Why do really expensive scopes sell and what attracts us to them ?

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, banjaxed said:

Not sure if my point has already been made as I am only halfway through this very interested thread,  but could psychology be a part of our expectations ? It has been a very grey area and one that is impossible to prove but sometimes our expectations can be ruled by the positive hype and reputation to such an extent that we are  not willing  to accept that the difference is only marginally better than we expected.

One of the reasons I advocate objective testing. I know it's possibly a dull subject to many - but it would produce some credible results (at least I hope so).

Having those next to first hand accounts would help form better image on the matter.

[neil phillips]

2 minutes ago, banjaxed said:

Not sure if my point has already been made as I am only halfway through this very interested thread,  but could psychology be a part of our expectations ? It has been a very grey area and one that is impossible to prove but sometimes our expectations can be ruled by the positive hype and reputation to such an extent that we are  not willing  to accept that the difference is only marginally better than we expected.

Vlaiv did briefly allure to observer bias. But its a fair point, that must have some influence 

[neil phillips]

And when we all find we are infact deluded. Dont let the wife find out 😄

[John]

If these expensive brands have managed to somehow fool many experienced astronomers about their optical performance for a couple of decades, that's quite an achievement !.

 

 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

And when we all find we are infact deluded. Dont let the wife find out 😄

I'm not sure if it can be called delusion. Many people are influenced by optical illusions and alike - are they delusional? No, its our senses that trick us.

Expensive = better, probably has simple roots in biology / evolutionary science.

We crave sugar as it is fast way to get energy. Similarly - we are evolved to value more things that are sought after - as they must be useful / provide benefit, otherwise no one would care much about them.

Expensive = wanted / sought after.

See the connection forming there?

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, John said:

If these expensive brands have managed to somehow fool many experienced astronomers about their optical performance for a couple of decades, that's quite an achievement !.

 

 

Well, to be honest - I think we see it all the time. Just look at fashion industry.

They fool so many people in wanting that new look this summer / winter / whatever

 

[neil phillips]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I'm not sure if it can be called delusion. Many people are influenced by optical illusions and alike - are they delusional? No, its our senses that trick us.

Expensive = better, probably has simple roots in biology / evolutionary science.

We crave sugar as it is fast way to get energy. Similarly - we are evolved to value more things that are sought after - as they must be useful / provide benefit, otherwise no one would care much about them.

Expensive = wanted / sought after.

See the connection forming there?

Only you could break down a joke  Vlaiv 🤔

Edited November 30, 2021 by neil phillips

[neil phillips]

3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Well, to be honest - I think we see it all the time. Just look at fashion industry.

They fool so many people in wanting that new look this summer / winter / whatever

 

Think i am with John on this.  Bit unlikely everyone is getting fooled. Overcharged maybe. Fooled probably not 

Edited November 30, 2021 by neil phillips

[F15Rules]

51 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Which really begs the question. what is the most reliable form of optics testing

How about Mark I eyeballs?

Works for me😊

Dave

 

[vlaiv]

Just now, neil phillips said:

Think i am with john on this.  Bit unlikely everyone is getting fooled. Overcharged maybe. Fooled probably not 

I don't think there was intentional fooling.

I also think that good cheaper scopes are recent thing and that there is still some expectation bias going on. We heard so many times that Tak beats cheaper scope - and I'm sure that was true many time before. That makes it hard to stay unbiased.

Here is review of AstroTech 115 ED by Ed Ting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE18PBQRzDQ

There is one particular sentence (or two) that stuck with me. Fast forward to 10:10 (or a bit earlier if you want to hear about whole head to head vs Tak):

[neil phillips]

13 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

How about Mark I eyeballs?

Works for me😊

Dave

 

I like people who cut to the chase. Same i image a lot. Have taken thousands of images. in time. I can always tell good and bad optics. Its simple, the images either look good or they do not. Dont get started with collimation. Seeing differences temperature differences. Experiance learns those finer things and their effects

Edited November 30, 2021 by neil phillips

[vlaiv]

8 minutes ago, F15Rules said:

How about Mark I eyeballs?

Works for me😊

Dave

 

Only issue with that is - take set of measuring devices and if calibrated properly - they produce the same answer each time.

Take set of Mark I eyeballs - and no matter the calibration - you get whole range of answers

[neil phillips]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Only issue with that is - take set of measuring devices and if calibrated properly - they produce the same answer each time.

Take set of Mark I eyeballs - and no matter the calibration - you get whole range of answers

Subjectivity anyone ? 

[neil phillips]

My pocket also influences my choices. Like everyone. Over the years i have made some bad choices. Some not the actual brand or design. But the condition of such equipment. At the moment i feel fairly happy with my humble collection of instruments. and the price i paid for them. And thats what matters most i think. 

[Stu]

43 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

One of the reasons I advocate objective testing. I know it's possibly a dull subject to many - but it would produce some credible results (at least I hope so).

Having those next to first hand accounts would help form better image on the matter.

Objective testing with a camera proves only what the camera will see. We all know observing is a skill that develops over years and involves eyes and brains plus plenty of other variables. Not saying an eyeball will see more than a camera, just that observing is a different ball game and perhaps hard for those who are imagers to properly grasp. I don’t know how you start to quantify threshold observations using averted vision for instance, it’s more of an art form than science perhaps.

Just looking at the Dawes limit and Rayleigh Criterion, I think I’m right in saying that the Dawes limit is observationally derived vs Rayleigh which is more theoretical, and it is the Dawes limit which is the tighter of the two.

I do find the constant insinuations that people see things through scopes just because they have paid more for them a touch offensive, pretty ridiculous really. If I could get the best views using a £100 scope do you not think I would use that? Many of us spend a fair amount of cash plus a lot of time trying out many different scopes and are not likely to be fooled just by something being expensive. I do this to get the best views, not spend the most money after all. My 8” f8 cost me £200 for the OTA and is right up there giving me some amazing views of Mars last year.

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Objective testing with a camera proves only what the camera will see. We all know observing is a skill that develops over years and involves eyes and brains plus plenty of other variables. Not saying an eyeball will see more than a camera, just that observing is a different ball game and perhaps hard for those who are imagers to properly grasp. I don’t know how you start to quantify threshold observations using averted vision for instance, it’s more of an art form than science perhaps.

It will really show what camera sees, but I think that it is the upper limit of what can be seen. I don't really think it is possible for us to see something that camera (if used properly) can't record.

I don't have problem with reports that differentiate camera and personal experience, but reports of finer detail than camera captures to me signal that eye/brain system is misinterpreting what it sees.

This is not uncommon and this is not bad thing - it is just what happens. Take any optical illusion as example. We really do see things differently then they are in reality in some cases.

7 minutes ago, Stu said:

I do find the constant insinuations that people see things through scopes just because they have paid more for them a touch offensive, pretty ridiculous really. If I could get the best views using a £100 scope do you not think I would use that? Many of us spend a fair amount of cash plus a lot of time trying out many different scopes and are not likely to be fooled just by something being expensive.

I understand this is sensitive topic, and I mean no offense to anyone - but this is a real thing. Just see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Quote

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.^[1]

I also provided possible mechanism of why we are inclined to believe that more expensive is better (we are simply evolved that way).

Again I need to stress this as I fully understand that it is sensitive topic - if there is confirmation bias involved - it is really natural thing with humans and we should see it like that.

[Ags]

Personally, I think stargazers tend to be highly critical of their telescopes and eyepieces, rather than being easily persuaded of their merits by the price tag or brand name. I don't buy the top end stuff, but by buying the best I can I am really buying peace of mind that I am getting the best view I can.

[steppenwolf]

6 hours ago, Stu said:

As an example, I used to have an Astrotech 106mm f6.5 fpl53 triplet apo which I bought as a demonstrator for not far off Tak money. In fact the very same scope was reviewed by our own @steppenwolf 12 years back here:

 @Stu There's a blast from the past and for me, a very important blast - the review was noticed by a well known magazine and I was asked to write for them!!

On the subject of Astronomy v Flying v Music, I too believe that there is a lot of overlap in the three interests but whether it is the 'maths' or something else, I know not. What I do know is that all three are great passions of mine ......

Fascinating thread this 👍

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Ags said:

I don't buy the top end stuff, but by buying the best I can I am really buying peace of mind that I am getting the best view I can.

How do you know that "best you bought" will really provide the best view you can have?

What gives it away as being the best? Most expensive in price bracket that you can afford? How much of "goodness" of item do you prescribe to actual tests, how much to subjective reviews and how much to price of item ("we are not rich enough to buy cheap items")?

[neil phillips]

36 minutes ago, Stu said:

Objective testing with a camera proves only what the camera will see. We all know observing is a skill that develops over years and involves eyes and brains plus plenty of other variables. Not saying an eyeball will see more than a camera, just that observing is a different ball game and perhaps hard for those who are imagers to properly grasp. I don’t know how you start to quantify threshold observations using averted vision for instance, it’s more of an art form than science perhaps.

Just looking at the Dawes limit and Rayleigh Criterion, I think I’m right in saying that the Dawes limit is observationally derived vs Rayleigh which is more theoretical, and it is the Dawes limit which is the tighter of the two.

I do find the constant insinuations that people see things through scopes just because they have paid more for them a touch offensive, pretty ridiculous really. If I could get the best views using a £100 scope do you not think I would use that? Many of us spend a fair amount of cash plus a lot of time trying out many different scopes and are not likely to be fooled just by something being expensive. I do this to get the best views, not spend the most money after all. My 8” f8 cost me £200 for the OTA and is right up there giving me some amazing views of Mars last year.

I have to say i started observing when i was around 12. Started with a tasco 60mm. Went on to own a few 4.5 Newtonians. 6. 8 12 and 16 " Newtonians 6" refractors 5 4  3  2" fracs. A couple of F15, 7" Maks  8" sct. 10" sct 11" sct s Are a few that comes to mind. Started observing deepsky. The planets and moon.

In my opinion after all that time. The most detail i have seen on planets has not been with the eye alone. It has infact been with cameras attached to telescopes. Through the telescope. There has been many times my eye could not pick out certain details. That once the camera was focused on. Could clearly be seen.

So i am glad your not saying you can see more than the camera. Because after doing visual for many years. and then imaging. I became aware infact that a lot more can actually be seen with a camera involved.

This applies to lunar planetary and deepsky. So not really sure of the point of that whole first paragraph ? when you say 

--- observing is a different ball game and perhaps hard for those who are imagers to properly grasp.---

Of course if your saying you take offence to any insinuation your seeing things because youve paid more. Then thats a fair point. You infact are the best to judge what you are seeing agreed. Its a shame the pandemic is keeping me at home. Because i would love to do some imaging of the moon and planets with various instruments in the same night. To take this subjective assesment out of the equation. Once and for all.

Could be very enlightening. I have no idea or preconceived ideas. How any of this testing would pan out. But i am pretty certain. if any scopes had valid advantages over others. i could bring that out in my imaging. for all the world to see. Be it contrast. detail. Colour correction. sharpness. Everything infact we like to buy instruments for. 

Edited November 30, 2021 by neil phillips

[Ags]

It is an art to satisfy myself that X or Y is a good purchase based on reviews and actual use of the thing when I get it! As long as I can remain persuaded I am happy!

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Ags said:

It is an art to satisfy myself that X or Y is a good purchase based on reviews and actual use of the thing when I get it! As long as I can remain persuaded I am happy!

It is indeed interesting topic to think of about how we make purchasing decisions, and you are right - I also like when I experience that "I made a good purchase" / "I'm happy with this item" sensation

Sometimes it happens that I'm initially not overly happy - but as time goes by, I start to appreciate the actual item more and more (sometimes this second part never happens ) - that sort of shows that our initial happiness with our purchases depends in part on our expectations rather than on actual quality / usability of the item.

 

 

[F15Rules]

3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Can we break down why are expensive telescopes expensive?

- Optical performance

- Mechanical fit&finish

- Value depreciation over time?

- "Lust factor" / "availability" / "status" ?

Ok, I'll have a go, Vlaiv..

You mentioned 4" scopes and my Tak FS128 is a 5", so I've picked a high quality (expensive) 4" apo I used to own (in fact I've owned 2 of them)..Vixen ED103s - a 103mm F7.7 doublet commonly believed to be FPL53, but officially Vixen don't seem to declare the glass type. They certainly used fluorite in their legendary FL102s F9 refractor, sourcing the fluorite lens sets from Canon Optron I believe - same as Takahashi.

Point 1. Vixen has a reputation for excellent optics. I believe they are still the market leading brand in Japan. The two examples I had were superb visually. I had one of them for a while when I had also the Tak FS128, so was able to do a comparison..whilst the Tak was "better" in terms of light grasp and brighter images, I can't honestly say that the image quality (airy disk presentation, colour free in-focus, contrast, sharpness on axis and edge to edge etc was any better in the Tak. If a Vixen "ED128s" had been available, and of the same optical quality, I would have happily bought one.

Point 2. Mechanical fit and finish. 

Here, the Vixen is a step down from the Tak. The finish is good, but it didn't have an adjustable objective cell which can thermally react to extremes of temperature, as the Tak does (although here in the UK the Vixen never showed any cell related issues).

The tube paint finish was slightly less good than the Tak. The focuser was superb on mine - better than the Tak. Both tubes were very lightweight for their aperture..3.6kg for the Vixen, 7.5kg for the Tak (the Tak is a big tube, although light).

The tube rings on the Vixen were a good step down on the Taks' superb clamshell ring..no contest here.

The Vixen finder was nice, the Tak finder was amazing..but both were straight through, and I changed them both for RACI models! I know the Japanese like straight through viewing - but we Brits don't! 

Point 3: Value Depreciation over time

Here, the Tak wins hands down. After 5 years of ownership, I'm confident that my FS128 would be worth virtually what I paid for it, used. However, that's a test the scope will never have to face in my lifetime, as I won't ever sell it (my kids may well do so!!🥴😱😂).

The Vixen loses here as they lose between c 50% and 65% of their value versus new cost, in my experience. By way of example, my first ED103s cost approximately £1575 new, and I bought it from the original owner for c £700.

The second ED103s was c12 years old when I bought it on ebay. It was in a sorry state, covered in dust (it had sat in the deceased owners' observatory for months before his son got around to selling it off), and I paid £350 for it (I took a chance on it being optically ok). It came with an original bill of sale from Orion Optics in 2006 for almost £1300!  I spent some hours taking it apart and cleaning it up. It looked almost new when I had finished with it, and I sold it with a couple of extras, a couple of years later (and with full disclosure) for £625. This one had a simply superb single speed focuser.

The good news about the Vixen's depreciation is that on both occasions I was able to buy a wonderful, premium scope for far less than it's new cost. That would never be possible with a Tak!

Point 4:

Lust factor/availability/status

I suppose lust factor played a part in my buying decisions for both the Vixen's and the Tak..I've always liked Vixen equipment (including their mounts), and I'd always aspired to a similar or better quality 5" "one scope to do all" scope. When I read Roger Vine's review of the Tak FS128 (see scope reviews.co.uk) and others on Cloudy Nights, I was smitten with desire for one 🥰😂).

"Availability" - they were both available on the used market at a time when I was in the market, and at a price that I felt I could afford. I wouldn't have owned either of them if I'd had to buy them new (the FS128 OTA was £4k new in 1999!).

Status: not important to me...I was more interested in Brand Reputation. This is where the internet is such a useful tool, a real mine of helpful information on sites like SGL, to help inform our decisions.

That's my input..make of it what you will😊.

Dave

Edited November 30, 2021 by F15Rules
Typo

[UKDiver]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

How do you know that "best you bought" will really provide the best view you can have?

What gives it away as being the best? Most expensive in price bracket that you can afford? How much of "goodness" of item do you prescribe to actual tests, how much to subjective reviews and how much to price of item ("we are not rich enough to buy cheap items")?

I don't know if the scope I bought will provide the best view I can have. but almost certainly not. I could have paid less or more for more aperture, better mirrors, better lenses etc. However there's an element of other compromises too. Manoeuvrability, storage and possible resale are factors. I've also bought second hand to mitigate some risk of financial loss. I have bought what to some is a relatively expensive scope, but it is also not the most expensive I could have bought for its size. And no waiting lists!

I've also another big consideration. I'm getting older and my eyesight is deteriorating. So perhaps it is worth a few extra quid to recover a few %age point of subjective quality to bring my observations back to the level of a 30yo with a cheaper scope. In the end, I don't splash out on expensive cars (not to tow boats over sand) or watches (I've not worn one regularly for years), so I may as well make my economic contribution to the economy in a different way. Plus all the extras keep a local business and postal service a little busier.  

Adrian

[F15Rules]

57 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Only issue with that is - take set of measuring devices and if calibrated properly - they produce the same answer each time.

Take set of Mark I eyeballs - and no matter the calibration - you get whole range of answers

Yes, that's so true..I was being a bit flippant.

My two eyes are now so different (my right eye has deteriorated in recent years) that I've now had to learn to observe with my left eye in cyclops mode, and increasingly I use binoviewers where two eyes together do seem to compensate somehow for the failings in my right eye..

Dave