Hi Robz,
Your initial request for information is an interesting contrast compared to your latest post on this thread.
You initially asked members of the forum for advice based on their experience with different scopes of different size, quality optics, design etc for planetay use.
A lot of members have posted some great comments and recommendations based on their experiences.
If you already had all of the sage experience and opinions in the first place (like your last post implies) why ask for help then put others systems, recommendations and opinions down???
I am sure we are all just trying to help give you the advice you initially requested.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by robz
O.K guys, for as long as I can remember, I have allways wanted to be able to visually examine details in planets : the intricate structure of the belts and ovals on Jupiter and variations in the rings of Saturn.........bla, bla, bla,............you know what I mean 
I am fully aware that seeing conditions play a big part in this particular field and know that some scopes need to be perfectly collimated/cooled down etc. to stand a chance at revealing any of the fine details I'm after.
I am also aware that what one sees through the eyepeice is not necessarily the same as what is captured and stacked with expensive astro cams and software  .
After my last humorous and light hearted post, I thought I might ask for some honest opinions from those who have owned the many various scopes available to the amateur astrononer and are aware of the different performance levels and the reality of what to expect 
The questions are as such :
does aperature still rule in revealing planetary details 
How does a 12 inch SCT compare against a 12 inch or even a 16 inch dob at the same magnification Does the dob/newtonian need spectacular optics to begin to approach the SCT
Will a 4-5 inch good/medium quality(and price) APO or ED refractor cream all the above at the same magnification
Last of all, are high quality, small aperature(compared to the sizes mentioned above) refractors the ''ultimate'' for planetary viewing or is this just wishful thinking
Love to hear your thoughts 
Rob. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by robz
Oh God................................ .............somebody kill me.................please?......... ......  
I guess we all know the truth don't we?................but most are afraid to admit it(read on below), and some have secretly regretted upping their aperture because of the highly contageous ''A.F'', and have ended up with an expensive and possibly dissapointing giant bucket of fiddly glass and metal with the dreaded ''central obstruction'' and the contrast loss as a consequence?
Say what you like about the beloved newtonian, but I hate them........especially the long F ratio ones.........the ''cannons''.
I have owned real big ones and have an 8 inch now - as mentioned (you should see the obstruction on this one..........you can hardly see the primary through the draw tube!)..........no wonder my 60mm refractor can match it in the planetary department 
As an Audiophile and having built my own amplifiers and speakers, the K.I.S.S. principle was no myth.It obviously also applies to the optical chain in a telescope doesn't it??? 
I now realise that large aperture may be of some benefit to see brighter fuzzies, but I have never seen a newtonian produce visual fine detail no matter how perfectly collimated, optically brilliant or cooled to within the required 0.5 degrees(!!!!)
I personally do not wish to at any time, set up the scope at breakfast or wait hours for the optics to cool down(fan assisted or not)....this is insanity.................surely?
K.I.S.S..........keep it simple stupid = REFRACTOR |