The Best Telescope For Me Is . . .
Sketcher
different sets of advantages and disadvantages. The best telescope
for me is unlikely to be the best telescope for you. The purpose of
this thread is to give you the opportunity to share your thoughts on
either the "best" telescope you currently own or the telescope you
would choose to own if you could have only one telescope -- without
changing your where you live, what you drive, where you work, etc.
The best telescope for me is a 13cm f/6 apochromat refractor. As a
visual observer I enjoy low-power, wide-field observing sometimes and
high-powered, razor sharp planetary images at other times. I also
enjoy observing DSOs - galaxies, nebulae, etc. Sometimes I like to
set up a telescope for a quick look at the sun.
Some may have difficulty believing it, but under my 6.5 magnitude sky
a 13cm refractor provides very satisfying views of galaxies and
nebulae. Lightgrasp and contrast is sufficient to show the Horsehead
Nebula, Pluto, and structural details within many DSOs.
I can sweep the sky with a true field of view greater than three
degrees with pinpoint stars across the field or I can observe
planetary details at 200 to 300x. I can identify Jupiter's Galilean
satelites by their apparent sizes and colors.
The scope is small enough and light enough to be easy to set up and
take down. It's easily transportable even in my small Jeep.
Yes, I remember to the old "Just Say No to Refractors" thread, but in
my situation a 5-inch f6 apochromat refractor provides the best
compromise between low-power, high resolution, and reasonable size,
weight and aperture.
What telescope is best for you? Why?
Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.
Havr...@aol.com
> Most of us would be willing to admit that different telescopes have
> different sets of advantages and disadvantages. �The best telescope
> for me is unlikely to be the best telescope for you. �The purpose of
> this thread is to give you the opportunity to share your thoughts on
> either the "best" telescope you currently own or the telescope you
> would choose to own if you could have only one telescope -- without
> changing your where you live, what you drive, where you work, etc.
>
> The best telescope for me is a 13cm f/6 apochromat refractor. �As a
> visual observer I enjoy low-power, wide-field observing sometimes and
> high-powered, razor sharp planetary images at other times. �I also
> enjoy observing DSOs - galaxies, nebulae, etc. �Sometimes I like to
> set up a telescope for a quick look at the sun.
>
> Some may have difficulty believing it, but under my 6.5 magnitude sky
> a 13cm refractor provides very satisfying views of galaxies and
> nebulae. �Lightgrasp and contrast is sufficient to show the Horsehead
> Nebula, Pluto, and structural details within many DSOs.
>
> I can sweep the sky with a true field of view greater than three
> degrees with pinpoint stars across the field or I can observe
> planetary details at 200 to 300x. �I can identify Jupiter's Galilean
> satelites by their apparent sizes and colors.
>
My imaging conditions are horrific and probably unusual. I live
just outside of Philadelphia with serious light polution problems. In
addition there are trees every where so that shooting beween trees is
comon place. I'm lucky if I can get a 60 min exposure. I use a 12"
Meade SCT with a f/3.3 focal reducer/ deep sky filter, and a Starlight
express SXV-H9C color camera. I usually do 20 1min exposures. I've
completed all of the Messier objects from my back yard. Some of the
SE exposures were horrifi to get. The arrangement gives me plenty of
light with serious vegnetting problems. These problems are minimized
with flat fields and averaging
Kevin M. Vernon
as well:
The best 'scope is the one you actually USE.
-Kevin in Indy
To reply, remove (+spamproof+) from address........
Marty
lot of different scopes, but my C8 SCT has kept me happy for the last 32
years.
If I had it to do all over, I may well have bought an 8 inch dob...
Lots of aperture for the dollar, and I like the simplicity. They
weren't as available in '77 though, and by now I'd have probably had to
recoat the mirror at least once, and a polar alignment does help me
starhop a bit... it gives an "up and down and sideways."
Some time after I bought my scope, the 4 inch refractors became
very popular. They ARE nice scopes, and I like the simplicity of
refractors too, but still, I'm not convinced that a four inch refractor
can compete with an 8 inch reflector. Maybe it can... But a larger
aperture in refractors gets expensive FAST.
So ~ I'm happy with my C8. Easy to haul out and set up, enough
aperture, works well with a turret, (which I love,) the mirror is sealed
up inside, on rare occasions I can stick a camera on it, (mainly for
squirrel pictures,) etc, etc,
I guess I'm really just happy I have a telescope. :)
Marty
Chris.Bee
telescope. Keeping an object centred at reasonably high powers makes
detailed observation of fine lunar or planetary detail almost
impossible without a drive. The object has drifted away from the sweet
spot before one can see anything worthwhile. I like achromatic
refractors for their robust simplicity, relatively low cost and long
term alignment. Not to mention the superb comfort when seated at the
eyepiece with a star diagonal in place. Sitting also aids observation
of fine or dim details. (try it and see if you agree)
Chris L Peterson
wrote:
>I consider an RA driven equatorial mounting is absolutely vital to any
>telescope. Keeping an object centred at reasonably high powers makes
>detailed observation of fine lunar or planetary detail almost
>impossible without a drive. The object has drifted away from the sweet
>spot before one can see anything worthwhile.
While I also prefer an equatorial mount, modern driven altaz mounts,
including driven dobs, do a fine job of tracking objects as well.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Chris.Bee
>
> While I also prefer an equatorial mount, modern driven altaz mounts,
Indeed. But, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with their kind,
driven platforms do achieve much the same purpose but often without
the severe weight limitations common to affordable, commercial,
equatorial mountings and their sadly inferior tripods.
Or, as Grubb, the legendary Irish telescope maker, might have said,
upon examining a modern, Chinese, equatorial mounting... "I probably
wouldn't start from here". ;-)
Sketcher
>
> The best 'scope is the one you actually USE.
>
apertures) as a means of showing that any of the common telescope
types could be considered 'best' by different people in different
locations for different applications.
So Kevin, do you have a specific telescope that you actually use? ;-)
Sketcher
I'll take the above as an endorsement for achromatic refractors.
RA drives certainly make it easier to observe at high powers, but if
one doesn't have a driven mount one can still engage in and enjoy high
powered telescopic astronomy -- especially if the mount is made well
enough to allow the user to smoothly and (more or less) effortlessly
move the telescope exactly as far as one wants it to move.
I agree that observing chairs can be worthwhile for extended
observations of individual objects, but they can get in the way when
one is moving quickly from object to object.
As with telescope types, many different accessories are worth having
under different situations, but few (if any) could be recommended for
everyone all the time. I sometimes use an RA drive with an EQ mount.
I sometimes use an adjustable observing chair, but often I go out
without either ;-)
John Nichols
"Sketcher" <astros...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a59ff5c3-8267-4787...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
<snippage to get the main question>
>
> What telescope is best for you? Why?
>
I .started with a 2" "goto" Meade reractor that my wife gave me about 8
years ago. I put "goto" in quotes as I have NEVER been able to get its
Autostar goto system to work correctly. As a consequence I hardly ever used
it. That said, the optics of its tube were fine, images were crisp. The
main problem was the whole thing was cheaply put together, and my bride
really didn't know what she was buying.
At a star party I bought a used 3.5" Meade refractor on a Celestron CG-5
mount with a motor drive. It didn't have a finder, but it cost me only
$200.00. I learned how ot use it's eq mount, added a nice 9x50 finder and a
Telrad, and got quite a lot of use out it.
My main problem is that I live under severely light polluted skies, living
in suburban Cleveland just five mile from the airport, right across the
cul-de-sac from 480, and trees everywhere. Even my club's dark sky site
isn't really all that great. Also, I have back and knee issues, and the
whole assembly, expecially with both counterweights, is pretty heavy
So, a year-and-a-half ago I bought a Celestron Nexstar 8 SE. It's sweet and
light. The entire assembly is only 33 lbs. Leveling it for alignment is
fairly easy, and you need as little as one bright object for alignment.
(Doing a three star alignment gives the most accuracy, tho.) It's lightness
makes it ideal, most of the time it's fully assembled in my garage, and I
just carry it out to my driveway. If I go to our dark sky site, loading it
in my car is pretty easy, and so is unloading and setting up. It's 8" of
aperature allows me to see things I otherwise wouldn't with my old
refractor, so right now this is the best scope for me.
David Nakamoto
that, as interests change, the equipment might change to fit.
For instance, I was into imaging with still cameras for years now, so
German equatorial mounted scopes or forks on wedges were my preference.
But in the past several years, the interest has shifted to CCD based web
cameras. I noticed using my latest camera that it can see in the live
video star-like objects around 10 mag or so through a 5-inch Mak. I
decided to try the camera on my 10-inch Dob, which necessitated a
purchase of a Tracking Platform. I should have that platform this
Monday, and then the fun starts . . . . again ! (^_^)
--- Dave
Chris.Bee
Good luck! On bright objects one can have a lot of fun just holding a
compact digital camera up to the eyepiece of a telescope on a stable,
driven mounting. I consider the compact digital camera one of the best
inventions ever made. I take more pictures is a week now than I did in
some years with a bag full of Olympus/Zuiko. Escaping from the
sensitive film/shoddy processing/postcard print routine has been a
revolution/revelation. Better sensitivity to low light will no doubt
come with all the other advances of the digital medium. I'd like an
electrical "cable release" (possibly in the standard lanyard?) too but
image stabilisation is a "techier" sales pitch for many. How I wish
we'd had compact digital cameras years ago.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> I consider an RA driven equatorial mounting is absolutely vital to any
> telescope.
I found that the stability, smoothness and portability of the small
Dobsonian that I built, decades ago, more than made up for the lack of
a clock driven equatorial, which at the time were either very shaky or
very expensive. It was immediately obvious that the Dob concept would
work about as well with a 16-inch as it would with a 6-inch mirror,
which up to then had been a typical size for most amateurs.
> Keeping an object centred at reasonably high powers makes
> detailed observation of fine lunar or planetary detail almost
> impossible without a drive. The object has drifted away from the sweet
> spot before one can see anything worthwhile.
Not really. Well-made Dobs work well at high powers and certainly
better than cheap, shaky equatorials.
>I like achromatic
> refractors for their robust simplicity, relatively low cost and long
> term alignment. Not to mention the superb comfort when seated at the
> eyepiece with a star diagonal in place. Sitting also aids observation
> of fine or dim details. (try it and see if you agree)
The achromatic refractor is obsolete as a main observing instrument,
except for small beginner telescopes. Compare an 8-inch f/15 achromat
with a 10- to 12-inch SCT, WRT user-friendliness, and then get back to
us.
The premise of the OP implies that we can own only -one- telescope.
In real life we might have a small grab-n-go refractor, a clock-driven
CAT, and a large Dob, so it doesn't matter which is the "best."
wsne...@hotmail.com
> Kevin wrote:
>
> > The best 'scope is the one you actually USE.
>
> True enough, but I was hoping to see specific telescope types (and
> apertures) as a means of showing that any of the common telescope
> types could be considered 'best' by different people in different
> locations for different applications.
All else being equal, aperture wins. Your apo might be best for you,
but someone with $600 to spend might do just as well with an XT-10.
So in that case I would vote the XT-10 the "best" unless you further
stipulate that you want to do piggyback photography or take the scope
with you on a plane.
Sketcher
>
> The achromatic refractor is obsolete as a main observing instrument,
> except for small beginner telescopes. Compare an 8-inch f/15 achromat
> with a 10- to 12-inch SCT, WRT user-friendliness, and then get back to
> us.
I disagree that an achromat refractor is obsolete as a primary
observing instrument. Different observers have different reasons for
preferring different telescopes -- as this thread is demonstrating.
>
> The premise of the OP implies that we can own only -one- telescope.
> In real life we might have a small grab-n-go refractor, a clock-driven
> CAT, and a large Dob, so it doesn't matter which is the "best."
As the OP, I can clarify: "best" was meant in the context of best (or
most used, or most desired, or the only telescope one has) for a
specific individual's use. An 8-inch SCT might be "best" for one
individual while a 4-inch achromat might be "best" for some other
individual. For those with more than one telescope, "best" might be
interpreted as meaning the telescope one would keep if one had to part
company with all but one telescope.
The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that each of the common
telescope types have their own niche and following in amateur
astronomy. In its own way, this thread is also a response to the
decade old "Just say no to refractors" thread.
Davoud
> The purpose of this thread was to demonstrate that each of the common
> astronomy. In its own way, this thread is also a response to the
> decade old "Just say no to refractors" thread.
Isn't that old thread so inane that it doesn't need a
response--especially years later? As I recall, it boils down to "You
shouldn't decide which telescope is best for you based on your needs;
you should follow my dictates in choosing a 'scope." I just can't think
of an answer to that that isn't so obvious that it doesn't need saying.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Sketcher
>
> All else being equal, aperture wins.
One could just as well say:
All else being equal, less mass wins.
All else being equal, smaller central obstruction wins.
All else being equal, the shorter tube wins.
All else being equal, better edge quality (in the image) wins.
All else being equal, better resolution wins.
All else being equal, lowest cost wins.
All else being equal, greatest concentration of light in airy disk
wins.
All else being equal, aesthetic appearance wins.
All else being equal, the better mount wins.
All else being equal, the better location wins.
All else being equal, the better observer wins.
All else being equal, the greater light transmission wins.
All else being equal, availability wins.
All else being equal, less vignetting wins.
All else being equal, contrast wins.
All else being equal, shortest cool-down time wins.
All else being equal, optical quality wins.
All esle being equal, the better finder wins.
All else being equal, mechanical quality wins.
All else being equal, ability to maintain near-perfect collimation
wins.
etc.
All else is never equal! Thus we see great differences in the
telescopes that different people prefer.
> Your apo might be best for you,
> but someone with $600 to spend might do just as well with an XT-10.
Yes, and someone wishing to follow a bit more closely in the steps of
Galileo might be better off with a 50mm GalileoScope -- regardless of
how much money they have to spend (unless they have enough money to
purchase or lease one of Galileo's actual telescopes!)
Quadibloc
> wsnel... wrote:
>
> > The achromatic refractor is obsolete as a main observing instrument,
> > except for small beginner telescopes. Compare an 8-inch f/15 achromat
> > with a 10- to 12-inch SCT, WRT user-friendliness, and then get back to
> > us.
>
> I disagree that an achromat refractor is obsolete as a primary
> observing instrument. Different observers have different reasons for
> preferring different telescopes -- as this thread is demonstrating.
One possible scenario in which an achromat, instead of an apochromat,
that is not a small beginner telescope, is not obsolete is where
someone has the opportunity to have a fixed observatory. If one wants
the highest quality images, regardless of cost, a refractor is
unobstructed - and where the length of the telescope is not an issue,
a 4" or 6" aperture achromat would be much less expensive than an
apochromat of similar aperture.
Not many people are in the situation that they can use such an
instrument, which is why it's "obsolete" enough that Unitron went out
of business, though.
John Savard
wsne...@hotmail.com
An observatory large enough to house a 6-inch f/15 achromat would also
be large enough to house a 12-inch f/7 Newtonian, which would have
twice the resolution of the refractor and much greater light gathering
power. While an apochromat would cost more than the achromat, there
would be a considerable savings because you could get by with a
cheaper mount and a smaller, simpler observatory, or maybe dispense
with the observatory entirely.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> wsnel... wrote:
>
> > The achromatic refractor is obsolete as a main observing instrument,
> > except for small beginner telescopes. Compare an 8-inch f/15 achromat
> > with a 10- to 12-inch SCT, WRT user-friendliness, and then get back to
> > us.
>
> I disagree that an achromat refractor is obsolete as a primary
> observing instrument. Different observers have different reasons for
> preferring different telescopes -- as this thread is demonstrating.
>
>
>
> > The premise of the OP implies that we can own only -one- telescope.
> > In real life we might have a small grab-n-go refractor, a clock-driven
> > CAT, and a large Dob, so it doesn't matter which is the "best."
>
> As the OP, I can clarify: "best" was meant in the context of best (or
> most used, or most desired, or the only telescope one has) for a
> specific individual's use. An 8-inch SCT might be "best" for one
> individual while a 4-inch achromat might be "best" for some other
> individual. For those with more than one telescope, "best" might be
> interpreted as meaning the telescope one would keep if one had to part
> company with all but one telescope.
There is no law that limits one to owning only a single telescope. A
130mm apo refractor might be perfect for you, but others might decide
to buy, for about the same money, a small RFT, a medium SCT and a
larger Dob. That selection covers most of the bases rather well.
Sketcher
>
> Isn't that old thread so inane that it doesn't need a
> response--especially years later? As I recall, it boils down to "You
> shouldn't decide which telescope is best for you based on your needs;
> you should follow my dictates in choosing a 'scope." I just can't think
> of an answer to that that isn't so obvious that it doesn't need saying.
I can think of no response that wouldn't be so obvious that it needn't
be stated ;-)
wsne...@hotmail.com
You are really reaching; most of the above are relatively unimportant,
can be fixed or have nothing to do with the telescope itself
The main factor that differentiates what you can see in two scopes
with decent optics and stable mounts is aperture. That is what
determines the resolution and light-gathering power. Aperture wins,
more often than not, even when all else is NOT equal.
> All else is never equal! Thus we see great differences in the
> telescopes that different people prefer.
>
> > Your apo might be best for you,
> > but someone with $600 to spend might do just as well with an XT-10.
>
> Yes, and someone wishing to follow a bit more closely in the steps of
> Galileo might be better off with a 50mm GalileoScope -- regardless of
> how much money they have to spend (unless they have enough money to
> purchase or lease one of Galileo's actual telescopes!)
>
I think your arguments are based on circular reasoning, which amounts
to saying "The best telescope is the one that best suits your
needs." The problem is that for most observers, there is no one
"best" telescope.
Jan van Gastel
and observing comfortability. That's why I completed the third version, an
f/3.6, of my computerized 20 inch Dob about a month ago (see
http://members.ziggo.nl/jhm.vangastel/Astronomy/shorty/f3.6.htm ). I use it
at home and I take to dark sites (in Southern France) at least three times a
year. I tried small aperture refractor and MCT telescopes as travel scopes,
but I almost never used them. With the third version, I even don't need a
ladder any more.
--
Jan
http://members.ziggo.nl/jhm.vangastel/Astronomy/
<wsne...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:5971bc5f-9f9e-4002...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Chris.Bee
Dobsonian mounting. Though I'd still prefer a large, driven equatorial
mounting.
When you have finished playing with your fuzzy toys the clarity of a
classical refractor has much to commend it. Read the D&G comments by
owners and users.
I built a Berry style counterbalanced Dob mounting for my self-made 5"
F:15 refractor back in the 80s. Its movements were even smoother than
the 12" Dobsonian I built shortly afterwards. I used a light fishing
spring balance to measure the force required at the eyepiece to move
the telescope and found it remarkably consistent over much of the sky.
Only very near the zenith was it more difficult to use. The equatorial
scores here except around the Pole where there is little to be enjoyed
except for that double star who's name escapes me.
Those who demand an observatory as an accessory to their perfect
telescope have already hampered their viewing with thermal problems
and denied themselves the wonders of the open sky. With the Milky way
sharply etched on a coal black sky all is laid bare for examination
and wonder. Give me a tall pier, one of my refractors, a star diagonal
and my variable height chair and I can spend hours staring at a planet
or the Moon in perfect comfort out on the lawn. Or just wandering
about the sky with a low power eyepiece seeing exquisitely small star
images without the distortions provided by anything but a long focus
Newtonian.
Larger apertures are unmanageable unless made short focus. I built an
8.75" F4 once and it suffered from so much coma only the centre of the
field of view was worth using. Spreading the light around like that
denies the photons a chance to excite the retina with perfect
pinpoints. You are throwing away much of the light gathering power and
resolution as well as adding a large central obstruction. I've also
used 12" and 18" F7 on equatorials and found them heavy and unwieldy
with too much momentum to overcome the friction. A good 8" or 10"
longer focus Newtonian on a driven mounting is another creature
altogether and a lot of fun. Opinions, opinions. Everybody has them.
All are valid as long as they are not forced down the throats of
others. When everybody agrees it is almost certain that the discussion
no longer centres around astronomy. Nor the toys we use to narrow our
attention span to the comfort level. :-)
Quadibloc
> An observatory large enough to house a 6-inch f/15 achromat would also
> be large enough to house a 12-inch f/7 Newtonian, which would have
> twice the resolution of the refractor and much greater light gathering
> power. While an apochromat would cost more than the achromat, there
> would be a considerable savings because you could get by with a
> cheaper mount and a smaller, simpler observatory, or maybe dispense
> with the observatory entirely.
I'm not saying that an achromatic refractor would necessarily be the
only or best solution for that situation, merely that this was at
least one situation where it is at least still a plausible
alternative. As was noted in another part of this thread, a longer
focal length reduces aberrations.
John Savard
Davoud
> For me, the best telescope is a combination of large aperture, portability
> and observing comfortability. That's why I completed the third version, an
> f/3.6, of my computerized 20 inch Dob about a month ago (see
> http://members.ziggo.nl/jhm.vangastel/Astronomy/shorty/f3.6.htm ). I use it
> at home and I take to dark sites (in Southern France) at least three times a
> year. I tried small aperture refractor and MCT telescopes as travel scopes,
> but I almost never used them. With the third version, I even don't need a
> ladder any more.
Excellent. That's a beautiful telescope, and I'm happy to learn that it
was _not_ tested by a plane crash or a stampede of elephants. Your
story underscores the maxim that the best telescope is one that you
can, and do, use with ease.
For me that happens to be one small reflector and one small refractor
on a permanent mount in a tiny observatory at my home
<http://www.primordial-light.com/technique.html> -- but read on.
As the climate in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region _seems_ to have been
changing at an increasing pace over the past few years -- we are
getting fewer and fewer clear periods on fewer and fewer nights, and
there does not seem to be any such thing as a "clear night" anymore --
I'm re-thinking my situation. The problem is not with the telescopes;
they would be fine for a wannabee astrophotographer anywhere; the
problem is with the location.
I enjoy being in my tiny observatory and I don't relish the notion of
operating it at a distance of some hundreds or thousands of miles. I
don't relish the cost of that, either; but to complete the circle, _no_
telescope is worth a sou to me if I can't use it.
The bottom line for me is a dilemma -- move the observatory to a better
location and control it remotely (I am unwilling to move my residence)
or lower my (already not terribly high) expectations.
William R. Mattil
>
>
> Those who demand an observatory as an accessory to their perfect
> telescope have already hampered their viewing with thermal problems
> and denied themselves the wonders of the open sky. With the Milky way
> sharply etched on a coal black sky all is laid bare for examination
> and wonder.
For you perhaps. Getting out of the biting winter wind or being able to
block out some neighboring lights might be important to others. Not to
mention the convenience of either opening a roof or using a dome and
having a permanently mounted telescope available that is already polar
aligned. A useful analogy here is that of a Boat. A boat in the water
gets used much more often than one on a trailer.
> Give me a tall pier, one of my refractors, a star diagonal
> and my variable height chair and I can spend hours staring at a planet
> or the Moon in perfect comfort out on the lawn. Or just wandering
> about the sky with a low power eyepiece seeing exquisitely small star
> images without the distortions provided by anything but a long focus
> Newtonian.
Horses for Courses. Not everyone is into that.
>
> Larger apertures are unmanageable unless made short focus.
>
False. I use a very portable 10 inch f/9 that is much shorter than a 10
inch f/6. In fact, it's the same length as a 10 inch f/4.
> I built an
> 8.75" F4 once and it suffered from so much coma only the centre of the
> field of view was worth using.
Ummm - Coma Corrector ? You might have heard of them.
Bill
--
William R. Mattil
Curtis Croulet
>> telescope have already hampered their viewing with thermal problems
>> and denied themselves the wonders of the open sky. With the Milky way
>> sharply etched on a coal black sky all is laid bare for examination
>> and wonder.
>
>
> For you perhaps. Getting out of the biting winter wind or being able to
> block out some neighboring lights might be important to others. Not to
> mention the convenience of either opening a roof or using a dome and
> having a permanently mounted telescope available that is already polar
> aligned. A useful analogy here is that of a Boat. A boat in the water
> gets used much more often than one on a trailer.
I dream of owning an observatory in a dark-sky, or even moderately dark
location. I do CCD imaging, and it would be so very nice not to have to
waste time connecting and unconnecting equipment and doing drift polar
alignment. Walk into the dome, and I'd be ready to rock and roll. Even in
my pre-imaging days, there was still the setting up and tearing down of the
mount. With my 12.5-inch Newt, there was hoisting the 80 lb tube onto the
mount. I haven't used that scope in years, mainly because of that issue.
At Palomar Observatory, by keeping the dome interior close to night time
temp, thermal problems have been managable. Admittedly, a small amateur
dome, with a tiny fraction of the volume of the 200-inch dome, makes this
more difficult. I'd think a slide-off top, with total exposure of the scope
to the sky, would be better. But I don't own an observatory, so all I can
do is speculate.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
Jan van Gastel
from center to edge.
--
Jan
http://members.ziggo.nl/jhm.vangastel/Astronomy/
"William R. Mattil" <wrma...@ix.netcom.com> schreef in bericht
news:5NM4m.5052$Jb1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
wsne...@hotmail.com
Looking at the total cost of observatory, telescope and mount, not to
mention ergonomics and FOV, the f/6 to f/8 apo is the clear winner
against an f/15 achromat, when considering refractors 5-inches or
greater.
joni...@aol.com
> Most of us would be willing to admit that different telescopes have
> different sets of advantages and disadvantages. The best telescope
> for me is unlikely to be the best telescope for you. The purpose of
> this thread is to give you the opportunity to share your thoughts on
> either the "best" telescope you currently own or the telescope you
> would choose to own if you could have only one telescope -- without
> changing your where you live, what you drive, where you work, etc.
>
> The best telescope for me is a 13cm f/6 apochromat refractor. As a
> visual observer I enjoy low-power, wide-field observing sometimes and
> high-powered, razor sharp planetary images at other times. I also
> enjoy observing DSOs - galaxies, nebulae, etc. Sometimes I like to
> set up a telescope for a quick look at the sun.
>
> Some may have difficulty believing it, but under my 6.5 magnitude sky
> a 13cm refractor provides very satisfying views of galaxies and
> nebulae. Lightgrasp and contrast is sufficient to show the Horsehead
> Nebula, Pluto, and structural details within many DSOs.
>
> I can sweep the sky with a true field of view greater than three
> degrees with pinpoint stars across the field or I can observe
> planetary details at 200 to 300x. I can identify Jupiter's Galilean
> satelites by their apparent sizes and colors.
>
> The scope is small enough and light enough to be easy to set up and
> take down. It's easily transportable even in my small Jeep.
>
> Yes, I remember to the old "Just Say No to Refractors" thread, but in
> my situation a 5-inch f6 apochromat refractor provides the best
> compromise between low-power, high resolution, and reasonable size,
> weight and aperture.
>
> What telescope is best for you? Why?
>
> To sketch is to see.
An interesting question. I will start out by stating that the best
telescope for me is not one but two, a 4 inch relatively fast
refractor with reasonable color correction for the widefield and more
casual evenings and a larger Newtonian, most probably DOB mounted and
relatively fast for the times when skies are dark and/or the seeing is
excellent. There is no way I would settle for a single scope and
there is no reason to either.
A 4 inch F/7 refractor is a nice size, short enough to be used alt-az
if desired, short enough to be used to look at birds, short enough so
one is not groveling down in the dirt to look at the zenith, and yet
potent enjoy to provide satisfying views of the planets, split some
pretty tight doubles and catch many interesting DSOs. It's a good
size as a travel scope too. I have an AT-102ED that fills this role
and gets a lot of use.
A larger Newtonian, Truss or Strut DOB, somewhere between maybe 12.5
and 16 inches, would be the other scope. These scopes travel well,
fit in a small car and are quick and easy to setup. They can cool
reasonably quickly and with their short focal ratios, capable of nice
widefield/richfield views. When the seeing is good, they can take
advantage of it to provide nice, bright, detailed planetary views as
well as splitting doubles that are beyond the limits of smaller
scopes. And of course, they excel at all types of DSOs. Complimented
with a set of Panoptics and Naglers and a Paracorr, they provide nice
flat fields with wonderfully sharp stars right up to the edge.
Currently my collection includes a 12.5 inch F/4.06 Truss with
Discovery Optics and a 16 inch F/4.42 Truss scope... I use em both,
during the summer I tend to use the smaller scope because I am not
normally hunting for the faintest fuzzies. During the winter, I tend
to use the larger scope in search of the fainter galaxies. For scopes
this size, a Dob mount is really the only option. I have a second
12.5 inch, an old Meade RG, a wonderful scope in it's own right but it
is just too heavy to be transportable.
But I think Sketcher's got it right... There is no perfect scope. The
important thing for each of is discovering what works best for us as
an individual. I know what I like, what works for me.
Best to all...
jon isaacs