scope size

[UK1 (Rob)]

any one know how much better having a 10" newt scope to a 8" newt
is it worth getting as I think it is the biggest I can get on my EQ6 pro mount. pity a 12 inch wont fit

[glend (Glen)]

Buy the biggest aperature you can afford, and physically manage.

[Wavytone]

As below buy all the aperture you can, commensurate with the capacity of your mount.

10" is pushing the limits on an EQ6. It will shake like a leaf.

If this is for visual use a 10" dob would make more sense, or save up for a more robust EQ mount.

[Poita (Peter)]

On an EQ6 you would be better off with a C9.25 or a C11 or Meade 10" than with a 10" newtonian. the 10" will just be too unstable, and I don't see a huge difference through a 10" vs an 8" of similar quality.
An 8" -> 12" shows immediate difference, but a 10" newt on that mount will be more frustrating than fun.

[Nortilus (Josh)]

I had a GSO 8' Newt on my NEQ6 and it was like a big sail...never really steady...ok for visual...and AP only in the windless of conditions...

[Jon (Jonathan)]

All the advice about mounts, SCTs vs Newts vs Dobs etc. is all good. One thing to remember, though, going back to the OP question: the light-collecting power of an aperture is a function of area not diameter. An 8" Newt has a surface area of 50"; a 10" has an area of 78" - quite a significant difference.

A 12" has an area of 113" - more than double the 8" in terms of light-collecting power.

[RobF (Rob)]

What are you going to be doing with it Rob?
Visual, or the "dark side" (astrophotography).




Newt on an EQ mount can be a handful for visual work - eyepiece can get into some exciting positions

If you're doing pretty pics, I'd suggest an 8" is better - less weight, wider field, easier to set up, less counterweights, less stress on mount, smaller focal length (tracking a bit easier). Guys here have made 10" Newts work, but you have to accept the extra challenge. Get enough backfocus will be an adventure on its own too.