoo-ed by a big name.  Not a Tak or AP but expected better.

 

I recently acquired a very small (house brand) doublet that punches WAAAAAY above it's weight and is a splendid wide-field instrument, with ZERO color even past it's highest recommended magnification.  As near perfect as I could have ever expected and better.

 

I had experience and background and some knowledge had been developed over time.  My views are skewed based on my current understanding of optics and my observing experience.  Coming from one who only had reflectors for some time, spurious color is one of my first noticed aberrations, but I also see field curvature and astigmatism.

 

To the OP questions:  My friend, who had been over to observe with me a couple of times, had no such prejudices.  He was in the market for a scope but didn't know WHAT he wanted, other than he didn't want as much as a mid-sized Dob for the hassle, but was more interested in a modest refractor.

 

Last December we had good observing conditions and I invited him and his wife over for some pre-Christmas observing, to let him kick the tires, so to speak.  I had 3 refractors (an 80mm doublet and the 102 triplet and a 102 achromat) set up and we used mid level APM 60-65 degree eyepieces, since I had duplicates from binoviewing.  We could go scope to scope and compare views accordingly.

 

They were both certain the larger, heavier, "fancy-looking" triplet would be the winner, but had to have flaws pointed out in the achro.  They noticed issues once shown and they were amazed at the little doublet.  They went from a $1500 budget to buying a $450 scope and had enough money left to buy a very nice alt/az mount and a handful of really nice eyepieces.  They are thrilled with their experience and scope so far, and as far as I can tell, don't spend time on the forums debating back and forth about all the details.

 

They just enjoy their little 80mm doublet and are so proud of it.

 

I'm sure we bring our on prejudices to the experience.  I wish I didn't, but I come at things with critical expectations, and I'm disappointed more often than I would like to be.

[jmillsbss]

Well... I'd note that my (unbeknownst generic Chevette) gets me around OK... but/and I'd also notice that my neighbor's (unbeknownst generic Corvette) gets him around faster, safer, and more enjoyably. So, I'd envy my neighbor and lament my station in life.

 

On the other hand... my telescopes... I'd note that they all perform magnificently, and muse that whoever selected and purchased them must be a wealthy genius savant... but/and I'd also notice that all of my neighbors' telescopes look junky and seem to frustrate them to no end. So I'd pity my neighbors (with a dollop of righteous schadenfreude), and celebrate my exalted station on life.    Tom

How about that laser test?

[gstrumol]

This ^^^ does directly speak to my point in posting this thread. I'd really be interested (from a human behavioral POV) what effect our knowledge of specific designs, branding, etc. have on the direct field experience with our equipment (consciously or subconsciously).

 

So, if we did not know of these things, would it change our experience with it?

You're familiar with the term 'cognitive dissonance' yes? I think this plays a role in how we perceive the value of a thing, based upon what it cost us. For example, consider the following two images of the moon:

 

(click on to enlarge)

 

I tell you that these were taken using two different scopes: scope A on the left and scope B on the right. Which image is better, and why?

 

I now tell you that scope A is a 17" Planewave CDK17 with an astrophotography camera and scope B is a 4" refractor with an old iPhone over the EP. Does this change your opinion?

 

I now inform you that scope A costs over $22,000 while scope B costs around $400. Would you be happy spending the money for scope A given the difference? Has your perception of the quality difference changed given this new information?

 

When we spend a LOT on a scope we want to believe that we spent it wisely, and that we have obtained value commensurate with the difference to a similar, but far less expensive, substitute. Seeing less difference causes cognitive dissonance in our brain, and we adjust our perceptions to reduce or eliminate that dissonance. It's human nature!

 

Gary

Edited by gstrumol, 06 February 2023 - 11:55 AM.

[jmillsbss]

Well... I'd note that my (unbeknownst generic Chevette) gets me around OK... but/and I'd also notice that my neighbor's (unbeknownst generic Corvette) gets him around faster, safer, and more enjoyably. So, I'd envy my neighbor and lament my station in life.

 

On the other hand... my telescopes... I'd note that they all perform magnificently, and muse that whoever selected and purchased them must be a wealthy genius savant... but/and I'd also notice that all of my neighbors' telescopes look junky and seem to frustrate them to no end. So I'd pity my neighbors (with a dollop of righteous schadenfreude), and celebrate my exalted station on life.    Tom

I'd be willing to pay the freight, both ways, heck, I'd even add insurance, if you'd let me borrow those binos a couple weeks?  

[wolf man]

   I love this question! Darkness sometimes provides the "plain brown wrapper" experience when you are looking through other peoples' scopes without knowing the make and model. I've had my socks blown off by some modest scopes that didn't cost a fortune. I think this is a very good reason for those entering the hobby to get out there and look through different scopes before sinking a lot of money into a rig of their own. As Ed Ting once wrote: "Astronomy is like many hobbies. You can spend a lot of money only to find out that you didn't need to spend that much in the first place."

   A friend of mine used to have a little fun with his guests by serving them a so-so brand of scotch from a bottle that once housed a rare single malt. The praise was almost unanimous. (To his credit he did tell them afterwards about this cruel and unethical experiment...). 

   On the flip side there's the now legendary experiment in which renowned violinist Joshua Bell took his 1713 Stradivarius to a Washington D.C. subway station and played as any busker would. Most people walked right by, some tossed a little money into his case, and only one person among hundreds recognized him.

   I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe when I'm done rebuilding my first scope (a Tasco 9te5) I'll paint it in Takahashi colors and have a some fun...

[jmillsbss]

You're familiar with the term 'cognitive dissonance' yes? I think this plays a role in how we perceive the value of a thing, based upon what it cost us. For example, consider the following two images of the moon:

 

CDKcomp2.jpg

(click on to enlarge)

 

I tell you that these were taken using two different scopes: scope A on the left and scope B on the right. Which image is better, and why?

 

I now tell you that scope A is a 17" Planewave CDK17 with an astrophotography camera and scope B is a 4" refractor with an old iPhone over the EP. Does this change your opinion?

 

I now inform you that scope A costs over $22,000 while scope B costs around $400. Would you be happy spending the money for scope A given the difference? Has your perception of the quality difference changed given this new information?

 

When we spend a LOT on a scope we want to believe that we spent it wisely, and that we have obtained value commensurate with the difference to a similar, but far less expensive, substitute. Seeing less difference causes cognitive dissonance in our brain, and we adjust our perceptions to reduce or eliminate that dissonance. It's human nature!

 

Gary

Well done, sir.  I'll give you $400 for that CDK.  I'll be glad to pay the actual shipping costs and even the PP fees?

[Astrojensen]

This ^^^ does directly speak to my point in posting this thread. I'd really be interested (from a human behavioral POV) what effect our knowledge of specific designs, branding, etc. have on the direct field experience with our equipment (consciously or subconsciously).

 

So, if we did not know of these things, would it change our experience with it?

It really shouldn't, if we are honest with ourselves, but for some, it might. For some, it most definitely does. We are all biased, to some degree, but some much less than others. Some people love specific brands, others just love equipment. It is reviews from the latter group that you should pay extra attention to, because they tend to call things as they see them.

 

I've grown up as an amateur astronomer on an eclectic mix of equipment, most of which was completely unknown to me. It took decades, before I got something brand spanking new. I have used a large number of scopes of all kinds of brands and designs, and I can say without the slightest hesitation, that sometimes the big names make some really head-scratching ****-ups, and that extremely obscure companies can make some astoundingly good optics. If you are honest with yourself, you can save a TON of money, if you care less about what name is on the gear, and more about what you can actually see with it. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark

[Neanderthal]

You're familiar with the term 'cognitive dissonance' yes? I think this plays a role in how we perceive the value of a thing, based upon what it cost us. For example, consider the following two images of the moon:

 

CDKcomp2.jpg

(click on to enlarge)

 

I tell you that these were taken using two different scopes: scope A on the left and scope B on the right. Which image is better, and why?

 

I now tell you that scope A is a 17" Planewave CDK17 with an astrophotography camera and scope B is a 4" refractor with an old iPhone over the EP. Does this change your opinion?

 

I now inform you that scope A costs over $22,000 while scope B costs around $400. Would you be happy spending the money for scope A given the difference? Has your perception of the quality difference changed given this new information?

 

When we spend a LOT on a scope we want to believe that we spent it wisely, and that we have obtained value commensurate with the difference to a similar, but far less expensive, substitute. Seeing less difference causes cognitive dissonance in our brain, and we adjust our perceptions to reduce or eliminate that dissonance. It's human nature!

 

Gary

I believe there's a little of this in that aperture envy, fever thread, lol.

[MarkMittlesteadt]

Well... I'd note that my (unbeknownst generic Chevette) gets me around OK... but/and I'd also notice that my neighbor's (unbeknownst generic Corvette) gets him around faster, safer, and more enjoyably. So, I'd envy my neighbor and lament my station in life.

I used to tell people years ago that I owned a 'Vette. I did own and drive one. They were surprised when I pulled up with my Chevette. 

[Astrojensen]

You're familiar with the term 'cognitive dissonance' yes? I think this plays a role in how we perceive the value of a thing, based upon what it cost us. For example, consider the following two images of the moon:

 

CDKcomp2.jpg

(click on to enlarge)

 

I tell you that these were taken using two different scopes: scope A on the left and scope B on the right. Which image is better, and why?

 

I now tell you that scope A is a 17" Planewave CDK17 with an astrophotography camera and scope B is a 4" refractor with an old iPhone over the EP. Does this change your opinion?

 

I now inform you that scope A costs over $22,000 while scope B costs around $400. Would you be happy spending the money for scope A given the difference? Has your perception of the quality difference changed given this new information?

 

Gary

The only thing the images prove, is that they're taken by an unskilled photographer. Neither shows anywhere near the theoretical resolution of even a 40mm scope, and I'm not paying $400 for something with worse performance than my 40mm achromat... It would be extremely foolish to make a decision based on so little evidence.  

 

 

When we spend a LOT on a scope we want to believe that we spent it wisely, and that we have obtained value commensurate with the difference to a similar, but far less expensive, substitute. Seeing less difference causes cognitive dissonance in our brain, and we adjust our perceptions to reduce or eliminate that dissonance. It's human nature!

This is generally true, but I think you're too harsh here. A lot of people ARE in fact able to remain highly objective in their evaluation of their astronomical equipment. If this wasn't true, we wouldn't be seeing threads about people selling their very expensive scopes (usually some kind of apochromat) and getting a Dobsonian instead, yet such threads are not uncommon. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark 

[Scott99]

How would this change your perception, perspective or experience with your equipment if the only thing you relied on was your own personal experience with it? Or would it change?

zero difference....I have innoculated my brain against late-stage capitalism corporate branding and associated groupthink-brainwashing!
 

Edited by Scott99, 06 February 2023 - 12:43 PM.

[MikeTahtib]

What if you didn't know what "high end" even meant? What if your perception of the words "high end" only referred to the end of your scope at it's highest when pointed up?

 

Words and terms like "expensive/inexpensive, value, bang-for-the-buck, high end, budget, low end, etc." have no bearing on your equipment. What would you make of your experience?

What I'm saying is I (and I'm guessing a lot of people) don't really know how good teh equipment we've bought is, because we dond't know what is possible or what to expect.  If I had the best views on a star party field, I would be very happy, and if I later found out I was getting those views with the cheapest equipment on the field, I would be even happier still.

 

If you're asking what I think of my equipment from an absolute perspective, without comparing to any other equipment, I'd say I'm deeply disappointed.  I do not see the brightly colored nebulae and beautifully spiraled arms of galaxies like I see in photos.

On the other hand, I'm terribly happy to be able to see anything at all, and a fair amount at that.  I'm happy to be under the dark skies with my paper atlas and equipment which I have selected to suit my needs at the most general level (in terms of aperture, mobility, field of view, ease of use), searching out dim fuzzy blobs, and am thrilled when one finally pops into my field of view. 

 

What you describe is what happens at star parties.  That is when I have been able to judge equipment on performance (to some degree) rather than brand name.  Even then, it is not always possible to know if the difference is due to soem macro difference, like aperture, focal ratio, or use of paracorr, or if it's due to something being a fundamentally better version of what it is.

[Rabbanah]

I think that most would agree that there is a curve with price on one axis and quality on the other and that the line is generally not linear. 

 

The first scope that I had experience with was my 6 yo son’s scope, scope X. I was blown away and loved that scope. It got me hooked and I have since upgraded a few times and have finally landed on my current scope, scope Z. My wife is not big into astronomy and seldom does any looking through scopes. In fact, she looked through my son’s scope and then, to my knowledge, did not look through another scope until I pointed scope Z at the limb of the moon one night. She did a literal double take and had one of those, “is that real” looks on her face.

 

There is definitely a large difference between a $100 package (scope, mount, tripod, eyepiece) and a $3-5,000 package, both in price and quality. I am not certain, though, how dramatic the curve is. When I look through another scope of mine, scope Y, I am blown away and feel that the difference between it and scope Z is definitely not as large as comparing the differences in views between scope X and either of scopes Y or Z.

 

So $100 gives eye popping views to someone who does not know. But, $900 will blow those views away and compete with the views of $5000. I can tell the difference between scope Z and scope Y, but would not suggest an uninitiated person go out and buy top shelf gear because those differences are so slight. 

 

In thinking differently about this, I wonder how many people would say that scope Y is 9x better than scope X? Is scope Z 50x better? Is scope Z 5x better than the scope Y? I don’t know. I do know that I feel rewarded when I get all that I can out of any of these scopes. Even though I have scope Z, I still take out my son’s scope from time to time and love the views it gives.

Edited by Rabbanah, 06 February 2023 - 02:29 PM.

[Philip Jodry]

People get to see and touch my 114ps Sky Watcher and they freak out. I always switch eyepieces and they double freak out. A red dot finder impresses them more than a Ferrari.

[MikeTahtib]

This reminds me of my experience as a life-long audiophile.  Early on, in the late 80s, I realized that most audio equipment that purported to be high-end was really awful (mainly due to overblown bass and treble to make buyers go "Wow, I'm hearing things I've never heard before").  I was able to put together a system that sounded great without regard to the influence of pushy shopkeepers or the biggest advertising budgets because I had a good idea of what music was supposed to sound like.  I also noticed that these companies were also very successful, because people did recognize what they were capable of.

 

The problem with applying this approach to astro gear is that I did not come into this with good understanding of what is possible.

Edited by MikeTahtib, 06 February 2023 - 01:11 PM.

[sevenofnine]

Amateur photography is a lot like amateur astronomy. Both are filled with optical toys...equipment. Isn't that what it really comes down to? Aren't we just playing with stuff? I learned my lesson chasing better photographic gear thinking it would somehow make me a better photographer. When I started this hobby again, I tried to rein in that urge to buy what others claim is the best. Maybe it is for them but not for me