Quote:
Originally Posted by el_draco
Yes, well, we dont talk about budgets here. Some of us would have paid the mortgage out a LOT sooner but for astronomy... me included. 
IQ? I am assuming you mean image quality. Well, that'll cause a brawl for sure 
Its a matter of debate amongst amateurs that refractors are better than reflectors and SCT's because they dont have the central obstruction of a secondary mirror. But there is a lot more to it than that, including optics quality, aperture, seeing, mount, alignment, observer etc etc etc. You can look at a lot of images from different scopes and make up your own mind on that one. I have seen, recently, some shots through fast 8inch newts that make my jaw drop and images through big scopes that make you cringe. Many factors influence the result.
Most will say a TAK 150 is the ultimate bang for bucks in refractors but the competition aint far behind, and a lot cheaper! (TAK owners, I don't care and I am not telling you where I live  ) but from a beginners point of view, its not an issue; play with the top shelf stuff when you know you are in this for keeps.
I like the versatility of the HD's in terms of Hyperstar options F2, and long or medium focal length, (you can look that stuff up easily) They have a smaller visual FOV but lots of advantages including compactness. My C14 is about 1m long, (try doing that with a big refractor) and that has advantages for mounting.
I have built and used lots of scopes with the exception of an RC., ranging in size from 10"-29" (yes) newtonians; 2"-6" refractors and 8" to 14" SCT's. They all have their merits and image quality can vary dramatically in all of them. My first "big scope was a 12" F5 newtonian, and I loved it to death, (dropped the mirror )
As far as mounts go, for your budget, and acknowledging that my knowledge of most mounts is limited, I would go G11 every time but there will be a range of opinions and some will vehemently disagree with me. History, however, looks favourably on the G11. Look in the equipment and reviews sections. See what others are using / saying. My last scope was C11 on a G11, G2 but I am currently "upsizing" and the dome is slowly rising. If you want to be mobile, I would not go bigger than this.
After decades of this hobby the one thing I have learned, and I still ignor it  , is to keep it simple. This hobby will eat you alive if you let it. |
Thanks again for the reply Rom! Yes IQ was image quality, and I can understand the debate it will cause! I like all the images people have gotten with the C9.25 HD, that is one thing I did was to trawl around and look at what images I was happy with and the ones I wasnt. This was based on looking for basic things like coma, aberration, etc, and then sharpness. A lot of this has to do with the final CCD/camera choice I know, but I simply dont know enough people with scopes or have the time to go to star parties and things.
I really think I want to avoid a Newtonian, primarily due to the sheer size of it to meet my requirements. This will mean I will just look at it, and not ever use it. The same will happen if whatever I buy weighs as much as me. And that would be the worst buy ever since it would basically be a several thousand dollar display piece!
The G11 looks great, I think with the G2 version ill be blowing the budget though. I guess I have to decide on whether go to is really important or not to me. One feature I like is the ability to control the scope by ethernet/internet with the Gemini system though, that is awesome. I wonder if people on the other side of the world would be able to control it that would be pretty cool!
I havent looked into dedicated astrographs, I wonder if that is a route worth considering given that the camera will essentially be the eyepiece...hmm