544 replies to this topic

[starman876]

Need your eyes checked?    How about this:

 

MoonStitch.jpg

 

It's funny, I hear a lot about the quality of the build, and beauty of the scope itself, but I rarely see an image generated from one of them that can't be easily beaten by a scope 1/10 of the price. Have you?

 

Just curious ... 

was that moon picture taken with a 60mm refractor?

[starman876]

image taken by a Questar 

 

  https://vanderbei.pr...images/Questar/

[gstrumol]

I've had both an ETX-90/EC and a Questar 3.5 Standard at the same time. I think I've said this before but... the Questar is like a work of art, and the ETX is like a toy from Hasbro. However, despite that, if I were buying one today, I'd buy the ETX (or one of the new crop of 90mm Maks). The Q's performance doesn't justify the price for me.

 

However, the Rolex vs Timex comparison is perfect. They both tell time. They both strap to your wrist. If you just want to have a watch to tell the time, the Timex is perfect. But if you want a Rolex, you likely DO NOT want a Timex.

 

Same with the scopes - both will show roughly the same things. Both take up roughly the same space and need similar mounts. If using it as a telescope is what you want, then the ETX will do fine. But if you want a Questar, you likely DO NOT want an ETX.

 

Same goes for a Rolls Royce vs a Kia. Fender vs Squier. Yeti vs Supercycle. Ad nauseam.

 

Clear skies!

 

Rick

The Rolex vs Timex is a flawed argument. When you say "they both tell time" I have to say that they don't tell time equally well. In fact, like any mechanical watch, the Rolex is subject the effects of temperature, causing it to either run slow or fast over a period of time (I know this because I have a Rolex). On the other hand a quartz watch will not suffer from this, making it a better timekeeping piece than the Rolex.

 

One wants a Rolex on their wrist because it is an example of conspicuous consumption. It says "I've arrived". On my wrist now? An Apple watch! It gives me so much more information than a Rolex or a Jaeger-LeCoultre can. 

 

Is a Questar another example of CC? Only the owners can say ... 

[starman876]

The Rolex vs Timex is a flawed argument. When you say "they both tell time" I have to say that they don't tell time equally well. In fact, like any mechanical watch, the Rolex is subject the effects of temperature, causing it to either run slow or fast over a period of time (I know this because I have a Rolex). On the other hand a quartz watch will not suffer from this, making it a better timekeeping piece than the Rolex.

 

One wants a Rolex on their wrist because it is an example of conspicuous consumption. It says "I've arrived". On my wrist now? An Apple watch! It gives me so much more information than a Rolex or a Jaeger-LeCoultre can. 

 

Is a Questar another example of CC? Only the owners can say ... 

I am glad you arrived.  It makes it easier to understand each other

Edited by starman876, 27 January 2024 - 05:11 PM.

[Stew44]

One should mention that Robert Vanderbei is a master of image enhancement with a Questar or any other telescope. He can get incredible resolution improvement through noise reduction and other digital techniques. Wonderful images!

For me I get a hand made telescope with best optics from Mak optics specialists. Aspherized corrector. Literally limited edition parts put together by Questar technicians with tens of years of assembly experience. I consider each one lovingly made by someone who is working to make sure the new owner's appreciation is well earned. My 1957 deluxe looked as new and fresh as my 1996 Duplex, and my 50th Anniversary Questar (#2) had optics only bested by one other (mine was 1/22 PV, that one was 1/26 PV). Some say that they spend a lot of time in closets, but even those with lots of miles on them wear so well it's always exciting to open up the case and see it afresh.

Edited by Stew44, 28 January 2024 - 05:35 AM.

[gstrumol]

I am glad you arrived.  It makes it easier to understand each other

I not only arrived baby, but I stayed for a long while and left! 

 

Regarding the moon image it wasn't taken with a 60mm refractor (as is listed on the pic  ), but here is a single snapshot taken with an 80mm refractor (still less than 90) and a DSLR:

 

 

I also looked at the images of the moon, Jupiter and Saturn you provided in defense of the Questar. Razor sharp! Especially Saturn and Jupiter. Was that the best you could come up with? (Mind you, for a 3.5" Mak they are nice! But it's still only a 3.5" Mak in the end).

 

Try again ... this is fun!

[Rick-T137]

The Rolex vs Timex is a flawed argument. When you say "they both tell time" I have to say that they don't tell time equally well. In fact, like any mechanical watch, the Rolex is subject the effects of temperature, causing it to either run slow or fast over a period of time (I know this because I have a Rolex). On the other hand a quartz watch will not suffer from this, making it a better timekeeping piece than the Rolex.

 

One wants a Rolex on their wrist because it is an example of conspicuous consumption. It says "I've arrived". On my wrist now? An Apple watch! It gives me so much more information than a Rolex or a Jaeger-LeCoultre can. 

 

Is a Questar another example of CC? Only the owners can say ... 

Flawed argument? I don't see the flaw. I'm pretty sure you and I are supporting the same position.

 

I have a mechanical watch (admittedly not a Rolex) and it keeps time well enough for a typical use case. I'm sure the Rolex does as well.

 

Rick

[Astrojensen]

 

It's funny, I hear a lot about the quality of the build, and beauty of the scope itself, but I rarely see an image generated from one of them that can't be easily beaten by a scope 1/10 of the price. Have you?

What is the point of this discussion? There was never a time, where you couldn't easily buy a scope far cheaper than the Questar, that not only matched it, but wildly outperformed it optically. This is as true today, as it was in 1960. Everyone knows that. No one denies it (if they're honest with themselves). 

 

Now, I don't own a Questar, and have only used one for a few hours, but I do own something else: A $3000 63mm Zeiss achromat. Yes, I own, and use, a 63mm scope that has cost me over $3k. Why on Earth would I have spent so much money on such a small scope, you may ask? Because it gives me great joy and pleasure to use it, as well as to look at, when I'm not using it. For others, it would likely have made much more sense to spend it on a large Dobsonian, or something like that, but for me, the small scope has been just right. And so is the case with many Questar owners, I believe. It's right for them, because it gives them joy and pleasure to use it. I've literally used the little Zeiss thousands of hours, but only taken very few pictures with it that I've published. It's not really built for that, but for visual observing (and I'm primarily also just interested in visual observing). Something similar is likely the case for most Questar owners: They're primarily visual observers, and the scope is also optimized for that. 

 

You don't need to spend much to get a good telescope, thank God, but if you have the means to afford it, I don't see anything wrong in going for the very best you can afford. You may not understand the choice others make, but that doesn't mean they've made a wrong one.

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark   

[luxo II]

It's an ornament that even my wife will tolerate on display in the lounge.

If it Is actually useful, even better, it's not just a dust-collector !

 

A Q is the last scope I'll buy.

Edited by luxo II, 27 January 2024 - 06:27 PM.

[CHASLX200]

It's an ornament that even my wife will tolerate on display in the lounge.

If it Is actually useful, even better, it's not just a dust-collector !

Be a sun scope for me.

[jgraham]

I don't own one, will probably never own one (never say never), but I have always considered the Questar 3.5 to be the classic classic. I have used a Questar 3.5 twice an they were loverly! I don't know how practical they are, but they are just gorgeous!

[Terra Nova]

I would like to ask with all due respect, what makes a Questar, a 90mm non-goto telescope worth thousands of dollars?

Of course I understand about specs and quality, but it seems there must be nostalgia or collectability that makes them

demand such a high price.

I had a Meade EXT 90 for a few years and it was a wonderful scope but it only retailed for about $600.

Thanks for your time here.

Yes, there is nostalgia and collectability involved, but just the aesthetic!; the pure art and craftsmanship involved in producing them. They near the ideal of perfection. And all the thought that went into the design of the Questar. The total practicality in using it- Everything is there. They are true industrial art! In truth, I looked at mine a lot more that I used it.It  was after all most beautiful to look at, but the views it produced were lovely too! The Questar, in my opinion, was the most beautiful and the most innovative telescope since the Porter Garden Scope. Now try and buy one of those!

 

It is the only telescope I ever felt guilty for owning, and the only telescope I ever felt remorseful after selling. For me, owning the Questar was pure indulgence! My problem was that my parent didn’t raise me to be indulgent. They raised me to be practical, and my owning it just wasn’t really practical.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Terra Nova, 27 January 2024 - 07:35 PM.

[kgb]

Exquisite, artful and functional. Name an 80mm commercial refractor that can make the claim that it might become a museum piece someday.

Also, the Questar (and Porter Garden Scopes) have even become an artistic inspiration for some.

Questar
https://youtu.be/9I3...b8F5recl-qAN0fy

Porter
https://youtu.be/1Yv...vbSnG-hdUzMI7NH

[ccwemyss]

You can't argue for a Questar based on utility. It's not the most aperture per buck. It isn't the smoothest tracking or widest field imaging platform. It doesn't have the most massive database, or wifi connectivity, or GPS. If that's what someone cares about, they shouldn't even look at a Questar. 

 

It's the most compact, portable, reliable, user-friendly, timeless, technology independent, complete, optically excellent, visual observing system available. They hit all the sweet spots for making something that fits in an airline-friendly small box, takes 5 minutes to set up, is utterly convenient and pleasurable to use, and meets all the needs of many observers without having to improve it with endless modifications and upgrades.

 

And then, considering how few clear nights are available for looking at the beauty of the sky, it compensates all the rest of the time by itself being beautiful to look at.

 

A MIDI keyboard player might similarly ask, "What's the allure of a Steinway grand? You can't carry it to gigs, it only has one voice, and it doesn't interface with all the other sound equipment." That's a perfectly valid perspective. But for the person who loves to play their Steinway, it's also irrelevant. 

 

Chip W. 

[Joe Cepleur]

The comparison with Steinway is apt. The feel of a piano matters as much as the sound, because proper, consistent feel is essential to making the sound. Similarly, longevity is essential. Steinways are valuable because they have a history of longevity. It will play as well for generations as it plays today. A Petrov may sound just as well and have an excellent feel today, but will it last? Time will tell. In the mean time, a Questar works and feels as well today as when it was new, which may be sixty years ago.

[clamchip]

I owned one for a short time and I'm glad I did because it was marvelous.

Ed Ting thinks like I do and he did a really enjoyable comparo:

https://www.scoperev...0mmComparo.html

 

Robert

[jragsdale]

ETX-90 vs Questar

 

Yes, they both tell time, but one of them does it with precision and style.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[CHASLX200]

You can't argue for a Questar based on utility. It's not the most aperture per buck. It isn't the smoothest tracking or widest field imaging platform. It doesn't have the most massive database, or wifi connectivity, or GPS. If that's what someone cares about, they shouldn't even look at a Questar. 

 

It's the most compact, portable, reliable, user-friendly, timeless, technology independent, complete, optically excellent, visual observing system available. They hit all the sweet spots for making something that fits in an airline-friendly small box, takes 5 minutes to set up, is utterly convenient and pleasurable to use, and meets all the needs of many observers without having to improve it with endless modifications and upgrades.

 

And then, considering how few clear nights are available for looking at the beauty of the sky, it compensates all the rest of the time by itself being beautiful to look at.

 

A MIDI keyboard player might similarly ask, "What's the allure of a Steinway grand? You can't carry it to gigs, it only has one voice, and it doesn't interface with all the other sound equipment." That's a perfectly valid perspective. But for the person who loves to play their Steinway, it's also irrelevant. 

 

Chip W. 

I would like one for solar and lunar work. If i just had a stump in the back yard.

[Joe Cepleur]

ETX-90 vs Questar

Yes, they both tell time, but one of them does it with precision and style.

The Rolex has hidden features. It will work in temperatures and at depths that are more extreme than the Casio could tolerate. With some maintenance, it will also be on someone's wrist long after the Casio is in the landfill. Pilots, divers, and adventurers depend upon them.

[NinePlanets]

I used to have ready access to both a Q3.5 and a Q7.

Yes, they were beautiful and smooth and nice in almost every way (except for the fact that the finder is minimal and pretty useless and the Barlow is not parfocal).

In spite of those imperfections, I  promised myself that when I retired I would get a 3.5 Duplex.

But when I retired, I got a C90 in an unexpected trade.

The fire for the Questar was put out. The 10" Newtonian scatters the ashes.

But I still drool when I see one for sale. The money is there, but the trigger finger doesn't itch any more.

[kgb]

ETX-90 vs Questar

Yes, they both tell time, but one of them does it with precision and style.

One of those watches looks like it has stopped telling time.

[Terra Nova]

ETX-90 vs Questar

 

Yes, they both tell time, but one of them does it with precision and style.

I always loved Rolex watches, but Unlike the Questar, I never had a Rolex. My internal battle between indulgence and practicality was never fought on that front. My pragmatism won out! (I’ve been wearing my Victorinox Swiss Army Women Officers Quartz for twenty years and it still keeps perfect time. I’ve had to replace the band once, and other than that, only the battery. It was my daily watch back when I was a Flight Attendant and I still wear it every day of my life.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by Terra Nova, 28 January 2024 - 10:09 AM.

[starman876]

I like watches that do not need batteries to work.    Self winders have always been my passion when it comes to watches.  Just like a Questar they are a beautiful mechanical wonder.  And just like imitation Questars battery operated watches never seem to last long. 

[Toddeo]

Gee, the Casio is a lot more informative than the Rolex. All that expensive Rolex does is show you the time.

[starman876]

Gee, the Casio is a lot more informative than the Rolex. All that expensive Rolex does is show you the time.

and date