Altair Astro 115 triplet review in AN.

[ollypenrice]

Quality costs Olly,

Oh, I know it does! I have a Tak FSQ and a TEC140 and no money left! Happy though.

Seriously, the mid priced apos really do run the premium ones close. I might, perhaps, have a vested interest in claiming the reverse but I don't.

BTW I agree with you on doublets/triplets and, when asked, offer the view that only when triplets are made to an equivalent standard as doublets is there any reason to expect them to be better. Even then the individual scopes may be better or worse for other reasons.

Olly

[Earl]

I can imagine was with most things once a certain Level of Quality is achieved it gets in-proportionally expensive to squeeze the envelope.

My local newsagents does stock the mag so ill see if they have any left in the morning so i can have a peek

[Sp@ce_d]

Olly

This is a very valuable review, for me at least it's almost impossible to try a scope out before actually buying it. Having a review from somebody who you get to "know" in this virtual world we hang out in these days is very helpful as we have a much better idea of where you are coming from, so to speak..

Its a shame you were so limited with the word count as I got the impression you had a lot more to say and had to whittle it down a lot to fit. Never the less, the message comes across and I look forward to seeing some images from this as you have still got a firm hold on it

Sorry Steve (FLO) Not sure I agree with your comments on the WO equivalent as regards spending money at this level. The extras on flatteners etc do push the cost up. I think there are certain psychological barriers when spending money and the inclusion of the, quote: "finderscope that merits a review of its own" and a field flattener, all for a not insignificantly (to me anyway) less amount than the basic WO, does have the appeal that the marketing boys intended! ... On top of the review...

I, (like many others) will be following the threads on this (and the SW Quattro f4 Newts) very closely whilst I try to make my mind up which scope (for imaging) I add to my collection next.

Thanks...

[John]

I guess the really big question that faces us ordinary punters is "will the scope I buy be as good as the one reviewed ?".

At the lower cost end of any niche I believe production quality will vary from the mediocre to the excellent. If it's an excellent one that has been reviewed then the odds of purchasing one that replicates that start to lengthen, which is why it sometimes pays to wait and see.

Perhaps I'm just a bit too cautious

[Whippy]

Sorry Steve (FLO) Not sure I agree with your comments on the WO equivalent as regards spending money at this level. The extras on flatteners etc do push the cost up. I think there are certain psychological barriers when spending money and the inclusion of the, quote: "finderscope that merits a review of its own" and a field flattener, all for a not insignificantly (to me anyway) less amount than the basic WO, does have the appeal that the marketing boys intended! ... On top of the review...

I think you're missing the point of what Steve is trying to say. On paper, the Altair triplet is much better value than the FLT110 but as seen recently with threads on the TS 65mm Quad and TS 80mm triplet, there are clear QA issues with certain models. I'd be quite willing to wager that the returns level as a percentage of the WO scopes are much lower than the cheaper alternatives. The FLT110 is proven peformer, the Altair unit isn't (yet).

It's been known for manufacturers/distributors to send out review models pre-checked so they're guaranteed to perform. I'm not saying Altair have done this with Olly and I sincerely hope they haven't, but as I say, it's been known to happen...

If you buy one of these scopes and it turns up and performs as advertised, that's great, you've grabbed a potential bargain but they're still an unknown quantity. Personally, if I had the money and I wanted to spend it now, the FLT would get my vote. However, a year or two down the line that may change .

Tony..

[ollypenrice]

The infamous quad wasn't well reviewed in pre production form - or am I wrong? I had a guest with one of the first and it was awful. This was after Rob's bad experience and before Nadeem's. As far as I can see, they were all awful. They have a design fault and might one day be put right.

However, I think I ought to bow out of this conversation because my role was to review one product and not to engage in a defence of subsequent examples which I haven't seen. Detailed reviews of as-yet-unknown telescopes are the provenance of Cloudy Nights, not SGL!!! And they certainly have no place in Astronomy Now. For information, reviews in Astronomy Now do not reach the press without peer review, or certainly not any that I've written. Indeed, the person who has 'peer reviewed' mine is not someone I'd regard as a peer but as a superior, in astronomical competence, and by rather a large margin.

Olly

[Psychobilly]

FIrst review I have read for ages.. normally both SAN and AN end up on the pile un-opened...

I enjoyed it...

Peter...

[FLO]

Nobody is questioning your review Olly, least of all me

It is good to see you submitting reviews, AN and Altair chose well. I have seen your posts promoting the telescope on this and other forums. Your image of the Horsehead does it, them and you credit

I posted only to explain why it would be a while before FLO stocks it. The Altair is a new model that clearly has potential, as you have shown. It is just that I am the cautious type. I'd also like to wish Altair well, they are an ambitious company who have clearly put a great deal of thought into preparing this model for market

Steve

[Sp@ce_d]

I think you're missing the point of what Steve is trying to say. On paper, the Altair triplet is much better value than the FLT110 but as seen recently with threads on the TS 65mm Quad and TS 80mm triplet, there are clear QA issues with certain models. I'd be quite willing to wager that the returns level as a percentage of the WO scopes are much lower than the cheaper alternatives. The FLT110 is proven peformer, the Altair unit isn't (yet).

It's been known for manufacturers/distributors to send out review models pre-checked so they're guaranteed to perform. I'm not saying Altair have done this with Olly and I sincerely hope they haven't, but as I say, it's been known to happen...

Tony..

Not entirely, .. But I still think if I'm spending money at this level I'm still aware of the value I'm getting compared to the competition.

Thats why I was alluding to the pricing brackets and marketing.. coupled with a very favourable review, that's very persuasive. You've got to admit, compared to the competition it now seems like a very good package. Providing of course, the proof is in the pudding and any sensible person will wait and see if they will be consistent and QA is up to scratch.

I've followed the TS QA threads and had a similar experience myself with my 80ED. (Thanks to Martin at FLO for sorting it for me ) So I fully understand why Steve is cautious. I guess with a 3 month lead time it'll be next year before the early adopters have found all the bugs!

[Erolski]

Ok this may not be the right thread, but I've been toying with replacing my scope for the Autumn... I went for a photon bucket Skywatcher 300mm on an EQ6 pro and got some nice shots of Orion, but clearly see defects as the mirror moves too much. why would a 4.5 inch refractor be preferable over a 8, 10 or 12 inch reflector at the same price? Age old question I know but someone please convince me!

[ollypenrice]

It is not so much a question of 'better' as of 'different.' As refractors become larger it becomes impossible/uneconomic to make them fast. With this telescope, as with my own TEC, you have to live with F7. It is not the end of the world but imaging at F4 is great.

The positives?

Good in the wind.

Easy on the mount.

No collimating.

Tolerant focus.

Flat field.

No diffraction spikes. (Important if you don't like them or if you want to combine different FL images, something I enjoy doing.)

Mechanical integrity. Large reflectors need high grade engineering to keep everything orthogonal, the mirrors aligned and still, etc. When they get screamingly fast, like the Epsilon, this becomes incredibly important.

In a nutshell you just take your refractor out and use it. Newtonians need more attention.

Olly

[Erolski]

Thanks Olly, That's really helpful.. My frustration this past year is spending whole nights out taking 5 min subs and most are not quite right.. collimation is OK till you move object, and at f4 it's very unforgiving... your article was excellent and got me thinking... although more choice now means more confusion!

Sean

[ollypenrice]

Thanks Olly, That's really helpful.. My frustration this past year is spending whole nights out taking 5 min subs and most are not quite right.. collimation is OK till you move object, and at f4 it's very unforgiving... your article was excellent and got me thinking... although more choice now means more confusion!

Sean[/quote

My own feeling is that there is enough trying to go wrong as it is so the more things you keep simple the better! As a provider I do want things to work, though I don't always succeed. However, I have never ever had a single sub lost through a fault in a refractor, nor have I ever had one induce a delay.

Olly

[Erolski]

I have never ever had a single sub lost through a fault in a refractor.

That is a quote worth hanging on to.. In theory I'd therefore get more useful subs, and more overall photons, in a night's use with a 115mm refractor than my newt with 7 times the light gathering power.. and at almost half the FL whilst the image would be smaller tracking would be more forgiving.. After a Meade LX20, 12" Dob and the skywatcher this would be a new venture... reading other threads planetary images are clearer without a central obstruction too.

Thanks very much...

Sean

[GazOC]

I'm not sure about the planetary imaging Sean. Aperture and focal length really matter for that and they are really fortes of most modern refractors.

[Erolski]

That's a good point... reduced focal length will be a disadvantage there, but isn't contrast improved without the central secondary?

[GazOC]

That's a good point... reduced focal length will be a disadvantage there, but isn't contrast improved without the central secondary?

Visually yes but for imaging the 100s or 1000s of frames stacked and the Photoshop processing tends to nullify any advantage the refractor has because of the lack of a secondary.

Most of the top planetary imagers tend to use big Newts and SCTs.

[Erolski]

So keep the skywatcher for planets and refractor for guests (who do object to balancing on a patio chair to see a smudge through the eyepiece) and decent deep sky...

[ollypenrice]

I agree that for planetary imaging aperture and long f ratio are the key things.

Olly

[GazOC]

So keep the skywatcher for planets and refractor for guests (who do object to balancing on a patio chair to see a smudge through the eyepiece) and decent deep sky...

I have an ED120 which I love, its easy to setup, maintaince free and gives great views but I also have a 14" Dob for the deep sky stuff which compliments the ED nicely. If you have the space for both types of scopes they are a great combination, if I could only have one I'd take the Dob but I'm a visual observer, not an imager.

(Sorry for the threadjack Olly)

[Erolski]

I've been won over by the beauty in photos but frustrated with coma,collimation and other issues.i prefer deep sky. there's always gonna be a trade off between focal length, light gathering ability and pocket size (!!).. the 115 sounds lovely from the review.. I'm tempted but will keep looking for a week or so!

[ollypenrice]

I think it is always nice to have everything but the one expendable commodity in DS imaging is aperture. I feel I've taken my best pictures in an 85mm scope. You need resolution, even illumination, flat field, focus, colour correction and good tracking. Resolution does come with aperture but a deep stack can be digitally sharpened and use of layers can shrik stellar sizes. Naughty but nice!

Gaz, no worries about the conversation taking its course.

Olly

[Bulkins]

I got a 4 page PDF (from Altair Astro) of a review of their 102 triplet refractor - the one I've got - but it's in French! Not sure what the publication was bit their website is www.astrosurf.com. Gist of it is (apparently) that the optics are also top-notch.

In the conversations I've had with Altair Astro they pointed out that Germany and France were their main markets - they seem to get a great deal of business from these countries. Don't know if thats a good reason for any service shortcomings but I got the impression they would be very happy to become more popular in the UK (whether as a distributor or retailer I do not know). They have recently started a yahoo user group for owners of their gear to share experiences and I understand they will be active participants, so I think they are making efforts to improve the overall level of service / support.

[ollypenrice]

I got a 4 page PDF (from Altair Astro) of a review of their 102 triplet refractor - the one I've got - but it's in French! Not sure what the publication was bit their website is www.astrosurf.com. Gist of it is (apparently) that the optics are also top-notch.

In the conversations I've had with Altair Astro they pointed out that Germany and France were their main markets - they seem to get a great deal of business from these countries. Don't know if thats a good reason for any service shortcomings but I got the impression they would be very happy to become more popular in the UK (whether as a distributor or retailer I do not know). They have recently started a yahoo user group for owners of their gear to share experiences and I understand they will be active participants, so I think they are making efforts to improve the overall level of service / support.

The review is from Astronomie who take a lot of my pictures - so I like them! I have said for a while that their review format is great and better than anything I can do because they do an optical bench test. Stars on axis and at the edge of APS and full format. Flat field. Ronchi interferogram with comments to explain it. Intra and extra focal. They do know their optics and are also very independent, often saying that the price is too high! (In the example you mention they qualified this by saying that, in view of the optical quality, the price was justified.)

Even the FSQ85 didn't get a clean sheet. They found some image shift in the focuser. I can't find any in mine but what I'm saying is that their tests are tests and the bench test of the Baby Q was what convinced me that paying £3.5K for a three inch scope was not self evidently certifiable.

If you'd like to have help reading the article ask away. I have a copy.

Olly (a curious name to the french because, as they pronounce it, it comes out as 'to bed.' No luck as yet...)

[Bulkins]

If you'd like to have help reading the article ask away. I have a copy.

Another member, Tim Armes (one of your neighbours), kindly gave me a summary translation of the conclusions section. A full translation of the article would be nice but not strictly necessary -but thanks anyway. To be honest I would have thought that Altair Astro would have been looking into paying for a translation and getting approval from the original publishers to post it on their website. The only reason I got it was because I was making a point about a need for better marketing (essentially). I'd written to them after attending SGL6 and finding that pretty much nobody I spoke to knew anything of substance about their products.