An honest review......(March S@N mag)

[NGC 1502]

Hi all. Astronomy magazines sometimes take a rap for always giving a positive review about new equipment.

However, in the March edition of Sky at Night mag (page 94) is a review of the new William Optics GTF-81 refractor. It's the replacement for the GT-81.

The 'F' in the designation of the new scope stands for 'flattener', there are 3 elements up front and a 2 element flattener at the back end. Sounds good.

But the reviewer found some issues. First up they found a loose screw in the box, it belonged to the focuser. Much more seriously, they were not happy with the images, and put it down to poor collimation.

I'm not putting down WO, they make great products, all manufacturers turn out the occasional lemon. What I am saying is I'll be more inclined to believe future reviews in that mag, as I'd not taken them all that seriously in the past, but tried to 'read between the lines'.

Of course, Sky at Night is a good mag, not putting them down either, just praising them for this review.

Regards, Ed.

[Steep]

I think you have to assume that any magazine is going to be 'diplomatic' when giving review of equipment that comes from advertisers. I've got that issue I think (is it the one with Patrick Moores' obit etc?) but I've not read it yet.

[DirkSteele]

I have heard comments (admittedly from competitors in the refractor market) that WO does not thoroughly check the products (collimation, lens quality etc) before shipping them out, which may have an element of truth given the state of the review model (unless purchased anonymously you would have thought any Company with some sense would check it make sure its is an excellent example, given reviews can end up being the best marketing), which means you take your chance and hope you get a good example and not a lemon. Reason enough to want to buy from a good retailer who will stand behind the product and repair / replace if there is a problem.

There does seem to be have been some issues recently with the mid-range producers attempting scopes with built in flatteners. The SkyWatcher Esprit 100-ED 5 element scope has had some well documented issues as well.

That is not to say I have not had some excellent views through the WO scopes of friends. I am particularly taken with the GT-81 that a friend owns. Great views, and possibly the best looking scope one can buy.

[ubertank]

I think you have to assume that any magazine is going to be 'diplomatic' when giving review of equipment that comes from advertisers. I've got that issue I think (is it the one with Patrick Moores' obit etc?) but I've not read it yet.

It's the one after that - the most recent one.

[Gweedo]

The problem is that magazines survive by advertising revenue. Sales to you and I count for very little in the overall income of the publisher. As such there is very strong pressure to obtain advertising revenue and keep advertisers happy. This results in either consistently positive reviews or at best fairly anodyne reviews of sub par products. I'm sure that none of this is deliberate on the behalf of reviewers, but it does happen.

I would say that it takes a very brave editor to publish a review that they know would upset a major advertiser. That's why I would seek the opinions of other forum users on equipment rather than solely relying on a magazine review. But that said, the influence and veracity of reviews on the internet is under question as well - you've only got to look at the recent 'scandals' on Amazon book reviews and holiday review sites.

[Moonshane]

I do find it bizarre that magazines seem to depend on advertising revenue. who are the advertisers looking to sell to? if the readers of a magazine lose faith in the reviews and stop buying it then there's no point in advertising to a shrinking audience. it would be far better to review honestly so more people rely upon and buy the magazine and then buy the better products reviewed. this drives better products, happier customers and more astronomy sales for the advertisers. they seem to have it all the wrong way round to my naive mind.

[harpic]

I am self employed, I welcome any critique of my work, how can one improve without an honest appraisal? You have to take the rough with the smooth, customer service and satisfaction are everything.

[Photosbykev]

If I post a review on a piece of camera gear it tends to be a good review. If the gear isn't any good I return it without any public comment, plenty of private comments but non public lol