On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
> Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.
>
> https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2

Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

$6390 only!
Utterly perfect
Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > > Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
> > > Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.
> > >
> > > https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
> > Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630
> >
> > https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE
> >
> > $6390 only!
> > Utterly perfect
> > Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
> The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
🤔

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > > > Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
> > > > Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.
> > > >
> > > > https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
> > > Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630
> > >
> > > https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE
> > >
> > > $6390 only!
> > > Utterly perfect
> > > Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
> > The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

> Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
> 🤔

Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
> > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > > On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > > > > Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
> > > > > Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
> > > > Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630
> > > >
> > > > https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE
> > > >
> > > > $6390 only!
> > > > Utterly perfect
> > > > Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
> > > The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.
>
> > Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
> > 🤔
> Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

Like prostitutes?
😎

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:10:36 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> > > > > > Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
> > > > > > Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
> > > > > Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE
> > > > >
> > > > > $6390 only!
> > > > > Utterly perfect
> > > > > Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
> > > > The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.
> >
> > > Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
> > > 🤔
> > Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

> Like prostitutes?
> 😎

Like just about anything you want to buy...

On Sun, 29 May 2022 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT), palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:10:36 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
>> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
>> > > On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
>> > > > On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
>> > > > > On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
>> > > > > > Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
>> > > > > > Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
>> > > > > Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE
>> > > > >
>> > > > > $6390 only!
>> > > > > Utterly perfect
>> > > > > Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
>> > > > The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.
>> >
>> > > Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
>> > > ?
>> > Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
>
>> Like prostitutes?
>> ?
>
>Like just about anything you want to buy...

Well, for elastic goods, anyway (like telescopes).

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>
>> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
>> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.
>
>The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.
>
>While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.
>
>The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.

There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
into the mirrors).

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
> >
> >> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
> >> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.
> >
> >The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.
> >
> >While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.
> >
> >The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
> There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
> the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
> with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
> larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
> costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
> over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
> into the mirrors).

I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...

On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
>> >> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.
>> >
>> >The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.
>> >
>> >While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.
>> >
>> >The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
>> There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
>> the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
>> with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
>> larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
>> costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
>> over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
>> into the mirrors).
>
>I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
>Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
>Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...

In common parlance, when discussing optics, "glass" refers to the
finished optics, not the raw materials. Sorry for any confusion.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:23:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 13:24:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
>> >> >> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.
>> >> >
>> >> >While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
>> >> There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
>> >> the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
>> >> with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
>> >> larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
>> >> costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
>> >> over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
>> >> into the mirrors).
>> >
>> >I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
>> >Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
>> >Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...
>> In common parlance, when discussing optics, "glass" refers to the
>> finished optics, not the raw materials. Sorry for any confusion.
>
>Well, since scope makers buy very little (as opposed to the amount of fluorite some outfit like Canon uses for it's high-end telephotos) it's going to cost something.
>Further, Christen is said to only accept glass meeting very stringent specs, higher than the average for the ED glasses he uses.

Yes, the raw materials may be very expensive as well. But I think most
of the time the material cost is small in comparison with the
manufacturing cost.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:40:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
>> >> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.
>> >
>> >The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.
>> >
>> >While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.
>> >
>> >The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
>> There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
>> the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
>> with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
>> larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
>> costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
>> over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
>> into the mirrors).
>
>Even with the Chinese stuff, the jump in build quality going from a 100mm refractor to a 110-114 seems to be notable.

Presumably, once the cost of the optics exceeds a certain amount, the
price of the entire system has moved into a marketing category where
most buyers are more serious about things like build quality.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:19:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:33:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:40:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
>> >> >> Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.
>> >> >
>> >> >While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
>> >> There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
>> >> the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
>> >> with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
>> >> larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
>> >> costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
>> >> over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
>> >> into the mirrors).
>> >
>> >Even with the Chinese stuff, the jump in build quality going from a 100mm refractor to a 110-114 seems to be notable.
>> Presumably, once the cost of the optics exceeds a certain amount, the
>> price of the entire system has moved into a marketing category where
>> most buyers are more serious about things like build quality.
>
>Unfortunately, it's meant a measurable increase in weight of the telescopes as well. I picked up
>a 108mm Askar the other day, I couldn't believe how heavy a comparatively small scope was.
>Gone are the days of much simpler, cast cells and focusers and light tubes.

The market is for imaging. And for that, weight isn't usually an
issue.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 10:33:28 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> The market is for imaging. And for that, weight isn't usually an
> issue.

I thought for imaging one could always use a Ritchey-Chretien,
a Meade ACF, or some other design with a large central obstruction,
and the large refractors are for visual observing by perfectionists.

John Savard

On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 10:33:28 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> The market is for imaging. And for that, weight isn't usually an
>> issue.
>
>I thought for imaging one could always use a Ritchey-Chretien,
>a Meade ACF, or some other design with a large central obstruction,
>and the large refractors are for visual observing by perfectionists.

You can. And that's generally the best choice. But people who do wide
field imaging typically prefer refractors with their shorter focal
lengths, despite the loss of light that goes with a smaller aperture.

You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment
anymore.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment
> anymore.

Especially because telescopes like my budget $15,000 25" f5 dob can blow just about any refractor out of the water when it comes to visual observing. How many refractors can bust up Hickson 50?

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:13:37 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment
> > anymore.
> Especially because telescopes like my budget $15,000 25" f5 dob can blow just about any refractor out of the water when it comes to visual observing. How many refractors can bust up Hickson 50?

I can see it without telescopes!
Da!
http://cosmicneighbors.net/m97.htm

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 9:42:36 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:13:37 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >
> > > You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment
> > > anymore.
> > Especially because telescopes like my budget $15,000 25" f5 dob can blow just about any refractor out of the water when it comes to visual observing. How many refractors can bust up Hickson 50?
> I can see it without telescopes!
> Da!
> http://cosmicneighbors.net/m97.htm

It is a booger to see, even under optimal conditions...