Black list of telescopes

[Bobbyoutback]

I found this Russian site that lists what are the bad scopes , what do you think of the list ;)


http://www.star-hunter.ru/en/black-list/


Bobby

[Atmos]

It kinda just says; "Don't scape the bottom of the barrel, you get what you pay for." :lol:

[JeniSkunk]

The problem with this list, is the date it was compiled. 2015-05-17.
So what new entries would need adding, to bring it to current?

[Bobbyoutback]

Well said !
We need a updated list of these poor scopes , any major retailer still selling these need to know how bad they are .

Cheers
Bobby

[Wavytone]

There's a basis behind that list, though:

a) fast achromats will have lots of secondary colour at high magnifications. OK for a finder, but don't expect great images on the planets or moon.

b) quite a few budget reflectors have cheap spherical mirrors, where the spherical aberration will also cripple them at high powers.

c) use of low-precision plastics where metal is really needed, eg places where the point stresses are high and plastic will deform, and places where accuracy is needed. For example secondary mirror cells, and focusers.

d) hopelessly inadequate mounts/tripods,

e) poorly constructed OTA's.

Fixing these mistakes costs $. Put it another way - you won't get what you didn't pay for - ie quality.

Conversely i'd also argue that crap equipment should never have been made in the first place. It is at best useless, at worst it will disillusion kids when they find out what they have was crap from the start, and its sole purpose was to extract money from parents pockets.

[Bobbyoutback]

Fully agree with what Wavy said !
A recent example of a GoTo mount that can't seem to find things .
I've asked a clever mate to try & find a fix .

He sent the following email today :


Following a partial disassembly I have discovered the fault lies in the drive mechanism to mount fastening devices - ie the scope plastic mounting structure (and Alt drive assembly) is not perpendicular with the AZ drive plate.
The attached image shows the lower cup attachment (metal cup that secures the whole assembly to the tripod) and a dark grey fibre washer.

This washer is the only thing holding the large drive gear to the assembly and also acts as a friction brake to stop overrun.

The larger assembly (main body that precesses) has 3 equi-distant white silicone pads (dots) that act as bearings on the outer surface of the lower cup attachment.

They decided to assist the bearing surfaces by smearing grease ( with the consistency of Yellow Box Honey) on the lands (bearing surfaces)of the lower cup - and subsequently turned it into a high drag surface area. Probably why low speed slew has a hard time moving. (DC motor variable speed and constant torque).

I am now going to remove the outer covers and examine the mountings for the Body to AZ assembly - more discoveries to come!

As a rough estimate and envisioning the 1-2mm deviation of the AZ base) I would give a few arc minutes of error!

[Nightingale]

Just glad that my meade 12inch ACF is not on that list!🤣

[LewisM]

In my experience, ANYTHING made by iOptron needs to be on a list, as well as North Group/ Explore Scientific. Just gad awful.

[JeniSkunk]

I'm glad my SkyWatcher 130mm tabletop Dobsonian is not on the list, as I noted a few other 130mm reflectors by Synta were on it.

What's curious to me, though, is there's no mention of any Saxon scopes on the list.

[Bobbyoutback]

Your scope has a parabolic mirror :) if it had a spherical mirror it would probably be on the list .

Cheers
Bobby .

[multiweb]

:eyepop: my first scope is on that list. Still enjoyed it for years. :lol:

[JeniSkunk]

Indeed.
But it doesn't make sense to me, that at the mass production budget end of the manufacturing spectrum, that they would use 2 different designed mirrors, for the collapsible, and solid tube, 130mm/650mm Newts. It's the solid tube Newts that got listed.

[mental4astro]

I take a bit of a different view on "junk" scopes.

For us who have experience and know what is decent in quality, we won't even look sideways at these instruments.

However, I would dare say that for the majority of people, this is all the scope they would actually need. You can make all your lists of crappy scopes you want, but rightly or wrongly these actually do fill a niche.

The purchasing officer of a big retailer is not interested in astro like we are (I'm not talking astro retailers here). The vast majority of these folks unfortunately are totally ignorant of what makes a quality instrument. ALL they know is sales and that is their only motivating factor - selling bucket loads of product. If anything, these people know human nature better than we here on this forum because they are selling not only what most people will buy, but the very reason as to why - price. And our own astro insight can go take a hike. They may have a few decent scopes on offer too, but there is no actual knowledge that goes into these stock decisions by the purchasing officer - they just go by what range is put to them by a distributor and choose just a few "big and complex looking" scopes for their store. While on the topic, you think there is any real knowledge into what Curious Planet offers scope wise, or that any of their their staff know what an SCT is?

EVERYONE starts out in astro from ZERO. Unfortunately, most people have such a poor understanding of what the Universe looks like through a scope. So, not withstanding what quality of scope they look through, they EXPECT to see the Universe through ANY scope just like a Hubble image. The image advertising spin ALL scope brands push out does not help. Heck, even at outreach events where ALL you will find a good quality scopes, so many people are totally underwhelmed by what they, even through a 20" dob. A "quality" scope will not change things for them. There are thousands upon thousands of SCT's and decent dobs out there, yet the fraction of these scopes see any star light beyond half a dozen times. What good was getting a good quality instrument then?

Many people would do some research into what makes a good scope. Unfortunately for most people they see the price tag on scopes across the quality spectrum and that is as far as their research goes and opt for the plastic-fantastic. Others despite their best of intentions, do their "reading" but ultimately it really is all just gobbledygook because they cannot relate to the info and don't have anyone with knowledge to guide them, so they end up buying cheap. They just cannot relate.

Another person who has a strong desire to look up at the night sky may only be able to afford a plastic-fantastic. They would love to get a better instrument, but no chance because of financial pressures. Damn if that plastic-fantastic would not be treated like it was made of gold, and after all the best scope is the one that is used. Yet how many good quality scopes just end up in a garage after a couple of uses...

A parent who sees in their child a glimmer of curiosity in astro, science and learning, wants to push along this interest, but full well knows that this curiosity can be fickle. They get a cheapy scope in the hope that it will capture their kids imagination. And the rate of that fish biting is always very small, and it will not matter the quality of the scope. Not in the slightest.

And the last point - astronomy is all rocket-science... Most people look at ANY equatorial mount, be it an EQ1 or AZEQ6, and they are absolutely terrified by it! I have seen teachers with 30 years experience who have seen all manner of things (including science teachers! :( ) be totally terrified by the 114 Newt on an EQ1 mount the school has! I mean seriously terrified by it even though they have connections with amateur astronomers (me in this instance). The scope is really nothing more than a decoration that can do nothing more than to "inspire" students as no one will put it to use. I saw that scope over some two years in a school and in the end asked about it as I noticed it just wasn't being used. The teachers told me they were all scared of it! I offered to make a dobby mount for it as I said it is a much easier scope to use. They accepted, and I even conducted an outreach event for that school and that little new dob was also one of the scopes used on the night. To my great disappointment that little dob didn't get used either - now the teachers found the night sky too intimidating :sadeyes::sadeyes: In the end those same teachers asked me to take it and give it to someone who would put it to use.

All too often at outreach I see people approach my dobs, SCT and Mak with great scepticism, mistrust and sometimes even FEAR that these are actually scopes. They can only relate to a telescope as being only what a pirate uses, and that what professional astronomers use is nothing short of "star trek". Many of these people will only ever buy a plastic-fantastic because it is all they can relate to. Very few will stick with astro to progress any further with it, regardless of how good a quality instrument they do buy.

I started when I was 13 with a 2" Tasco refractor that had a table top mount, and really poor eyepieces (I didn't know that then). I cut my teeth with it! I modified it like all heck, putting it on a photo tripod, modifying the tripod to improve its stability, learned to star hop, learned about averted vision. Damned if it also showed me an oh-so-faint tail on Halley's Comet from to roof of my home in Surry Hills in Sydney, and "discovered" Saturn by chance! :clap: :nerd: :love: It was all my mum and dad could afford. I still have that little scope too :) . Yet I know of so many 8" dobs that are rotting away in damp garages... I would have killed to have one of those suckers when I was 15!

Alex.

[Outcast]

Okay, I'll bite...

There are several refractors on the list that I would hardly put on a black list...

Sure, they are achromats.. sure, they show false colour, like pretty much every achromat ever built... so what??

When the stated reason for it being on the black list is...'Fast Achromat' I shrug my shoulders & think... so what...

I've owned a 'fast achromat' in an Orion Short tube which is essentially the same scope as the SW/Synta listed... actually, as an achromat, it was pretty damn good... false colour, yep.. on bright stuff... pretty much like every achromat ever built really... which is why doublets & triplets evolved... to my mind, doesn't make them a 'black listed' scope though...

My little TS Optics RACI finderscope, a 60mm f4 (so another fast achromat) actually produces some stunning views of open clusters, so much so that I'm still toying with the idea of buying a canon lens mount so I can put it on camera tripod to take on plane trips.. doesn't get much lighter & smaller for grab & go...

My point being... 'fast achromat' hardly seems like a solid reason to 'black list' a scope...

Just my thoughts on how objective/subjective the list may be...

FWIW, I don't own any of the scopes listed so, have no self interest in justiying why any of these scopes should or shouldn't be on the list... just doesn't seem to necessarily be particularly objective in some cases nor do they explain in any detail why it's on the list except, perhaps where it's on a carp mount... which I would agree with whole heartedly, having looked through cheap scopes on garbage mounts.. :)

[Wavytone]

Alex appreciate that view, but to be honest the world really seriously needs to stop producing cheap junk that will finish up in landfill or worse, floating around in the sea (plastics).

The short term selfish interests of retailers do not justify destroying the environment.

While on holiday on Lord Howe island - one of the most isolated, pristine marine environments - I conducted a little exercise to see how many macroscopic pieces of plastic haf washed up on it’s shores - about 1-5 per square metre. Pretty sad result IMHO.

[mental4astro]

Gosh, Wavy, plastic lenses and the flow on into the ocean is a bit of a stretch! :lol:

Most of these cheap scopes though are still make of glass and metal. Plastic components are on ALL scopes, cheap and expensive. There are some brands that provide "good" quality instruments, but they are well known in our world as still being a compromise of cheap and quality. But some also provide some real crap with minimal plastic...

I am not justifying retail greed. But it is not reasonable for us on this forum to be all righteous and evangelical by ignoring the realities of the world we live in (commercial, manufacturing and family). We need to keep a sensible perspective on this topic here. There is good that has come about from this cheap stuff, not just bad.

And it really goes without speaking that we SHOULD be weaning ourselves off our dependency on plastic.

[raymo]

Even a budget 60mm frac will elicit a Wow from a newbie when aimed at
Saturn, or even the moon; the biggest problem IMHO is that such scopes
at budget level are almost always on woeful mounts that make it an exercise in wobbly frustration.
raymo

[Bobbyoutback]

Jen ' I think the reason is who's $bucks they are targeting .
You bought the right choice ' did you know beforehand or did research ?

I recently tried out a pair of fixed focus binoculars , the image was crook so I reached for the focus wheel that didn't exit , beats me how these actually sell as they're horrible :(

Bobby .

[leon]

That,s a hell of a long list of scopes but i have to agree with Alexander some of these scopes would suit some people, who just want to look every now and then.

Leon

[JeniSkunk]

I did, what I thought, was plenty of research, checking the reviews, reading about how the various budget scopes performed, and looking for known issues.

The major stuff I was worrying about was how much physical footprint did the scope need. I don't recall any mention of the design of primary mirrors in the reviews, though.

Now that I know a bit more, I know of what other details to check for in reviews. It's like a few days back, when I learned of the Curious Planet bankruptcy closing down sales. One scope I noticed on their site, was the Celestron Travel Scope 70. Reading the reviews turned me off that scope, fast. Cheap defective manufacture, and then I learned of this thread, and found that Celestron is in the Black List.



:lol:
I have to laugh at that. You'd hit the same non-existent focus knob issue on my 10x50 binoculars. They're individual eyepiece focus.

[Buck]

And yet .... my iOptron AZ Pro mount behaves flawlessly. Maybe it knows it has to perform while carrying a certain pre-loved Tak FC-76 ;)

Certainly wish my SW AZEQ5 was as innovative as the iOptron.

Buck

[Bobbyoutback]

Hi again Jen ,
Pleased to hear how doing some research saved you from buying lemons :thumbsup:

Had a laugh back :D when you had the same reaction with your binos 'but at least they can be focused !

Have Fun
Bobby .

[jjjjohn9]

Other problems with the "Black List" are that price should be taken into account. Some of the small low focal ratio (f5/f6) refractors could be ideal starter scopes given their portability and presumably attractive price. Satisfactory Planetary views could be obtained with the addition of a barlow and filter.
The list is quite useful as a guide but would be improved if the criteria were better explained , eg What does "corrector mean?
John

[Bobbyoutback]

Hello John ,
I do own a fast 4" F/5 refractor that's fun to use at lower powers & can show some planetary detail , got it with a AZ3 mount long ago , still cost over $500 at the time of sale .

There are also terrible cheap fast refractors that show rainbow coloured mush images .

Scopes using sub-aperture corrector's needs a longer explanation , try this :

https://telescope-optics.net/sub_aperture_corrector.htm

Cheers
Bobby .

[JeniSkunk]

Thinking about this list, it does make me wonder, is there a similar list for binoculars?

[Bobbyoutback]

Here you go Jen :)

https://binocularsguides.com/binoculars-to-avoid/


Cheers & Beers
Bobby .

[jjjjohn9]

Hi Bobby,
Thanks for your response including the link to the article on sub-aperture correctors
I am just making a comeback to astronomy and needless to say I was way out of my depth in reading that article!
No worries though - I can always refer to it in the future if I really get into the nitty gritty of telescope optics.
Best wishes,
John

[dimithri86]

Hey. Whats the issue with the North Group scopes?

I have the 127mm APO. I am a noob tho, so any apparent problems would probably not be noticed by me.

[Saturnine]

I'm with Dimithri , I also have an 127mm North Group Triplet apo and think it is a fine scope. At a recent club outing, although the skies were smoke affected the seeing was quite steady, 6 / 10 !, so did some double star observing. Pushed the magnification to silly levels of 500X on Alnitak and admittedly the image was getting soft at that mag. but at 400X was damn fine.
Have also compared it along side a club members FS102 at similar magnifications and though the 127mm gives a brighter image the image quality difference was barely noticeable, clean airy discs and diffraction rings in both scopes.
A lot of scopes in the black list are cheap but not necessarily rubbish, they fill an introductory niche that may inspire curious young, and not so young minds to graduate to better gear when they can afford to move upwards.

[Star_Hunter]

Hello from Russia! My name is Ruslan, I am the author of the black list of telescopes on the site star-hunter.ru. Thank you for your opinions on my article. Yes, the article of 2015, but I regularly add various models to the list.



I also want to say that the list is aimed at beginners who need a good telescope with a good image. Fast achromats are suitable for observing wide stellar fields, but the level of chromatism makes them not a good choice for observing planets. The main thing is that a person after reading this article which telescopes is undesirable to buy.

[JeniSkunk]

Welcome to IIS Ruslan! :)
Thanks very much for creating your Black List and keeping it current.

[big-blue]

Alex's two posts on this thread hit the nail on the head for me. I too started with a 50mm refractor in early high school ( in the 70's : without the instant gratification of the internet) and I persevered and it captivated me and started me off on my lifetime obsession.
A couple of years later I 'upgraded' to a 75 mm reflector on a wobbly mount, (which also would have qualified for Ruslans Black list) but it showed me NGCs 3532 and 5128 via star hopping using my trusty Nortons Star Atlas, and also resolved the outer bits of Omega Centauri in my young eyes.

So do not knock the cheap scopes on Ruslans list, as it 'just takes a spark to light a fire' that could last a lifetime.

Also kudos to Ruslan for preparing the list based on common sense principles. Had my parents been able to afford better at the time, Ruslans white list would have made a far better starting point !