Quote:
Originally Posted by icytailmark
SCT's are the closest to a perfect scope.
|
That depends on how discerning a visual observer you are. If you want one scope for both visual and imaging they are a great choice and probably the best choice.
If you are a specialist visual observer their optical performance level is below that of a premium grade Newtonian IMO. As I indicated in another recent thread physics supports my experience having looked through in excess of 100 different SCT's over the past 30 years from both Meade and Celestron ranging in aperture from 5" to 16". I am yet to look through one that can equal a top grade Newtonian of equal aperture as a visual planetary telescope. They do a very good job of planetary imaging because unlike for visual use the larger central obstruction and increased number of reflective and refractive surfaces does not affect their performance and their long focal length becomes an advantage due to the larger image scale.
I would happily put my money and my 14"/F4.5 Zambuto powered SDM up against any SCT, currently in Australia, in a visual shootout on the Moon or planets. In fact I would happily put my money on Rick Petrie's 14" Skywatcher against any SCT that anyone cares to throw in to the mix. Rick's 14" Skywatcher has a better mirror in it than any mass produced budget telescope has a right to have, but it is what it is. The downside of mass produced scopes, of course, is that you take the good with the bad and not everyone gets a mirror as good as Rick's.
Cheers,
John B