The mystique of " the best ".

[gooseholla]

I wonder how many people have the best equipment but sub-par eyes to view through it? Surely that is a large factor. 

As others have said though, more premium things are sometimes better - there is nothing like using a smooth focuser. 

John 

[andrew63]

1 hour ago, gooseholla said:

I wonder how many people have the best equipment but sub-par eyes to view through it? Surely that is a large factor. 

As others have said though, more premium things are sometimes better - there is nothing like using a smooth focuser. 

John 

It's ironic that when your eyes are at their best you have no money, but when you have the money... 

 

andrew

[CSM]

The best upgrade I made was to get an observatory.  Expensive yes, but the ability to go out and observe or image at a moment's notice has proved invaluable.

[iPeace]

On 4/13/2016 at 18:34, cotterless45 said:

Please  correct me if I'm wrong , but are there any benefits to uber optics for visual astronomy ? I like to persuade newbies that the most simple, not basic gear will catch "many fish ".

I sure hope I'm not overstepping the boundaries of my novice leeway here - so please take this with my fullest respect for all your experience and expertise firmly in mind - and with the proverbial grain of salt, as suits your own palate.

For my humble (Hubble?) part, I believe we get the most value out of Nick's argument by taking it literally: "for visual astronomy, simple gear will catch many fish". I tend to focus on the fact that Nick says "simple" as opposed to "inferior" or "poorly made" or even "cheaper".

Just to hopefully make a bit more clear what I mean, consider the following: simplicity is to a great extent a result of design, whereas quality is - given the soundness of the design itself - much more a result of good construction, including selection of materials and quality control. If, for the sake of argument, we take it as read that an achromatic refractor is based on a design which is simpler than that of an apochromatic triplet - and assume that by default it will therefore cost more to make such an apo than an achro, it may still be easy to imagine that it's possible for the construction of a top-quality achromat to be more expensive than that of a low-quality triplet.

So to my mind, Nick is not talking about making do with a shoddy focuser or a particular specimen of Chinese apo which clearly doesn't make the grade. I feel Nick wants us to consider the value and effectiveness of quality astronomical equipment based on simple designs - which may - probably - even cost less, as an added benefit, especially when one stays outside the realm of the "boutique".

Sir Patrick started out with a vintage 1910 3" refractor. I can't help but assume that his scope - a beautiful brass job on a proper wooden tripod - was an achromat, and was not equipped with a dual-speed focuser...and then there's Galileo, who reportedly ground his own lenses. Both observed the frac out of the visible sky, and one should contend their contributions to astronomy and science at large at one's own peril.

Now, before you get that look on your face, Sir Patrick obviously upgraded his kit as his career progressed (as did Galileo, for that matter). So it's not about ignoring progress or - metaphorically speaking - travelling on a horse-driven cart just for the sake of it. It's just that you can get the vast majority of worthwhile, enjoyable observing done with simply designed, well constructed, serviceable kit. Did Sir Patrick ever see "false colour", "chromatic aberration", or anything else of that scary kind which tends to (be used to) steer newbies away from the use of a good achro combined with a couple of well-matched eyepieces? I don't doubt it. I also don't doubt that whatever he saw through whatever he used only inspired him to look more.

Am I one to talk, with a TV85 and not having owned a single eyepiece without green lettering? Well, perhaps not. Then again, a TV85 is "only" a doublet - it's just very well made... I can't excuse the thrill of using an Ethos eyepiece, though.

I feel inclined to take up Nick's challenge. I've recently spotted a couple of locally-situated vintage long-focal-length achros online. I may just go for one, and see what all the lack of fuss is about.

[gooseholla]

I'd have to agree with the above poster. Some of my most wonderful views of Saturn to date come from a 3.6mm MA eyepiece - hardly high on anyone's list of things to view with. I'm sure that now there are better views with my equipment, but as said, there is a lot to be seen with less quality stuff, and if it inspires someone to go further then I'm all for it. I've even used a Kellner eyepiece or two and seen the Orion nebula perfectly fine. Now its dodgy mounts that need to be outlawed! 

John  

[Mak the Night]

I have a couple of inexpensive Kellners, they still get used!

[ollypenrice]

The inexpensive stuff is now often so good as to be hard on the heels of the best. What really matters is to get it to a dark site and use it.

I observe with a very basic 1/4 wave-ish 20 inch Dob and a TEC 140 with premium optics. I like both. Would I like a 10th wave Zambuto mirror in the 20 inch?   Yes. 

So I'm another who says he likes cheap and cheerful and extravagently posh!

Olly