Finally looked through my DREAM scope!

Stu · #1 31-12-2005, 12:00 PM

I have had the chance to look through quite a few high end scopes now. Here are my thoughts on each (note that these are my thoughts only...so there!):

14" Schmitt Cassegrain (LX200GPS) - The focuser has a lot of backlash on these scopes in all sizes. The image was OK for deep sky stuff, venus suprisingly good, ease of use excellent. Generally not impressed with the image though.

18" Obsession Dob - Ummm... I hate to admit it but it is close to the best scope I have looked through (ignoring the diffraction spikes

) at least for deep sky stuff. Optically brilliant and easy to push around which was the most suprising part!

Intes 6" Maksutov Cassegrain - Optically excellent. Can't fault it for a folded optics design. Still a little stray light present but I didn't see it until someone pointed it out to me while observing doubles. Still not as sharp or contrasty as a refractor but it is close. Best value by far.

5" Takahashi FS, APO refractor - Could not fault it in any way. Beautiful to look through, stars were just so pleasing to look at, hard to describe. Brilliant! Getting a bit big though (F8), needs a good mount.

(Sorry about the obvious omissions, Astrophysics, DK Cass, Richey-C, but I have not looked through them)

AND MY DREAM SCOPE IS......(Drum roll...

).....
I've heard a lot about it and it took a little while to find someone that had one, but, I finally got my chance of a life time:

Tele Vue 101NP, Nagler-Petzval refractor - I'm lost for words. I woke up this morning with a happy glow about me that will probably not go away for a while. It is pointless to try and describe the quality but I will give it my best shot. Saturn - 5 moons visible, contrast unbelievable. Inky black sky and the planet looked like someone had draw around it with a black fine-liner. In sharpness there is no contest. I did not think my Panoptics could look any better. Stars just looked like Stars.

Pinpoint. My only complaint was that at times I forgot I was looking through a telescope. I will never be completely happy when I look through any other scope now. The short focal length (540mm) made for the most awesome wide field views imaginable with the 35mm Panoptic (the 31mm Nagler was slightly soft at the edge with a bit of coma, still good though). I'm going to start buying tattslotto tickets.

I can not think of a more enjoyable way to spend my time.

Dave47tuc (David) · #2 31-12-2005, 12:06 PM

Just looked at your thread Stu I was writing this at the time.

Hi All,

A quick observing report from last night. 30th December 2005.
Place, Julian’s. Present me, Stu, and Julian.
Scopes, My Mak, Julian’s 12” SCT GPS. And his Tele Vue NP 101. (See below)
Stu’s WO 80mm on LXD75 mount.

We observed from dusk till 2.30am. Plenty of cloud with lots of clear patches so we got plenty of observing in.
It seemed like we where jinxed! All the scopes played up it was unreal. Mine was only a flat battery. (Doh) Stu’s Mount would not work he kept calm I would not have!
The 12” took a few set ups before it worked. I could not work it out. Anyway mine was ok with a new battery and the SCT was working ok at the end. Only the LXD75 never got going.
Slipping gears I think.

All this gave Saturn time to get high in the sky. All I can say is Stu is Apo stricken.
The seeing was ok, hard to give a number it changed so much. But we where able to use well over 300x in my Mak and a 3.5mm in the Apo.
Plenty of light in the sct but not as sharp as the smaller scopes. We had plenty of eyepieces on hand and they where in and out of scopes faster than I can eat dinner!

I’m so happy with the Mak, it really preformed super on Saturn. I was able to push the magnification all the way even with a 5 mm in a F12 scope! Of course lower power was better. I just sat and really enjoyed the views in my 18 mm Ortho and a 6 mm Ortho in the 4” Apo. Really sharp viewing.

All the eyepieces worked well Naglers Panoptics Ortho’s Plossl’s etc.

It was a great night thanks Julian and Stu for the company. Some of those scopes I mentioned very frustrating. At least two where shinning lights.

Stu · #3 31-12-2005, 02:52 PM

Blooddy grub screw on the RA gear shaft. I will have to drill it out and replace it with a 4mm version and counter-sink the shaft so it slides in and stays there. Just like you said I'd have to do! If only I listened the first time.

The encoder upgrade is on the way from LXD55.com.

Its a shame we all spent the first hour mucking around. I think I liked Julian's 12" SCT better than the 14". I don't know why. I included the 14" above because it is supposed to be a "more" high-end scope. Maybe it's the mods that Julian got done to it.

Gee I love that Apo.

Starkler (Geoff) · #4 31-12-2005, 03:14 PM

With all the mechanical and electrical issues people have, theres a lot to be said for the simplicity of a dob

Stu · #5 31-12-2005, 03:30 PM

I knew someone would say that.

At least my GoTo isn't rusting.

Dave47tuc (David) · #6 31-12-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starkler

With all the mechanical and electrical issues people have, theres a lot to be said for the simplicity of a dob

Are the simple things in life are good.

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #7 31-12-2005, 05:40 PM

What does that say for Davo and his 'All electrified, All motorised, computerised, wizz-bang Dob?

Aaahhhhh! Simplicity at it's finest . . . click . . whirrrr . . click . . buzzzzzz

acropolite (Phil) · #8 01-01-2006, 02:30 PM

They all come over to the dark side eventually...

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #9 01-01-2006, 02:50 PM

Stu,

If you liked the 5" APO over the 18" Obsession 1 of 2 conditions must exist

1) the Obsession has a pretty average mirror in it.

2) you have far different observing preferences to me

The visible detail and resolving power of a 5" telescope is not even in the ball park with an 18" telescope. Yup it will give nicer star images but thats about it.

CS-John B

Dave47tuc (David) · #10 01-01-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Stu,

If you liked the 5" APO over the 18" Obsession 1 of 2 conditions must exist

1) the Obsession has a pretty average mirror in it.

2) you have far different observing preferences to me

The visible detail and resolving power of a 5" telescope is not even in the ball park with an 18" telescope. Yup it will give nicer star images but thats about it.

CS-John B

Had to jump in here. John, Stu is fairly new to the hobby.
He is fairly impressed with all high end scopes. I think what he is saying that the views through the Apo's are very sharp as they would be.
But he has not looked through the 18" very much. Once or twice at most.
If I remember we have not viewed the planets when Stu has been down for a look.

I have looked through the 18" many times and it blows away the apo's no ?
The mirror is spot on. The size of the thing means it does not get as much use as it should.
The 18" is the best scope I have ever looked through.
But I do love the 5" Tak. I see where Stu is coming from. He likes pinpoint stars and viewing the Planets etc. Not that the 18" is not upto it. We could go on about that forever. But the little Apo's where Stu is concerned would get much more use than a big 18"

Hope that clears it up a bit John.

beren · #11 01-01-2006, 04:26 PM

5" Televue or 18" Obsession damn lucky to view through either.......

ausastronomer (John Bambury) · #12 01-01-2006, 04:41 PM

Dave,

I understand where you are coming from and also where Stu is coming from and thats fair enough. I can appreciate that most people find the star images in a quality APO very aesthetically pleasing. I do also, but similarly I don't kid myself on what you can and can't see with a 5" telescope.

I didn't cherish the thought that other newcomers could read Stu's post and think a 5" APO can outperform a high quality 18" newt, which it simply cannot do in terms of its optical capabilities. Sure, its more portable and may get used more and its a better photographic instrument and stars are nice little pinpoints, but in terms of "what you can see with it", it's not in the race against an 18" telescope (even a bad one actually). So I thought it worth clarifying this for those people that may have incorrectly assumed a 5" telescope could outperform an 18" one after reading Stu's post. The NP127 is a great telescope but an 18" beater it aint.

I am sure as Stu gets to spend more time with the 18" scope he will appreciate the benefits of large aperture.

CS-John B

Starkler (Geoff) · #13 01-01-2006, 04:42 PM

I have viewed through all the scopes mentioned by Stu, except for Daves mak. I too arent impressed with the few scts I have looked through.

Julians obsession does it for me

I would own its 16" baby brother if knew I could be bothered transporting such a beast as I dont do much observing from home.
Each to their own as I have never felt a burning desire to own a high end apo, but then if someone wants to give me one i wont complain

I would love to see how a small high quality premium mirrored newt would compare to these megabuck apos.

Dave47tuc (David) · #14 01-01-2006, 04:50 PM

Just to clear up re the scopes talked about.
5" Takahashi FS128.

Obsession 18" Dobsonian.

Tele Vue NP 101 4" Apo.

Yes we are lucky to be able to view through such scopes
I would have any of them in a heart beat. Yes apature rules .
I think thats why Julian has more than one scope.
For me I will to stick with my little mak. Till I can affored my dream scope.

Oh I forgot to say "i now own my dream scope"
I use it more than any I have owned so far

and loving it.

Orion · #15 01-01-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Stu,

If you liked the 5" APO over the 18" Obsession 1 of 2 conditions must exist

1) the Obsession has a pretty average mirror in it.

2) you have far different observing preferences to me

The visible detail and resolving power of a 5" telescope is not even in the ball park with an 18" telescope. Yup it will give nicer star images but thats about it.

CS-John B

I'll have to agree there.

ving (David) · #16 02-01-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ausastronomer

Stu,

If you liked the 5" APO over the 18" Obsession 1 of 2 conditions must exist

1) the Obsession has a pretty average mirror in it.

2) you have far different observing preferences to me

The visible detail and resolving power of a 5" telescope is not even in the ball park with an 18" telescope. Yup it will give nicer star images but thats about it.

CS-John B

nicer star images, but less stars... I guess it comes down to what you want from a scope hey.

an aperture mask in between the vanes will give a nicer star image on the 18" but it kinda defeats the purpose of haveing 18 inches in the first place

if it were up to me I'd have both

Stu · #17 03-01-2006, 07:21 PM

Hi Guys, I say I say, I will probably end up owning a large aperture scope eventually. But that is just an assumption. There are a few "older" people on IIS that have Tak's or whatever and don't own anything larger (it is obvious though, that there is an overwelmling pro-dob majority that vigorously defend the aperature rules rule, and the odd dob extremist

).

John your points are all valid and I think I have far different observing preferences to you or most people in fact.

Don't really need to explain anything but in case anyone thinks I'm odd:
1. Before I bought my first telescope I saw the pictures in AS&T and S&S and thought the pictures taken with apo's were far better than any other telescope type. Especially the short Newts which which showed coma. The major blow was a picture which was done with a coma corrector and I thought it hardly made a difference. The seed was planted here I think. I have no interest in taking up photography. I sit in front of a computer enough already.
2. Everyone had talked up dobs on this site, so I had my hopes up. The first look though a dob (10-12") shocked me somewhat because the really bright stars looked larger in size than the smaller ones and they had huge diffraction spikes. I thought you only got spikes in photo's.

3. The detail through larger scopes (including sct's) was not what I expected and still isn't. Globular clusters are obviously much better, but fussy blob galaxies are still mostly fussy blobs. I don't really get that kick out of seeing them that most people do.

That's about it, really. There is no "I got hit on the head by an sct when i was five and had nightmares ever since story"

. My wife thinks that us astronomers are just showing our typical male traits by saying "mine is better than yours", just like with cars and that other more personal thing. I don't think that is the case (except those extremist dobbers

). I think we are above that and she should just go and more shoes that never get worn.

The view that I get through in apo is just so pleasing. Personal taste I guess.

The obsession has an absolutely outstandanding mirror in it. It is clearly obvious (even to me

) that it has much better quality optics than the average dob, but it is about 50 to 100 times more expensive than the average dob too.

I would never say that I don't want one. It would just never get used because it's too big. Even Julian says his most used scope is the TeleView NP101 and he would never sell it (I know because asked!

).

avandonk · #18 03-01-2006, 08:09 PM

If you like the Televue refractors check out Borg telescopes at Hutech.

http://www.sciencecenter.net/hutech/

The nice thing about their system it is modular you can upgrade an objective say and the rest of your components are still usable. They are expensive.

Bert

Starkler (Geoff) · #19 03-01-2006, 10:35 PM

Theres never really any need to justify liking one scope over another is there?
Its all personal preferences until we start recommending them to others then its

Stu · #20 03-01-2006, 11:25 PM

Hey Bert, thanks for the link, that motorised AZ mount is awesome. I am in the process of motorising my AZ3 so it is good to see that someone sells a "real" one. I shouldn't have looked because I might have to just accedentically buy it for the ZS80...if my motorised AZ3 doesn't work.