View Single Post
  #4  
Old 12-02-2020, 03:27 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17,903
KAF16200 as mentioned is smaller than full frame at 27 x 21.6mm. Full frame is 36 x 24mm.

KAF16200 is what is called APSh sized and may work with your current 2 inch accessories ("may").

I suggest you wait until you receive it and try it out as it may work as-is.

Matching pixel size to focal length is not exact science in my experience.
Otherwise a 16803 sensor with 9 microns would be hopeless with an FSQ and we know that is not true.

I also get great results with the 16200 on my CDK17 and that samples around .43 arc sec/pixel. That's at my dark site.

So 1260mm would work with it (I have used my 16200 on my 1260mm AP scope and it worked fine, its just a better match with the 16803 9 micron pixels).

But imaging refractors around $6K;
1. FSQ 106 EDX (not the 85mm baby Q which seems to be a rather poor scope). Usually thy sell for a bit more but there is one for sale on this site asking $7950. I had an FSQ106EDXiii and it was great. The latest iv model has a part in the focuser as a solid molding.
2. TOA130 would be superb if you can find one.
3. Don't know about the Skyrover 130 F5 but I can't see it being in the same league as an FSQ or a TOA.
The main complaint I read about the TOA series is they are front heavy, collimation if out is a trip to Japan and they may take a bit longer to reach thermal equilibrium as the 3rd lens is separated from the doublet by a fair distance.
4. TEC140 is an all rounder.

When it comes to selecting a scope I work backwards. What type of image do I want to produce and then what type of scope would produce that. Then which scopes in that category are the best.

Basically most Tak, all AP, TEC, CFF.

130mm scopes have a nice aperture for fainter stuff so the brighter galaxies would be available with extenders like the TOA has.
Your Newt though would tend to outperform a lot as aperture counts for a lot. More important than matching pixel size which is exaggerated in its importance.

Versatility is something I would consider. If you plan on taking it to a dark site portability would be important as well.

Greg.
Reply With Quote