Celestron EdgeHD 11" Or William Optics FLT 132 APO

[astrogeorge (George)]

Hi All,
I'm looking to get a new scope, it will be fitting on to my EQ6 Pro mount. My main interest is imaging the moon and planets but don't want to restrict myself as i will want to do some deep sky imaging at a later date. What are your thoughts? I also have the chance of an Meade LX200 10" (EMC Coatings)

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Clearly the Celestron beats the WO in terms of light gathering power, resolution and probably focal ratio and will also be cheaper I imagine. About the only reason to get a 5" refractor is because (like me) you like refractors, although they are somewhat easier to use--few collimation issues, mirror flop etc

[renormalised (Carl)]

Whatever one you can afford, as they're all good scopes. If I was looking at this for myself, then I'd go for the C11 on the basis of light gathering capacity, as I'd be doing quite a lot of DSO imaging. Good thing too, with the C11 or the Meade is their long FL is optimal for planetary work. The apo will be good for widefield work and will give crisper images overall. Plus there's no central obstruction to block incoming light.

Another good thing with the C11 is that it's fastar compatible. You can get a lens system that replaces the secondary that will turn it from an F10 scope into an f1.8-2 scope. This means you can take piccies a lot quicker than you'd normally would. Here's the site to get the lens system....Starizona-Hyperstar

[marki]

Ah guys, you forgot to mention that the RRP on the EDGE HD 11" is about $8000.00 at andrews (ok so the 132 is 6K but..). If you buy it with the mount you are looking at $15999.00. Hmmm . If you are limiting yourself to these two scopes I would go the WO and use the spare cash to buy other goodies. This new system is still to be proven so true performance can be seperated from the advertising hype. Its still a mass produced SCT with a corrector/flattener and a few fans. Seems very expensive to me.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

C-11 (regardless of the variant) on an EQ-6???

....nah....doomed to life of astro-imaging misery.

[renormalised (Carl)]

He's got the mount, so no overheads there....plus he also has quite a few other goodies already. So either way, it doesn't matter...except when SWMBO finds out the $2000 could've been saved in the WO purchase!!!!

Mind you, SWMBO would probably squander that for a birthday present of bling, and wouldn't bat an eyelid...so fair's fair

Although, for $5400 you can get a 12" Meade LX200 ACF OTA from Bintel, and the ACF optics are very good. My 8" is a fine scope and does what I want it to do.

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Although, for $5400 you can get a 12" Meade LX200 ACF OTA from Bintel, and the ACF optics are very good. My 8" is a fine scope and does what I want it to do.

I wasn't going to say that Carl but since you have . As Peter said the C11 might be under mounted on an EQ6, the meade 12" definately would be. The 132 however would be just right like goldie locks said .

Mark

[citivolus (Ric)]

I find the 12" Meade LX200 ACF plus guide scope to be almost under-mounted on a CGE, at least if I have a dew shield on and the wind is blowing, so I wouldn't want to think about a similar configuration on an EQ6 Pro for anything other than planetary. Any future long exposure astrophotography work with an 11" SCT is going to be a bear to learn at that focal length.

The SCT will get you more light and resolution, while the refractor will give you better contrast, less dew hassles, easier setup, less load on your mount, and an overall easier time when learning imaging.

If I only wanted one scope and wanted to do planetary imaging and deep sky visual work, the SCT would be the choice for me. If I wanted one scope and wanted to do wide field long exposure and visual, I'd pick the refractor. Long exposure deep sky imaging though will require more than either one scope will give you. Because of the focal lengths and exposure times involved, either arrangement would need guiding and possibly adaptive optics to consistently perform well at anything over 30-60 second exposures. That was the highest that I was ever able to image at on an LX200 10" without guiding.

Regards,
Eric

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by marki

I wasn't going to say that Carl but since you have . As Peter said the C11 might be under mounted on an EQ6, the meade 12" definately would be. The 132 however would be just right like goldie locks said .

Mark

Who cares what Goldilocks says or thinks....she's just a prissy little girl with the IQ of a glowworm

What would she know

Actually, I was thinking the same thing about the weight....might be a little too much for the EQ6. Oh well, go grab a PME

A 10" Meade of the same model, though, would be ideal....and a lot cheaper than the WO 132, so SWMBO will be a lot happier. That's the deciding factor here (if George is so encumbered).

[AlexN]

I ran a C11 on my EQ6 for quite some time... Worked fine, just required very careful balancing.. Having said that, would I do it again? Probably not, no..

I'd go the FLT 132 purely because if you plan to do deep sky imaging at some stage, a good quality triplet APO will almost certainly outperform an SCT... The meade 10" weights about the same as the celestron 11", so you're not saving yourself anything there..

As has been said.. Starting deep sky photography with a 2800mm F/10 scope is a nightmare.. Trust me, Thats what I did.. It was a hastle. even with the F/6.3 reducer and a 1756mm focal length, you're still in for lots of frustration, lots of hair being pulled out etc.. The upside is this... Once you can successfully image at 1756mm focal length with the SCT, when you finally wake up and realise a good quality APO is going to deliver better images, and you go from 1756mm down to 500~700mm, life will be incredibly simple... setup will be easier, guiding will be easier, achieveing high quality images will seem easier, simply because you're used to tackling big scopes, big focal lengths and zero tolerance to guide errors..

The APO will be more forgiving, more portable, more contrast, tighter stars, less hassles (no collimation problems usually, less dew issues, less cool down time for the optics..)

Once you realise that refractors are a dream, the decision before you becomes infinitely easy..

[renormalised (Carl)]

That's the refractors big advantage....it's more forgiving, for a beginner.

[AlexN]

Apart from being sharper in focus, more contrasty, having a larger corrected field, being easier to handle and giving a more usable field of view, yes the biggest upside of a refractor is that its easier to use..

[renormalised (Carl)]

However, if SWMBO says get the cheaper scope, then it doesn't matter how good the refractor is....it's all a case of "do what your told, or lose a sacred part of your anatomy!!!"

[AlexN]

Then tell SWMBO to stop being a tree hugging hippie ! (Clearly, I do not have someone who must be obeyed... My life is AWESOME!) "Oooh.. I think I want <Insert object of interest here> I'll buy one... "

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'm in the same position....but not everyone is

"Oooh.. I think I want <Insert object of interest here> I'll buy one... "

<Insert object of interest here> = 40" Planewave CDK or 40" OGS RC...but only after I win the Lotto!!!!!

[AlexN]

40" is ridiculous unless you happen to own a mountain to put it on the top of... I'd be happy with a 10" RCOS.. but hey... thats just me...

Oh my... Look at us wandering off topic!

Message to Moderators :
Can we have a "Random Nonsense" section on the forums? I like random nonsense..

[renormalised (Carl)]

40" is ridiculous unless you happen to own a mountain to put it on the top of

That can be arranged