Yes, Canopus, the user-skill-is-more-important-than-equipment theory applies to musical instruments as well. A good pianist can do wonders with a low-end piano while a lousy pianist will not be able to exploit the full potential of an expensive grand piano.
Whichever hobby a person takes up, it's best to take some time to explore it and absorb info about the hobby WITHOUT purchasing anything yet. The library and the internet are great sources of information and inspiration.
After some time, if his/her passion for the hobby grows stronger, he/she may then consult the gurus on which equipment to buy so as to make a wise, long-term investment.
If one has a attention-deficit disorder and skips from one hobby to another, it's best not to invest too much money in the hobby he/she picks up on a whim. The items will end up as white (expensive) elephants. IMHO, better an Albert than a Steve, especially if your pockets are shallow.
Astro equipment and the USER
Naturally the sky condition is a limiting factor that applies to all observers here. Regardless of equipment quality and observer experience, the following sky condition: (1) degree of light pollution, (2) seeing condition, (3) sky transparency, all have a direct impact on what we can see. For those who have not been to Mersing or other dark skies, the clear night sky in Mersing as compared to S'pore is like having a curtain veil lifted off in front of our eyes. 
-
Canopus Lim
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:46 pm
- Location: Macpherson
Yup.. sky condition is THE MOST IMPORTANT. Unfortunately, we are not blessed with good skies for most of the time here in Singapore and also quite true in Malaysia. We are positioned in such a good place to be able to see the northern and southern constellations unlike in USA or Australia. However, most times we are facing cloudy nights or when there is clear nights.. it just don't occur that regularly on a weekend! 
When I was in USA for a holiday at Yosemite National Park, the best view of the Ring nebula was through my C5! It looked even better than the Ring nebula seen through my 12.5 inch at Mersing (although not the best Mersing nights). I am sure that the transparency was so good that I could see magnitude 7 stars. The milky way did not look like a cloud.. it was glowing brightly. Number of stars in the binoculars were so many until everywhere I looked seemed like open clusters.
Other than the skies, it is left between the observer and the equipment. If the equipment and observer is well matched, it would be a rewarding astronomy experience.
When I was in USA for a holiday at Yosemite National Park, the best view of the Ring nebula was through my C5! It looked even better than the Ring nebula seen through my 12.5 inch at Mersing (although not the best Mersing nights). I am sure that the transparency was so good that I could see magnitude 7 stars. The milky way did not look like a cloud.. it was glowing brightly. Number of stars in the binoculars were so many until everywhere I looked seemed like open clusters.
Other than the skies, it is left between the observer and the equipment. If the equipment and observer is well matched, it would be a rewarding astronomy experience.
AstroDuck
What really determines the skill level of the user? Nobody is born naturally to be able to use the telescope and find every single object. It takes time to learn and appreciate the hobby.
So what makes the user appreciate the skies? I feel this way, beginners tend to go WOW about seeing craters on the moon, rings of saturn, the moons of jupiter, star clusters like m6/m7 and nebulaes like m42.
Those who have spending longer time in the hobby tend to go for stuff like spiral arms of m51, shadow transit of jupiter, the crepe ring on saturn, tiny little gobulars/galaxy/planetary neb here and there. It's hard to debate that one doesn't need better and better equipment to see more and more.
Based on this, we have come up with an infinity loop. If the user don't have a gd scope, he gets limited by his equipments, thus he can't go deeper into the hobby. And when he doesn't go deeper into the hobby, he doesn't get better. And when he doesn't get better, he feels that he doesn't need a better scope yet. And when he doesn't get a better scope, he doesn't go deeper into the hobby..........................
I think the debate on how gd does the equipment have to be varies from person to person. One may feel that his 8" dob is the best scope in the world, while another may feel his 4" apo is the best scope ever. If one were to apply the law of dimishing returns, it's not hard to tell that in "most" cases u can get alot without spending infinity amount of money.
Then again, if one were to find the sweet spot for the price/performance ratio, he/she will realise that he/she will never be able to find such a point.
A $400 8" dob may be the sweet spot for one, but another guy may feel that a $1000 refigured and upgraded 8" dob might be the sweeter deal, whereas another guy may feel that a 8" zambuto dob for $2k+ is barely a fraction of a premium 4-6" apo. The next guy may feel that his 6" apo cost only a fraction of a 8" apo.................................
Going by this endless and mindless cycle, one will eventually get back to the point of questioning, which is more impt, the user or the equipment?
If we decide that one doesn't need such gd equipment, my first point, whereby the user feels limited by his equipment, and therefore doesn't feel like going deeper into the hobby, will eventually go in a endless cycle all again. Heh, infinity loop once again, so which is right? To buy or not to buy?
Nobody goes to a badminton competition with a cheap steel racket. If you ever want to play badminton in the long run, it doesn't matter when u buy that titanium racket, the things is, you will own it eventually. So why not just buy it right away?
~MooEy~
So what makes the user appreciate the skies? I feel this way, beginners tend to go WOW about seeing craters on the moon, rings of saturn, the moons of jupiter, star clusters like m6/m7 and nebulaes like m42.
Those who have spending longer time in the hobby tend to go for stuff like spiral arms of m51, shadow transit of jupiter, the crepe ring on saturn, tiny little gobulars/galaxy/planetary neb here and there. It's hard to debate that one doesn't need better and better equipment to see more and more.
Based on this, we have come up with an infinity loop. If the user don't have a gd scope, he gets limited by his equipments, thus he can't go deeper into the hobby. And when he doesn't go deeper into the hobby, he doesn't get better. And when he doesn't get better, he feels that he doesn't need a better scope yet. And when he doesn't get a better scope, he doesn't go deeper into the hobby..........................
I think the debate on how gd does the equipment have to be varies from person to person. One may feel that his 8" dob is the best scope in the world, while another may feel his 4" apo is the best scope ever. If one were to apply the law of dimishing returns, it's not hard to tell that in "most" cases u can get alot without spending infinity amount of money.
Then again, if one were to find the sweet spot for the price/performance ratio, he/she will realise that he/she will never be able to find such a point.
A $400 8" dob may be the sweet spot for one, but another guy may feel that a $1000 refigured and upgraded 8" dob might be the sweeter deal, whereas another guy may feel that a 8" zambuto dob for $2k+ is barely a fraction of a premium 4-6" apo. The next guy may feel that his 6" apo cost only a fraction of a 8" apo.................................
Going by this endless and mindless cycle, one will eventually get back to the point of questioning, which is more impt, the user or the equipment?
If we decide that one doesn't need such gd equipment, my first point, whereby the user feels limited by his equipment, and therefore doesn't feel like going deeper into the hobby, will eventually go in a endless cycle all again. Heh, infinity loop once again, so which is right? To buy or not to buy?
Nobody goes to a badminton competition with a cheap steel racket. If you ever want to play badminton in the long run, it doesn't matter when u buy that titanium racket, the things is, you will own it eventually. So why not just buy it right away?
~MooEy~
Perhaps many of us think that we will own it eventually, that's why we were more willing to pump in more to get that better eyepiece and telescope.MooEy wrote: Nobody goes to a badminton competition with a cheap steel racket. If you ever want to play badminton in the long run, it doesn't matter when u buy that titanium racket, the things is, you will own it eventually. So why not just buy it right away?
~MooEy~
Wee Nghee the Pooh
-
Canopus Lim
- Posts: 1144
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:46 pm
- Location: Macpherson
What Moey said is true. Excluding the sky condition (the biggest factor) which is the limiting factor? User or equipment? I feel that both are equally important. For new people in astronomy who have yet to know the constellations etc, I think it would be better that they do not buy too expensive equipment as they may not stay in the hobby long enough and if they quit they will not get 'burned' too much. They will not be really limited by the equipment because the real limit is themselves. It is not only observing skills, it is also the technical skills of setting up the equipment and operating the equipment. It is also about modifying the equipment to suite observing styles and buying the right equipment to suite observing styles. This purchasing also requires experience and probably some bad purchases or a long time before one realises what he wants to achieve in astronomy. I feel that if we know what we want to achieve (example visual, astrophotography..etc), we will be able to buy the correct instrument for that task.
Also, about equipment... like any equipment.. over time there will be improvements. Do we continue to change equipment for new designed equipment? That is a REAL ENDLESS LOOP. If we look at computers... the speed increases exponentially and the equipment gets outdated within months. Unless we have unlimited funds, it is impossible to keep up with technology. This is the same as astronomy.. but to a much lesser extent. The good thing is that what equipment available now (especially for optics) are already at the highest level in optics design and process. There can be space for improvements, but the improvement is really slight. It can only become cheaper but the quality of premium components will really last and not get outdated (meaning not significantly lousier than a new equipment 10 years down the road). Unless there is a new kind of telescope design.... the ones we use are like centuries old and still works exceedingly well. Looking at US forums.. it just really show their materialism..they always want the best (even if it is like 5 percent or 1 percent better) and they keep changing equipment (like changing wives).. it is an endless loop. That is why if the user is good, that 5 percent and 1 percent will not account much to the difference as the user's skill will compensate for this slight improvement. Also.. I think there will be an end to this loop if we are contented with what we have (be it decent or premium equipment... there will be always more decent and more premium equipment over time but is the cost and change justified enough?).
Also, about equipment... like any equipment.. over time there will be improvements. Do we continue to change equipment for new designed equipment? That is a REAL ENDLESS LOOP. If we look at computers... the speed increases exponentially and the equipment gets outdated within months. Unless we have unlimited funds, it is impossible to keep up with technology. This is the same as astronomy.. but to a much lesser extent. The good thing is that what equipment available now (especially for optics) are already at the highest level in optics design and process. There can be space for improvements, but the improvement is really slight. It can only become cheaper but the quality of premium components will really last and not get outdated (meaning not significantly lousier than a new equipment 10 years down the road). Unless there is a new kind of telescope design.... the ones we use are like centuries old and still works exceedingly well. Looking at US forums.. it just really show their materialism..they always want the best (even if it is like 5 percent or 1 percent better) and they keep changing equipment (like changing wives).. it is an endless loop. That is why if the user is good, that 5 percent and 1 percent will not account much to the difference as the user's skill will compensate for this slight improvement. Also.. I think there will be an end to this loop if we are contented with what we have (be it decent or premium equipment... there will be always more decent and more premium equipment over time but is the cost and change justified enough?).
AstroDuck