S@N First Light Review Nov 2012

[haitch]

I'm just sending the following e-mail to the editor of S@N Mag.

Any beginners please don't think this is a decent scope just because they put it in the magazine!

"What on Earth are you thinking of wasting 3 pages of your magazine on reviewing the Visionary Saxon 4 scope?

The design of this scope is known to be one of the worst known outside of toy store refractors. The mount is too flimsy for it and the optical arrangement dreadful (I understand the mirror is a fast spherical one coupled with a barlow type lens at the end of the focuser tube.

Why would you give so much space to this scope at a price point of £210 when you can pick up a Celestron 130 for under £140 from a High Street store (more aperture, better optics, better mount and a proven pedigree for much less money). I fear for the beginners buying your magazine expecting some good advice. I can only imagine someone is making a quick buck out of this.

I shall be cancelling my subscription forthwith in protest."

[DirkSteele]

I have yet to see the latest issue. Did they give the scope a positive review?

[fredster]

I agree entirely. Couldn't believe the price of the thing, as you say, that buys a good 130mm scope. The Skywatcher Explorer 130P Supatrak costs the same. Someone did very little market research before writing that little piece.

[M4lcs67]

I have seen the review as I subscribe to the S@N and concur that it appears to be nothing more than a toy and the fact that it is getting only 3 stars tells it's own story when there are cheaper alternatives that perform better. A new budding atronomer may end up purchasing this scope and will be put off for life due to it's poor performance. And a magazine such as S@N should know better. And also it's editor, Chris Bramley.

Yes, reviews of a wide variety of makes of scope should be made, but not to the extent that something of such poor quality could put someone off for life.

Thank goodness there is a resouce called Stargazers Lounge out there, so newbies can get real advice from experienced astronomers.

[SteveNickolls]

I hope you get the curtesy of a reply from them, my experience indicates maybe not.

Cheers,

Steve

[cantharis]

I would want to read the article and draw my own conclusions.

[cantharis]

But I do not subscribe to S@N as their overseas subscription rates are extortionate.

[Velvet]

Maybe if quite a few of us sent similar to S@N it could make them sit up and take notice?

What do you think. They should be giving good advice to all of us, especially newbies

Velvet

[Black Knight]

Although I have the mag, I haven't even opened it yet, so I haven't seen this review.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a magazine such as S@N reviewing what may be called lesser products, even to the extent that the said review covers the space that may be devoted to a more "serious" product - with one corollary. That is, that the review text clearly and unambiguously documents any shortcomings that may be revealed by the normal review process, as well as any highpoints that may occur during that process.

No-one wants to see a hatchet job; equally I would hope that readers should be clearly informed when a product fails to match reasonable expectations of performance. The review text should reflect that, as should the review score or rating (for those that skim-read straight to the final score!).

[Marki]

If I recall, the Saxon rated three out of five stars in every review category. For anyone who knows how to read magazine reviews for anything, that kind of score means the product is pants. Although somewhat coded, the text makes it clear that the product is less than perfect. But it does suggest a beginner could enjoy it... .

Must admit I was surprised to see it reviewed in S@N, but then I guess the eds woudld be foolish to turn down such products for review (especially if supplied by a wholesaler who regularly places adverts, but maybe I'm just a jaded old cynic). It may be useful to remember that the S@N magazine is no longer owned by the BBC, so the eds may be under different pressures than in the past. I think Martin Mobberly's piece in the Patrick Moore's Yearbook of Astronomy 2012 was very informative on the review process... .

[Liofa]

I was a bit surprised to see it in there... they did bash it is a bit in the review though and only gave it 3/5 stars... You're right though, you can get a Celestron Astromaster 130 MD for about £130.

[Liofa]

But I do not subscribe to S@N as their overseas subscription rates are extortionate.

I don't know if you have an iPad, but I found S@N to be half price for the digital version on there. I've just got back to the UK from living in Australia for 3.5 years (nice astronomy down under!) and newsagents there wanted $13-14 AU for a copy which was a month or so old. To be fair though, S@N do account for this in their Southern sky charts and you do get the CD. However, the iPad version is only $6.50 AU and you get the current issue. Fair enough, no CD... which means you don't get to watch the program abroad, or listen to Patrick waffle on but it's a saving.

[haitch]

I know to us 3 out of 5 isn't good but to a newcomer the mere fact it's in the mag gives it a certain kudos and to some 3 will look like the middle ground.

It also gives the opportunity for retailers to slap an "as seen in S@N magazine" flash across it.

After all the effort that has gone into persuading people away from these sort of scopes on here that's the last thing we need as the ones who buy it (and aren't completely put off astronomy) will be arriving here to be brought down to Earth (as gently as we can) by the harsh reality of their purchase.

[BuzzBomb]

Before you bash the scope in question, have you actually tried it?

S@N have, hence their review. Are you saying it is not very good from actual experience of using the scope or just from the printed specification?

If you have actual experience then you may have a valid point. If not then you're on shakey ground! It's not very scientific to slate a scope without actually using it.

By the same token, the Bresser bins sold by Lidl should be rubbish, but experience of many who own and use them contradict that suggestion. This scope *may* be a similar point ibm question.

3 stars out of 5 isn't 'pants'. It is above average. 1 star would be 'pants' (which in itself isn't really constructive or well thought out criticism).

You may well have used this scope in which case a constructive review of it would be extremely helpful. If you haven't then you should really reserve judgement until you do, or rely on those that have.

I apologise for sounding negative about your post, but in the interests if fairness I think these points need to very raised. With constructive criticism based on actual use, Saxon might be willing to change their scope, if required, to make it better for the beginner. Without it, the thread looks like a groundless attack.

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

[leelee970]

I have to say I take reviews from magazines with a “pinch of salt”, the reviews nearly always praise the product - which could have something to do with the fact telescope companies advertising through such magazines. Would you slate a product knowing you could lose their advertising money?

[Cornelius Varley]

Having read the review it appears to be balanced and accurate. The reviewer has pointed out the shortcomings of the optical design and commented on the sharpness across 60% of the field of view (typical of a Jones-Bird telescope). The rrp is a little high though for this type of telescope and you can get it cheaper on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Visionary-Saxon-Reflector-Telescope-Magnification/dp/B008BR753Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350976849&sr=8-1 . The reviewer hasn't glossed over the limitations of the mount or telescope and 3/5 seems about right. The Saxon 4 is the same telescope as the old Skywatcher 114/1000 (this was my first telescope) and everything the reviewer has said about the Saxon is right.

[ollypenrice]

I have to say I take reviews from magazines with a “pinch of salt”, the reviews nearly always praise the product - which could have something to do with the fact telescope companies advertising through such magazines. Would you slate a product knowing you could lose their advertising money?

I'm a product reviewer for Astronomy Now. I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have never been put under any editorial pressure whatever. In fact it's the opposite. The Editor backed a mild criticism I had against the objections of the manufacturer and stuck with what I had written. Writing reviews is enjoyable and thought provoking but it constitutes about one percent of my income. The rest comes from my small business in astronomy and that relies on reputation. I would have to be utterly crazy, as well as cynical,* to upset potential customers of mine by encouraging them to buy bad products. That would wreck my reputation. In fact for this reason, and because I think well of my fellow amateurs, I'm actually very nervous in writing favourable reviews in case they buy something with which they find themselves disappointed.

There are products I have declined to review because I know them already sufficiently well to dislike them. While I won't review them I will (and I do) express my doubts when people ask about them on SGL and eleswhere.

* OK, I may well be crazy but I'm not cynical!

Olly

[BuzzBomb]

Interesting points Olly. Thank you for the insight.

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

[Space Beagle]

Maybe another problem is that the magazine only reviewed the one scope, so there's nothing else to compare it to in the magazine. It might of been better to do a group test.

Interesting thread though!

Doc

[Marki]

Before you bash the scope in question, have you actually tried it?

S@N have, hence their review. Are you saying it is not very good from actual experience of using the scope or just from the printed specification?

If you have actual experience then you may have a valid point. If not then you're on shakey ground! It's not very scientific to slate a scope without actually using it.

By the same token, the Bresser bins sold by Lidl should be rubbish, but experience of many who own and use them contradict that suggestion. This scope *may* be a similar point ibm question.

3 stars out of 5 isn't 'pants'. It is above average. 1 star would be 'pants' (which in itself isn't really constructive or well thought out criticism).

You may well have used this scope in which case a constructive review of it would be extremely helpful. If you haven't then you should really reserve judgement until you do, or rely on those that have.

I apologise for sounding negative about your post, but in the interests if fairness I think these points need to very raised. With constructive criticism based on actual use, Saxon might be willing to change their scope, if required, to make it better for the beginner. Without it, the thread looks like a groundless attack.

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

I will merely refer you back to the comments of an experienced reviewer regarding scoring, as indicated in my original post, although it appear's Olly has not felt any pressure in this regard. I will freely admit I have no experience of the Saxon. I was commenting on the review process and not the scope itself.... . I do however, accept your point on constructive criticism.

EDIT - I am happy to accept my understanding of the reivew process in the publication in question may be flawed, and Olly's contribution is useful to note in this regard.

[Marki]

Also happy to accept I can be too much of a jaded old cynic sometimes, too .

(Can you only edit a post once now?)

[Black Knight]

Also happy to accept I can be too much of a jaded old cynic sometimes, too .

(Can you only edit a post once now?)

I think there is only a short time limit on post editing.

[joe_coke]

Group reviews are a great way to highlight pros and cons of scopes, i found them the most helpfull when looking for a scope.

[leelee970]

I have to agree with Joe_Coke and Space Beagle.

A single product review can be good but for myself I’d prefer a group review of similar products.

This I feel is then more informative – do I go for price, quality, features etc.

[steppenwolf]

Olly's post regarding reviewer integrity is smack on here. Although I didn't write this particular review, I do write reviews for the Sky at Night magazine and can only confirm that I have never, ever been under pressure from the editor or anyone else to tame down or remove an adverse comment on any piece of equipment that I have been asked to review irrespective of whether or not the supplier advertises with the magazine. If I was ever asked to skew a review for 'commercial reasons', I would simply walk as my personal reputation is more important to me than the fee I get for writing a review!