Retailers telescope descriptions

[MartinB]

Does anyone else get irritated by the guff that telescope manufacturers give to retailers to describe their instruments. Far too often it all seems to be verbal diarrhoea mixed with candy floss - this magnificent telescope brings to you advanced engineering with precision, diffraction limited optics which will transform...blah blah blah. I wouldn't mind but is it too much to tell you what a scope weighs? Take the Meade LXD75 schmidt newtonians, these are pretty beefy scopes but I can't find out what the OTAs weigh. The combined mount and OTA weight is given but not just the OTA.

So, this is what I want to know -

Scopes: -

Focal length, aperture and central obstruction as a percentage of overall area

Dimensions

Weight of OTA

Image circle in mm for scopes designed with astroimagers in mind (not the photographic FOV in degrees)

Objective measurements of optical quality - the strehl ratio would be good but wave front error would be a start (although a bit of a dodgy measurement)

Mounts:

Weight of components

Estimate of load carrying capacity, with some reference to type of scope, for visual and for imaging

Maximum periodic error

Goto slew speed

Features - PEC, backlash compensation, integration with planetarium software.

So...what is the maximum periodic error to be expected from an EQ6 before correction (do Synta feel this isn't important or don't they want to commit themselves). To be fair, it isn't just Synta, seems that Vixen, Celestron, Meade and Losmandy are all shy about giving any objective data on mount performance.

That's it - rant over

[jcm]

I agree with much of what you said. Most firms just copy and paste the manufactures info straight into their web page. Often if you require extra details you have to ring up. Though some telescope manufacturers - A&M ( Italian) provide virtually all the data you require.

John

[FLO]

We do try Martin

Many of the scopes FLO lists have edited or rewritten descriptions to reduce the amount of Hyperbole. Perhaps your post should be written as an open letter to the manufacturers/importers who supply much of the spec' listed on dealers site.

Regarding the Meade SN10, Greg has one in his garage, I'm sure he wouldn't mind popping it on the bathroom scales.

[stargazer1980]

Although im no einstein myself, i have to agree with what you say martin!

Im no expert, but should this just not be common sense to suppliers to supply this information to all there customers!

(edit) Although i think that retailers do try to give a little extra than the suppliers/ manufacturors do

Darren

[Whippy]

I think you've got a point Martin, but I also believe there is a balance that can be achieved between the marketing fluff and a FULL spec list for people who want to see it.

Tony..

[MartinB]

We do try Martin

My gripe isn't with retailers Steve. I imagine they have to tread a very careful line when adding anything to a manufacturers description. It is directly aimed at telescope manufacturers.

[cygnusx1]

I agree it isn't easy trying to get lthe sort of specs you may require, but, I have a Celestron manual for the CG-5 GT and a flyer from Hinds, and in there is specified a lot of detail you mention.

Mount capacity for AP they tread a safer line on. No points for guessing why , but it is rather infuriating when your'e trying to make an informed decision/comparison prior to purchase!

[philsail1]

:angry:Yes I agree with Martin. It is frustrating when you have to troll through several retailers advertising "bumf" in trying to find one tiny (but often very significant) bit of information on a particular instrument, or astronomical gear. Astronomy is fun, but it's also an exacting science with most telescopes and equipment being manufactured to very high specification, so we should be able to have all the technical information which matters, advertised with the item - and not left to the back page of an instruction manual (if you're lucky enough to get one supplied with your scope thesedays!)

Regards,

philsail1

[anthony]

Echo your sentiments exactly.

the diarrhoea/candy floss mix is a completely novel but very useful description. Also quite accurate.

Anthony

[Beyond_Vision]

Hi Martin,

Often you can download manuals from manufacturers web site which may contain the depth of info you seek.

http://www.meade.com/manuals/TelescopeManuals/LXDseries/LXD-75C.pdf

Page 46

Regards,

Kevin

[MartinB]

Thanks Kevin.

[John]

I agree that more useful facts and less meaningless prose would be helpful. Has anyone seen the latest phrase that Tele Vue has coined for the new Ethos eyepiece - "Ethos™: The Majesty Factor"

Perhaps equipment should have more factually accurate names so instead of Evostar, Revelation, Skyliner, Starhopper etc they should try:

- "Backbreaker" - all long focus refractors on tripods less than 5 feet tall

- "Trembler" - all OTA's weighing over 7lbs on aluminumn tripods

- "Wind-Catcher" - all dobsonians with not enough friction on the azimuth axis

- "Slow-Drooper" - all dobsonians with too little friction on the altitude axis

- "Wallet-Stretcher" - all apo refractors

I'm sure we can think of some more ......

John

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

If shops wrote down completely honest stuff about their kit they wouldn't really shift that much, would they? Even if they just wrote "yeah, it's alright I suppose" you wouldn't be running to the shops to hand over your hard-earned moolah.

"Minute aperture 'telescope' with poorly calibrated optics and wiring installed by minimum wage peons, quivering atop a featherweight tripod barely able to hold its own weight and driven on inadequate soft-metal gears by motors and batteries designed by ex Lucas Electrics staff." Wow, hold me back!

[SteelRat]

Hee hee

[Whippy]

If shops wrote down completely honest stuff about their kit they wouldn't really shift that much, would they? Even if they just wrote "yeah, it's alright I suppose" you wouldn't be running to the shops to hand over your hard-earned moolah.

"Minute aperture 'telescope' with poorly calibrated optics and wiring installed by minimum wage peons, quivering atop a featherweight tripod barely able to hold its own weight and driven on inadequate soft-metal gears by motors and batteries designed by ex Lucas Electrics staff." Wow, hold me back!

:D Oh the sarcasm!!

Tony..

[GazOC]

"Guaranteed NOT to show images similar to those on the box'

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Yeah, it's alright I suppose.

Minute aperture 'telescope' with poorly calibrated optics and wiring installed by minimum wage peons, quivering atop a featherweight tripod barely able to hold its own weight and driven on inadequate soft-metal gears by motors and batteries designed by ex Lucas Electrics staff

Now you've got me interested Kenny. How much?

Kaptain Klevtsov

[Cloudwatcher]

Now you've got me interested Kenny. How much?

Kaptain Klevtsov

Yeah! Me to. But only if it's the one with the GoNowhere upgrade.

CW

[SteelRat]

But only if it's the one with the GoNowhere upgrade.

Ha!

[Stormwatch]

Manufacturers should also put a photo on the box/websites of an average sized man standing next to the scope.

Newbie's have no idea how big something like a 10" Dob really is.

[FLO]

"Minute aperture 'telescope' with poorly calibrated optics and wiring installed by minimum wage peons, quivering atop a featherweight tripod barely able to hold its own weight and driven on inadequate soft-metal gears by motors and batteries designed by ex Lucas Electrics staff."

I find it interesting, as Christmas approaches, how many retailers sell their soul by stocking the above 'starter' scopes

[Kenny_10_Bellys]

You make the mistake of assuming they have a soul in the first place. They exist only to seperate people from their money, regardless of anything else. My starter scope was a 5" newt on a tripod barely able to hold its weight, looking through plastic optics like the lens built into my front door. When I think of what I could have bought for the money I wasted on that tin bin...

[Macavity]

Manufacturers should also put a photo on the box/websites of an average sized man standing next to the scope. Newbie's have no idea how big something like a 10" Dob really is.

And others besides. Maybe Jimmy Crankie could model - To "big up" my scopes? But a lot of equipment does lack size and weight specs., especially for folks who are perhaps not at the peak of fitness/health etc. Another personal gripe are the "70 Deg" eyepieces with an AFoV closer to 60 Deg etc. Not to mention the dubious "sharp to the edge" criterion...

[steppenwolf]

I understand the need for marketing crud but it would be very simple for the manufacturers/retailers to add a 'Technical Spec.' button for those who want this sort of information (like me for at least one!).

Martin makes a good point though and displaying this information as the 'norm' would save an awful lot of extra research because those needing the data WILL find it one way or another whether the manufacturer wants them to or not!

[John]

I understand the need for marketing crud but it would be very simple for the manufacturers/retailers to add a 'Technical Spec.' button for those who want this sort of information (like me for at least one!).

Martin makes a good point though and displaying this information as the 'norm' would save an awful lot of extra research because those needing the data WILL find it one way or another whether the manufacturer wants them to or not!

The Orion (USA) website is quite good about this. At each items page there are a number of tabs one of which gives you quite a detailed technical specification. Mind you the default page you 1st get to does contain some "crud" about the item

John