Mount for first proper telescope

[djm (Damien)]

Hi,

I'm soon to be buying my first real telescope, probably a Takahashi TSA-102. I'm planning on using it primarily for visual observation at first, but would like to do some astrophotography down the road. This is certainly a better optical system than I need, but I'm figuring that it will ast me for life and my children will get to inherit it one day :-)

It seems like the Takahashi German Equatorial mounts for a scope of this weight are approximately the same price as the OTA itself and substantially more if one overprovisions the loading capacity to accommodate finders, DSLRs, etc.

Given that I'm not planning on doing astrophotograpy immediately, I'm considering deferring the purchase of the equatorial mount for later, and this leads to my questions:

Is this wise? Particularly, would I be burning money on a cheap mount that will be redundant when I get the "real" one?

Assuming that it is wise, what would people recommend?

Thanks,
Damien

[niko]

the mount's critical - don't waste your cash on something cheap.

Buy an EQ5 or 6 or some sort of GEM that can carry the weight of the scope and sundry extras. $1500-$2000 or even better secondhand

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

I agree with Niko, Get the best mount you can afford, if you do later on go imaging it will get you started.

Malcolm

[Jethro777 (Jethro)]

I wish I had your scope, lucky thing!

This was a ridiculously good offer and Greg offered terrific customer service.

NEQ6 Pro - $1250

http://www.nvt.com.au/p/2258/skywatc...nc-motors.html

I never even found it for that second hand, except in a crappy condition. I got mine and loved it. Comes with a Vixen Saddle and dovetail plate.

Happy hunting.

[djm (Damien)]

Wow. I'm very glad I asked - this is great advice. Thanks!

One further question. Is it possible to mount a SLR/DSLR on an EQ mount directly? I have some decent photographic lenses that are pretty close to coma-free at reasonable apertures, it would be interesting to try to grab some trail-free sky pictures...

Edit: by "is it possible?" I mean: "is it sensible?" and "what sort of adapters would I need?"

[ZeroID (Brent)]

Originally Posted by djm

Wow. I'm very glad I asked - this is great advice. Thanks!

One further question. Is it possible to mount a SLR/DSLR on an EQ mount directly? I have some decent photographic lenses that are pretty close to coma-free at reasonable apertures, it would be interesting to try to grab some trail-free sky pictures...

Edit: by "is it possible?" I mean: "is it sensible?" and "what sort of adapters would I need?"

Buy (or make) a Dovetail bar. Mount anything you like on it, That's what it's used for.
And the EQ6 is best long term, you won't regret it, although your Credit card might for wee while.
The pain will subside .... LOL

[niko]

yep - piggybacking your camera on to the scope (or even attaching straight to the mount when polar aligned) give some very satisfying results.

I resorted to that after experiencing a host of PC problems - I'll post some when the processing is complete.

You will find that some scope rings already have a 1/4" bolt to attach a camera to, otherwise as advised, a dovertail bar will work

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by djm

Hi,

I'm soon to be buying my first real telescope, probably a Takahashi TSA-102. I'm planning on using it primarily for visual observation at first, but would like to do some astrophotography down the road.

Thanks,
Damien

Hi Damien,

I am going to throw in a totally dissenting opinion here. Whilst the quality of the Takahashi TSA 102 is right at the top of the tree, as far as 4" APO refractors go, it would not be in my first 50 choices as a visual telescope. I have $40k plus worth of visual telescopes and eyepieces and the only refractors amongst them are the finder scopes that sit on the newtonians.

For visual astronomy, the bigger the telescope the more you see. A larger medium quality telescope will show you infinitely more than a smaller high quality one. Further, a telescope that can be very good for imaging can be pretty poor for visual and vice versa. That's not to say the TAK TSA 102 is poor for visual astronomy, it's just very small by todays standards and IMO is really only suitable for lunar/planetary and double and variable stars. This is the main reason most experienced observers and imagers have at least two setups. One for visual and one for imaging, or multiple combinations thereof.

If you are not planning to image at present I would consider an 8" or 10" dobsonian as a starter visual telescope and then purchase the Tak TSA 102 and a good EQ mount down the track, when you are ready to image.

If there are financial. mechanical or ergonomic reasons why you prefer to visually observe with a 4" refractor then I can fully understand. However, if visual observing performance is a paramount consideration, I think you are heading off in the wrong direction and FWIW pointing a fair amount of chaff, in the wrong direction. You can buy an infinitely better visual telescope than the Tak TSA 102 for 1/4 the price IMO.

Cheers,
John B

[niko]

Yep - totally agree with John. I had assumed you were committed to the Tak.

If not, do what many of us did - start with a dob, learn a bit about the sky, enjoy the wonders of its light gathering awesomeness and then either keep it or sell it once the photo bug bites.

That follows my experience - cheap and nasty scope, 8" dob, sold for 10" dob, ED80 and HEQ5Pro for photography, kept the 10" to show friends visually

[barx1963 (Malcolm)]

I am with Niko. I kinda assumed you had committed to the Tak. As John properly pointed out, a small refractor regardless of optical quality is not usually a good choice. Wouldn't be too bad if you have access to really dark skies. For example James O'Meara acheives some great results with 5" and 4" refractors but he does most of his observing at altitude in Hawaii!
For urban use aperure is super important and dobs of at least 8" are usually the best option!

Malcolm

[The Mekon (John Briggs)]

Though I generally agree with the wisdom imparted in John B's posts, I must differ with him on this one. There is nothing wrong and everything right with a high quality refractor as a first serious scope. I was out of astronomy for 20 years (1970 -1990) had only owned small scopes prior to that and not seen much of the sky. In 1991 I ordered and received (this does not happen these days) an AP 130 EDT. With this scope I really explored the skies and do not reckon there is any 8" scope that comes near. A good 10" newt may get close but the stars are still not as sharp. I still have this scope and will not part with it. I found it a thrill to chase down objects with the 130 that the books recommended 8" and 10" scopes for. This is from a reasonably dark location, so if you are observing from a city you may not get such good results.

I now have an 18" SDM. It good but not 3 times better than the 130, despite having 12x the light gathering power.

Yes you can get better scopes than a Tak102 for less money. The range of Stellarvue and Astro-tech refractors immediately comes to mind. Any of these scopes can be considered as "heirloom" and you will want to keep them and pass them down.

My AP130 started on a SPDX mount and now is on an EQ6. I reckon a HQ5 or EQ6 will be ideal for any 4" refractor you buy.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by The Mekon

Though I generally agree with the wisdom imparted in John B's posts, I must differ with him on this one. There is nothing wrong and everything right with a high quality refractor as a first serious scope. I was out of astronomy for 20 years (1970 -1990) had only owned small scopes prior to that and not seen much of the sky. In 1991 I ordered and received (this does not happen these days) an AP 130 EDT. With this scope I really explored the skies and do not reckon there is any 8" scope that comes near. A good 10" newt may get close but the stars are still not as sharp. I still have this scope and will not part with it. I found it a thrill to chase down objects with the 130 that the books recommended 8" and 10" scopes for. This is from a reasonably dark location, so if you are observing from a city you may not get such good results.

I now have an 18" SDM. It good but not 3 times better than the 130, despite having 12x the light gathering power.

Yes you can get better scopes than a Tak102 for less money. The range of Stellarvue and Astro-tech refractors immediately comes to mind. Any of these scopes can be considered as "heirloom" and you will want to keep them and pass them down.

My AP130 started on a SPDX mount and now is on an EQ6. I reckon a HQ5 or EQ6 will be ideal for any 4" refractor you buy.

Agreed John
I once had a 6" AP Starfire, and remember lining it up against a friend's C11 one night-there was nothing visible in the C11 that could not also be seen in the Starfire-its all about CONTRAST! Of course we are talking about the ultimate in refractors.

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

Agreed John
I once had a 6" AP Starfire, and remember lining it up against a friend's C11 one night-there was nothing visible in the C11 that could not also be seen in the Starfire-its all about CONTRAST! Of course we are talking about the ultimate in refractors.

Larry you have picked the best of the best in terms of 6" refractors and compared it against one of the worst 11" telescope designs going; in terms of visual performance. As I said in another thread, SCT's make poor visual instruments for several reasons. Very large central obstruction (33% plus), the thermal cooling issues caused by the closed tube design and the corrector plate; and the additional air to glass surfaces over a newtonian, namely the star diagonal, the corrector plate and in many cases a focal reducer. On top of that these are mass produced telescopes with fast F2 to F2.5 primary mirrors and the optical quality of a great many of them is downright poor.

Try comparing your 6" AP refractor to my 10" SDM (Suchting mirror) or my 14" SDM (Zambuto mirror) on a night of decent seeing and see how they it fares.

I have had my 18" Obsession to 1075X on the Moon and Saturn and my 14" SDM to 800X on the same two targets. The 14" Zambuto would go higher under ideal conditions, but I dont have the eyepiece/barlow combinations to go any higher, without stacking barlows. Try 800X plus with a 4" or 6" refractor and see how nice the image holds up.

Honestly, to think that a 4" refractor is the best choice as a visual telescope for someone who is only going to have one telescope, considering that 90% of what we observe usually are DSO's which benefit from greater aperture, is 1970's thinking at best, or the thinking of someone who needs to sell a Takahashi refractor IMO. Unless of course there are other reasons aside from visual optical performance which need to be considered.

Cheers,
John B

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Larry you have picked the best of the best in terms of 6" refractors and compared it against one of the worst 11" telescope designs going; in terms of visual performance. As I said in another thread, SCT's make poor visual instruments for several reasons. Very large central obstruction (33% plus), the thermal cooling issues caused by the closed tube design and the corrector plate; and the additional air to glass surfaces over a newtonian, namely the star diagonal, the corrector plate and in many cases a focal reducer. On top of that these are mass produced telescopes with fast F2 to F2.5 primary mirrors and the optical quality of a great many of them is downright poor.

Try comparing your 6" AP refractor to my 10" SDM (Suchting mirror) or my 14" SDM (Zambuto mirror) on a night of decent seeing and see how they it fares.

I have had my 18" Obsession to 1075X on the Moon and Saturn and my 14" SDM to 800X on the same two targets. The 14" Zambuto would go higher under ideal conditions, but I dont have the eyepiece/barlow combinations to go any higher, without stacking barlows. Try 800X plus with a 4" or 6" refractor and see how nice the image holds up.

Honestly, to think that a 4" refractor is the best choice as a visual telescope for someone who is only going to have one telescope, considering that 90% of what we observe usually are DSO's which benefit from greater aperture, is 1970's thinking at best, or the thinking of someone who needs to sell a Takahashi refractor IMO.

Cheers,
John B

I would not argue with someone of your undoubted knowledge, John. But frankly I would not want to be bothered with the constant collimation adjustments required with newtonians.
Back in the '80s my 1st scope was a Meade 2120LX3 and I bought an 80mm Meade (Mizar) refractor as a second scope.
I have not owned anything but a refractor since-I just love the pinpoint star images they produce,and the superior contrast that comes with having no secondary obstruction.
These days I cannot manage a large scope, so I have restricted myself to a 4" apo-but I am happy with it.
Cheers
Laurie

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Hi Larry,

There are lots of people like yourself who have observed for the last 30 or 40 years with only a 3" to 6" refractor and been very happy with what they do. Similarly, there are lots of people who have owned generations of Toyotas who are happy to tell you they are the best car money can buy, without ever having driven something else. I am happy to say I am on my 5th Toyota and my next car will be another Toyota Kluger Grande. It does everything I want in a car. However, having owned, or driven as my company car, immediately prior to my current Kluger, a Lexus IS250, A BMW 325, a Peugeot 407, a Peugeot 406, a Jaguar XK8, a Jaguar XJR and a BMW 323; I will be the last person on the planet to tell you a Toyota is the best car you can buy.

Just in regards to your bad SCT experience, there are many people who were attracted to the early SCT's and didn't like them. Some, on the other hand, have stayed very loyal to them. Some of the early SCT's were pretty bad. Some of the F6 variants over the years, were even worse and some of those produced in haste pending the arrival of Haley's comment in 1986 were about as bad as they get. The 2120 was the 10" version which grew out of the 2080. The LX3 mount was introduced around 1985 and ceased around 1987 or 1988, so my guess is your scope was one of the Haley's Comet lemons, further compounded by the issues which inherently plague the Schmidt Cassegrain design.

Cheers,
John B

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

But frankly I would not want to be bothered with the constant collimation adjustments required with newtonians.Cheers
Laurie

Collimation takes less than 2 minutes at the start of each session. Sometimes during the session I will check it again and spend another 30 seconds tweaking it.

Cheers,
John B

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Refractor vrs reflector war! Lol.

Here's my experience over the last 35 years.

My Best view of Saturn ever was with a 7" Maksutov Cassegrain. Closely followed by my home ground and slightly misfigured 39cm f5.4 Newtonian.

Best view of Jupiter was with my home ground slightly misfifured 39cm Newtonian. The Mak wasn't around at the time. Second best view was with a home ground 8 inch F8.8 well figured mirror. I regret selling it.

My best view of any globular cluster was with the biggest telescope I've ever seen through, which is my 39cm. Aperture rules for globulars. I don't care how good the lens quality of the refractor is, with globulars aperture rules every single time.

My best view of most deep sky objects like nebula and galaxies, again aperture rules and so did my 39cm Newtonian.

My best view of the Moon.... to be honest I love the blinding, retina burning, overpoweringly bright view of the 39cm Newtonian. But when I don't want a headache a small refractor will do lol.

My best view of Halley's Comet was with binoculars.

My best view of Comet Hyakutake was with a 70mm refractor.

My best views of the Sun are coming from refractors.

My best wide field photos are from refractors.

Best closer-up for deep sky from large fast Newtonians.

Most convenient scopes to use, refractors and my 6 inch dobs.

I often wish I made a 10 inch F10 Newtonian for planetary use. I'm sure it would have given the best view out of the lot. But they are bit long lol.

[The Mekon (John Briggs)]

I hope we have not hijacked this thread, but here goes.

I really enjoy your posts John & Larry. We seem to be of the same vintage, but I think you blokes may even have a few years on me.

I have not had my SDM long, but hope next winter to present a big test to as many as possible at a major star party. I intend to line up the 18" (Sutching mirror) against the 130EDT. Both will be on GoTo mounts and both at the same magnification - either 75x or 150x (27mm pan, 13 & 7mm naglers)
It will be interesting to compare the views, and how pleasing each view is. My initial impression is that the Starfire 130EDT will not be disgraced.

Hence my support of Damien's initial intention to purchase a high quality refractor.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

What you are saying, Kevin, is that its horses for courses-no one telescope type is best for everything. I still prefer refractors, though.
Had my name down for 5 years for a new Starfire, but will probably be dead before I can get one

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

What you are saying, Kevin, is that its horses for courses-no one telescope type is best for everything...

Yes. That's why we need a dozen scopes.

My favourite aspect of astronomy is photographing comets, so I tend to go for scopes that are best suited to them. For larger comets it's refractors. For smaller comets it's usually fast Newtonians.

But now I'm way off topic. Anyway, in our defense of going OT, I think the scopes have to be decided before the mount. An EQ3 wouldn't take an 18 inch, and an EQ8 would be overkill for an ED80.

I just bought my first mount in 25 years. It's a HEQ5 pro goto thingy. I'm sure I'm too old and senile now to figure out how to use it. So I'll probably be asking for help myself soon.