Skywatcher ED120, some musings

[John]

6 minutes ago, Piero said:

...Eventually, what matters is that we spend a lovely night out independently of what we have. Analysis and reporting details are interesting parts of course, but certainly don't substitute the joy of standing under the stars, planets, and moon.

Very true Piero

I've just spent a very enjoyable hour viewing Jupiter, Comet V2 Johnson and a few other bits and pieces. Thats what it's all about.

Mind you, the scope of choice tonight was my ED120 ........ 

[Paul73]

This thread just keeps on giving.

It is true that I didn't partake in the thread that ended in the acquisition of this ED120; or any subsequent communications. But, the OP was effusive about views of Jupiter, the Moon and the Double Cluster. He noted that open clusters and doubles were also a strength. I also read that due to the limitations of 120mm and local LP, the fuzzies were never going to be great.

I'm guessing that the comment about him getting carried away expectation wise by the good reviews, could be the issue. I have an ED120 which used to reside with a prominent SGLer. I am very happy with the scope. And. Yes. I do often grin and even sing whilst at the eyepiece. I can honestly say that I have never seen the ED120 being touted as a decent fuzzy hunter. Fun under a dark sky, but you wouldn't trade in your Dob.

Paul

Edited May 1, 2017 by Paul73

[nightfisher]

6 hours ago, iPeace said:

Fair's fair. I didn't read that someone has a bad scope, or the wrong scope, or that anyone was misinformed in any way.

I read that someone has a very nice scope and yet has mixed feelings about it, perhaps in part due to heightened expectations for which no blame is placed, and recognizes the need to compromise and get on with it.

It doesn't have to be a problem that needs solving. A continuing journey is much more entertaining. Exasperation tailored to our common interest is to be savored. Who needs daytime television?

And there speaks the true words of wisdom, i am pleased to see you have interpreted my post in its true context 

 

Just need to clear up an issue regarding dobs....its not that i dont like them, they are a very good tool at a decent price, i just dont have room for an assembled dob base, it would have to live in a some what damp outbuilding, that would not be conducive to long life of the MDF and would have to be moved every time i needed to get other stuff in/out, its true i dont care for diffraction spikes, i guess i am not in a position to own a dob 

[Stu]

On 01/05/2017 at 05:49, nightfisher said:

I bought this expecting views free from false colour, this is well corrected in CA and spherical aberration, the only time i see false colour is when viewing Luna low on the horizon, to be expected i guess. Luna views are extremely good when viewing detail with a moon at a decent altitude, though getting sharp focus seems to be something you have to "tease" in rather than getting the "snap to focus" that a long F/L decent achro gives.

Just so I'm clear, is this the effusive bit?

[Paul73]

38 minutes ago, Stu said:

Just so I'm clear, is this the effusive bit?

 

OK. So "effusive" might be a tad strong. I am prone to hyperbole. Maybe I have been inadvertently adding to the hype..... 

Here are the positive observations cut and pasted:

"Luna views are extremely good when viewing detail with a moon at a decent altitude," 

"Jupiter gave super and yes i really do mean superb views, in moments of good seeing, with the GRS being plain to see and an eclipse of one of the Jovian moons  "

"some of the messier s are very well resolved in this 120, M45 with 2" 42mm EP is stunning, fitting the whole cluster in the field of view and other open clusters being very easy to resolve"

"I have viewed, some double stars, again the scope gives a good account of itself, even allowing me to image Polaris with 1000D at prime focus"

Paul

PS. Given the altitude, I had some really nice views of Saturn last night. Using .......... an ED120???

[iPeace]

39 minutes ago, Stu said:

Just so I'm clear, is this the effusive bit?

It's an honest, balanced appraisal. And the truth, in my experience. Really, there's no need to read crushing disappointment into the wording of that particular paragraph.

If anyone but Jules had written it...?

[Paul73]

Think that I'll duck out now.

[Stu]

47 minutes ago, iPeace said:

It's an honest, balanced appraisal. And the truth, in my experience. Really, there's no need to read crushing disappointment into the wording of that particular paragraph.

If anyone but Jules had written it...?

Mike, you are dead right. Had Jules come back to the forum time and again seeking advice on a deep sky scope I would have no issues. The fact is he has wanted to downsize to a single scope, and the specific requests were around lunar observing and imaging, with perhaps some doubles and planetary thrown in. Cool down time needed to be short, mounting requirements reasonable and the focal length not too short and not too long. In addition, multiple different scope types and sizes have been ruled out, narrowing the potential scopes which might be suitable.

The review focused far more words on the scope's DSO capabilities under light polluted skies than on its intended targets. Jules has a long standing love of TAL refractors, 100R in particular I believe. I don't think DSO performance was ever high up on the list of requirements for the TAL. It would have been interesting to see some comment on the comparative optical quality and resolution between the two scopes, what targets on the moon looked like for instance.

So, in my personal opinion the review was not balanced. That is the reason I'm banging on about this.

[iPeace]

24 minutes ago, Stu said:

Mike, you are dead right. Had Jules come back to the forum time and again seeking advice on a deep sky scope I would have no issues. The fact is he has wanted to downsize to a single scope, and the specific requests were around lunar observing and imaging, with perhaps some doubles and planetary thrown in. Cool down time needed to be short, mounting requirements reasonable and the focal length not too short and not too long. In addition, multiple different scope types and sizes have been ruled out, narrowing the potential scopes which might be suitable.

The review focused far more words on the scope's DSO capabilities under light polluted skies than on its intended targets. Jules has a long standing love of TAL refractors, 100R in particular I believe. I don't think DSO performance was ever high up on the list of requirements for the TAL. It would have been interesting to see some comment on the comparative optical quality and resolution between the two scopes, what targets on the moon looked like for instance.

So, in my personal opinion the review was not balanced. That is the reason I'm banging on about this.

Understood. But Jules is not reviewing whether the scope is suited for the purpose stated at that time. He's not commenting on whether he was advised properly. His writing is not about us, it's about how he regards his scope right now, naturally from his own perspective.

It's understandable to read his review in the huge context of what went on before - and Jules acknowledges this explicitly. But any residual exasperation is surely our own. We've never suffered ingratitude or injustice in this context. We can afford to let time-and-time-again be bygones and just partake in what's going on right now, that which Jules chooses to share.

We can agree with what he is actually saying or not, and indeed discuss, that's the fun part.

[Paul73]

That about clears that one up then.

 I'd be interested in hearing about the Tal vs ED120 performance too. Although the ED100 (also f10) would be even better. The Tals seem to pop up second hand for a very reasonable price.

Paul

[Stu]

30 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Understood. But Jules is not reviewing whether the scope is suited for the purpose stated at that time. He's not commenting on whether he was advised properly. His writing is not about us, it's about how he regards his scope right now, naturally from his own perspective.

It's understandable to read his review in the huge context of what went on before - and Jules acknowledges this explicitly. But any residual exasperation is surely our own. We've never suffered ingratitude or injustice in this context. We can afford to let time-and-time-again be bygones and just partake in what's going on right now, that which Jules chooses to share.

We can agree with what he is actually saying or not, and indeed discuss, that's the fun part.

We will have to agree to disagree about this one, with no hard feelings of course  

There is just so much history that personally I find it impossible to separate the review from past conversations and requests.

I think the comments about forum hype are the hardest to swallow. The scope was recommended for a purpose, no one hyped it for DSO use, in fact no one hyped it at all.

[nightfisher]

Allow me to clear up a point, not one person recommended the 120 for deep sky, it was put forward for my main interest of all things Luna, planets and double star, it is extremely capable in these roles as one would expect. I choose to try it at deep sky work and I found it disappointing on this respect, no one suggested I should try this, with regard to "forum hype" I used this for want of a better term, implying that people praise this scope highly.

Maybe its time to lock this thread?

[laudropb]

I think you have hit the nail on the head with your last post Stu. The only part of Jules origin post that I strongly disagreed with was his use of forum hype. The rest is in my opinion his honest thoughts on the matter and he is certainly entitled to them. I clearly remember the recommendations that you and other experienced members gave at the time Jules was considering his options. As I posted previously I was just about to purchase a120ED myself. The advice given was accurate and very helpful to me and again I as previously stated I am very happy with my choice, but I do think that the vast majority of the original post is relevant and Jules was right to post it. I think and certainly hope that he was not in anyway suggesting he was duped into his purchase. That is just not the way things happen on this wonderful forum.

Perhaps it's time to move on Stu. I certainly for one look forward to the advice that you and other members so freely give here. It has been invaluable to me.

[nightfisher]

Thinking about how this thread has progressed I have decided never to attempt any review, also I am going to refrain from mentioning this scope in any posts on the forum, cases closed

[mikeDnight]

I think its very sad that this thread hasn't been used to be more encouraging and up building. May be we should all just take time out and all read chapter  15 of Leslie Peltiers Starlight Nights, "The Comet Seeker!" so as to fan the flames of enthusiasm for the superlative ED120. 

Mike 

 

[Paul73]

That's a shame Jules. From reading the thread. Several forum members found the review enjoyable and useful.

Don't stop. Wouldn't mind reading your thoughts on the Tal 100 views vs the ED 120.

Paul

[swag72]

Surely a review is ones own personal thoughts about something.... how well it matches what YOU want it to do, whether it matches YOUR expectations based on YOUR requirements. I can't believe that this is even being bought into question...... The OP wrote what he thought and whether someone else felt it was balanced or not is neither here nor there in my view. Just as well no one asks me for my thoughts on the ED120....  

Keep it up Jules and please don't feel that your views are not valid or worthwhile.... they totally are

[Stu]

1 minute ago, swag72 said:

YOUR requirements

Exactly!!!

Sara, you bought the ED120 for Deep sky AP I believe. I doubt anyone would recommend it as being ideal for that, that's just the point!

[Stu]

1 hour ago, laudropb said:

Perhaps it's time to move on Stu.

John, you are of course correct. I will do as I said I would a while back and leave this one now

I hope the thread continues and some further useful info is discussed.

[Chris]

2 hours ago, nightfisher said:

Thinking about how this thread has progressed I have decided never to attempt any review, also I am going to refrain from mentioning this scope in any posts on the forum, cases closed

I'm sorry that some of us have made you think twice about future reviews, Jules. I hope you do continue   I liked the review, I just sensed (based on everything leading upto you buying the ED120) that you feel obliged to keep it? On paper it does tick all the boxes for your requirements, but not everything is about ticking boxes and you didn't sound that happy with it reading between the lines, which is why I chose to contribute. 

I must admit to enjoying the debate at the beginning, but in hindsight feel we've got stuck focused in on a particular point, then on a loop. Maybe some of this should have been by PM, I don't know? Obviously I'm now continuing with the loop so will shut up now  

p.s wasn't suggesting a Dob, you need tracking

Edited May 2, 2017 by Chris Lock

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, nightfisher said:

Thinking about how this thread has progressed I have decided never to attempt any review, also I am going to refrain from mentioning this scope in any posts on the forum, cases closed

Your review is respected Nightfisher and I personally share some of the same sentiments about the SW120ED as you. They are VG scopes but of limited aperture for lunar and planetary detail IMHO.

Over on CN a while back I posted that my 120ED showed a hair of color on the limb of the moon..... Everything from off axis viewing through the eyepieces had to be at fault. My own 120ED takes quite high mag for lunar in particular, and is a nice scope. My larger aperture scopes trounce it on most everything however and thankfully I have the seeing to really test the scopes out.

I personally like hearing truthful opinions about optics, including yours Nightfisher, and I hope you continue to review as you choose.

[paulastro]

2 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I think its very sad that this thread hasn't been used to be more encouraging and up building. May be we should all just take time out and all read chapter  15 of Leslie Peltiers Starlight Nights, "The Comet Seeker!" so as to fan the flames of enthusiasm for the superlative ED120. 

Mike 

 

 

Good one Mike, in fact I think it's about time I got my copy off the shelf and re-read it again for the umpteenth time.  Thanks for the prompt.

Sorry to mention it (not really!), but I think you meant 'up-lifting' rather than 'up-building'.

[Alfian]

3 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I think its very sad that this thread hasn't been used to be more encouraging and up building.

Indeed. More could be said, but I think more than enough words have passed for little if any edification.

[mikeDnight]

No, I did mean to write up-building! Up-building in the sense of adding to our knowledge and understanding, as well as adding to our over all enjoyment of the hobby and instruments, and of course building bonds between SGL members. However, up-lifting is a nice word too! ?

Mike

[cotterless45]

I heartily agree with Jules , I had two such size scopes and they didn't fit in with the targets that I love under grotty skies. For maximum impact and punching above its weight , my C6r with 2" semi app filter eats peashooters for breakfast , old Nick,?