|
I think that a 200mm or 250mm scope is a good visual scope and don't really agree with the comment about using a big refractor instead. They are heavy and cumbersome to move. The also have a relatively short focal length which is fine for widefield views but not as easy to use for high magnification views of deep sky objects.
Mostly photography and visual have different requirements. Choose your visual scope as a visual scope. It needs to be easily set up or you won't bother getting it out. Apeture rules for visual so if you want to search out faint fuzzies then the bigger the scope the better. Goto makes finding things easier but isn't essential.
Photography is a great challenge and lots of people decide they would like to take pics like you can see here on the forum. However there are very different requirements depending on what you want to take photos of.
If you want to take the 10000th pic of the orion neb and post it online then you need a widefield scope. If you want to take pics of planets you need a large, long focal length scope. If you want to take pics of small galaxies to search for supernovas then your 200mm or 250mm scope would be fine.
My feeling is most people get a basic setup to take the standard pics of the small mumber of bright nebulas. They do this and realise that their pics arn't as good as the few very talented astrophotographers on the web. They then have a choice of spending huge amounts of money to get to that level of either give up or choose a different photographic pursuit.
The 200mm scopes are fine but maybe for visual then a 250mm dob with or without goto probably will give you more visual value.
|