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

[paulastro]

1 hour ago, Sunshine said:

There is nothing wrong with going into the room where I keep my scope, turning on the light and glancing lovingly once in a while...is there? 🥴 have I just revealed too much? oh boy🤐

If you work at it, you may be able to do what I did. I slowly introduced one of my scopes into the lounge over a period of time.  One day at a time, and then two days and so on with some gaps when it stays in my office/library for a day or so.  Eventually my wife has accepted my scopes as members of the family, so I now no longer need to resort to 'glancing lovingly'. 😊

[John]

14 minutes ago, paulastro said:

If you work at it, you may be able to do what I did. I slowly introduced one of my scopes into the lounge over a period of time.  One day at a time, and then two days and so on with some gaps when it stays in my office/library for a day or so.  Eventually my wife has accepted my scopes as members of the family, so I now no longer need to resort to 'glancing lovingly'. 😊

This does work. I have 6 scopes located in our dining room now. 3 in an alcove one corner and 3 hidden from view in a cupboard in the opposite corner. I've offered to put some sliding doors over the alcove but my other half says that the scopes don't bother her.

They do create a "conversation point" if we ever have guests but that has been very, very rarely over the past 18 months of course.

I don't have grandchildren just yet but when and if that happens my kids are already joking that I will be known as "Grampy Telescopes"

Better than "Grumpy" I suppose !

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by John

[Sunshine]

We are all insane.

[newbie alert]

I've never owned a premium scope, and I've never even seen a Tak, Borg,  Tec etc in the flesh.. everyone I know must be either skint or paranoid to being them out.. I do have "That itch" to try but I'd like to try several different scopes in the future.. but I'm  more than just quite happy with what I use... it's nice to dribble and drool over some on here

[Nik271]

I stay in the 'practical value for money' camp most of the time, my scopes are all run of the mill Synta products, but I can well understand the attraction of owning a 'best in class' scope even if delivers just 5% more over others. Once you become really engaged with a hobby (or job or anything really) then you start to appreciate the tiny increments more, partly because of the realisation how hard it is to get this extra 5% of performance and the craftmanship required to deliver it.

[ollypenrice]

Some people certainly just desire expensive, well-made stuff for its own sake, and we live in a world in which this is encouraged. How else would we explain the existence of the Rolex watch?  While I disapprove of this, or like to think I do 😁, I'm mighty glad that these people feed the second hand market with premium kit at prices I can afford.

One thing I know I don't do is buy them to impress, since I find myself embarrassed by them and am always quick to point out that all my 'luxury items' were second hand.

Why do I have a Tak FSQ106N and a TEC140?

- Because they take better pictures. They just do. (Especially on large format cameras and in natural colour imaging.)

- They say that I'm serious about what I offer. I won't dwell on this because it is essentially commercial but you'll see my point.

- They last longer and don't fall to bits in commercial use. (Some scopes do. Trust me. I've had several.)

Visually, are they worth it?  Neurologists now consider the eye to be part of the brain, meaning that the eye has an intimacy with the self unparalleled by any other part of the body. Tiny increments in quality touch on this intimacy and are of huge, even paramount, importance to some.  I'm one of those people. My specs are always clean, my motorcycle visor likewise and both are scrapped if scratched. My car has a clean windscreen. Bad optics are abominable!

It's a curse. 🤣

Olly

Note on the TEC140:  this was most certainly a 'budget premium refractor' when introduced, let's remember.  It was way cheaper than Tak or AP. The fact that this has been forgotten indicates that it's reputation has risen on merit. That's rather nice, I think.

 

[Mr Spock]

While there are some differences in high end equipment, a lot of what is perceived is down to expectation bias. If something costs a lot more, we expect it to be a lot better and so that's what we see. There may be small differences, but not as much as some claim. 

It feels good to have expensive things though 

[JeremyS]

9 hours ago, John said:

For astronomy equipment I agree. For practically everything else I'm not bothered to be honest. That's probably just me though

I agree John. The thing about top end telescopes is that they will last more than a lifetime - at least that’s how I justify to myself. The next iPhone or car will be outdated in a few months. I don’t go with high end ephemera like these

[glynnlondon]

9 hours ago, Ags said:

I do dream about dream scopes and I am glad they exist. I think if a future archaeologist digs up a Questar, they would smile at our folly and think more kindly of our barbaric culture!

Mmmmm Questar. I do have a spare kidney 🤔

[John]

3 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

While there are some differences in high end equipment, a lot of what is perceived is down to expectation bias. If something costs a lot more, we expect it to be a lot better and so that's what we see.....

 

I suppose that is what is lacking - quantifiable testing of optics in an unbiased way. The French magazine "Ceil et Espace" used to publish eyepiece group tests that included a whole array of optical bench tests alongside the more subjective practical observing ones. There is a Russian based astronomer known as Ernest who does something similar for eyepieces.

Herr Rohr in Germany used to do quite a lot of independent optical testing of scopes but not so many lately:

http://interferometrie.blogspot.com/2014/?view=classic

To counter that, there are many folks (me included) who are more interested in how a scope performs to their eyes, under the stars, than in looking at lots of technical test reports.

Having owned a couple of expensive scopes for over 5 years now I'm in the camp which feels that they perform a little better than much lower cost alternatives but in the cold light of day, justifying the additional cost on that basis of that performance difference alone would be challenging

Luckily, I don't have to !

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by John

[Peter Drew]

Not sure what my telescope philosophy is.  I am fortunate, by various means, to have a considerable number of telescopes to use. Few are "high end" and my largest of their type, solar 6", refractor 8.5", binocular 12" and reflector 30" I made myself.  Overall, I get the most satisfaction from using equipment that is self built, high end commercial equipment that is large enough for my needs is just too expensive to justify.     🙂 

[ollypenrice]

The Questar is surely made for the astronomical equivalent of the jewelry market, no? I doubt anyone buys them to use, though having bought them, they may use them.  It seems to me that it's an exercise in design and that its appeal lies there. It happens to be a telescope, if you like, but it could be a watch...

Olly

[Mr Spock]

...a Timex is every bit as good as a Rolex for someone wanting to tell the time 

[Peter Drew]

I have had a couple of the small Questars run through my hands.  Yes, they are good but I do have a very good Meade ETX90 that will give one a good run for its money performance wise.  I suppose I would look at a Rolex watch more often than I would a Questar but fortunately I need neither.     🙂 

[iantaylor2uk]

If you buy good quality equipment it will tend to keep its value (think of Takahashi or Rolex) or maybe even go up, if you ever need to sell. The most expensive thing I've bought is my mount - a Losmandy G11 - back in 2009 which cost around £2300, and since then I spent another £1000 to upgrade it to Gemini-2, but it should last another 20 years at least.

[Peter Drew]

I had a Rolex once but some joker at the factory had misspelt it as Timex.     🙂

[Mr Spock]

4 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I had a Rolex once but some joker at the factory had misspelt it as Timex. 

You shouldn't buy from Jack Jeebs 

[Rusted]

Seeing conditions dictate most of what we can see.
Only on those rare nights, or sunny days, are our senses utterly amazed.
When they do, it would be nice to push the very limits of visibility.

Though one might be surprised by the quality of what one already has.
As was I, on one unique night, when Saturn was high overhead.
I saw detail beyond belief. While Jupiter, down low, remained the usual blur.
Alas, my secondhand, 6" f/8 Celestron never repeated its true capabilities ever again.

I remain convinced that seeing conditions dictate perceived, chromatic aberration.
The most valuable gain, from better optics, is the ability to push the magnification higher, far more often.
Subtleties of absolute colour are as meaningless IMO as comparing loudspeakers.
Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Each suits different styles of music.

You might argue that one needs a Tak for Jupiter and a Tec for Saturn.
I would merely suggest that you need a bigger telescope.

[neil phillips]

56 minutes ago, John said:

I suppose that is what is lacking - quantifiable testing of optics in an unbiased way. The French magazine "Ceil et Espace" used to publish eyepiece group tests that included a whole array of optical bench tests alongside the more subjective practical observing ones. There is a Russian based astronomer known as Ernest who does something similar for eyepieces.

Herr Rohr in Germany used to do quite a lot of independent optical testing of scopes but not so many lately:

http://interferometrie.blogspot.com/2014/?view=classic

To counter that, there are many folks (me included) who are more interested in how a scope performs to their eyes, under the stars, than in looking at lots of technical test reports.

Having owned a couple of expensive scopes for over 5 years now I'm in the camp which feels that they perform a little better than much lower cost alternatives but in the cold light of day, justifying the additional cost on that basis of that performance difference alone would be challenging

Luckily, I don't have to !

 

 

 

Blind testing would likely reveal some shockers. The only problem is putting some on the spot like that and not getting the full experience for long enough to make the test valid. if they did that. Then the shocks might be less. but i do believe there would be some surprises in blind testing there always is. No matter the product. Trouble is how would one come back from it. if it didnt go well for the premium owners ? 

[neil phillips]

16 minutes ago, Rusted said:

Seeing conditions dictate most of what we can see.
Only on those rare nights, or sunny days, are our senses utterly amazed.
When they do, it would be nice to push the very limits of visibility.

Though one might be surprised by the quality of what one already has.
As was I, on one unique night, when Saturn was high overhead.
I saw detail beyond belief. While Jupiter, down low, remained the usual blur.
Alas, my secondhand, 6" f/8 Celestron never repeated its true capabilities ever again.

I remain convinced that seeing conditions dictate perceived, chromatic aberration.
The most valuable gain, from better optics, is the ability to push the magnification higher, far more often.
Subtleties of absolute colour are as meaningless IMO as comparing loudspeakers.
Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Each suits different styles of music.

You might argue that one needs a Tak for Jupiter and a Tec for Saturn.
I would merely suggest that you need a bigger telescope.

Which is a fair point. 

Quester = too small no matter how nice. I like jupiter to be resolved better than that. 

[niallk]

I wanted to try a 16" dob for DSOs, and looked around - Skywatcher, Orion, Orion Optics.... I wanted something portable.  ES announced their truss dobs, and I really hoped to go for one.  I was also tempted by the advertisements for the Skywatcher 18", and wanted to read reports...

>€2k is a lot of money... and when I read reports of issues with the ES dobs, I was dismayed.  I would not be happy having committed that money.  Then there were the issues with the SW 18" mirrors, and tbh, I was not impressed at all with the assembly ergonomics.

I was very very tempted to go for a Sumerian Canopus, but then one report (an Alkaid) left me with cold feet.  They are fine scopes, and I'm sure I could have been very happy.  I also was tempted by Lukehurst.

I had clicked on the website and received the Obsession DVD.  I really liked what I saw.  A lot of legacy and well regarded - and lasting decades.  The 15" base cost was on par with Sumerian... shipping was the hit to swallow.  I liked the no-fuss, simple setup.  It was a tried and trusted design, perhaps perceived as old school - and yes there is a tradeoff in mirror thickness, weight, support structure and thermal equalisation.

With Kriege's book  I have the 'Haynes Manual' for the scope - and instructions for any fixes in the future if there were any accidents.

I earned some bonus money  and for my 40th birthday my wife encouraged me to spend it on myself and indulge my interest... and eventually I went for it.

To me, it was an investment- not for resale... for enjoying using it for hopefully decades  and seeing the universe we live in fleetingly with my own eyes.  It's a joy to use: assembles / dissembles without fuss in minutes, all captive components; it moves beautifully, and is portable for my car - though the mirror box is a little heavy.  Collimates quickly, and holds collimation.   It's a very solid design and manually tracks well, damping fast, and can move a fraction of the fov precisely without overshoot frustration at high magnification.  The mirrors came with interferometry data.  Nice touch to come with wheelbarrow handles with big pneumatic tires too.

But don't get me wrong: my Skywatcher 250px was the best value money I've spent on astronomy gear.  It is incredible what a few hundred can get you!

I'd love it if there was a better 2nd hand market in Ireland: I drool at some of the deals on dobs in the US 😉

[vlaiv]

What about independent testing?

We simply record sight thru two different scopes and compare results? In fact - doing simulations, there is very very little difference between diffraction limited aperture (Strehl 0.8) and perfect aperture (Strehl 1).

Reports often indicate that difference is more than simulations say there could be, so I'm wondering about observer bias in all of that.

[Rusted]

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

What about independent testing?

We simply record sight thru two different scopes and compare results? In fact - doing simulations, there is very very little difference between diffraction limited aperture (Strehl 0.8) and perfect aperture (Strehl 1).

Reports often indicate that difference is more than simulations say there could be, so I'm wondering about observer bias in all of that.

Imaging with the same camera and software would sort out observer bias.

I tried stepping up from my 90mm to 150mm and then 180mm on Plato in steady seeing.
Each increase in aperture provided more effortless detail and enlarged image scale over the last.
Then I tried my 250mm f/8 Newt. No contest! Effortless power and resolution.

[John]

I found that being loaned equipment (many thanks FLO) to try out and report on for the forum helped with observer bias.

Not having had to invest my own hard earned money meant or worry about re-selling losses did help keep a level head and clear mind when comparing items.

It also meant interesting packages arrived from time to time

 

 

 

[vlaiv]

Those Hyperion eyepieces are interesting example.

I've read so many reports on those and wonder how come they are still being made. So many reports said that they are not worth asking price. Never tried one of them myself though so can't really tell.

Are they really that bad?