Should the 6" GSO RC be overlooked?

toryglen-boy (Duncan) · #1 18-01-2010, 11:39 AM

Howdy

Like anyone else who images (although i suck!) at some point, thoughts turn to something with moer focal length, with the idea of capturing smaller images.

The 8" GSO RC looks good, although its not without its issues, and i was thinking, should the 6" RC be overlooked? smaller, less strain on the mount, and should have a large enough aperture to capture most objects, but the big difference is the price.

any opinions anyone?

TrevorW · #2 18-01-2010, 01:18 PM

Hi Duncan

Personally I wouldn't bother with the 6"

it's all about aperture as far as RC's go IMO

Moon (James) · #3 18-01-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Personally I wouldn't bother with the 6"

Agree.
6" (i.e. small) + f9 (i.e. slow) + large central obstruction = very slow going.
If you were to look through one in daylight, you would be surprised how dim the view is.

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #4 18-01-2010, 02:05 PM

The central obstruction is the killer, close on to 30% if I remember correctly. So what you are really getting is a 4" scope.
But then, if you compare the price to that of a good 4" apo of the same focal length, and the added extras you need to buy for it, you are still a few hundred dollars in front.
So yes, it is a viable alternative to the refractor.
LOL I think I've talked myself into buying one.
Thanks Duncan.

I've always thought these were cute too. Ideal for solar system work. And only $500.
http://www.myastroshop.com.au/produc...sp?id=MAS-066A

gbeal · #5 18-01-2010, 02:14 PM

The Scrooge in me asked the same question Duncan, and I got in the end a 4" apo. Easier to use (no collimation woes) etc.
Like has been said the 8" is a different story.
In my case I went to a 7" Maksutov instead of the R/C (and also the VC200L). Partly as I am a Mak freak from way back, but also I figured that as an all rounder the Mak had more appeal, lunar and planetary as an example.
Sounds like you could scope-share with JJJ though, LOL.
Gary

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #6 18-01-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbeal

Sounds like you could scope-share with JJJ though, LOL.
Gary

Sounds like a plan... tell you what Duncan, you can have it from September through to March and I'll have it the other six months. So you can use it first ok.

TrevorW · #7 18-01-2010, 02:21 PM

A 6" RC would be in no way comparable to a 4" APO IMO, if imaging is the name of the game and you are chasing those smaller targets then aperture rules

JethroB76 (Jeff) · #8 18-01-2010, 02:22 PM

Bit OT but the Vixen VMC110 doesnt get great reviews from what I've seen

gbeal · #9 18-01-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrevorW

A 6" RC would be in no way comparable to a 4" APO IMO, if imaging is the name of the game and you are chasing those smaller targets then aperture rules

Help me out here Trevor.
We are talking a 6" R/C with ~50% C/O, and a 4" apo, both with similar F ratios, correct?
You are saying the 6" is in no way comparable, how?
Gary

toryglen-boy (Duncan) · #10 18-01-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

Sounds like a plan... tell you what Duncan, you can have it from September through to March and I'll have it the other six months. So you can use it first ok.

You're all heart mate! wouldnt we have a fight over who had it at Christmas and school holidays?

i was thinking of something with more FL, i have discovered i like taking pics of galaxies, so i need something to suit

TrevorW · #11 18-01-2010, 03:00 PM

Sorry Gary not the thread to get into the old APO vs reflector debate

suffice it to say looking out all the reknowned imagers they are primarily using APO refractors or larger aperture short FL RC's or a combination of both

toryglen-boy (Duncan) · #12 18-01-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Sorry Gary not the thread to get into the old APO vs reflector debate

suffice it to say looking out all the reknowned imagers they are primarily using APO refractors or larger aperture short FL RC's or a combination of both

i hear you Trev, and i agree, not the place to open that sort of can of worms, but i digress. i was jsut after opinions to see if the size was viable.

i love my little ED80, and would never part with it, but i fear i am looking for something around F9 or F10.

TrevorW · #13 18-01-2010, 03:38 PM

Hey Duncan could I suggest going to all the known websites and seeing what is being used to capture these images especially if you aim is for galaxies

Remember its' not allways about how long it is, this website may be of interest too you

http://msfastro.net/articles/gso_tec...c_compare.html

Cheers and good hunting

gbeal · #14 18-01-2010, 05:51 PM

Yes Trevor I agree too. I'll refrain from biting, LOL.
Good luck Duncan, the slope gets steeper from here, bigger scope, bigger mount, more money ad nauseam, LOL.
Gary

ericwbenson (Eric) · #15 22-01-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbeal

Help me out here Trevor.
We are talking a 6" R/C with ~50% C/O, and a 4" apo, both with similar F ratios, correct?
You are saying the 6" is in no way comparable, how?
Gary

Ignoring Pi, 6*6 - 3*3 = 27 sq. in. versus 4*4 = 16 sq. in.
So the RC has 1.7 times more light grasp. About the same as going from a 3" refractor to a 4".

EB