Jump to content

Narrowband

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ARTICLE? "REFRACTORS ARE NO GOOD"


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

One thing does bug me about refractors, though. Try as I might I can't see those spikes sticking out of stars.

Olly

That may be true Olly, but you could follow the example set by some of the better imagers, who use multi thousand pound refractors for that perfect star image, then add diffraction spikes to the image later for a touch of class! :icon_puke_r:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, the title is no good, the general thrust of the article must give food for thought to those who are not refractor diehards. I can't remember when I last used my 8.5" refractor whereas my 8" SCT was just yesterday.  :icon_biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article is pure troll. It is unscientific, immature, self-gratifying & obviouly not written by anybody who has used a scope. 

The guy has speed-read an article maybe, & blogged hoping to impress other low i.q followers & readers. Tabloid writing at best. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, most of the people in this thread while standing up in defense of refracting telescope design (me included) did little to counter actual arguments presented in article.

Most of the things listed in article are in fact true. I think that it would be in best interest of OP and general community that participants of this discussion either state exact disagreement with particular point made in article, or provide alternative view to why refractors are indeed good (particular use case or even personal preference).

I would not focus my attention to author either, everyone has a right to voice their opinion and their particular style might not suit us well, but we should be able to distinguish their preferences / views to actual claims (which we can subject to counter argument).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I've just had a quick brows of his website. It's very interesting. He seems to be an experienced and serious stargazer (and his ultimate scope is a refractor). There's an article warning about getting a big dob too. The site is well worth a look especially for those of us who still have a lot to learn. He has a  bit of a brash, polemic style, which wouldn't work on this forum, but has its own charm. Thanks for the initial link. That's most of my lazy afternoon booked up now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember the slightly more WITTY version? :p As ever, I tend
to do a bit of a "background check" ... The top domain of this web link is:
http://www.chuckhawks.com/  Hey, "I'm saying nothing"! lol. [teasing]! :D

But seriously, I often find that people who are "outspoken" on ONE issue
tend to be so on QUITE a few others as well? We live in interesting times.
But I don't always have to agree with someone (in other areas) and it is
possible for such to make a useful contribution to debate? <ducking>  ;)

The Web allows us to surround ourselves with (only) the like minded?  :)
(Reading & commenting does not necessarily make one an "apologist")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my Tal I have had the best views of double, triple and multiple star systems with loads of colour. Not had a chance on any Planets yet and more shocking not even turned it on the moon. 

However I enjoy looking through my 8" reflector spikes and all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Stu said:

I know, dreadful little pea shooters they are, don't know why anyone bothers looking through them..

"Looking THROUGH them??"

I thought Tak owners only looked AT them..at EVERY  opportunity!!! :hello2::headbang:

Dave

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, the title is no good, the general thrust of the article must give food for thought to those who are not refractor diehards. I can't remember when I last used my 8.5" refractor whereas my 8" SCT was just yesterday.  :icon_biggrin:

That 8.5" refractor would be well loved with me Peter, if you ever feel its getting a bit lonely up in the wilds! I'll begin cleaning out its 19 foot long observatory at the bottom of my garden that's been waiting in anticipation. :grin::grin:

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Interestingly enough, most of the people in this thread while standing up in defense of refracting telescope design (me included) did little to counter actual arguments presented in article.

I do appreciate what you're saying. But the reactions of people reflect (...) their attitudes, not only towards the article's message, but also the way in which the message is presented.

Apparently, the article doesn't succeed in engaging those people in such a way that they take it seriously (whether they agree or not). So they don't. It's Monty Python all around. Use a title like that, and you've lost that part of your audience which needs the most convincing.

So in that sense, the article gets the reaction it deserves.

:happy11:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iPeace said:

I do appreciate what you're saying. But the reactions of people reflect (...) their attitudes, not only towards the article's message, but also the way in which the message is presented.

Apparently, the article doesn't succeed in engaging those people in such a way that they take it seriously (whether they agree or not). So they don't. It's Monty Python all around. Use a title like that, and you've lost that part of your audience which needs the most convincing.

So in that sense, the article gets the reaction it deserves.

:happy11:

And there I was believing we have a convert given your recent experience with 6" F/6 Newtonian :D

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vlaiv said:

And there I was believing we have a convert given your recent experience with 6" F/6 Newtonian :D

Hey, there's never going to be The One True Scope. There's room for a pantheon in my particular philosophy. :grin: Besides, I haven't named the Newt yet...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, F15Rules said:

"Looking THROUGH them??"

I thought Tak owners only looked AT them..at EVERY  opportunity!!! :hello2::headbang:

Dave

I really don't. Mine's a scruffy old thing with a home made tangent arm microfocuser and a handwritten sticker on it to remind me which one it is on the dual rig I share with Tom. I did clean it once when Steve Richards was about to drop in! :D

7 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Interestingly enough, most of the people in this thread while standing up in defense of refracting telescope design (me included) did little to counter actual arguments presented in article.

Most of the things listed in article are in fact true. I think that it would be in best interest of OP and general community that participants of this discussion either state exact disagreement with particular point made in article, or provide alternative view to why refractors are indeed good (particular use case or even personal preference).

I would not focus my attention to author either, everyone has a right to voice their opinion and their particular style might not suit us well, but we should be able to distinguish their preferences / views to actual claims (which we can subject to counter argument).

I posted a refractor image which I wanted to speak for itself. To speak for it instead I would say this: in a Newtonian image of this target there would be little there apart from diffraction spikes! And if I tried it in an SCT it would need a six panel mosaic - and there would be no hope of holding down the stars which tend to be pretty soft in SCTs. This was taken in a small (but expensive) 3 inch refractor, smaller and more compact than an SCT and much easier to mount and guide.

If all you are interested in, visually, is going deeper then aperture is king. But if all you are interested in is going deeper then get a bigger scope. Visual refractor enthusiasts are not obsessed with going deeper, they are are passionate about the quality of the view at an emotional level. Deeper or better? There is no right answer. Both are perfectly valid obsessions.

I've no axe to grind. As a provider I have refractors, Newts and SCTs here and I like them all. Well, I like them all visually but for imaging I really like refractors.  

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
False click
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Visual refractor enthusiasts are not obsessed with going deeper, they are are passionate about the quality of the view at an emotional level.

That's profoundly true, and well said.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iPeace said:

Oh, shush and behave. :happy11:

Wot, on a refractor versus reflector thread? Nobody behaves on those. Especially those reflector crackpots! :blob9:

Olly

PS For anyone suffering from chronic sense of humour failure, this was a joke. Not really!!!! 

Edited by ollypenrice
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Wot, on a refractor versus reflector thread? Nobody behaves on those. Especially those reflector crackpots! :blob9:

Olly

PS For anyone suffering from chronic sense of humour failure, this was a joke. Not really!!!! 

I haven't forgotten that you have the other six bristles from That Man's moustache...we need to get together and get rich. :grin:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.