> Tell you what sport--you have an interesting definition of "ultimate".
> If you can't see the contradictions in the Star website claims, I can't
> help you. You seem to be saying the more expensive RCOS scope is for
> both visual and astropics unlike the cheap, Pyrex RC version which is
> for astropics only. Don't you have that backwards??
> And I have two new defendants for the Star and RCOS racketeering
> lawsuit---Sky & Telescope magazine and its senior editor, Dennis di
> Cicco. Dennis's 6 page review in the Febuary 2006 issue is a glowing
> report on the RCZ400, taken from "5 months of work with the scope,
> producing hundreds of astropics".
> Have you ever even seen one?? I'll bet not and I know Dennis has
> forgotten more about telescopes than you will ever learn. His first
> paragraph in his review says it all:
> "With its radical new optical design.... the RCX400 is as revolutionary
> today as the Schmidt-Cassegrain was when it was introduced.......the
> RCZ 400 line....fills a significant gap that EXISTED BETWEEN SIMILAR
> APERATURE SCHMIDT-CASSEGRAINS AND CUSTOM-MADE RITCHEY-CHRETIEN
> REFLECTORS. AND WHILE THEY ARE PRICED LIKE THE FORMER, THEY DELIVER
> PERFORMANCE LIKE THE LATTER.
> Dennis is just another Meade shill, right? I would invite anyone in
> this group to refer me to their website where they are getting better
> results with their astropics than Jason Ware is getting with his
> RCX400. See www.galaxyphoto.com. Dennis and Jason have probably done
> more to sell the RCX400 scopes than all the ad copy out there.
> Only an idiot would buy a scope of this quality, believing it was a
> "pure" RC and equal to the RCOS $50,000 version. It is damn close
> however; close enough perhaps to slow down the RCOS and Star
> You "experts" who have never had your hands on real high-end equipment
> OR produced any really good astropics are a joke.
> Melweaver wrote:
> > I refuse to stoop to M104's level with unfounded personal attacks. He
> > probably doesn't even know who Paul Jones is. And, yes, Paul is still
> > personally grinding and polishing mirrors. I spoke to him personally
> > when inquiring about the astrograph.
> > Note that the Astrograph is made from Pyrex and the prices reflect
> > that. The professional series is made from AstroSitall (a zero
> > expansion glass equivalent to Zerodur and ULE) and prices reflect
> > that. Astrographs are for astrophoto use only and RCs are for
> > photo/visual use - thus the difference in quality and price.
> > Meade and Celestron use Pyrex and claim diffraction limited. Star also
> > claims diffraction limited using Pyrex. "Ultimate" in this
> > case is justified because it has the flattest field of any production
> > cassegrain currently on the market without the use of a field
> > flattener and NO
> > COLOR.
> > M104? Are you really Mr. Murdock????????
> > ---------------------------
> > Posted via http://www.AstroForum.it
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Sky and Telescopes current demand profit, Meade is Sky and Telescopes
largest advertiser, Dennis works for Sky and Telescope. Can you connect
As for Meade and innovation I remind the gentle reader about MEade and
"One of the first prominently ugly episodes in the business side of
amateur astronomy happened in 1985 when Meade took the TeleVue eyepiece
concepts and designs which were available at the U.S. Patent office and
then arranged to have the entire TeleVue eyepiece product line
essentially mimicked one for one at a factory in Japan. The external
similarities of what would be marketed as the Meade "Series 4000" were
obvious: for TeleVue Nagler 4.8 mm, 7 mm, 9 mm, 11 mm, 13 mm Nagler
Meade introduced 4.7 mm, 6.7 mm, 8.8 mm and 14 mm "Ultra Wide" (which
ironically is the title of the Nagler Patent). Similar duplication of
the other TeleVue oculars by design concept, and focal length were done
from the 7.4 mm Plossl up to the 55 mm Plossl (where Meade claimed a 56
mm), and the TeleVue "Wide Field" series. And for every proven
performance specification published by TeleVue, the many pages of Meade
product advertisements claimed an improvement" "Regardless of Meade's
marketing efforts. the amateur astronomy community generally preferred
TeleVue. To some degree this was a loyal response to Al Nagler who is
perceived as the true innovator and a fellow observer "