Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_rgb.jpg.9467c4d39b22ba8239e1b5ad252fcee2.jpg

25585

The startling reality of optics & electronics pricing!

Recommended Posts

25585    193

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. 

Edited by 25585
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xtreemchaos    10,111

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.:help: charl

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AKB    526
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brantuk    3,162

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)

Edited by brantuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JOC    1,437
5 minutes ago, brantuk said:

I get where you're coming from

me too - I felt the same thing,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
furrysocks2    718
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.

Edited by furrysocks2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Louis D    888

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astro Imp    2,842
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 :sad:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astro Imp    2,842
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Louis D    888
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waldemar    293

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Louis D    888
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wimvb    2,039
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.

Edited by wimvb
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSRobot    43

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 :hello2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25585    193

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×