aoe 90x600 refractor - Page 2

ving (David) · #21 31-03-2006, 04:01 PM

thanks darren. do kyou think that because it is f6.6 rather than f5 would help any?
also my chioce of mount are az3 and eq2d... what would be better? i am thinking az3 but as geoff said the alt isntballanced... which is the lesser of the 2 evils?

Starkler (Geoff) · #22 31-03-2006, 04:11 PM

I personally think the idea of an eq mount is contrary to the concept of grab-n-go due to the extra weight and fuss of counterweights. Its not like you'l be running such a scope at high powers and be needing tracking.

The az3 is serviceable but it is a cheap mount and there are comprimises, still for the purpose of grab-n-go its going to be much better than an eq IMO.
The az3 is worth about $170, but the next step up in alt-az mounts is the Vixen porta at about $400, or buying a Hercules or Microstar head for a photo/video tripod at around $300.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #23 31-03-2006, 04:18 PM

AZ3, definitely. You can always rig up a counterweight if that is a problem. I'm pretty sure it will reach zenith, but the tripod legs might get in the way (so you'd have to pick up the tripod and rotate it). Stu would know for sure. He has his 4" Tak on an AZ3.

Geoff, AZ3 is down to $129 now, so it's very cheap indeed. It's a great mount for the price IMO.

ving (David) · #24 31-03-2006, 04:38 PM

thanks guys

Starkler (Geoff) · #25 31-03-2006, 05:27 PM

Ving old cow I should relate to you my experience with the ed80 after being used to viewing through a 10" dob.

In short I was quite dissapointed in how little I could see, especially from my home location which suffers from light pollution. Bright dso's like eta carina were very dim and uninspiring after what I was used to seeing. By the time you bump up the mag to mitigate the effects of light pollution, the little refractor runs out of light.

Small refractors are nice in dark skies, especially for rich field views, but where there is LP they suck IMO

If I had of known I wouldnt have bought it.

janoskiss (Steve H) · #26 31-03-2006, 05:44 PM

My experience with the ED80 is pretty much the same as Geoff's, which is why I sold it. I also thought I'd use it for widefield at dark sites, but on those occasions I always have the Dob as well, and the lure of aperture wins every time.

ving (David) · #27 31-03-2006, 06:32 PM

yeah.... i know.... jsut trying to fool myself i guess...

maybe i shoud spend up on EPs instead

but then i have the prob of family or telescope....

janoskiss (Steve H) · #28 31-03-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ving

maybe i shoud spend up on EPs instead

but then i have the prob of family or telescope....

[QUOTE=ving]
And the problem is ...?

I'm going to order a focal reducer (a binoviewer 0.6x "OCA" actually) for my 4" baby Mak to see if I can get wider true FOV with that scope. If it works as advertised, it will make the scope very versatile.

Btw. I was just at Ted's camera store. They had an AZ3 on display with a plastic scope. It does go to zenith, but you need to have the scope between tripod legs.

Starkler (Geoff) · #29 31-03-2006, 08:00 PM

Toys...toys....

Have you got a telrad or rigel yet?

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #30 31-03-2006, 10:36 PM

Get a Nagler instead Ving.

ving (David) · #31 01-04-2006, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starkler

Toys...toys....

Have you got a telrad or rigel yet?

i have used one... not really a fan.

kevin, as per usual you are great help

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #32 01-04-2006, 09:33 AM

Hehheh sorry! I agree with the others though on aperture. There's no substitute when it comes to deep sky. A 90mm is quite small. It's only a step up from a 60mm. The only time a little refractor like that may be better than a larger scope is with a wide field eyepiece and something large like comets. In fact my best views of comets have been through small refractors. On high power though, they suck! The images are dim and colourful. Bring back any memories? (60mm wobbleotronic refractor?)

ving (David) · #33 01-04-2006, 10:14 AM

well yeah, but that was like f/15 or sumpin... yeah i know...

acropolite (Phil) · #34 01-04-2006, 10:56 AM

I have an AZ3 and if the friction is set correctly it's OK with an ED80 on. With placement to avoid the tripod legs, it will reach the zenith. For widefield and planetary the 90 would be OK, my 80 certainly is, I'm impressed with views of Jupiter with the ED80 so far, although I haven't had the chance to try at higher mags than 92x (13mm barlowed). I have read that the ED80 holds up well at higher mags, so I presume that the 90mm would as well. The CA is the unknown factor. From your existing home viewing site, I think you would find the 90mm refractor disappointing compared to your dob, but if you wanted something for a quick peek at the planets, or the moon, or for widefield views it may be worth a look.

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #35 01-04-2006, 11:11 AM

But the ED80 is a different animal - Apochromat vrs cheap Chinese Achromat. There's room for a world of difference.

My grab and go scope is a 6 inch f6 dob. It's ugly to look at but produces nice images. I think Ving wants a scope to look AT not look THROUGH! Lol.

dhumpie · #36 03-04-2006, 01:05 PM

Hey Ving,

Sorry for not replying earlier. Did not get a chance to get on the net on the weekend. Anyway if you ask me, I think the slight difference in focal length will equate to better CA control...and that will go a long way for planetary images. As to which mount....hmmmm...I agree with what Geoff has said about the EQ's and they defeat the purpose of grab and go. I have read reports (Star Ware by Harrington) that the AZ3 mounts are pretty solid for their price (better damping times that those spindly EQ1's and 2's). The problem is going to be balance issues when you are pointing at celestial objects. My guess is that the scopes are going to "creep" to the verticle position unless you crank the tightening knobs down.

Darren

ving (David) · #37 03-04-2006, 01:23 PM

thanks darren...
still in the thinking stage.... refractor vs webcam vs low power ep....