Questar Vs 'the rest'....

[SthBohemia]

Has anyone within SGL had the opportunity to actually compare, side by side, the visual performance of, utilising the same eyepiece at the same object a Questar 7 (or the smaller one) and any other Mak of approx the same aperture?

[rl]

Not personally. A friend of mine had the chance 25 years ago to compare the 90mm Questar against a Meade ETX90. He reckoned there was not a lot in it visually. But there was a whole world of difference in the build quality...

[ollypenrice]

The limits are knowable from theory and cannot be wrong. When you say, 'Questar versus the rest,' what constitutes 'the rest?' Are the rest telescopes, or are they other items of consumer jewellery like Rolex watches - which struggle to compete with fifty quid Casios on accuracy?  In my view, buy a Questar for what it is, if that's your thing. It's a slightly dated technical exercise and a very fine one. No surprises that the unscrupulous Meade ripped it off. But...the problem inherent in a small Mak is that it cannot beat the Dawes limit of resolution and yet it cannot give a wide field of view either. Personally I'd prefer a small scope that could do what small scopes can do and big ones can't, which is give a binocular field.

Olly

[SthBohemia]

11 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

tems of consumer

^ Ya I was obviously referring to the plastic toys one collects with their Happy Meals!

Maybe you have had a bad day 'lad' when you posted the above? Or you are simply pedantic? As I am totally thick between the ears I fail to see understand your reference to Meade!

The question was simple enough, if I rephrased it into say, an optical comparison between a Tesco 75mm refractor and a Tak of the same optical diameter, asking members if they found a huge difference while observing a certain object, would you then understand my query?

[Carbon Brush]

I bought an EXT90 around 2004/5.
I recall how it looked like a Questar. But at a fraction of the price.

The ETX90 gave good results out of the box. It had the new fangled expensive goto and UHTC coatings.
However, as time went on I found the stainless steel tripod legs were not a hard as stainless and prone to rust.
The focus was all but inaccessible.
The £600 set of plossl eyepieces that were free if you filled in a form were better than cheapies, but by today's standards nothing special.
Goto was in practice more 'go somewhere in the general direction of'.

Meade had a product that worked out of the box and immediate viewing results. Good for all the family to share.
I often grabbed it, planted it in the garden and showed the moon and big planets to visitors. For that it was great.
However, over the next couple of years I realised Meade kept bringing out other ETX90 models. Should I update?
Then I noticed that they were essentially the same product.
What do I mean? Almost changes like a new car model with a chrome plated surround on the ashtray. Not real changes.
They also made their money on getting you to buy accessories like a sky map programme. Special leads, tripod legs, focus cables, etc.
This is the only Meade scope I have ever bought.
I do though still have it. Actually it is in my son's loft well packed. One day I may recover it.
In today's scope terms I suppose it is a Skymax 90 type.

Now if someone would like to loan (or give) me a Questar I will happily make a side by side comparison😁

[SthBohemia]

Thanks @Carbon Brush In actuality I should have started this feed within a much broader context, something like price paid in comparison to visual optical performance.

I would be overjoyed to compare a 150mm Takahashi @ 14k quid+ with a 150mm Explore Scientific for which I paid something like 250 quid. In view of the atrocious seeing conditions within most of Europe and the extended summer 'light' are the high end scopes actually worth their weight in gold nuggets? 

🙂 Objective assessments and views are somewhat difficult to obtain......

 

[Stu]

@SthBohemia, perhaps not being quite so, ahem, patronising to people responding to your post might be a good start! You asked a question and are getting answers in good faith based on what people know.

Olly well understood your point, and was saying that a Questar may look nice but it still can’t beat the limitations of physics based on its aperture and long focal length. Meade copied this at a much lower price. I know the part which you are missing is whether the optical quality of the Questar beats the Meade. A quick google search gives this thread on CN where there will be a much bigger Questar ownership:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/629003-questar-vs-meade/

My own experiences are largely with refractors, having owned quite a few, including a few 4” refractors of various sorts. My top end pair are a Tak FC-100DC and a Vixen FL-102S, both lovely visual scopes. I find that they come into their own when you push them harder to higher mags under good and excellent seeing conditions. I have owned a few TAL 100r and RSs, a very nice Astrotech 106mm f6.5 triplet, and possibly one or two I’ve forgotten, but the Tak and Vixen show me more. For instance I’ve seen more detail on Jupiter under comparable conditions than I ever saw with the triplet. The TALs were nice scopes, but just didn’t have the crispness or delicacy that the two fluorite scopes have.

Consistency and QC is another major positive. You may get a Meade which is as good as a Questar, or a Skywatcher as good as a 1/10th wave Orion Optics, but you are also likely to get duffers amongst them as the quality is more variable and they are less likely to reject scopes which are below par.

There is also ‘the experience’ is how does it feel to operate the scope, how good are the mechanics and ergonomics. I enjoy high end kit because it feels nice to use.

The counter point, and to pick up on Olly’s point is that none of these scopes can beat the laws of physics. As an example, my lovely Vixen FL102S was soundly beaten by my humble Heritage 130P when observing Zeta Herc. The additional resolution from the aperture just means it is better resolved in the larger scope, and it also shows that the optics in the Heritage are actually pretty good, despite the entry level nature of the scope. 

[SthBohemia]

@Stu Meade copied Questar? Thus Questar copied Alan Macintosh who copied Dimitri Maksutov! Thus it follows that all refractors are copies of Galileos' scope?

The 'ahem patronising' is possibly because I am an intolerant 75 year old B... who happens to be overly critical and has many other unpleasant qualities 🙂 , 'dats life'....

I do appreciate your reply, valid points along with personal preferences.

On a personal note, the best scope overall I have used was a 12.5" f10 newt that had the aesthetics of a scrap metal yard, it outperformed the 11" refractor at Sydney observatory and image quality wise the f4 16" newt at Belfield NSW Australia. I use a 10" Meade SCT, it is 'reasonable', however a 10" f9-12 newt would leave it for dead...

[Stu]

12 minutes ago, SthBohemia said:

@Stu Meade copied Questar? Thus Questar copied Alan Macintosh who copied Dimitri Maksutov! Thus it follows that all refractors are copies of Galileos' scope?

The 'ahem patronising' is possibly because I am an intolerant 75 year old B... who happens to be overly critical and has many other unpleasant qualities 🙂 , 'dats life'....

I do appreciate your reply, valid points along with personal preferences.

On a personal note, the best scope overall I have used was a 12.5" f10 newt that had the aesthetics of a scrap metal yard, it outperformed the 11" refractor at Sydney observatory and image quality wise the f4 16" newt at Belfield NSW Australia. I use a 10" Meade SCT, it is 'reasonable', however a 10" f9-12 newt would leave it for dead...

Fair enough, we can all be crotchety at times. Just bear in mind the responses you want to get when addressing your audience 😜. People may choose to put their efforts elsewhere.....

One of my best scopes is also a bit of a mongrel. It is an 8” f8 1/10th wave Orion Optics newt which I bought cheaply as an OTA and then found the right sized dob base for it, and have just upgraded the focuser to a Moonlite. Optically it is excellent, and rivals the Tak Mewlon 210 I had previously, being much easier to cool too. It’s only failing is that it is quite tall and spindly so can be prone to vibration. On an EQ platform it really shines for planetary views. It showed me far more than my Vixen 4” on Mars on the same night, showing the benefits of aperture/resolution vs it’s more glamorous opponent 👍

[SthBohemia]

Regarding Dobson mounts- I recall Eric Whitcombe of Astro Supplies Crows Nest Oz offered a very similar product to the Dobson mount during the early-mid 60's. The vertical supports used self centre bearings with, as I remember 1"-1.25" BS shafts to the OTA cage. While the horizontal support was achieved by use of a conical bearing inset to the wooden static base board. He did switch to the 'pure' Dobson type mount in later years...

Never have been a fan of Dobson assemblies, just personal choice... Yoke mounts are fantastic, just a few drawbacks- they literally weigh a tonne and are static. The 12.5" I mentioned above was on a yoke mount and was 'rock' steady (with scaffolding to both sides to access the focuser/EP) 😞

 

[SthBohemia]

Thanks for the link @Stu https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/629003-questar-vs-meade/ , which led to https://www.scopereviews.com/90mmComparo.html

From the latter link I can only assume the Maks made by Skywatcher and other brands from the same factory compare to a Questar 3.5" in a similar fashion to the Meade EXT and C90.

Conclusion- A damn lot more to pay for a better quality (manufacturing wise) and perhaps a 5-10% visual improvement...

Next question... a comparison between a 200mm true cassegrain (still unfinished) and a Questar 7". Somewhat hard to compare as I do not intend to import a Questar 7" from USA 🙂