Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

S@N reviewer away with the fairies?

coliea

By coliea
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

coliea

coliea

Posted
Posted

Anyone else think the zoom review in the latest edition of S@N magazine was a little odd - or downright confusing?

The reviewer gave the Meade Series 4000 zoom the Group Test Winner award beating (among others) the Baader Hyperion and Pentax zooms. Ok, fair enough, he tested them and I didn't, BUT according to the review the Meade gets a 95% field of view score for its 40-55 degree AFoV, whereas the Baader get a score of 87% for its 50-68 degree AFov.

How does that work :):confused::)

Col

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply
lunator

lunator

Posted
Posted

Col

I noticed that as well. The point I think the reviewer was making was that the Meade was sharp across 95% of the FOV whilst the Baader was 85%.

My immediate re-action to his was that the because the Baader has the wider FOV the actual sky you can see where the stars were points of lights and not suffering from coma would be the same so the scores show be pretty much identical. Therefore I don't agree with the scoring on this review.

I do find it hard to believe that the meade was better than the baader or the pentax.

Cheers

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites
haitch

haitch

Posted
Posted

From whar I've deduced from reading S@N I guess it was just Meade's turn this month. I think someone there has figured that being neutral means you have to share the plaudits amongst manufacturers rather than just being totally honest about what is best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ben Ritchie

Ben Ritchie

Posted
Posted
I think someone there has figured that being neutral means you have to share the plaudits amongst manufacturers rather than just being totally honest about what is best.

To be fair to S@N this is a general problem with niche magazines for pretty much all hobbies, you're reviewing products from your main advertisers. Be too negative and run the risk of no adverts or no review products. Don't envy the editor in balancing that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adamsp123

adamsp123

Posted
Posted

Review "bias", ie who advertises/pays the most, has been a problem for years in the Hi Fi world, see no reason to see the same problem in other spheres.

BTW I have one of these Meade Zooms, it is actually is very good, I don't know the manufacturing source of the EP, I mean that is what really counts in the end not the name on the box.

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites
daz

daz

Posted
Posted

I just think they are space-fillers for the mags. Its a subjective thing to do, and different reviewers will give different opinions/scores.....

I also doubt that any of the astro mags have done a negative review either....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brianb

brianb

Posted
Posted
Anyone else think the zoom review in the latest edition of S@N magazine was a little odd

Yeah ... mostly because my experience is that no zoom is worth considering.

Those numerical ratings are just ridiculous. Look at e.g. the comparison between the SW and the Celestron .... apart from the branding they're the same thing. Exactly. The percentage scores are identical apart from the "optics" - OK, there is some variation because of quality control at the factory, but the overall score is the same; how can that be?

As for Meade outperforming Televue or Pentax - well I don't know these particular devices too well, the only ones of these I've seen were the Baader (not impressed) and the Televue (ditto) and the Meade series 4000 EPs in general often have construction quality issues, being far too cheaply made. But the Meade series 5000 5 element Super Plossls are extremely good, with a wider, sharper field than the TV Plossls and neutral colour like the Pentax - more scattered light than the Baader Genuine Orthos but a bit less than the Pentax XW. Excellent value for money unless you really need an 80 degree FoV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickH

NickH

Posted
Posted

Hmmm...don't agree with the "be too negative" comment. I posted some pretty accurate comments on the Meade 5000 (like the DT doesn't fit on the EQ6 and the objective had "iron filings" on it, and TH, were respectful enough to say they would resolve the problem and did, and were also more than happy to go to print with those comments in. Same with the DSI-III, where the "lack of cooling" was noted as an issue

If a review problem comes up, and the company fix it before review goes out... (see my review on the Atik 4021, where Steve fixed several firmware and hardware issues, whilst I was testing/reviewing the camera), then kudos to the manufacturer. As a test engineer, I take no prisoners, and have had two products get cancelled on back of my findings....

Luckily I seem to get nice products to review.. and anyone who knows me via forums over the past few years will know I have a no holds barred approach to products and manufacturers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brass n glass

Brass n glass

Posted
Posted

I agree totally that the numerical ratings are a waste of time. When they say a telescope or eyepiece is worth, say, 95%, they never tell you what 100% is supposed to represent. Perfection? The performance of the reviewer's own favourite kit? Who knows.

I wish they'd follow the French magazine that sends stuff out for independent testing of the optics and quotes the results in full. Far better than the Brit magazines' "the scope gave pleasing views of Albireo" approach - Hugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astroscot2

Astroscot2

Posted
Posted
I don't bother reading reviews in magazines anymore (Sorry Steve) just trawl the web instead...

Peter...

I tend to do the same Peter, the reviews in the mags are really just an overview however I still read them to have a giggle at the cliches :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
part timer

part timer

Posted
Posted

It's true that reviewing an eyepiece in a magazine is pointless other than to gauge the general quality of construction and so-on. It's just to subjective.

S@N reviews are especially useless as they simply will not find fault with products. They have published reviews of some lower priced scopes which are so bad as to be unusable hobby killers. S@N described them all in glowing terms and only hinted at potential faults. to anyone just starting out (the sort of person reading those reviews) the scopes would seem like a good deal.

this clouds the whole section as you never feel you trust those reviewers/editors over any review.

I for one would never buy anything based on a magazine review.

Nick H,

hats off that you do comment on the faults you find. Your reviews tend to be of kit more suited to imagers though and so I only scan them usually. But your target audience is usually better placed to form an informed decision. It's the beginners kit that needs a more open approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steppenwolf

steppenwolf

Posted
Posted
Luckily I seem to get nice products to review..

This has been my (somewhat limited!) experience too. The autoguiders that I recently reviewed all did the job expected of them albeit it different ways and I certainly didn't stand back from mentioning the flawed ASCOM driver of one of the guiders, the completely absent ASCOM driver of another, the remarkable similarity of two of the products and the relatively small sensor of one of them in comparison with the others!

My approach to writing these reviews is not to specifically guide (ooops pun) potential purchasers to part with their 'hard earned' on one particular product but to help them to make an informed choice based on how I as the reviewer found the items to perform in use under real skies. If any of them had been 'dogs' it would have been clear from my text but in fact they all performed their task well and that FACT was fairly represented within the review.

Value for money is a very relative term as so much depends on the depth of your purse so one person's value for money could be very different from another's so the final decision must be down to purchaser, surely?

I don't bother reading reviews in magazines anymore (Sorry Steve) just trawl the web instead...

Now come on Peter, I know you and I don't believe for one minute that you believe everything you read on the Internet :) but I bet you read up as much as you can to get an 'informed' opinion of what will suit you and what won't :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harmartolos

Harmartolos

Posted
Posted

As a newbie I am really confused by all this. I read the article too and was thinking about buying the Skywatcher on the basis that at 87% and under £60; it was only 4 %age points behind both the Tele-Vue and Baader but just 1/3 the cost (bargain!).

I assume my logic is flawed; so should avoid this product then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astro_Baby

Astro_Baby

Posted
Posted

I'm always ceptical of reviews myself - I used to pay journos to write me good ones years ago.

No one ever made a threat or handed over a bag of money - it was simply if you bashed my product the next time we were flying the press to Amsterdam or St Lucia for a 'briefing' and a free holiday you wouldnt be getting a ticket. You;d also miss out on the ringside seat at Wimbledon, Lords and any footbal match you'd like to go to. If you got really snotty I'd simply cancel all my advertising with you.

But to make life easier for a reviewer to be nice to us we'd always supply a hand tested item for review that had pretty much been custom made and/or hand picked. The one with gold connectors, souped up power supplies, steel cases etc.

The punter of course would be buying a version made with bostik and wet tissue paper assembled at the cheapest price in the back of beyond.

Thats life unfortunately - I see reviews mostly as information gathering really rather than a definitive view of a product.

I dont know if astro kit works the same way from the marketing departments of the big boys - possibly not - its a smaller market after all and all the annoying punters write their own reviews and blat out the bad news on broadband across the galaxy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickH

NickH

Posted
Posted

Okay without going in to too much detail, if a manufacturer tries to pull a fast one with me (and it's happened I have written for a few different mags both here and stateside), I pull out of reviewing it. If a manufacturer is not able to cope with the truth, I will pull personally out of doing the review, as I won't compromise. If a manufacturer addresses the problem (as with the Meade 5000 and Atik 4021 (where Steve really did literally iterate around several cameras to get to the bottom of an issue, which he then fixed in all future models!) then the review proceeds, I discuss with the manufacturer the issue, and it is mentioned in review.

In both instances, they bent over backwards to address the problems at hand, and I believe have now delivered consistently great products as a result (as any 5000 owners or 4021 owners will testify)

I know the sort of thing goes on in the music industry, but not on my watch...and I was dropped from PM'ing a multi million pound project by my own company, and gave up the perks and overseas travel which came with it.. because I could not release something to market which blatantly didn't work... my take is that some kid has saved his pocket money for a year to get that product, and that kid could be my daughter.. likewise I have friends who scrimp and save all year for astro kit, and I'm not going to recommend something to them which is iffy.

I look at every product on a price/performance ratio balance. If a £3000 scope sat next to a £300 scope doesn't blow me away, then I will say so...likewise if a CCD has a noise floor from hell or shonky drivers, I will say so. Word counts usually limit reviews (much as would also like to put out full RUP style test evaluation data/summaries...methinks it's the wrong market...maybe if I were reviewing for Euro-Photonics :-))

I am proud to work with a team that support this, and also proud that manufacturers recognise this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

What rattles me is when products supplied for review are made to a higher standard than those offered in the stores. If a product arrives faulty then sending it back for replacemant/repair before writing a review is fine, that is what a customer would do, but when a product arrives that is clearly head and shoulders above what is available in the shops that is unfair both to the reader and to the other products being reviewed.

For the record, whenever FLO offers a product to SGL or to the magazines it is always a regular off-the-shelf model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.