What's your scope?

[mick pinner]

everybody wants a SCT. for a scope with supposedly poor optics they sure do sell a lot of them.

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Er, well, one of each, actually... (What kind of sicko does that make me?)

But there is no point in arguing. The best scope is the one you use. Period.

[elusiver]

Originally Posted by Thiink

El: that signature of yours is almost hypnotic late on a Friday afternoon at work waiting to go home.. !

that's what i was going for..

you are getting sleeping.. when i count to 3 you'll do as i say.. 1.. 2.. 3.. now you will send you rigel quickfinder to meeeeee

el

[Starkler (Geoff)]

This be the one I really want

http://www.globaldialog.com/~obsessiontscp/15page.html

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Er, well, one of each, actually... (What kind of sicko does that make me?)

But there is no point in arguing. The best scope is the one you use. Period.

So which scope do you use then?

I'd like to know because the more I use this forum the more confused I am about which scope I want to spend up big on. All I know is that my EQ Newt with spherical mirror is crap when use at more than 80x.

Just this moring I convinced myself that an LXD75 8" SCT was the way to go. It's all too hard.

[Iddon]

I wanted the biggest aperture I can move at home whilst on the tripod, transport in my 2-door car, and leave setup in the dining room without taking too much space. For me this was perhaps a 6" Newt on EQ, or an 8" Meade SCT. Optically, I suspected/assessed similar outcomes with each. The convenience, viewing position and compactness and GOTO of the SCT left this as an easy win to the SCT (for my needs). In think this assessment puts in context the apparent superiority of a pure Newt solution on a similar aperture basis.

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

Have to agree with Thiink on the refractor ..
had a bit of a shootout between our club 6" refractor (skywatcher), LX90 8" & my 10" Dob.
The Dob won out most times, but if we had some keen astrophotographers, the refractor on a pier & EQ mount would prove its worth.
The DSO images are the best with the refractor, to much chromatic aberation on the planets with the refractor, even with a minus violet filter.
The Dob won hands down on views of Mars at 1pm this morning.

[RapidEye]

Rule #1 of Astronomy ---> Aperature Rules!!!
Most aperature for the money ---> Dobson Reflector

Pretty easy equation in my head!

[slice of heaven]

Originally Posted by RapidEye

Rule #1 of Astronomy ---> Aperature Rules!!!
Most aperature for the money ---> Dobson Reflector

Pretty easy equation in my head!

Rule #2
If you dont use it then Rule#1 is negated.

Nice post Iddon, your assessment should be taken into account by others trying to determine which scope to purchase.

[slice of heaven]

Maybe Binos could be added to the poll El ?

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

[QUOTE=Stu]So which scope do you use then?

If my raft was sinking and I had to ditch all but one, I'd hang onto the dob.

[Librarian64]

Originally Posted by beren

Not only do i have a Meade but damn its a Schmidt-cassegrain , must stop enjoying myself whilst using it then

No, just ignore the scope fascists. There's always someone around trying to spoil someone elses fun. I am very happy with the quality and features of my LX90. I wouldn't mind a large aperture Dob, as well, or a high quality refractor. However, I wouldn't replace my scope with any of them as it has obvious advantages over the others as they have over SCTs: they're all good and have their uses. A useful book on Schmidt-Cassegrains which dispels some of the negative myths re: SCTs is Michael Covington's "How to Use a Computerized Telescope". He argues that many claims regarding optical quality of SCTs are simply false or at least very exaggerated. Yes Meade and Celestron market aggressively and have been for 20+ years but having owned a Meade for awhile now it's quite obvious to me they make a quality product and from reading many reviews of older SCTs both companies have overcome problems of the earlier models.

[elusiver]

how do i edit the poll??

el

[ving (David)]

i want this one... it'll show me the universe as i have never seen it!

[Librarian64]

Do You GoTo?by Doug Scobel
Printed in Reflections: January, 2005.
I’m glad I’m not just now entering into the astronomy hobby. With the bewildering array of equipment that’s available in today’s marketplace, trying to choose a telescope and accessories would be a little daunting. Take a look through a recent issue of Sky and Telescope magazine and you’ll see what I mean. You’ll see a lot of very high-end equipment showcased there, with corresponding high-end price tags. And the amateur-produced astrophotos in the back rival those created by the world’s largest observatories as little as 15 years ago. When I was a fraction of my current age, most folks had either a 6-inch f/8 reflector (that they likely made themselves), or a 60mm refractor. Larger and more capable instruments were few and far between. Things sure have changed since then!

Unfortunately, today’s environment can sometimes elicit one of two responses. The first says “Gee, I can’t afford all that. Don’t you need a $4000.00 apochromatic refractor, with a GPS-equipped, motorized, go-to mount that can locate one of 10,000 celestial objects with the push of a button? Oh, yeah, and don’t you also need a handful of those ultra-wide angle, multiple element eyepieces that cost more money and have more glass in them than some entire telescopes, and would break your foot if you were unfortunate enough to drop one on it? And don’t forget the filters, sky charting software, the laptop computer on which to run it, and the CCD camera. I’ll never be able to enjoy the night sky, or create such images, as those guys. What could I possibly do on my meager budget?” Some of these folks get intimidated and decide that perhaps amateur astronomy is not for them.

Perhaps worse, some folks, often the old-timers like me (did I really just call myself that?), wonder if those lucky few who can afford such equipment are somehow “cheating,” that they haven’t really “paid their dues,” and that astronomy done the “old fashioned way” just doesn’t measure up in this day and age. “Why, in my day, we had to observe in the snow, barefoot. We couldn’t afford eyepieces, we just cut the bottom out of a Coke bottle and looked through that. Our telescopes didn’t have a tube or even precision mirrors, we had to prop a shaving mirror against a fence post. Why, we were so poor we didn’t even have stars! And we were thankful!”

OK, maybe I’m going to extremes, but some folks do get a little rankled about how “easy” it is today. I’ve seen plenty a post to the online forums on this very subject. Some actually think it’s somehow bad for the hobby.

Now, I would say that it’s neither good nor bad - it just is. People have more disposable income now, and so at the high end you’ll see the results of those who have the most to spend. But in no way does that take anything away from those who have to do everything with less. In a sense it’s true our results depend on what we spend, but it has little to do with money.

Like me. All of my equipment is home-made, the 6-inch f/8 (w/ homemade primary) I made while in my teens, the 13-inch f/4.5 dob that I’ve used now for nearly 20 years, a homemade barn-door camera platform, and the 8-inch f/8 (also with homemade primary) I just completed a couple summers ago. No drives, no equatorial platforms, no thru-the-scope long-exposure photography, no go-to, no digital setting circles, all visual. Yet I’ve logged nearly 800 deep sky objects (not counting double stars), observed all the planets, observed sunspots, observed lunar and solar eclipses, observed, sketched, and photographed several comets, made several observations and sketches of Mars, photographed auroras, done wide-field sky photography, and finished the Herschel 400 list using only finder scope and star charts. And I’m sure that there are many of you reading this that have done as much, if not more.

But does someone posting fantastic photos made with expensive equipment that they purchased rather than made somehow diminish what you or I have done by more modest means? No way. Yes, they can do things that I can’t do, but I can say the same about them. Frankly, I enjoy immensely the amateur images seen recently in Sky and Telescope they are truly amazing in many cases!

At the same time, while I have to admit that the “new school” methods are often “easier,” I’m not sure that they are therefore invalid. After all, all of us stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before us. I certainly didn’t figure out how to make a precision mirror by myself. I didn’t draw up my own star charts. When I was making my first six inch scope, my dream was to someday own a 10-inch. Today my 13-inch is considered mid-size at best. None of us figured out how to do all this by ourselves. We all have Galileo, Isaac Newton, Leon Foucault, Jean Texereau, Wil Tirion, John Dobson, Al Nagler, and countless others (including some Lowbrows!) to thank.

Truth be told, when my financial situation is such that I can choose to afford more advanced equipment, then I’ll be “moving up” myself!

I guess what I’m trying to say is that no matter the era in which one starts, the state of the art is what it is. No one suggested to me when I made my first mirror that I ought to make it out of speculum metal or it’s not real mirror making!

I think there’s room in this hobby for everyone - old or new school. It’s still the same subject. And I think that’s good!

http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/refle...scobel.19.html

[beren]

there's little to gain in any scope design debate because its very individualistic but i doubt 30 yrs of aggressive marketing by 2 great companies {thankful i live in a era where scopes of a certain aperture and sophistication can be engineered at a relatively affordable cost } could insidiously decieve the market, there has to be merit to the value of the SCT to justify the sales ,for a average Joe like me it fits the bill . Phil Harriginton does mention later in his fantastic book {hope his publishers can get the next edition out soon} that the quality standard by Celestron/Meade in there range of SCTs in recent years has impressed him .I my CAT

[ving (David)]

too right beren, its a bit of ford vs holden really or apples vs oranges. it all depends on wht you as an individual want.

[rumples riot]

Seeker you are very funny. You wanted a bite; well here it is. Yeah we might have less contrast and slower photographically but we have other advantages.

1. SCT's have a folded design, meaning the light path is folded. This means that it is smaller and therefore more compact and portable. You put your entire scope into the back of your car. You don't need to break it down into a many pieces for it to be transported. Just two. The tripod and the scope. Or in the case of a SCT on an EQ mount 3 pieces.
2. With the folded design we have greater focal lengths. 2500mm with a 2.5 powermate produces large image scale. This means our images of planets are bigger than any other scope. An SCT wins hands down here.
3. SCT designs are great for doing planetary work. The images are very sharp. Assuming you keep your collimation under control.
4. We don't get coma, nor do we suffer from chromatic aberration. Well, not like other scopes.
5. Easier to collimate, well relatively. We can't use a laser (believe me I have tried), but at least we only have three knobs to turn.

Yes while there are some down sides to owning an SCT, there are just as many reasons to own one. I don't agree with optical performance arguments. Yes they are slower, but you only have to look over the net and see that the majority of good quality DSO imaging is done by Cassegrain type scopes.

I like my SCT but wish for a RCX400. Another cassegrain.

[slice of heaven]

Aaahh the Hatfields and McCoys are at it again.
The only major point you've raised thats valid Paul is the tube length, because of the folded design the SCTs ,they are more compact and portable for the same F ratio.
Newts can be any F ratio you want to make them. So no , The SCTs dont win hands down, as an F10 cat or newt is still F10, except that the newt has less deterioration imagewise because of the optical configuration,and a longer and more difficult to use tube. An off-axis newt takes it one step further and deletes the coma problem fairly well and reduces the central obstruction completely.An Off-axis newt doesnt have the CA problem associated with a refractor either, which puts it in a more accessible range financially than a top of the range Apo.
But optical performance is only one part of the equation on which scope is the right scope for an individual . Portability , ease of operation , price, storage and a host of other points need to be taken into consideration.

[rumples riot]

Exactly Slice, I love the optical design I have even when its flaws give me the sts.

Hey BTW are you coming to the Sept 10 viewing night?