190 replies to this topic

[ayadai]

Once you've been exposed to good optics, you tend not to want bad.  

The terms, "good" and "bad" are sooooooo subjective...

[25585]

Disagree on two points.  People had no idea what to expect years ago when 6 inch apos showed up from China at $2500. Unheard of.   Someone had to try one.  Turned out, most were decent.  So "you get what you pay for" in that case was turned on its head.  A sea-change had happened.  But no one knew it until they tried them.  As far as using a bad scope as opposed to no scope?  I don't know.  If you were ignorant about expected telescope performance you might be satisfied.  But once you've been exposed to good optics, you tend not to want bad.  

Before I bought my 130mm triplets, I thought about a 140 or 150 ED doublet. However I was using a TSA-120 triplet, which is for visual, absolutely colour-free. Even for more aperture, I did not want to go back to any CA.

[Jon Isaacs]

Disagree on two points.  People had no idea what to expect years ago when 6 inch apos showed up from China at $2500. Unheard of.   Someone had to try one.  Turned out, most were decent.  So "you get what you pay for" in that case was turned on its head.  A sea-change had happened.  But no one knew it until they tried them.  As far as using a bad scope as opposed to no scope?  I don't know.  If you were ignorant about expected telescope performance you might be satisfied.  But once you've been exposed to good optics, you tend not to want bad.  

 

I remember when the APM 150 EDs were introduced.. Lots of collimation issues.  I don't think you get what you pay for was "turned on it's head."  What it meant was that a number of people were willing to put up with their issues in order to observe with a 6 inch F/8 that wasn't a crown-flint achromat. 

 

Good optics..  in my world, that means optics that are well suited for the job at hand.  A 102mm F/5 achromat is well suited for low power wide field views. 

 

Jon 

Edited by Jon Isaacs, 24 March 2025 - 01:53 AM.

[25585]

I remember when the APM 150 EDs were introduced.. Lots of collimation issues.  I don't think you get what you pay for was "turned on it's head."  What it meant was that a number of people were willing to put up with their issues in order to observe with a 6 inch F/8 that wasn't a crown-flint achromat. 

 

Good optics..  in my world, that means optics that are well suited for the job at hand.  A 102mm F/5 achromat is well suited for low power wide field views. 

 

Jon 

The early APM 6" EDs had issues too IIRC, perhaps rushing competitive brands skimped on QC in those days. Mis-collimation to me, is not fit for purpose, any purpose.

[Russell Swan]

Disagree on two points.  People had no idea what to expect years ago when 6 inch apos showed up from China at $2500. Unheard of.   Someone had to try one.  Turned out, most were decent.  So "you get what you pay for" in that case was turned on its head.  A sea-change had happened.  But no one knew it until they tried them.  As far as using a bad scope as opposed to no scope?  I don't know.  If you were ignorant about expected telescope performance you might be satisfied.  But once you've been exposed to good optics, you tend not to want bad.  

Well, there are exceptions to every rule including “you get what you pay for”. 
 

To keep on point in this thread, the new version of the SV48p 102mm does not have “bad optics”. It has good achromat performing optics. The first production run of the scope did have bad optics. 
 

I am providing my personal experience with the current version of the telescope only, not the SvBony brand in general or their Maksutov offerings. This is to help allay fears others may have otherwise developed concerning this episode. It would be a shame to stay clear of what is a good deal over those fears. From personal experience I can agree with Ed Ting’s assessment of the telescope. 

Edited by Russell Swan, 24 March 2025 - 08:13 AM.

[LDW47]

Well, there are exceptions to every rule including “you get what you pay for”. 
 

To keep on point in this thread, the new version of the SV48p 102mm does not have “bad optics”. It has good achromat performing optics. The first production run of the scope did have bad optics. 
 

I am providing my personal experience with the current version of the telescope only, not the SvBony brand in general or their Maksutov offerings. This is to help allay fears others may have otherwise developed concerning this episode. It would be a shame to stay clear of what is a good deal over those fears. From personal experience I can agree with Ed Ting’s assessment of the telescope. 

Was there ever any doubt, really. You have to consider the exact facts, all the experience of the factorer's posting some of the posts. Ed reviews the high end gear and the low end gear suited for the average, just wants to have good experiences astronomers. Its his job, his enjoyment on every video, if we can't tell that then some can't tell anything, eh. Its a dam hobby for us all and the vast majority haven't been let down, led astray, yet.

Edited by LDW47, 24 March 2025 - 08:25 AM.

[RichA]

The terms, "good" and "bad" are sooooooo subjective...

B&L SCT bad.

Celestron SCT, good.

[Terra Nova]

I had the slightly smaller one and have always maintained that with the 90mm F5.5 (achromat) objective, it’s what an ST80 could be if it was all grown up and in it’s Sunday best. Really a fine step up from the ST80! The wonky focuser can be tuned to be decent (and a good deal better than the single-speed Synta R&P on the ST80 and ST100). The sliding dew shield is a nice touch in making it more compact, and the objective, (at least mine) was a sharp, well figured, short achromat with effective coatings. It is what it is, and once that is realized and admitted, it’s a heck of a lot of bang for the buck! I will always believe that quality achromats have a definite place in our hobby. Many of us started out with them and they’ve been a mainstay for two centuries. People need to quit trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and just enjoy them for what they are!

Edited by Terra Nova, 24 March 2025 - 11:02 AM.

[Jon Isaacs]

 

People need to quit trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and just enjoy them for what they are!

 

 

An excellent post. And yes, I also believe there's a place for a good quality achromat in this hobby. I just wish I could figure out a place for it with me 

 

I'd say the 90 mm F/5.5 Svbony 48P was neither a sow's ear nor a silk purse... As you say, it was a pretty nice scope with some nice touches..

 

Who here besides Russell Swann has actually looked through a 102 mm Svbony 48P?

 

Ed had a early version he returned. Some of us have experience with the 90 mm 48P..

 

Jonn

[LDW47]

I had the slightly smaller one and have always maintained that with the 90mm F5.5 (achromat) objective, it’s what an ST80 could be if it was all grown up and in it’s Sunday best. Really a fine step up from the ST80! The wonky focuser can be tuned to be decent (and a good deal better than the single-speed Synta R&P on the ST80 and ST100). The sliding dew shield is a nice touch in making it more compact, and the objective, (at least mine) was a sharp, well figured, short achromat with effective coatings. It is what it is, and once that is realized and admitted, it’s a heck of a lot of bang for the buck! I will always believe that quality achromats have a definite place in our hobby. Many of us started out with them and they’ve been a mainstay for two centuries. People need to quit trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and just enjoy them for what they are!

Well said, all of it, eh.

[edsmx5]

An excellent post. And yes, I also believe there's a place for a good quality achromat in this hobby. I just wish I could figure out a place for it with me

I'd say the 90 mm F/5.5 Svbony 48P was neither a sow's ear nor a silk purse... As you say, it was a pretty nice scope with some nice touches..

Who here besides Russell Swann has actually looked through a 102 mm Svbony 48P?

Ed had a early version he returned. Some of us have experience with the 90 mm 48P..

Jonn

I miss the 90mm 48P: that was a nice G-n-G scope ( especially the one with the focuser that Jon had massaged, now in my Grandson's possession).
If I hadn't bought the AT102ED, I would have kept the 102 version of the 48P, and taken the optics swap that they offered.
Knowing their shortcomings,I'll reiterate: I miss both of 'em.

[Mike W]

So much fuss over a scope that costs less than a premium eyepiece!

[LDW47]

So much fuss over a scope that costs less than a premium eyepiece!

Just move on the next beef, eh. If it really bothers, I might even.

Edited by LDW47, 24 March 2025 - 01:32 PM.

[Mike W]

Just move on the next beef, eh. 

Oh you're so sweet!

[RichA]

Well said, all of it, eh.

 

I had the slightly smaller one and have always maintained that with the 90mm F5.5 (achromat) objective, it’s what an ST80 could be if it was all grown up and in it’s Sunday best. Really a fine step up from the ST80! The wonky focuser can be tuned to be decent (and a good deal better than the single-speed Synta R&P on the ST80 and ST100). The sliding dew shield is a nice touch in making it more compact, and the objective, (at least mine) was a sharp, well figured, short achromat with effective coatings. It is what it is, and once that is realized and admitted, it’s a heck of a lot of bang for the buck! I will always believe that quality achromats have a definite place in our hobby. Many of us started out with them and they’ve been a mainstay for two centuries. People need to quit trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and just enjoy them for what they are!

There was a 90mm ST scope.  I had one, it's rare and it had noticeably more colour error than the 80mm.

[maniack]

There was a 90mm ST scope.  I had one, it's rare and it had noticeably more colour error than the 80mm.

I've seen one up for sale locally before, the focuser looks very different than the Synta-made 80mm, 102mm, and 120mm versions. So I'm guessing Orion had a different supplier for the 90.

[scotsman328i]

So much fuss over a scope that costs less than a premium eyepiece!

 

Just move on the next beef, eh. If it really bothers, I might even.

 

Oh you're so sweet!

LOL! Cloudy Nights is some great entertainment nowadays. Folks in my Astro club always commenting about joining up. I always promote the site. I just tell them to grow some thick skin around here. 

[Lagrange]

I've seen one up for sale locally before, the focuser looks very different than the Synta-made 80mm, 102mm, and 120mm versions. So I'm guessing Orion had a different supplier for the 90.

I've read that it was made in Taiwan rather than China but I don't know which manufacturer produced it.

[LDW47]

LOL! Cloudy Nights is some great entertainment nowadays. Folks in my Astro club always commenting about joining up. I always promote the site. I just tell them to grow some thick skin around here. 

Tell everyone you can, its a great astro place, I do.

[scotsman328i]

Tell everyone you can, its a great astro place, I do.

Oh I do, Brother. There’s a lot of great information here, and a lot of sensitive people too. lol.

[25585]

Just move on the next beef, eh. If it really bothers, I might even.

Sows, now beef, where is the horse sense? 

Edited by 25585, 24 March 2025 - 06:37 PM.

[LDW47]

We aren't even talking about ET and the scope he reviewed, any more.  Unfortunate !

Edited by LDW47, 24 March 2025 - 06:40 PM.

[Jon Isaacs]

I've read that it was made in Taiwan rather than China but I don't know which manufacturer produced it.

 

It had a 1.25 inch rack and pinion focuser that while different than the typical Synta focuser, was likely no better.  The Svbony 90mm x 500mm 48P is much nicer mechanically..  While the focuser isn't a Feathertouch, it was a usable two speed and if you disabled the two speed, it was an excellent single speed.

 

Jon

[Renard]

Who here besides Russell Swann has actually looked through a 102 mm Svbony 48P?

Since you're asking, I have. I bought one in December and I got a lemon with extreme astigmatism. And when I say extreme this isn't hyperbole. The thing is unusable even at 44x. I'm still dealing with customer support right now as I had other things on my mind around Christmas and then kind of forgot about it. I'm from Europe though so it may have been the early version. I'm not sure. Hopefully they get this right this time around and send me decent optics. I'm not expecting miracles, however it should at least work at a basic level.

[RichA]

I remember when the APM 150 EDs were introduced.. Lots of collimation issues.  I don't think you get what you pay for was "turned on it's head."  What it meant was that a number of people were willing to put up with their issues in order to observe with a 6 inch F/8 that wasn't a crown-flint achromat. 

 

Good optics..  in my world, that means optics that are well suited for the job at hand.  A 102mm F/5 achromat is well suited for low power wide field views. 

 

Jon 

What were the alternatives at the time?  Takahashi?  AP?  At three times the price.  A 102mm f/5 achromat is ok for low power, but doesn't match an apo, even at low power.  I had a 152mm f/6.5 achro, it had noticeable colour, but was good at low power, nice contrast.  However, had I been under a dark sky, viewing the summer Milky Way against an apo, the difference even at low power would have been stark.  The fast achro would produce greyish backgrounds because of all the defocused blue starlight vs. the apo which would present black backgrounds. 

Edited by RichA, 25 March 2025 - 06:01 PM.