>Interesting. Perhaps the comparison test I was shown was more by process of
>suggestion than anything else. Thanks for your response.
>Doug Kranz
>Gary McKenzie wrote:
>> meade for personal use. There was no reason we could see other than "wank
>> factor" to pay over twice the price for the televue.

Doug, holding diagonals side-by-side in a store during daylight and trying
to compare brightness or surface flatness (a fractional wavelength of light)
or anything else (besides purely cosmetic appearances) is likely to be
misleading, because of insensitivity of the test situation.

You need to put them on a scope, with both high mag and low mag/wide angle
eyepieces, at night, to test for differences in star sharpness all across the
field of view. And you would have to use proven high quality eyepieces
(not to mention having a high quality primary and secondary) before
you could see the more subtle differences between two diagonals. But
basically you need to compare them on real stars, is what I'm saying.
(well, OK, you could do controlled optical bench testing with artificial
lighting, but that's different from trying to eyeball the two in a store...
as you said, the latter could easily be confusing by suggestion.

RP
Pgh PA

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: TeleVue 2" SCT Kit, steve sanacore
Next message: [M]: Updated eyepiece design?, Mayhem
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: 2" diagonals, Doug Kranz
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: 2" diagonals, Doug Kranz