Posts Made By: Michael Tencza

People sell their equipment for a variety of reasons. We should all sympathize, however, for those who must liquidate their prized possessions out of necessity. The bigger question is what is ahead of us and will our leaders have the wherewithall to deal with. These are scary times indeed.

I have both set screw and compression TV everbrites and notice no difference with either type of diagonal. Since a set screw applies force on one side of the eyepiece, I'll assume you are not limiting the discussion to compression rings only.

I started out with a 4.5" reflector that came with the dovetail bolted to the tube. There was no problem with the bolts or nuts on the inside of the tube, but the fixed position of the focuser made looking through the eyepiece a pain at times. I bought tube rings quickly and they were much easier to use as you can adjust the focuser positon. Putting the eyepiece in a place that is comfortable to look through is very important and will definately increase your enjoyment of your telescope. Next get an adjustable viewing chair and you will be set.

There was a comparision that included the Meade 4000 14mm and TV 13mm T6 done at the provided link,
"http://www.iceinspace.com.au/42-245-0-0-1-0.html". IMHO, while the Meade 4000 14mm probably deserves its reputation (I have never used one), the TV 13mm T6 (which I do own) is a better choice due to its small size. I believe one can get either on the used market for about the same price, maybe a bit more money for the TV.

Perhaps I should have said any impact instead of favorable. Considering how worldwide demand for oil has decreased recently and may be reduced even more over the next year or so, it may be a good opportunity to ask the question (does a reduction in the use of fossil fuels have an effect on...pick your own measure). I wasn't actually seeking an answer right now but no matter what your position is if you want to study and actually know something about this issue, it seems that now and the next few years may be the time to collect some useful data.

Floyd, you make dead on, logical, sense. Unfortunately when people simply want to believe something, the above does not apply. In my case I own a mass produced refractor and I am happy with it. This is not because I believe it is anywhere near as good as what Roland can achieve. It is because it is good enough to provide the views I want now as a casual observor. As I stated in another post, when my three children graduate college and time and money constraints are gone I may well think differently. I sure hope Roland and Starmaster are still making telescopes at that time though!

Remember "Proverbs 18:2" A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Thanks for the post. Very informative.

This thread illustrates why Amart shines as a discussion forum, common sense. Floyd's original point:

"I think that it is just silly to think that a mass produced scope made with just machines will produce as fine an instrument as one that has had time and expertise applied..."

is valid, otherwise why would expert craftsman waste their time and why would there be any support in the market for such an endeavor.

Roland has explained multiple times that a true high-quality APO is necessary for photography and also explained that many people may not require the same standard for visual use, for a variety of reasons. Therefore, many of us can enjoy mass-produced optics for casual, visual surveys of the night sky and not threaten our family financial health. For those with more means there is always better and I am proud to say that many of you are willing to share what you have during public star parties giving the rest of us a chance to use these fine instruments.

In summary, discussions that make people feel inadequate about their equipment no matter what it is are as counterproductive as those that imply that excellence is not necessary or that mass-produced is just as good as the finest that skilled hands can make. Let's hope this puts this issue to rest so those involved already can enjoy what they have and those newly interested can make informed decisions about what they buy, based on what they want to do.

I ran into this problem myself a while back. I have a set of TV smooth sided plossls and both the Klee 2.8x and Celestron Ultima SV 2x barlows were vignetting all of them, not just the longer focal lengths. The thread title was "2.8x Klee Vignettes TV Plossls?" and the comments may help you. I now use a 2.5x Powermate for these eyepieces and have been very happy with it.

I'd be interested to know more about the vignetting you saw with the 10.5 mm TV and 9 mm UO. I have used both eyepieces in refractors from f/6.2 through f/9 and not seen this effect.