Cat amongst the pigeons.... Meade Lx90 vs Newt/EQ6

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Lets talk. See what we can do. You don't have to take all the accessories

[astro_south (Andrew)]

Paul

If you can make it along Saturday night and bring your scope you could give Grant the sales pitch with a hands on demo

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

I'm trying hard Andrew, trust me. I really want to get together with you guys.
Sorry back on topic now

[Iddon]

emailed ya mate

[fringe_dweller]

as is my habit to go on and on - I will do it again LOL! - I have been thinking about the statement that there is absolutely no difference visually between a quality SCT and a quality medium FL (say f6) Newtonian that seems to me to have been made. One BIG difference i have always noticed is the superior resolving power of a newt compaared to my mates SCT - i realise SCT's must have come a long way in 10 years - maybe the modern ones are much better?.
I assume we are talking about they are identical at low power? try this little test when the gods next align and the seeing is extraordinary - what is the maximum magnification you can reach with your SCT? (and still be sharp as a tack - as good as low power is!) Try the moon, its the easiest to test on. I have a number of times seen around 1000X (not a typo one thousand times) using two stacked barlows and my mates quality Masuami (sic?- forgetten how that is spelt?) EP with a few of my mates handmade newts - even with a 6". I have regularly seen 600X achieved comfortably on planets/moon - no problem - steady as - like looking at perfect image - with these scopes. Not everyone is happy with just low power stuff. Cheers
And thnx for humoring me on this
Fringey
Another thing I have noticed is when someone has spent thousands of dollars on a SCT they are very unlikely to admit that it is anyway different to another scope - my mate still wont verbally admit after all these years that his SCT is in anyway visually inferior LOL - he just grumpily changes the subject!
And as one of the legends of Aussie astronomy always says when asking about the quality of a scope "does it resolve Antares (to a double)?"

[beren]

[quote]Another thing I have noticed is when someone has spent thousands of dollars on a SCT they are very unlikely to admit that it is anyway different to another scope[quote/]

noticed its usally a non SCT user that whats to bring the point up

[fringe_dweller]

I admit to being a chronic Dob Snob but i would be a (visually) premium large apo refractor (tak/AP) snob if i could afford to be prolly as well - and i admit when SCT's (or any design just about) get to a large size they are amazing - but we were talking about an 8" SCT at the beginning compared to a similar sized newt.

[beren]

Youll get no argument from me about a quality newts optical performance vs a SCT but the old SCT out of all the designs seems to attract its fair blows to the guts...err tube ...which is contrary ,if you believe the literature, to its 30yr popularity which indicates that users of SCTs see value in the money invested . The optics of course should be the deciding factor but in defense of a SCT i think {my experiance anywhy} a modern, collimated cooled down CAT does a hell of a job and whether its in fork mount or EQ guise offers a lot of advantages as some of the guys have higlighted to Grant .

Cat Snob

[Rodstar (Rod)]

I still reckon for a beginner (like me) it's pretty hard to tell the visual difference between SCTs and Dobs of the same aperture...in the end I'm sure you'll be very happy with whatever you get.

[Starkler (Geoff)]

I look at SCT prices and think of what size premium quality dob i could get with the same money

[Iddon]

I guess its all about the value of the various factors in accord each person needs and interests.