Just spitballin' an idea

[matt]

Thanks, Ian. Very tempting.

Wouldn't mind seeing some pics of the OTA being described.

Cheers

[stringscope (Ian)]

Try this:

http://www.rfroyce.com/DK%20OTAs%20o...%20rep%202.htm

[citivolus (Ric)]

Might as well throw the Vixen VMC260L in the ring? 260mm f/11.5, 10Kg OTA. Granted, it has a spider which may kill it for you.

[Dennis]

Hi Matt

Whilst I haven’t experimented with a Mewlon 180 vs C9.25 shootout, I think Robert_T gave the edge to the C9.25 based on light gathering. My limited experience would tend to agree, for hi res planetary and lunar webcam imaging.

I love the M180 as a beautiful visual ‘scope, but the loss in aperture over the C9.25 is a definite handicap when trying to obtain large image scales of the planets.

Like you, I’ve had several idle moments of wishing and to that extent, my thoughts usually veered towards a planetary Newtonian. However, a 10” F6 would probably be a test even for my Tak EM200 mount.

Cheers

Dennis

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by citivolus

Might as well throw the Vixen VMC260L in the ring? 260mm f/11.5, 10Kg OTA. Granted, it has a spider which may kill it for you.

Having owned a Vixen VC200L (200mm F9), I understood these fine instruments were designed for flat, wide field astro photography. The resulting large central obstruction and spider vanes allegedly reduce contrast for hi-res planetary imaging.

Cheers

Dennis

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by matt

I'm going to stick with planetary imaging for a while and that means I don't mind sticking with an SCT. I'd prefer something around the 10" aperture OTA for the sake of portability.

I'm just wondering whether I'd see a marked improvement if I traded to something like a 10" Meade LX200R?

Obviously, the tiny bit of extra aperture is not going to set my world on fire, but what about the so-called 'Advanced Ritchey Cretien' optics? Would they be worth the switch?

I suspect not. I've yet to see planetary pics out of a Meade R or RCX series which would convince me the plunge would be worthwhile.

The thing about RC scopes is that they are designed to take wide field star images, with no distortion of stars at the corners of the frame. This is not an issue with planetary photography, where you're only interested in a centre field image, so for planetary work an RC is a waste of money.
Geoff