markclaire50

Hi. Next question Do you think that a 200p would compliment a C9.25? By compliment, I don't mean that the 200p would be congratulating the C9.25 for a superb night's viewing. With similar apertures, resolution and light gathering will be similar, but viewing experience is what I'm interested in. Thanks Mark

Does anyone here have experience with imaging using the C9. 25 on a HEQ5 Pro mount? If yes, how did it perform on: Planetary DSO I would really prefer not having to factor in a heavier EQ mount! , as I want option to be able to go to a dark site, without breaking my back. I could ask the imaging lounge, but my last post fell on deaf ears there. Thanks Mark

Hi. Thank you for this useful information, especially the info on e f stars and pup. This of course raises the question _ what latitude are you at? I'm about 52° N in uk. So, if you can see pup at similar latitude, that is a big positive for the 9.25! Thanks Mark

If I bought a 7_10 inch frac, I'd also send lots of photos from down under in my newly acquired aussie mansion from the same lottery win needed. At the moment, being realistic, the following permutations are possible: 1. 180 mm mak - planets, doubles, lunar And skywatcher 200 mm F5 (aka 200p, not pds: the p has smaller secondary). These are close together aperture-wise, but I anticipate different viewing experience? I've seen both scopes at reasonable prices secondhand, especially the newt! 2. The Mak And a vx10 from OOUk. Choice of 1/8 or1/10wave to be decided. Mak likely secondhand. But I see very few OO newts secondhand. 3. C9.25" only. Good balance of aperture, but possibly not as good on planets as mak or as good for wide fields as newt. Also it's compact. In all cases, I currently plan to get a heq5 as I believe this is important for AP with my 80mm ed but also I believe it will handle any of the scopes above for visual. It could handke the mak and 8" newt for AP too I think. If I had lots of money, I wouldn't be so careful, but I haven't. So the right long term choice is needed: I think many of us have gone through this thought process. I also remember you saying how a 6" scope could see DSO at a dark site that you couldn't see with your 10" (or 12"?) newt in your more LP backyard, which I thought was a very interesting point. So, my set up needs portability potential too. I Suspect a 8" F5 newt would show lots more than I can see here, if in a dark site and be easier to take and store in my garage. Thanks Mark

Hi Mr Spock ( good name!) Thank you for your comments. So, if you had to choose 7"mak over the 9.25" sct for planetary and double stars, which would you go for? I'm aware of aperture is king rule. If both were in your garage or wherever you keep scopes, which one would you reach for, if the planets were out? Or you wanted to have a go at e f stars in trap or the pup? Thanks Mark

Wow. You can really seeing it getting a shift on! Clear spatial movement over only a few minutes. Then again I believe it's doing around 150000 mph!

Thanks John. Pretty certain 7-10" will be aperture I go for. But it's the specific type of scope I'm ruminating over. Newt, mak or sct. Won't be a frac.

Hi John. I guess albedo difference rather than linear features which I've seen in some superb OO VX8 photos on astrobin. The other thing of course is seeing. I'm based near Nottingham and I'm not experienced enough to know good and bad seeing yet. Is there an upper limit on aperture beyond which our UK weather makes it rather pointless to get a larger aperture for planets? I have a suspicion that 8" might be near to that size limit, as I'm told that our skies don't often allow sub-1" details? So 8" aperture at Rayleigh limit of 0.7" can cover that plus nights of slightly better than average seeing for planets? I welcome your suggestions. Thank s Mark

Thanks. I'm having a real case of analysis paralysis over future acquisition. Ideally I'd like to get one scope to rule them all (like in Lord of the Scopes), which would show real improvements over my 80mm ed and 127mm mak. I'd like to do AP and ideally(!) see features on ganymede (yes, it is a very specific objective!). A good mount, prob heq5, is definitely on the list, but which scope? I've dallied with the idea of 180mm mak and a skywatcher 200pds (or OO VX8) - the mak for planets and double stars (Sirius is on my hit list, as well as e f stars in trap) and the newt for the wider views with AP potential. But then I read a 130p can do brilliant AP, as can the 80ed I have already. It's more the imaging cam, guiding, processing, filters and mount that matter than scope aperture, for DSO. But I love planets too. So, I thought mmm, what about a bigger sct. Compact ess is important for storage, travel etc. I've heard other variable reviews of C9. 25.Ive read Damian Peaches review. But I read reviews about lemons too, too frequently! It would be easy to go insane, trying to make right choice!

Hi. How would people rate this scope? I'm not interested in the edge version. Too expensive! But I'm sure secondhand versions of the starbrite ones are around. Particularly, what are your experiences with it on doubles and planetary? Has anyone compared them to 10" newts? Basically, any interesting stories would be welcome. Thanks. Mark

I'm Very envious!

I'm not even sure my estimate is right. I was thinking about this. What is needed is a different unit of brightness per square arc second, to compare sky and jupiter.

I'm toying with the idea of going out to set up my 127 mm mak, but I'm suspicious of sudden clouding over just after I've finished setting up. It's happened on more than one occasion and is very irritating! I have just torn a piece of clingfilm off a roll and put three black spots of different sizes on it, after reading the posts above. Idea is I put it over the front of my newly purchased 10mm BCO eyepiece. Then see if one of the different sized spots can do the job. Of course I have the minor problem with the neighbour's tree blocking Sirius for next hour, just in time for clouds to arrive!

Hi Stub Thanks for this. The ring nebula image is fascinating! Never would expect that. On the jupiter calculation, I think apparent diameter is 35 arc seconds at moment. I find these calculations difficult to do at the moment, but if you use 35, would it drop difference to around 15 times brighter than sky? Still a surprise to me, and would still make it visible. Does that mean I should be able to find it with my 127 mm mak, in daylight? Now, that would be good!

Pretty amazing. So what physics are going on here? The scope must have been packing substantial magnification to give enough contrast to see Jupiter at all?