Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: S&T C-6 Review

  1. #1
    Doink's Avatar
    Doink Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review



    OK, I've brought this up before and it started a flame war. Let's try to
    stay cool....

    I read the reviews of telescopes in S&T and am always disappointed that they
    don't do more rigorous testing or provide some real. The review of the C-6
    is no exception. There's a bunch of "writing" about the mount and the
    "optically excellent 6x30 finder" and then the write states the OTA has
    "excellent optics". He determines this because he can see the Cassini
    Division in Saturn. Neat. Those observations are subject to numerous
    factors; seeing comes to mind. Why don't they bench test the optics? I'd
    like the stats, not the impressions of an employee of the company paid to
    sell the stuff.

    Doink





  2. #2
    Alan French's Avatar
    Alan French Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    "Doink" <skyman102a@aol.com> wrote in message
    newsoKdnXOK15EubzzZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@trueband.net...
    they

    Doink,


    Most reviews are not in-depth enough to satisfy me, but I would take your
    comments more seriously if they made it sound like you had actually given
    the review a careful reading. The comment about Cassini's division involved
    a bit more than just seeing it, and was only a small portion of the optical
    evaluation. Did you miss the rest of it?

    I am not familiar with the author of the article, so I am not sure what you
    mean when you say "impressions of an employee of the company paid to sell
    the stuff." Who does Mr. Ashford work for?

    Clear skies, Alan



  3. #3
    Doink's Avatar
    Doink Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    Sure. I read it all and didn't want to bore people here with a full summary.
    My point was that what the observer sees on a given night really isn't a
    good optical evaluation because there are extraneous factors which would
    affect what one would see. That aside, I would like to see a bench test if
    someone says the optics are "excellent". I would equate it to someone who
    says a car gets good mileage because they only fill it up once a week.

    By employee... S&T is reviewing a product of a paying advertiser. If they
    outsourced the reviews to an independent testing authority, it would have
    more credibility. OR, they could bench test and state the numbers as
    computer magazines do. They measure actual performance AND give the human
    impression. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the wrires impressions but I
    would like to see some data to support the "excellent optics" claim. They
    did measure the image shift and I found that helpful.

    Doink
    "Alan French" <adfrenchremoveallthis@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
    news:5Gmog.7535$O35.6124@twister.nyroc.rr.com...



  4. #4
    Brian Tung's Avatar
    Brian Tung Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    Doink wrote:

    "Contractor" would be a more accurate characterization of the reviewer,
    since he isn't employed by Sky and Telescope, I don't think. But even
    if he is, the question stands: If the reviewer wrote a negative review,
    or at least a review that pointed out a few too many negative points,
    would Sky and Telescope refuse to publish it as written (either reject
    it or suggest revisions to make it more positive)? It's certainly
    possible, but do they in fact behave that way?

    I really don't know. The most I can say is that I don't think they
    would (provided the review was done professionally), I don't have any
    evidence that they do, but an outsider can never say for sure. I do
    wonder, as you do, why the reviews can't be made more consistent. Some
    reviewers do Ronchi testing, some don't. Some do a star test and image
    the results, some don't. There should probably be some sort of standard
    for reviews. I've seen some real crappy reviews (not in S&T, though).

    I would also like to see more comparative reviews. The reason why so
    many reviews say "excellent optics" is because so few telescopes are
    dogs, except by the Golden-Eye standards upheld by the astronomical
    sophisticates. That does not mean, however, that all non-dogs are
    created equal. Some will likely be considerably better than others, but
    we can't tell, because they all say, "excellent optics." Comparing two
    or more scopes against each other is a good way to at least put the
    scopes in a kind of ordering.

    I've heard that the Japanese magazine, Tenmon Guide (sp?), does indeed
    do bench testing in their reviews, so it is possible. Of course, that
    raises the spectre of hand-selected units, but you have that problem
    anyway, even without the bench testing. Bench testing merely raises
    the stakes.

    --
    Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
    The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
    Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
    The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
    My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

  5. #5
    rat ~(    );>'s Avatar
    rat ~( );> Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review


    Brian Tung wrote:

    This brings up an idea. Perhaps there is a different strategy
    altogether. I never see S&T reviewing crap junk telescopes. Perhaps
    they focus on decent telescopes in the first place and simply decline
    to do negative reviews by avoiding reviewing junk scopes.

    The most obvious exception I have seen to this idea was the negative
    review of the TMB eyepieces. I feel that there must have been some sort
    of personal agenda involved in that fiasco. While it might be possible
    to argue that a $90 TV Plossl can proffer views just as good, I think
    it was unfair the way they were slammed in the review.I own several and
    they are the equal of any eyepiece that I have looked through for
    planetary observing through my APO refractors. And then they go on to
    speak highly of the new C-6's optics, that's ironic. It was a shame to
    see a small producer of high quality equipment take it on the chin in
    such a way, a shame indeed...



    rat
    ~( );>


  6. #6
    Brian Tung's Avatar
    Brian Tung Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    rat ~( );> wrote:

    I agree that they intentionally avoid reviewing junk scopes. The
    question is, what do they do when they come across a scope that isn't
    sold as junk, but nevertheless doesn't perform as well as others in the
    same price range? It is possible to be flatly descriptive and not be
    negative, but I prefer a more comparative approach.


    Funny--I don't remember that review being nearly that negative. I'll
    have to go back and review it.


    No one should be immune to a bad review, if that *particular* piece of
    equipment happens to be bad--whether they be TMB, AP, or an anonymous
    Chinese company.

    --
    Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu>
    The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
    Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
    The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
    My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

  7. #7
    Phil Wheeler's Avatar
    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    Doink wrote:

    I find no fault with the review of the optics, perhaps because I
    expect the usual Celestron excellence in the C6. I have heard
    worse things about the mount (ASGT) than I read there.

    Phil

  8. #8
    Phil Wheeler's Avatar
    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    Doink wrote:

    But why would you expect them to start doing that now?

    Was this review more superficial than past reviews? Not to me ..
    pretty much what I would expect.

    Of course, I'd pretty much decided my thoughts about the scope
    (nice optics, limited mount) based on reading posts/reviews/etc.
    at Cloudy Nights.

    Phil

  9. #9
    atasselli@hotmail.com's Avatar
    atasselli@hotmail.com Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review


    rat ~( );> wrote:

    Rat, this retelling of the story is not exactly what went on, isn't it?
    The (sad?) fact was the several in the same batch of the samples sent
    to the S&T reviewer (Gary Seronik?) were admitedly (from T.Back) of
    poor quality and, as luck had it, 2 out of the 3 sent were of
    poor/average quality. In all fairness the reviewer did a darn good job
    in that case. If there was any fault then it was all down to poor QC
    from mfg/APM (assuming APM should have done some sort of screening
    before actually sending them over to T.B., of course). Trying to put
    the blame on S&T (and I'm not exactly a supporter of 'em) for some
    unfanthomable "personal agenda" is ludicrous.

    Regards

    Andrea T.


  10. #10
    Phil Wheeler's Avatar
    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Default S&T C-6 Review

    rat ~( );> wrote:

    Hmmm .. I never really considered it in that way.

    Phil

 

 
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Meade new LS Review-- here
    By Joe Lalumia in forum Meade Telescope Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-2010, 07:24 PM
  2. Celestron CPC 800 Review
    By admin in forum Celestron Telescope Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2009, 03:25 PM
  3. Skywatcher EQ6 Review
    By admin in forum Telescope Mounts Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-12-2009, 12:11 PM
  4. Telrad Review
    By powerwindows1985 in forum Telescope Accessories Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-15-2009, 01:22 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-17-2003, 02:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:51 PM.