Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 26-01-2010, 12:39 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN View Post
You don't need monolithic mounts to image with newts, you just need to know your mounts limits... Ie - 12" + EQ6 = No Go.
Agreed.. RC's are less taxing on a given mount (which is more than half of the equation IMHO).

An added benefit is the rear cells of most RC's have far less flexure with a CCD/filter wheel/AO etc combo being cantilevered off their cells compared to a Newt's ( often thin) sidewall.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 30-01-2010, 10:43 AM
JohnH's Avatar
JohnH
Member # 159

JohnH is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,226
Is this comparison not a little apples vs oranges?

Many well respected "Astrographs" out there are "Newts" (well in layout anyway) - eg the TAK Epsilon 180 is regarded as peerless, there are others such as the Orion UK models like the AG8. To me it seems that (in practice at least) a well corrected Newt can perform very well - at lower F numbers - so perhaps the conclusion is if you need F8-10 go for RC if you want F3-5 then a well corrected newt is the better option. Or have I got it all wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 30-01-2010, 11:25 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 18,183
There are many incredible Newtonian images around. The conical mirror is easy to make so its easy for manufacturers to get really high accuracy with modest manufacturing.

RC optics are hard to make hence the high cost. Their advantage though seems to be long focal length and no coma. They are also relatively compact and the camera is at the end not on the side of the tube.

The disadvantage of a Newt as I see it is they are very long for their focal length and the camera has to be mounted on the side opening the door to flexure issues, and length of backfocus for all the accessories used today.

The side mounted camera and short backfocus problems were highlighted with the ASA scopes where flexure and focus slop were a problem (apart from the mirror mount etc). Tubes are only so strong even carbon fibre.

But when the ASAs got it right they were awesome in the 1200mm focal length band.

RCs and similar designs though seem to totally dominate the long focal length/galaxy type imaging scope area. Not so great for widerfield though.

I see A&M has a compromise RC which is F5 and wide field yet an RC 360mm aperture I think it is. It probably is a simple matter to extend the focal length if you wanted to do galaxies.

Ceravolo astrograph is an attempt to service both widefield and long focal length and seems to do very well. But its very expensive.

Planewave CDK seems to the be the current market leader in long focal length compound scopes.
Someone mentioned wanting to see CDK20 images. There is one good one of the Jellyfish neb on their site but here are a few from Bob Fera who is a great imager using a CDK17:
http://www.feraphotography.com/CDK17/HH.html

Click through his site to see more examples. Impressive. Looks more like an RCOS 20 inch result.




Orion Optics UK, A&M, RCOS, Ceravolo, Starizona Hyperion, Deep Sky Instruments are other hot instrument makers. It is quite competitive these days in this band.

Greg.

Last edited by gregbradley; 30-01-2010 at 11:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement