Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
  #61  
Old 13-07-2013, 04:30 PM
MortonH's Avatar
MortonH
Deprived of starlight

MortonH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,357
A Saxon 120ED has just been listed for sale. Temptation for the OP???
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 13-07-2013, 04:41 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky View Post
Put a decent dewshield and guidescope on it and I might agree

THAT is BEAUTIFUL!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 13-07-2013, 04:43 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunama View Post
Hey Lewis, we're drifting off topic fast here, so to get back to Peter's original ?

I would think the 120ED would be a fine visual scope, however, it has limitations,
it does not hoover up every photon like a 24" SDM,
it is not as portable as an FS60.
What it does give you is a very easy to use telescope if you are likely to want to observe at a moments notice, the cool down period is not very long and it does give reasonable views even immediately on being taken outside, it is reasonably portable, requires no ongoing collimation, almost maintenance free as long as normal precautions are observed.

Price is very good for what you get. Moon, planets, doubles and small clusters are probably its favoured targets, forget DSOs as they will not impress you (need more aperture for that).

There have been numerous occasions where I have used my 120mm F7.5 when I would not have bothered to set up a 12" or larger dob. For me its a perfect scope size and I have it always set up ready for viewing within 2 minutes.
Simplicity is BIG bonus IMHO for refractors - nary have to worry about collimation, cool down time is pretty fast, usually pretty manageable and light, and generally don't need a gigantic mount to swing one around the sky.

That Saxon 120 in the trader is a FANTASTIC buy for someone!!! Same quality as the Skywatcher, at an incredible price! Wouldn't mind it myself, but I won't.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 13-07-2013, 04:48 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profiler View Post
They are generally regarded to be excellent bang for your buck however there are, naturally, some differences with premium brand refractors. For VA it is fantastic however it might be worth also looking at the latest 100mm Tak doublet FC-100DC which is roughly the same price

http://www.astronomy-electronics-centre.com.au/

Wow - we have come almost full circle from post number 2!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 13-07-2013, 04:51 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profiler View Post
Although I fully appreciate that the hobby of astronomy is a broad church and has a following catering to many different tastes I, for one at least, have never been interested in the "appearances" of the equipment (other than to assess condition when purchasing 2nd hand). For me a 'telescope' is something I look through to see the universe - not something I look at.

In this context my own experience has always been that the images always tend to be better with the more expensive refractors. I loved my first short-tube C-80 but when I purchased a Tak FS-60 it simply outperformed the C-80 and the same trend continued thereafter with gradually larger and larger refractors. Ultimately, the single most important rule of thumb with refractors based upon actually looking through them was that quality trumps quantity. There really wasn't any emotion to these experiences other than what can be seen in the eyepiece and not what is seen when looking at the telescope.
Good points Richard. I must say the differences in viewing with my FL102S vs the SW ED100 I had was remarkable (an even WIDER gap betwixt the FL102S and the NG120 I had). QUALITY will always trump QUANTITY, but there is also horses for courses... and that is NOT being a scope snob!

I have looked through a couple SW/Saxon 120's, and they are GOOD. I would not rate them incredible, but the extra aperture does not equate to a better image, as evidenced comparing them to 18mm less with the 102 (and 19mm in a TV 101).

I will disagree a little though, and that to ME at least (and several refactorians I know), external cosmetics ARE important. Makes the experience more pleasureable, in an almost intangible way.I like my stuff to look good and perform well, and to the point of less functionality, dislike things like velcro, zipties, etc on my mounts and telescopes. I will also repaint to match or repair. It's the Virgo in me

I know a couple here are the same way inclined too
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 13-07-2013, 05:06 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,214
Hi Lewis

You are quite right and I certainly understand some folks also like the looks of refractors - this is what I meant by the broad church with different tastes comment.

I am, personally, not entirely in that camp although, of course, I do prefer any telescope in good well kept condition as opposed to one that has been a dogs breakfast.

The thrust of my point is simply 'why' we do have expensive top tier refractors is more than simply their cosmetic appearance - they do perform as well otherwise we would all have Skywatcher ED120s and there would be no FL102S anymore
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 13-07-2013, 05:27 PM
alocky's Avatar
alocky (Andrew lockwood)
PI popular people's front

alocky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: perth australia
Posts: 1,290
That's what I love about this hobby - everyone has a slightly different angle on it. Personally, I love looking at my old Unitrons, which is why my house is decorated with them. Rarely though, do they get outside, except for lunar and solar duties. I have other scopes for looking through, because even the 8"f7 newt I knocked together as a kid in the 80s still wallops even a good 5" APO for any observing I do, and isn't much harder to live with.
But it's entirely up to the OP - for the double stars and planetary grab & go visual the new 120mm ED scopes are going to perform as well as any 5". True connoisseurs will, no doubt, easily pick the difference in contrast and aberration control between a SW and a tak 120, but I rarely want to spend the time trying to see it. There's stuff to look at up there! Then again, some people would rather spend their time star-testing telescopes than observing - but that's how they enjoy the hobby!
cheers,
Andrew.
cheers,
Andrew


Quote:
Originally Posted by Profiler View Post
Although I fully appreciate that the hobby of astronomy is a broad church and has a following catering to many different tastes I, for one at least, have never been interested in the "appearances" of the equipment (other than to assess condition when purchasing 2nd hand). For me a 'telescope' is something I look through to see the universe - not something I look at.

In this context my own experience has always been that the images always tend to be better with the more expensive refractors. I loved my first short-tube C-80 but when I purchased a Tak FS-60 it simply outperformed the C-80 and the same trend continued thereafter with gradually larger and larger refractors. Ultimately, the single most important rule of thumb with refractors based upon actually looking through them was that quality trumps quantity. There really wasn't any emotion to these experiences other than what can be seen in the eyepiece and not what is seen when looking at the telescope.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 13-07-2013, 06:26 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo (Mark)
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM View Post
I had aperture fever, I lost it again, thankfully! Aperture-schmaperture.
Perhaps you just enjoy the freedom from the possibilities that larger aperture offer ?

In my experience out in the field the refractor lovers seem to be satisfied with fairly dim views of fairly bright objects with no descent image scale and don't look at anything much beyond that - but they are passionate about the 'quality' of what little they see.

I like to see most globulars for instance resolved into a blaze of stars - my 120ED resolves only a handful due to poor light gathering power - though it is sharp as a `Tak' - it sits in its box most of the time.

I've been observing 40 years now and I really don't get it with the refractor thing- honestly . I want to see faint stars , I want copious detail on planets , star knots and dust lanes in galaxies etc - and for me that doesn't hint below 8" aperture .....Perhaps someone can enlighten me ?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 13-07-2013, 07:38 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,121
Just a personal preference Mark. I am NOT a fan of diffraction spikes at all, so imagery especially for me through a refractor does it for me. I do not like introducing unnatural artifacts into an image.

Visually, well, I just love the contrast afforded by a GOOD refractor. Sure, I may not see as much detail, and I do not delude myself that I can, but I just prefer it.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 13-07-2013, 07:52 PM
Larryp's Avatar
Larryp (Laurie)
Registered User

Larryp is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM View Post
Just a personal preference Mark. I am NOT a fan of diffraction spikes at all, so imagery especially for me through a refractor does it for me. I do not like introducing unnatural artifacts into an image.

Visually, well, I just love the contrast afforded by a GOOD refractor. Sure, I may not see as much detail, and I do not delude myself that I can, but I just prefer it.
Ditto, Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 13-07-2013, 08:27 PM
MortonH's Avatar
MortonH
Deprived of starlight

MortonH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo View Post
Perhaps you just enjoy the freedom from the possibilities that larger aperture offer ?

In my experience out in the field the refractor lovers seem to be satisfied with fairly dim views of fairly bright objects with no descent image scale and don't look at anything much beyond that - but they are passionate about the 'quality' of what little they see.

I like to see most globulars for instance resolved into a blaze of stars - my 120ED resolves only a handful due to poor light gathering power - though it is sharp as a `Tak' - it sits in its box most of the time.

I've been observing 40 years now and I really don't get it with the refractor thing- honestly . I want to see faint stars , I want copious detail on planets , star knots and dust lanes in galaxies etc - and for me that doesn't hint below 8" aperture .....Perhaps someone can enlighten me ?
I reckon if it was practical for me to own a large scope and use it regularly I may feel the same. But for various reasons at the moment I can't own a large scope. Maybe I'm under some sort of self-delusion so I don't feel bad about what I can't have!
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 13-07-2013, 08:39 PM
alocky's Avatar
alocky (Andrew lockwood)
PI popular people's front

alocky is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: perth australia
Posts: 1,290
I must say I've yet to find anything that looks better in a smaller scope. My 25 takes less time to set up than my old starfinder 10". And collimation really isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Hell - it only takes me seconds to set it up - 10 in fact. Here's proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf7K9...ature=youtu.be
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 13-07-2013, 09:00 PM
sn1987a's Avatar
sn1987a (Barry)
Registered User

sn1987a is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rockingham WA Australia
Posts: 703
Happiness is seeing the veil nebula for the first time!.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 13-07-2013, 09:11 PM
TheFacelessMen (Rob)
Registered User

TheFacelessMen is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffen View Post
An implementation detail. There are Cassegrain designs with fixed mirrors (like the one I've got, or Peter's MK-65). The ones with moving mirrors can be retro-fitted with Crayford or R&P focusers.

Cheers
Steffen.
The original quote was a poorly considered blanket statement that is clearly not 100% correct.

It's still a shortfall in the design which can be extremely annoying. I have owned 3 SCT in the past so I know from firsthand experience. Also you need to spend more money than just retro fitted Crayford or R&P focusers because many need mirror locks as well.

Also the fixed mirror systems you mention are not referring to the usual traditional lower cost Meade and Celestron SCT's but generally more expensive heavier, Cassegrains and Maks so again the blanket statement is very misleading.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 13-07-2013, 09:16 PM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo View Post
Perhaps you just enjoy the freedom from the possibilities that larger aperture offer ?

In my experience out in the field the refractor lovers seem to be satisfied with fairly dim views of fairly bright objects with no descent image scale and don't look at anything much beyond that - but they are passionate about the 'quality' of what little they see.

I like to see most globulars for instance resolved into a blaze of stars - my 120ED resolves only a handful due to poor light gathering power - though it is sharp as a `Tak' - it sits in its box most of the time.

I've been observing 40 years now and I really don't get it with the refractor thing- honestly . I want to see faint stars , I want copious detail on planets , star knots and dust lanes in galaxies etc - and for me that doesn't hint below 8" aperture .....Perhaps someone can enlighten me ?
That's easy to answer - you need to actually buy a top shelf refractor such as an AP130GT (for example) and spend a decent amount of time actually using one rather than repeatedly telling and thus convincing yourself that your ED120 is just as good.

As I keep on saying over and over and over again. If the top tier refractors werent significantly better then companies like Televue, Astro Physics, Takahashi, APM etc etc would be out of business decades ago and we would all be using Synta tech ED120s

Last edited by Profiler; 13-07-2013 at 09:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 13-07-2013, 10:11 PM
LewisM's Avatar
LewisM
Novichok test rabbit

LewisM is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere in the cosmos...
Posts: 10,121
Just came in from an aborted refractor imaging session. Cloud limited choices to west only, and that was not where I wanted to image, so visual I went.

I had a great time with the FL102S and a GOOD selection of top notch eyepieces. NGC4755 was easily resolved into the colours expected, and I had no difficulty seeing even the dim stars. I then went to a-Crux, and again, resolved it easily.

Slew to M83, and even in this light pollution abhorrence, I was able to happily make out the core and some arm detail. No issue at all.

The only other scope I have used that pleased me almost as much visually was a 180mm Maksutov.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 13-07-2013, 10:43 PM
bigjoe's Avatar
bigjoe (JOSEPH)
Registered User

bigjoe is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,350
Bizzarely.Most people on the cloudy night reviews say and admit their taks are beaten by 8" dobs 9 1/4 sct etc on planets when seeing permits.Its just more to do with pinpoint stars, that crisper refractor view id guess.Most nights rarely allow over 1" arc seeing anyway so the tak 128 will strut its stuff and look fabulous doing it(not a tin can).cheers
Ps:I suppose a lot also comes down to what else you do with your lifemoneywise etc.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 14-07-2013, 12:50 AM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFacelessMen View Post
The original quote was a poorly considered blanket statement that is clearly not 100% correct.

It's still a shortfall in the design which can be extremely annoying. I have owned 3 SCT in the past so I know from firsthand experience. Also you need to spend more money than just retro fitted Crayford or R&P focusers because many need mirror locks as well.

Also the fixed mirror systems you mention are not referring to the usual traditional lower cost Meade and Celestron SCT's but generally more expensive heavier, Cassegrains and Maks so again the blanket statement is very misleading.
No design is perfect, otherwise everyone would use the same superior type of scope and we wouldn't be having this debate...

Mass market scopes are now starting to include some of these features in the design - Celestron's Edge HD scopes have mirror locks and the newer Meades have built in zero shift focus. They're not inexpensive...here...but the Edge HD stuff is becoming fairly popular in the US with good reviews and promotional pricing. It's just they're expensive here But it's not like additional rear mounted focusers don't exist.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 14-07-2013, 09:41 AM
Profiler (Profiler)
Registered User

Profiler is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjoe View Post
Bizzarely.Most people on the cloudy night reviews say and admit their taks are beaten by 8" dobs 9 1/4 sct etc on planets when seeing permits.Its just more to do with pinpoint stars, that crisper refractor view id guess.Most nights rarely allow over 1" arc seeing anyway so the tak 128 will strut its stuff and look fabulous doing it(not a tin can).cheers
Ps:I suppose a lot also comes down to what else you do with your lifemoneywise etc.
Hi Joe

I know this is the age old debate of reflectors v refractors which isn't what I was actually talking about at this point but rather the differences amongst the quality of refractors - not the competing merits with reflectors. The real problem is that there are too many competing variables to make valid comparisons and hence these endless debates/discussions.

For example, I acknowledge a 12' SCT will beat a 100mm refractor on DSOs. However, from personal experience the folks with a 100mm refractor will be out under the stars 4-5 times more often (all factors taken into account) in comparison to the folks with the SCT due to the set-up/portability/cool down issues. So how do were equate these totally different merits when the old expression is the best telescope is the one you use the most.

Moreover, given that a huge part of astronomy is the idiosyncratic variable of atomsphere suggests that the person who is out the most on different occasions is going to have better opportunities for better views and in a quantitative framework will simply see more. Likewise, the person who gets out the most is also likely to get out to different locations such as dark sites. I am happy to accept any challengers who believe their dob is more portable than my TV-85 - body builders and weight lifters with dobs are excluded from this contest

Last edited by Profiler; 14-07-2013 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 14-07-2013, 10:45 AM
Kunama
...

Kunama is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by alocky View Post
I must say I've yet to find anything that looks better in a smaller scope. My 25 takes less time to set up than my old starfinder 10". And collimation really isn't the big deal people make it out to be. Hell - it only takes me seconds to set it up - 10 in fact. Here's proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf7K9...ature=youtu.be
Great video clip Andrew, what I really love about the 25" dob is the portability of it all. . . . .

Seems people are forgetting the old "Horses for Courses"
what surprises me and saddens me is the number of people on here and other fora who admit to not being able to find enjoyment in anything but a lightbucket.

Some have even admitted they would not partake in astronomy if they only had access to a small/medium refractor to work with.

Personally I find it an enjoyable challenge to locate faint objects with a small scope like a 120mm F7.5 it is never going to reveal the Veil to naked eye, but what it does within its design parameters is immensely enjoyable to me nonetheless.

Last edited by Kunama; 14-07-2013 at 10:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
ed apo, refractor telescope

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 11:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement