Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

24349Re: Is "High Quality Chinese" still an oxymoron?

Expand Messages
  • lwblack3
    Jul 2 7:31 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I have had my Celestron C-6 (a Synta optic) since 2005. I recently upgraded it by adding a dual-speed Moonlite focuser. (A Moonlite is worth the expense as it fit perfectly without needing any adjustment.) I have also added the Baader Semi-Apo filter (which combines a minus violet filter and moonglow filter in one) to my 2-inch diagonal. Fringing is reduced to a bare minimum.

      Is the C-6 now the equal of a Astro Physics APO? Of course not, but at less than 1/10th the cost, the C-6 is an effective instrument for visual observing. (Mine has always given pinpoint stars.) Further, here in New Jersey, it is difficult to find sky conditions that can handle more than 200X-250X for a 6-inch optic. And, it is at high power (which I don't use very often as I like to look at clusters) that an APO will always outperform an achromat.

      Though my C-6 came with the CG-5 go-to mount, I now use it most often with a Universal Astronomics Unistar Deluxe alt-az equipped with encoders and the Televue Sky Tour computer. The Unistar attaches with an adapter to my CG-5 tripod. I also acquired the 16-inch mount extension pier, which provides a more stable set-up.

      Lloyd in NJ

      --- In Chinese_Refractor@yahoogroups.com, Wally Lucas <wl241@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have a Chinese made 4" and 6" Achromatic refractors (CAR) as well as a TAK102FS and a TMB152.  I have compared them side by side many times.  Yes, the CAR do show violet fringing when using them on brighter objects and that doesn't bother me at all.  What does is that the false color or "scatter"  that becomes an issue when viewing the major planets at higher magnifications.  However visually there is little difference viewing most celestial objects between them.  The CAR are good values and I dare say for most amatuers they are certainly good enough.  It is amazing that they do as well as they do when you consider their relative low cost.
      >
      >
      > From: tincanandstring <frank@...>
      > To: Chinese_Refractor@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 3:41 PM
      > Subject: [Chinese_Refractor] Is "High Quality Chinese" still an oxymoron?
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      > I started in this hobby with Meade/Jinghua and Synta refractors. They were inexpensive and usable, the star tests were not bad and I even learned something (not to mentioned enjoyed myself a lot) peering through the Los Angeles murk from my backyard.
      >
      > I graduated to larger refractors, 4, 5 and 6", Meade/Jinghua and Synta, but learned, from the Refractors group and elsewhere, that Japanese and US objectives were much better quality, at a price.
      >
      > Let's cut to the chase - Roland has explained how skilled opticians will never grow in rice paddies, and great glass costs good money because of that. Both Jinghua and Synta have introduced increasingly more advanced deigns, and I think even Markus has flirted with some Chinese objectives, but I don't know who the manufacturer was, and they did not work out for him at the time.
      >
      > There may still be problems, ES seems to have EP issues recently, and had some scope QC problems in the past, as have other importers/distributors.
      >
      > There have been introductions of a number of expensive Asian refractors recently.
      >
      > But is any Chinese Refractor worth upwards of $7000?
      >
      > Frank
      >
      > Posed here and on the Refractors group, as there seems quite a bit of membership exclusivity.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic