Here is the place to talk about all those equipment(Telescope, Mounts, Eyepieces, etc...) you have. Not sure which scope/eyepiece is best for you? Trash it out here!
Just a few days back, I could easily see 0.8 arc second split of double star at a rather poor to average seeing conditions. Imagine if it is good. Some people in other parts of the world cannot even have 1 arc second split at their best conditions.
I think that is because of your scope mirror....not the eyepiece. If you are using the nagler to see that, I suggest you change to a UWAN or UWA. I bet you will still see that 0.8 arc second separation.
Why are you guys so strict with the definition of clone? It is not like you can open up the eyepiece and play or appreciate the different elements inside. Who cares what they put inside the eyepiece as long you get 80++ FOV with a sharp view that is as good as the expensive naglers? it is the effect that was clone...not the eyepiece la. Of course I know they are not replica of the nagler la....
Canopus Lim wrote: Anyway, I am not saying that the Chinese products are that bad (they are bang for the buck), it is just that they cannot be at that level currently. They will not be just as good. Maybe years down the road.
If they were just as good and so cheap, there should be Astrophysics, TMB, Tak clones already; if they can build these scopes just as good and way cheaper, I will get them. Also, chinese manufacturing tolerances are not that good that is a fact. You need expensive machines and well trained people to produce good optics. Design is one, manufacturing is another. You can have a super design, but it cannot perform to spec if your manufacturing is not as accurate in tolerance.
actually for this..it is not that they cannot make it as precise as the APs, Taks or TMBs. They can and they do have the facilities or people to do it. They can make one that look and feel like an AP at probably 60%-70% of AP's price. But they won't to do it because they focus on a different market which is the China mass market. AP could be happy to sell 50 scopes every year. But the Chinese do not set up their business to sell 50 only. Even at 70% AP's price, the PRCs in China will still find it is too expensive. And other people in the world will still think does it make sense to pay that much for a China product?
If you really want a China scope that is as good as AP at 70% AP's price, they can make one for you if you know them well enough.
So the chinese strategy now is to produce good lenses first. Give themselves some reputation as that is the heart of any optical system. Once the PRCs get wealthier and their standard of living goes up, they will slowly improve on the mechanical aspect. They need to sell thousands of scope every year and not just 50. If they start producing excellent scopes, they will close shop tommorrow. So let's not say that they are "not as good". It's just their choice to remain that way due to their business strategy.
actually for this..it is not that they cannot make it as precise as the APs, Taks or TMBs. They can and they do have the facilities or people to do it. They can make one that look and feel like an AP at probably 60%-70% of AP's price. But they won't to do it because they focus on a different market which is the China mass market. AP could be happy to sell 50 scopes every year. But the Chinese do not set up their business to sell 50 only. Even at 70% AP's price, the PRCs in China will still find it is too expensive. And other people in the world will still think does it make sense to pay that much for a China product?
If you really want a China scope that is as good as AP at 70% AP's price, they can make one for you if you know them well enough.
So the chinese strategy now is to produce good lenses first. Give themselves some reputation as that is the heart of any optical system. Once the PRCs get wealthier and their standard of living goes up, they will slowly improve on the mechanical aspect. They need to sell thousands of scope every year and not just 50. If they start producing excellent scopes, they will close shop tommorrow. So let's not say that they are "not as good". It's just their choice to remain that way due to their business strategy.
Yes... agree! All is about business.
Have a nice day.
Yang Weixing "The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance."
Yes I chose to use the term 'clone' not so strictly. To me, its the replication of optical performance that counts, not the replication of lens design that matters. Other so-called 'clones' are the Speers-Walers and Widescans eyepieces. One good classic example is 1rpd's 30mm which has 80 deg afov and performs as well as the Nagler 31mm for slow scopes like C8 and Mewlons. In fact I have tested both and I found that the on-axis light throughput of the 1rpd is significantly better than Nagler 31mm. Yet if you compare the prices, its a ratio of 1:10!
What company has an 80mm f6 triplet apo for that price?
The brand is Maxvision and they are the Meade OEM manufacturer. That scope is actually the Meade 5000 Series 80mm F6 ED APO.... the price is around S$100 cheaper than Meade 5000 Series 80mm F6 ED APO.
rlow wrote:Yes I chose to use the term 'clone' not so strictly. To me, its the replication of optical performance that counts, not the replication of lens design that matters. Other so-called 'clones' are the Speers-Walers and Widescans eyepieces. One good classic example is 1rpd's 30mm which has 80 deg afov and performs as well as the Nagler 31mm for slow scopes like C8 and Mewlons. In fact I have tested both and I found that the on-axis light throughput of the 1rpd is significantly better than Nagler 31mm. Yet if you compare the prices, its a ratio of 1:10!
The 1rpd on the LX90 is amazing!!!
I bought one for fun, thinking check it out and then sell it away. It is still with me all these years. But those with the name naglers are all gone.
Another thing about rpd is that the size of the barrel fits the Canon DSLR perfectly. So shoot through eyepiece without the need for adaptors.
I was just saying that Singapore's sky condition is good enough to tell that 10 percent difference in performance. I gave an example of an average seeing condition that allows 0.8 arc second separation. In good conditions it probably can go till maybe 0.3 to 0.4 arc second which is the resolution of a 12.5" scope.
Hmm... I don't think able to resolved 0.8 arcsec are call average seeing... unless you are on Mauna Kea observatories . Also, base on W. M. Keck Observatory website: "Without any correcting technology, the best telescopes on Earth are limited to an average “seeing” ability, or resolving power, of about 0.5 arcseconds": http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=74
Also, chinese manufacturing tolerances are not that good that is a fact. You need expensive machines and well trained people to produce good optics. Design is one, manufacturing is another. You can have a super design, but it cannot perform to spec if your manufacturing is not as accurate in tolerance.
"The universe is composed mainly of hydrogen and ignorance." 
. Also, base on W. M. Keck Observatory website: "Without any correcting technology, the best telescopes on Earth are limited to an average “seeing” ability, or resolving power, of about 0.5 arcseconds":