Hi all
I was thinking of setting fire to a lot of money but then I figured getting into astrophotography is probably a more efficient way to ensure my continuing impoverishment.
Currently I have a fairly big Dob that only really comes out for Deep Sky trips. It would be nice to have something smaller that is good for Planetary viewing (ie, not having to look through such a large column of air) and also for venturing into astrophotography. TBH, it would be an astrograph first, and a visual scope second.
I'd be looking for something in the 4-6" range I think.
In my reading I've seen that you want to have an Apochromat over an Achromat, and a triplet over a doublet. But at that price, wouldn't a 4-6" reflector be cheaper? I don't mind the look of diffraction spikes. But do the changes in collimation from night to night mean that data gathered on different nights is not compatible with each other due to subtle geometry shifts in the image?
Or would a Cat/Mak style design be better because it's smaller and the shorter tube design has less leverage on the mount as the ends are fairly close to it's own centre of gravity?
I live in the city, so the kind of photography I'd be doing would be narrowband or planetary, methinks. And the portability of a smaller scope is appealing.
I know most people recommend a small 2-3" refractor for starting out because the mount issues will be less, but I fear I may not be happy with such a small scope for visual. I'm considering a Skywatcher AZ/EQ6, depending on the weight of the scope I settle on.
Many thanks. brainy people!
Markus