The startling reality of optics & electronics pricing!

[25585]

A good quality optics scope of any design can cost less than a high end eye piece or pair of binoculars. 

A computerised mount can cost more than the scope mounted on it. 

Specialist imaging equipment can cost more than a full frame DSLR + lens. 

[xtreemchaos]

its only money mate if your like me and don't have much it don't matter because most kit is pie in the sky, outareach like the ISS = don't worry about what you carnt have because its pointless. charl

[AKB]

1 hour ago, 25585 said:

 

A computerised mount can cost more than the scope mounted on it. 

 

Well, indeed, the received wisdom is that you SHOULD spend more on your mount than the scope.  Is it not?

[brantuk]

Yup - I get where you're coming from - it can sound strange that one s/h TV eyepiece cost the same as my first 150p scope and EQ3-2 mount combined (with eyepieces). In reality though a lot more work goes into the design, performance, and materials of a top notch eyepiece than a mass produced scope/mount combo. In spite of that I still get odd reactions when I mention it to a newbie.

(They tend to look at me like I'm nuts lol)

[Demonperformer]

And have you seen the price of some of these filters ... and they are only of use for ONE object!!

[JOC]

5 minutes ago, brantuk said:

I get where you're coming from

me too - I felt the same thing,

[furrysocks2]

On 06/12/2017 at 12:51, 25585 said:

A good quality optics scope of any design can cost less than a high end eye piece. 

A computerised mount can cost more than the scope mounted on it. 

Specialist imaging equipment can cost more than a full frame DSLR + lens. 

The 2nd hand market is however remarkably steady - the odd bargain to be had, but cost of ownership/resale is calculable to within a narrow margin. I guess many of us have a shared expectation - it all seems quite healthy.

[Louis D]

What I really don't understand is why high performance glass like FPL-53 hasn't come down in price in 20 years.  By comparison, 20 years ago, personal computers were still running around 100 MHz or so, were basically desktop only, and had very rudimentary graphics and cost well over $1000 ($1500 today).  The typical smartphone of today can run circles around those machines and do it for well under $1000.  Why is it that glass and telescope makers haven't figured out how to bring down their manufacturing costs while increasing performance?  Computerized mounts are about the only astro item that is much improved in price and performance over what was available 20 years ago.

[Astro Imp]

41 minutes ago, brantuk said:

(They tend to look at me like I'm nuts lol)

Well I think we're all nuts too, trying to practice our hobby with the poor conditions most of us have in the UK 

[Astro Imp]

29 minutes ago, Louis D said:

What I really don't understand is why high performance glass like FPL-53 hasn't come down in price in 20 years.  By comparison, 20 years ago, personal computers were still running around 100 MHz or so, were basically desktop only, and had very rudimentary graphics and cost well over $1000 ($1500 today).  The typical smartphone of today can run circles around those machines and do it for well under $1000.  Why is it that glass and telescope makers haven't figured out how to bring down their manufacturing costs while increasing performance?  Computerized mounts are about the only astro item that is much improved in price and performance over what was available 20 years ago.

A lot depends on the size of the market. Smart phones and PCs are a mass market product, astro gear isn't.

[Louis D]

14 minutes ago, Astro Imp said:

A lot depends on the size of the market. Smart phones and PCs are a mass market product, astro gear isn't.

Cars are mass market, and yet they also cost far more than they did 20 years ago for similar performance.  Don't get me started on their evolution over the past 100 years compared to computing.

[Waldemar]

20 years ago money was a lot more expensive than nowadays... maybe that is forgotten?

B.t.w. ... cars had similar performance 20 years ago??? come on, you don't believe that do you?

[Louis D]

12 hours ago, Waldemar said:

20 years ago money was a lot more expensive than nowadays... maybe that is forgotten?

B.t.w. ... cars had similar performance 20 years ago??? come on, you don't believe that do you?

Cars, on average, still seat the same number of people, still corner about the same, still accelerate about the same, etc.  Computers by comparison are running well over 100x faster when accounting for multiple cores and threads and massively faster clock speeds.  They have thousands of times more memory, both RAM and hard drive.  GPUs are thousands of times more capable.  They can now render near life-like 3-D images in real time at 60 fps or better.  By comparison, cars would need to be able to reach 10,000 mph, carry thousands of people, and yet fit compactly in the palm of your hand for storage.  So yes, cars have essentially the same performance as 20 years ago when compared to computer performance of the mid-90s.

[wimvb]

3 hours ago, Louis D said:

By comparison, cars would need to be able to reach 10,000 mph, carry thousands of people, and yet fit compactly in the palm of your hand for storage

And there you have the problem. It isn't that cars can't evolve, but that we can't. To fit into that imaginary car, people would need to be shrunk to the size where 1 000 fit into the palm of your hand.

The economics and physics of car manufacturing is completely different from electronics.

And astro gear manufacturing is completely different still. Plus, as mentioned before, the market is different. A former ceo of IBM once said that the entire computer market was limited to about four units. Boy, was he wrong.

As for glass not changing, that's physics. Even the material used for computers hasn't changed. It's still silicon, aluminium and gold, mostly. But unlike electronics, you can't really miniaturise scopes. We want aperture and focal length. Actually, now I come to think of it, a lot has happened. Who would have thought 10 years ago that excellent astro images could be produced by cmos and ordinary lenses. Yet, that's where we're headed with cooled cmos from the likes of zwo, qhy and atik.

And computerised goto telescopes are available to the masses, thanks to skywatcher and others. Direct drive, super accurate mounts that don't need guiding are being developed and affordable to more and more people.

But again, the market is too small for direct product development on the same scale as for computers and cars. One indicator of this is the lack of large size mono cmos. Since the market is in consumer cameras, there's no incentive for the manufacturers to move from osc to mono.

[TSRobot]

Optics last a long time of course and don't necessarily go out of date ever. Not the same with cars and computers. Classic tech including cars are amazing things to own. 30 yr old c8s are much sought after as are XR3i's and zx 81's. My OM1 seems never to give up and I can still get it serviced even though its as old as I am 

[25585]

My C8 OTA is an orange one & about 30 years old. Modern ones cost about £250 more! Is it just price that makes them sought after?

For imaging perhaps the future is in arrays of small scopes & for both that & visual adaptive mirrors. Hopefully better night vision hardware will gradually get cheaper, & software will i.d what is in your eyepiece as you look through it. 

For eps etc the limit to conventional design has probably been reached for the scopes available on the consumer market. But technology for helping maximise what the excellent eps currently available to all would be a good step, sort of harnessing imaging tech for visual use in tandem with any ep.