8 times better than a Ritchey-Chretien ?

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

I think RC is a bit of puffery these days, was the best in days gone by, but corrected designs are so good these days it's not worth the extra money IMO. But, There's always the placebo effect and "bugger the money I want the best" there's ALWAYS a market for that. Look at Marcus's Stella officiana RC, it's just amazing and utterly drool worthy, that can seriously make the ownership/imagining experience well worth the extra bucks. This is a hobby, how you feel about it alone can make ALL the difference.

Yes & with the usual ordinary seeing conditions I am happy
with just using a Newt. and a 3 element coma corrector.
RCs & other high tech designs can only take advantage of top seeing in my humble opinion.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Hard to tell if true or not. I believe he would be achieving better spot sizes. Phillip Keller is very good at optics.

There is an astrophotographer up at Cairns who got one of his large scopes.

Greg.

Really?

Do you have a link to his images?

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by alpal

Yes & with the usual ordinary seeing conditions I am happy
with just using a Newt. and a 3 element coma corrector.
RCs & other high tech designs can only take advantage of top seeing in my humble opinion.

Of course, seeing is the killer, a rational decision to be sure.

Tell you what though, having a Ferrari parked in the garage, and cruising down to the shops for milk in it is pretty cool .

Then jus sometimes, you get to take it on a country trip and wet yourself.

Those rare still skies even urban bound, are a treat.

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by alpal

Yes & with the usual ordinary seeing conditions I am happy
with just using a Newt. and a 3 element coma corrector.
RCs & other high tech designs can only take advantage of top seeing in my humble opinion.

It is unlikely an RC with corrector gives you any tighter images than your corrected Newt.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Of course, seeing is the killer, a rational decision to be sure.

Tell you what though, having a Ferrari parked in the garage, and cruising down to the shops for milk in it is pretty cool .

Then jus sometimes, you get to take it on a country trip and wet yourself.

Those rare still skies even urban bound, are a treat.

Yes - seeing is everything.
When I first got my Newt. 4 or 5 years ago - I looked at Jupiter
many times & all I saw was a fuzzy ball with a few lines across it.
I thought something was wrong with it till I took
it to Mt Baw Baw at nearly 5,000 feet altitude & behold -
Jupiter snapped into view sharp & crystal clear at over 300 magnification.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

It is unlikely an RC with corrector gives you any tighter images than your corrected Newt.

Yes - then we are in agreement.
Look at the pics Mike gets with his AG12 Newt. - just amazing.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

As I suspected, I was being flippant, makes total sense, even though I dont know much about this stuff really.

I'm hosted in very dark skies now, so I just live in a ego tripping world of hope and expectations with what I have

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

As I suspected, I was being flippant, makes total sense, even though I dont know much about this stuff really.

I'm hosted in very dark skies now, so I just live in a ego tripping world of hope and expectations with what I have

Still nice to have a telescope as good as yours.

[gregbradley]

Its also unlikely you can do long exposures on a corrected Newt with a 16803 camera without severe flexure. Newts are great but having a focuser sticking out the side of the tube is an engineering nightmare. Perhaps one Isaac did not forsee!

Greg.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Its also unlikely you can do long exposures on a corrected Newt with a 16803 camera without severe flexure. Newts are great but having a focuser sticking out the side of the tube is an engineering nightmare. Perhaps one Isaac did not forsee!

Greg.

True -
many people have trouble mounting a tank like that on any telescope.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

I must say, the RCOS is built like a tank and weighs like one too. You get of various length spacers with it that are engineered so close that they are next to impossible to unscrew when done up.But they are stupidly stable and anything hangs off the end with no flex. I've seen many neut setups with side mounted cams that just swung in the breeze. A notorious video of a 16803 mounted to an ASA neut showed many mm of flex just leaning on it a bit, what a disaster. 14 rolls of seletape around the whole shebang was required just to make it usable. That side mounting stuff must be a nightmare to manage.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

I must say, the RCOS is built like a tank and weighs like one too. You get of various length spacers with it that are engineered so close that they are next to impossible to unscrew when done up.But they are stupidly stable and anything hangs off the end with no flex. I've seen many neut setups with side mounted cams that just swung in the breeze. A notorious video of a 16803 mounted to an ASA neut showed many mm of flex just leaning on it a bit, what a disaster. 14 rolls of seletape around the whole shebang was required just to make it usable. That side mounting stuff must be a nightmare to manage.

Yes - you get what you pay for.
An RCOS can handle a big camera with ease.

A QHY9 is more than enough to hang on my Newt.

[Satchmo]

Orion UK seem to have the stability of the camera /focusser controlled on the Newts with the use of bulkheads either side of the focusser - see Mikes scope for example.
Avoid their CDK's though - there are examples that have serious issues.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by alpal

Yes - then we are in agreement.
Look at the pics Mike gets with his AG12 Newt. - just amazing.

Well, yes and no...on axis it's a piece of cake.....but...the edges of his 16803 fields were proving troublesome.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Its also unlikely you can do long exposures on a corrected Newt with a 16803 camera without severe flexure. Newts are great but having a focuser sticking out the side of the tube is an engineering nightmare. Perhaps one Isaac did not forsee!

Greg.

You are kind of right Greg. With the big heavy PL16803 + Atlas focuser and CFW-5-7, on the AG12 I had to limit subs to 5min and even then I could see diff flex more often than I would like but much of this problem was really due to the size of my guide scope (ED80) and how I had it mounted to the system (ie rather poorly ) ...now that I have an OAG as part of the SX gear (all be it a much lighter system at 1/3 the weight) I can really see that when I eventually return to using the 16803 on the AG12 again I will be fitting a MMOAG in the image train..I think it, along with the camera and filterwheel, can just fit within the 79mm back focus.

Mike

[dvj (John)]

I was able to use a separate guide scope on my ASA N12 for 30 minute subs - no problem. That was with the STL11000 hanging off the side. the larger problem was enabling good collimation.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by dvj

I was able to use a separate guide scope on my ASA N12 for 30 minute subs - no problem. That was with the STL11000 hanging off the side. the larger problem was enabling good collimation.

You may have had your OTA and guide scope attached more optimally than I John? For the very best results, I also think an image plane tilt unit is something that needs to be incorporated into these fast scopes and big chips.

Mike

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

In the end there are a lot of people who search high and wide or wait yeeears and pay big dollars for that supposed perfect system (in their eyes) and along the way worry about every little nuance (perceived or real) but sadly even once they have found that seemingly holy grail get little or have nothing to show in the way of amazing images...in the end, is it really worth all the procrastination...an odd star shape at the edge of your field will not leap out and stab a dagger in your heart

Mike

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

In the end there are a lot of people who search high and wide or wait yeeears and pay big dollars for that supposed perfect system (in their eyes) and along the way worry about every little nuance (perceived or real) but sadly even once they have found that seemingly holy grail get little or have nothing to show in the way of amazing images...in the end, is it really worth all the procrastination...an odd star shape at the edge of your field will not leap out and stab a dagger in your heart

Mike

Very true. All scopes except Astrophysics ones have shortcomings of one type or another.

The fun is getting out and producing some images you are happy with.

The good news is the cost of quality scopes seems to have dropped a lot over the last 5 years. Perhaps this is why RCOS had trouble. High end high priced gear in a falling price market place with viable cheaper alternatives with too similar performance.

Greg.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Very true. All scopes except Astrophysics ones have shortcomings of one type or another.

The fun is getting out and producing some images you are happy with.

The good news is the cost of quality scopes seems to have dropped a lot over the last 5 years. Perhaps this is why RCOS had trouble. High end high priced gear in a falling price market place with viable cheaper alternatives with too similar performance.

Greg.

Not only that - whatever you buy there will always be something bigger & better.