Re: [APML]: Magazine Reviews

["Bob Freeze" <rfreeze@usit.net>]

The Astro-Photography Mailing List
------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: charles@jon.cjfny.org <charles@jon.cjfny.org>
To: astro-photo@nightsky.com <astro-photo@nightsky.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 1998 5:03 PM
Subject: [APML]: Magazine Reviews


>The Astro-Photography Mailing List
>------------------------------------
>
>Hi:
>
>I've saved most of the magazine reviews shown in S&T and Astronomy
>magazines over the last fifteen years. The fact is that positive
reviews
>are given for the products of less prominent advertisers than Meade.
>These products probably deserve the praise, and the support such a
>review might offer. I do get the impression that with big-name
>advertisers the magazine walks a very tight rope.
>
>The best example was the side by side comparison of  Meade and
Celestron
>SCTs that appeared in S&T a few years ago. The verdict was split down
>the middle, but most people felt that Meade got trashed in this
article,
>despite the fact that flaws were found for both product lines. I
believe
>that one of the initial Meade scopes obtained anonymously was a dud,
and
>S&T had the balls to mention this. I also believe that their honesty
got
>Meade to be more careful with their quality control. Perhaps more
honest
>reporting will get the manufacturers to stop trying to impose
inferior
>quality products on consumers. Meade cannot afford to have its
>reputation trashed without making major changes to its product line.
>
>The most interesting reviews are the ones that offer side by side
>comparisons of  products from different manufacturers. For instance,
>Astronomy compared the quality of 4 small refractors (TV Genesis, AP
>Traveller, Celestron, etc.). The review seemed honest and extremely
>thorough. A rating system was used for the optics and mounts. Great
>stuff! Interestingly, I believe the Celestron won out in optics!
Another
>good review was the "Astrophysics Refractors: Big and Small" in
>Astronomy Magazine. I don't think Astrophysics was advertising in the
>magazine at the time.
>
>The problem, as far as I am concerned, is the lack of quality
reviewers.
>Whether there is a conscious strategy on the part of magazine editors
to
>commission those who may be more sensitive to their advertising
>concerns, is a question open for debate...
>
>Charles
>


For the last few months a few of the folks on this list have been
doing scanner comparisons with a fixed set of test slides.  While it
would be difficult to have a completely objective review, perhaps a
survey of 'scopes and other gadgets likes/dislikes would be in order.
The survey would be with an eye towards astrophotography, of course.

Maybe this would be a way of getting knowledge 'bout those  ugly
little *features* a magazine would never print.

Bob
rfreeze@usit.net
http://www.usit.com/rfreeze
(~36N/84W)