Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company. Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.

https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/

ALL MEMBERS - PLEASE READ - IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!
Prime Minister Justin Blackface Trudeau tweeted his condolences that
Dude!! don't burn down the forest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2021/09/Unistellar-and-Nikon-Launch-the-eVscope2-800x420.jpg
🤣

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.

> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/

$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?

Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.

As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
not interested.

John Savard

On Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 10:30:47 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
> > Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
> > their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
> > Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
>
> > https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
> $4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
>
> Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
>
> As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
> not interested.
>
> John Savard

80mm Chinese triplet in regular scope form worth $900. Add $3000 more or so. They are releasing a 50mm version, costing $1700...!

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 4:13:19 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company. Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
>
> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/

This really does seem like the telescopic analog to the "smart" car.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
>> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
>> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
>
>> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
>
>$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
>
>Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
>
>As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
>not interested.

Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:05:22 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

> 80mm Chinese triplet in regular scope form worth $900.

But the 4.5" eVscope 2 is a *reflecting* telescope, so...

John Savard

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 7:16:22 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.

Given the cost of computers these days, it ought to be possible
for a telescope maker to put something like that together for a
price not far above that of their existing go-to telescopes.

No doubt, though, this level of integration has been patented by the
eVscope people.

John Savard

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:16:22 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
> >> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
> >> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
> >> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
> >
> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
> >
> >$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
> >
> >Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
> >
> >As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
> >not interested.
> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.

It's a poor system from any angle. Jack of all trades, master of none. If you want consistent but mediocre results, it's your scope.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:16:22 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>> >> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
>> >> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
>> >> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
>> >
>> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
>> >
>> >$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
>> >
>> >Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
>> >
>> >As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
>> >not interested.
>> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
>> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
>> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
>> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.
>
>It's a poor system from any angle. Jack of all trades, master of none. If you want consistent but mediocre results, it's your scope.

I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!

On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:08:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
> specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
> they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!

A 4.5" reflecting telescope, versus a 3.5" Maksutov-Cassegrain? But yes,
one can't get a go-to Questar. However, one can get a go-to 3.5"
Maksutov-Cassegrain for a better price from other firms, can one not?

John Savard

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:08:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:16:22 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
> >> >> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
> >> >> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
> >> >> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
> >> >
> >> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
> >> >
> >> >$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
> >> >
> >> >Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
> >> >
> >> >As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
> >> >not interested.
> >> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
> >> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
> >> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
> >> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.
> >
> >It's a poor system from any angle. Jack of all trades, master of none. If you want consistent but mediocre results, it's your scope.
> I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
> specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
> they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!

A Questar is an miracle of analog engineering.

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:11:18 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:08:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
> > specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
> > they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
> A 4.5" reflecting telescope, versus a 3.5" Maksutov-Cassegrain? But yes,
> one can't get a go-to Questar. However, one can get a go-to 3.5"
> Maksutov-Cassegrain for a better price from other firms, can one not?
>
> John Savard

I once watched a rich novice have a screaming fit because he couldn't put an SCT telescope together. That's the audience for this one.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 17:11:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:08:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
>> specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
>> they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
>
>A 4.5" reflecting telescope, versus a 3.5" Maksutov-Cassegrain? But yes,
>one can't get a go-to Questar. However, one can get a go-to 3.5"
>Maksutov-Cassegrain for a better price from other firms, can one not?

One that self-aligns on the star field, tracks dynamically on the star
field, and has a high resolution, high quality imager built into it?
Not that I've seen.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:15:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:11:18 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:08:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>>
>> > I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
>> > specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
>> > they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
>> A 4.5" reflecting telescope, versus a 3.5" Maksutov-Cassegrain? But yes,
>> one can't get a go-to Questar. However, one can get a go-to 3.5"
>> Maksutov-Cassegrain for a better price from other firms, can one not?
>>
>> John Savard
>
>I once watched a rich novice have a screaming fit because he couldn't put an SCT telescope together. That's the audience for this one.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:08:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:16:22 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>> >> >> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
>> >> >> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
>> >> >> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
>> >> >
>> >> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
>> >> >
>> >> >$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
>> >> >
>> >> >As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
>> >> >not interested.
>> >> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
>> >> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
>> >> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
>> >> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.
>> >
>> >It's a poor system from any angle. Jack of all trades, master of none. If you want consistent but mediocre results, it's your scope.
>> I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
>> specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
>> they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
>
>A Questar is an miracle of analog engineering.

A Questar is like a Rolex. A massively overpriced product designed for
a very narrow audience that is willing to pay several times more for
an tiny improvement in quality.

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 23:22:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:08:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:16:22 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
> >> >> >> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
> >> >> >> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
> >> >> >> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
> >> >> >
> >> >> >$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
> >> >> >not interested.
> >> >> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
> >> >> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
> >> >> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
> >> >> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.
> >> >
> >> >It's a poor system from any angle. Jack of all trades, master of none. If you want consistent but mediocre results, it's your scope.
> >> I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
> >> specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
> >> they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
> >
> >A Questar is an miracle of analog engineering.
> A Questar is like a Rolex. A massively overpriced product designed for
> a very narrow audience that is willing to pay several times more for
> an tiny improvement in quality.

Yes, much better to have a scope that depreciates by 30-50% over a couple years, or a watch that does the same.
You can sell an AP scope that cost $995 when new for $2000 now and have it called a HUGE bargain. Why? Perceived value and quality.
Try doing that with Chinese stuff which is at the heart of this thing. And it isn't confined to low-end stuff like the 80mm scope in that $4200 contraption. I saw a fellow
sell a $12,000 Explore Scientific CF 150mm triplet apo for about $6500, and because of the model, it couldn't have been more
than a year old. BTW, the same company is now offering a 50mm scope (the aperture of a FINDERSCOPE!) for $1700.00.
But as to technical quality, the sensor is TINY (like one in an old point and shoot camera) is NOISY and the tracking on the thing apparently isn't all that great. The optics?
No idea what they're like, but probably like any other Chinese 80mm. Oh, Astro-Physics just sold the last run of its 92mm apos (Stowaway) for $3800. Three people sold
those scopes used recently for $5800 on Cloudynights and Astromart.

On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 23:20:52 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:15:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:11:18 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:08:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
> >> > specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
> >> > they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
> >> A 4.5" reflecting telescope, versus a 3.5" Maksutov-Cassegrain? But yes,
> >> one can't get a go-to Questar. However, one can get a go-to 3.5"
> >> Maksutov-Cassegrain for a better price from other firms, can one not?
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> >I once watched a rich novice have a screaming fit because he couldn't put an SCT telescope together. That's the audience for this one.
> And there's nothing wrong with that.

For people who have never seen an astronomical object on anything but a screen, it's perfect. But if someone wants full automation and the ability to direct a scope to
objects and shoot them at will, there are "rental" remote scopes you can now buy time on (BIG scope with first-class optics and tracking) which are a good idea. Not sure
what the ongoing costs would be, but I'd rather spend $4200 on a time-share with a big scope, in a remote location and a top-flight camera than that thing.
Also, just getting back to the Questar; I've owned a few including 2 seven inch units. I've even torn a 3.5 down to its last screw (dummy, probably similar to the target audience of the automatic scope
left it in a closet wet and mold grew everywhere) so I cleaned and reassembled it and the mechanical quality of those things is amazing and unique. Definitely worth the money, plus
you can snag a nice used for about $2200 on a good day. It'll outlast you, probably by a thousand years, the electronic thing won't.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:51:28 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 23:20:52 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:15:10 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:11:18 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 6:08:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
>> >> > specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
>> >> > they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
>> >> A 4.5" reflecting telescope, versus a 3.5" Maksutov-Cassegrain? But yes,
>> >> one can't get a go-to Questar. However, one can get a go-to 3.5"
>> >> Maksutov-Cassegrain for a better price from other firms, can one not?
>> >>
>> >> John Savard
>> >
>> >I once watched a rich novice have a screaming fit because he couldn't put an SCT telescope together. That's the audience for this one.
>> And there's nothing wrong with that.
>
>For people who have never seen an astronomical object on anything but a screen, it's perfect. But if someone wants full automation and the ability to direct a scope to
>objects and shoot them at will, there are "rental" remote scopes you can now buy time on (BIG scope with first-class optics and tracking) which are a good idea. Not sure
>what the ongoing costs would be, but I'd rather spend $4200 on a time-share with a big scope, in a remote location and a top-flight camera than that thing.
>Also, just getting back to the Questar; I've owned a few including 2 seven inch units. I've even torn a 3.5 down to its last screw (dummy, probably similar to the target audience of the automatic scope
>left it in a closet wet and mold grew everywhere) so I cleaned and reassembled it and the mechanical quality of those things is amazing and unique. Definitely worth the money, plus
>you can snag a nice used for about $2200 on a good day. It'll outlast you, probably by a thousand years, the electronic thing won't.
>

What you would rather do is irrelevant to what other people choose to
do.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 22:43:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 23:22:25 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:08:36 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 20:08:29 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 07:09:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Thursday, 16 September 2021 at 09:16:22 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:13:19 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
>> >> >> >> Nikon used to make nice scopes. Then they didn't. I kind of hopped that they'd develop
>> >> >> >> their own line again, but instead they've teamed up with the insta-scope company.
>> >> >> >> Shades of 1980's Celestron catalogs and "amateur astronomers" sitting on well-lit porches with white wine...observing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> https://petapixel.com/2021/09/14/unistellar-and-nikon-unveil-the-evscope-2-digital-telescope-camera/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >$4,200, and the ad doesn't even mention what its aperture is. 80 mm?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Ah, no. It is a little bigger than that. 4.5 inches, so let's be generous and assume it's 115 mm.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >As one can get any number of 200 mm scopes considerably cheaper than that, I'm certainly
>> >> >> >not interested.
>> >> >> Keep in mind you're getting automated setup, goto, tracking, a
>> >> >> complete imaging system, and integrated software. You could put
>> >> >> something similar together for $2K maybe, but there are plenty of
>> >> >> people who'd pay the extra for a system ready to go.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's a poor system from any angle. Jack of all trades, master of none. If you want consistent but mediocre results, it's your scope.
>> >> I have no idea whether it's a poor system or not. But if it meets the
>> >> specs given, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the market
>> >> they're going for. It's certainly a lot better deal than a Questar!
>> >
>> >A Questar is an miracle of analog engineering.
>> A Questar is like a Rolex. A massively overpriced product designed for
>> a very narrow audience that is willing to pay several times more for
>> an tiny improvement in quality.
>
>Yes, much better to have a scope that depreciates by 30-50% over a couple years, or a watch that does the same.
>You can sell an AP scope that cost $995 when new for $2000 now and have it called a HUGE bargain. Why? Perceived value and quality.
>Try doing that with Chinese stuff which is at the heart of this thing. And it isn't confined to low-end stuff like the 80mm scope in that $4200 contraption. I saw a fellow
>sell a $12,000 Explore Scientific CF 150mm triplet apo for about $6500, and because of the model, it couldn't have been more
>than a year old. BTW, the same company is now offering a 50mm scope (the aperture of a FINDERSCOPE!) for $1700.00.
>But as to technical quality, the sensor is TINY (like one in an old point and shoot camera) is NOISY and the tracking on the thing apparently isn't all that great. The optics?
>No idea what they're like, but probably like any other Chinese 80mm. Oh, Astro-Physics just sold the last run of its 92mm apos (Stowaway) for $3800. Three people sold
>those scopes used recently for $5800 on Cloudynights and Astromart.

People don't buy these things as investments.