Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

So this is where everyone is hiding

msp

By msp
in Welcome

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
msp

msp

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The FS128 is f8.1 and it is a mystery to me why they are no longer making them or the FS152, however the fact they were discontinuing them was a bonus as it lowered the price, in fact it was cheaper in January than it was 2 years before. It cools down in about 10 minutes unlike the TMB which takes over an hour (worth it once it has mind), and the contrast and ability to handle power is amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
msp

msp

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Al

October was a dead loss for me, only two clear nights and both times my better half had arranged for us to go out, frustrating but it happens, I went out Sunday but it was that windy it was not very good, plus the clouds soon rolled in. It will clear soon but when it does be prepared for the cold, some of my favourite nights are when ice forms on the scope :clouds1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starman

Starman

Posted
Posted
Agreed,

Definitely written for the advertisers and consequently, toothless ... IMHO.

Steve.

Is that so :nono: ? Hmmm interesting. Is this from the same source that pointed out that the free web based Sky at Night programmes suddenly dried up when the magazine was launched? Conspiracy - was that a ploy to get more people to get the programme on the CD-Rom coverdisk? That's what the internet buzz said so it must have been true :clouds1:

In reality - the chap that puts the programmes up was on an extended vacation.

The reviews are not written for the advertisers and they are scored by the individual reviewers after much internal consideration. Scoring these things is a nightmare sometimes. Just because the figures come out close doesn't mean anything's being fixed I can assure you.

Now *who* did kill President Kennedy? :clouds1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazOC

GazOC

Posted
Posted

Pete,

I'm not saying this to butter you up, but the camera reviews you did a couple of months back have been the best so far. At least the reader could have come away with an idea what would suit his/her needs. Some of the others (the scope/mount setups in Issue 2 spring to mind) were so uncritical that you would have been non the wiser for reading the match ups between the scopes, you'd have wanted to buy them all!!

Gaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starman

Starman

Posted
Posted

I think I've sorted my sig out now - I wasn't hiding! :clouds1:

I know that the other reviewers do work hard at their tasks. The review of widefield eyepieces this month has caused quite a stir I believe.

On the camera review, someone on saa has stated that the review images were poor compared to what a DSLR would produce. This completely missed the point. Basically, the cameras were chosen because they were the ones people starting out would be most likely to go for. The short exposures used were supposed to show what you were likely to get from them during the first few sessions out - that was deliberate. To show a high quality finished image would not have helped anyone. The chap making the criticism missed this point completely and a whole thread about why CCDs were being compared to DSLRs in the review kicked off.

Of course no such comparison was actually made at all. My point here is that it's not possible to please everyone and a reviewers life isn't always easy. Having access to all those nice toys soon wears thin when there are dealines to meet. The UK weather doesn't always help either!! All together... aaaaaahhhh :clouds1:

I'm not above criticism though and think it's healthy to be involved with real people out there in observing land. Hopefully most will recognise me as someone that does go outside quite a lot. However, it's certainly not the case that scores are being modified just to keep advertisers happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted
Agreed,

Definitely written for the advertisers and consequently, toothless ... IMHO. 

Steve.

Is that so  :nono: ? Hmmm interesting. Is this from the same source that pointed out that the free web based Sky at Night programmes suddenly dried up when the magazine was launched?

Thanks for the comeback Pete. 

No, there was no 'source' only my opinion :salute:

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starman

Starman

Posted
Posted

Someone on SAA has just accused me of not adding a DSLR to the CCD camera (erm DSLRs are CMOS!) review because DSLR manufacturers don't advertise in the magazine. Erm... neither did Artemis that month!

Ho hum. :insects1:

I'm not sure what the insects icon means but it seems appropriate :clouds1: :sunny: :clouds1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

Personally, I feel the best and most useful review in S@N so far was the group test you did that included some Skywatchers and Tals ... ideal for those wanting to take up the hobby. 

At least S&N don't print an advertisers index that routinely points to the wrong page ... as in AN.

Steve :clouds1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.