26 replies to this topic

[ewstone]

If ever the expression, "when the stars align" could be played, this is the time. Enter in the complexities of materials, coatings, grinding, and alignment, what could possibly go wrong? I have a pair of Nikon Aculon with superior optics than my friend's.... not going to mention the brand, however he paid 10X the cost of mine. Assuming I have a point, there is some luck with the assembly of any precision devise. Anyone other ever hear Quality Control say, "Don't let it get any worse." Well, I have.

I applauded those who take the time to evaluate their equipment. Opinion, conjecture, whatever. I trust on this platform, evaluations are not malicious, just occasionally flawed. 

I'll leave with a question. If high quality and large sized Calcium Fluoride (CaF2) is grown under controlled conditions, can we still call it glass?   

I respect Your Opinions!

[Jeffmar]

I didn’t really mean to infer that my Explore Scientific had bad optics. The only issue I had with it was some inverted spikes around bright stars that were a result of some tight secondary screws  that were supposed to immobilize the lenses during shipping. Explore Scientific helped me out with some suggestions. Some imaging tests I did showed my more expensive Phantom 140 and my much more expensive Esprit150 to be a bit sharper on small colored printed words and numbers from 90 feet away. Some of that could be from larger apertures. In the real world I am not sure that the stars and nebulae on images would be noticeably different on most targets.

My Phantom was about 1700 dollars more than my ES127. My Esprit was 5000 dollars more than my ES127. Unless you are buying scopes that are collectors items you usually get what you pay for in this hobby, as far as performance goes.