Rigel quick find quality control

[Steve Clay]

I ordered a Rigel Quick find to fit to my Mak.

Speedy delivery by FLO and the cheapest price. Albeit still expensive for what it is.

However, the quality control on the device is totally shocking. The plastic was badly marked and showed tooling / moulding marks all over it.

E-mail to FLO and a replacement was dispatched immediately. Sadly the replacement has pretty much the same tooling marks all over the body.

Has anybody else seen this?

My conclusion is that they are made so cheaply that ultimately the end user is the quality controller.

Are the Telrads better quality?

Or is my OCD for perfection/ quality getting the better of me.

[John]

My Rigel Quikfinder is of a similar quality. I've had it for years and it works really well though so I'm happy to accept that it's not finished to very high cosmetic standards. I've had much nicer looking / finished finders that have been somewhat less effective in actual use under the night sky.

The Telrad finish is of a similar standard.

If you want superb finish as well as superb functionality maybe the Tele Vue Starbeam is of interest ?:

https://www.365astronomy.com/televue-starbeam-red-dot-finder-with-sct-base.html

 

[rl]

I'm looking at mine in the light of your experience and there are indeed a few marks on the black plastic case but not that would cause me any concern. I guess at 30 quid or whatever I paid for it some time ago, it comes in at the bottom end of astronomical expenditure as accessories go. It does a good job and has lasted a couple of years, but he bottom clips look like they might break easily given a good whack.

.I've got both the telrad and the rigel; the telrad is sturdier but a lot bulkier. It too has the same sort of marks. Both are built down to a price and somebody has made a killing but I wish I had thought of something so simple myself! If Takahashi had made it there would be no change out of £200.

Could you put up a few photos?

Ultimately is it fit for purpose? 

RL

[Paz]

I've got a second hand Rigel. I can't see any finishing issues but setting that aside it does the job well.

I also use telrads, they are similar quality wise and functionally they are also great. With telrads I find the rings easier to pick up when your lining your eye up, and they cover a slightly wider field, but then the telrad is bigger, heavier, and even uglier!

[Steve Clay]

14 minutes ago, rl said:

I'm looking at mine in the light of your experience and there are indeed a few marks on the black plastic case but not that would cause me any concern. I guess at 30 quid or whatever I paid for it some time ago, it comes in at the bottom end of astronomical expenditure as accessories go. It does a good job and has lasted a couple of years, but he bottom clips look like they might break easily given a good whack.

.I've got both the telrad and the rigel; the telrad is sturdier but a lot bulkier. It too has the same sort of marks. Both are built down to a price and somebody has made a killing but I wish I had thought of something so simple myself! If Takahashi had made it there would be no change out of £200.

Could you put up a few photos?

Ultimately is it fit for purpose? 

RL

I

[Steve Clay]

[John]

Yep - similar to mine.

 

[Carbon Brush]

A retailer offering product with that standard of finish has to expect returns.
I realise that a scratched case does not affect the view. It does though say things about the manufacturers approach to quality and care.

I can only assume Mr Rigel decided to outsource his manufacturing to someone cheaper!

I use a Rigel. Purchased used several years ago. I don't recall any particular cosmetic issues and as I only use it in the dark, I'm not that bothered.

It is only used as a 'lost datum' recovery device on my D6 mount. As a rough pointing device to get me into the area covered by the finderscope.
As a low cost device I am happy with the performance.

I do though like it because it is much smaller than a Telrad. It tucks in between the 9x50 finder and eyepiece and is forgotten until needed.

Comparing the Rigel quality with the conventional RDF devices fitted to many scopes now, it compares well.
The plastic is clear. The red light can be flashed and the intensity adjusted over a wide range. This means the star intensity is not important.

I have used (and thrown) RDFs that have really smoky plastic so you can just about see Jupiter brightness objects.

Then there are other RDFs with an LED so bright it completely swamps anything dimmer than the moon.
The dimming control not having adequate range. In this case I added my own fixed and variable resistor to get a decent result.
I think the problem here was the scope manufacturer wanted an RDF that worked day and night!

We all have different ideas on what finders we want - which is why there are so many on the market.

David.

 

[ronl]

I must say, that's a very ruff finish, I have had mine a number of years, and the finish

is much better than that, even now, but it does a great job, they all look the same in the dark.

[jock1958]

Cant really comment on the Rigel Quickfinder as I've never owned one,  but looking at your pics it does look decidedly second hand - whoever produced it seemed to lack pride in their work sadly a common theme in the cost cutting culture of today.

No such issues with my Telrad, it arrived in pristine condition and although its bigger than the Rigel it is one of my essential / favourite bits of astro kit  - I cant recommend it highly enough!

[Astro Imp]

2 hours ago, Paz said:

With telrads I find the rings easier to pick up when your lining your eye up

I agree with this, I used a Telrad and swapped to a Rigel as there wasn't sufficient room to mount the Telrad on my new scope. I sometimes really struggle to line my eye with the Rigel rings.
Also I found it easier to adjust the aiming with the Telrad as the adjusting knobs can be accessed while still looking at the target whereas the Rigel adjustments are on the wrong side.

[rhw1967]

Nearly grabbed one of these for my Apo, however decided it just didn't look "right" on there  

Heard only good things about it though, and never seen a post about it's quality until now.

[scarp15]

It does look quite scuffed, though cosmetic I can appreciate that it would be a bit annoying for a new product. I have a Quikfinder for my 85mm refractor and 200mm dobsonian, both purchased at retail from FLO without issue. They do function very well, even if aesthetically they do not look so slick and I have a Telrad on my 350mm dobsonian for which this is more suited.  

[Whistlin Bob]

I have two, one purchase last year and one five years old. They both feel a bit cheap, but don't have those sorts of marks on... Must say I've always been a big advocate of them- really useful and smaller/lighter than a Telrad.

[John]

I've owned Telrads as well and like those too. I went for the Rigel for my 12" dob because I wanted to minimise weight at the top end of the scope for balance reasons.

[avtaram]

I have 3 and none of them have any scuff marks on them although one of the adjustment knobs broke off on one of them when I tried to turn it more than I should have.

Avtar

[Alfian]

I've had my Rigel QF for over 5 years and it works as well now as it did when new ie  a very good functional finder and certainly better than the average RDF. When I first bought it I confess I was initially disappointed, I saw it as a flimsy plasticky thing that didn't look worth the price. I was wrong, despite appearances its quite sturdy and proved itself reliable and happily recommend them

 

[scarp15]

Never had to think of a need for changing the batteries in mine, the Telrad is the same, replaced battery at least two years ago - even as has happened accidentally put away switched on. However complacency will one evening certainly when probably away from home discover that it has stopped illuminating (hadn't thought to include a spare just in case). 

[Tim]

6 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Never had to think of a need for changing the batteries in mine, the Telrad is the same, replaced battery at least two years ago - even as has happened accidentally put away switched on. However complacency will one evening certainly when probably away from home discover that it has stopped illuminating (hadn't thought to include a spare just in case). 

Once left mine on for two months without realising, and it is still working on the same batteries now! Telrad that is.

[JOC]

To some extent I guess it depends on what you want a finder for.  Lots of those on SGL are visual finders, then I guess the circles of known projected degrees radius are useful for star hopping.  However, if all you need a finder to do is to arrive at a picked star in the sky for a calibration routine or for a automated nav. set-up, then something fundamentally cheaper might do the job just as well - like the el-cheapo Celestron RDF finder that I use - picked up for a tenner it is worth every penny I paid for it.  Ok it's still only plastic, but it looks fine to me and works really well for my own needs.

[david_taurus83]

Hi Steve. I'm not an expert on finders as I've never had a Rigel or Telrad. However I've just bought a new red dot finder to go with my new Altair frac. I was expecting something plastic but to my surprise received a nice metal RDF. Had first light the other night and it was a treat to set up and use. Looks the business as well (to satisfy your OCD!). £50 from AA, RDF, stack and universal bracket.

[Nyctimene]

My Rigel finder, bought in 2018: similar smaller scratches on top, probably due to the production process - hey, it's a cheap plastic housing! Just look through it, not at it. (The famous German telescope maker Fraunhofer, 19th century, stated: "My telescopes are made to look through them, not at  them", despite the pure shimmering beauty of his perfectly engineered wood-brass refractors).

Stephan

[John]

I've owned a few of the MRF's that david_taurus83 has pictured above. They are nicely made but I found the reticules generally too bright for deep sky star hopping even at the lowest setting. The Telrads and the Rigel on the other hand are designed and made for astronomy by astronomers so their reticules are dimmable right down and show a defined area of the sky, which adds to their use for star hopping from star charts.

 

 

[pregulla]

It's a repurposed gun sight, so it has to be sturdy. Sold as astro equipment it is way overpriced. I got the complete package: picatinny rail, riser and the same finder as gun sight for under $20. I used piece of red acrylic in front of "reticle projector" to dim mine, makes it dim enough on dimmest green setting.

[Steve Clay]

6 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

Hi Steve. I'm not an expert on finders as I've never had a Rigel or Telrad. However I've just bought a new red dot finder to go with my new Altair frac. I was expecting something plastic but to my surprise received a nice metal RDF. Had first light the other night and it was a treat to set up and use. Looks the business as well (to satisfy your OCD!). £50 from AA, RDF, stack and universal bracket.

I've just ordered the exact same.finder from wex. Looks pretty solid.