Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

ABQJeff

New Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ABQJeff

  1. I am purely visual and I am all CATs and Fracs. I use the shorter focal length Fracs for widefields, terrestrial and solar H-alpha viewing. I use the Cats for compact large aperture and easier logistics/ergonomics. These are for planets, lunar and small DSOs. With reflectix CATs don’t require cooling, you don’t have to clean their mirrors (that you have to take out a Newt’s mirror and wash it blows my mind) and they maintain collimation for months on end of heavy use (even after going on rough roads). I started with a 150mm Synta Mak, 80ED and 120 f/5. My main set-up is now a C9.25 Edge, 140mm F/6.5 triplet and the 120 f/5. My next purchase will be a C11 Edge. The 140mm and big SCTs do (and will) ride very well in tandem on my Atlas Pro (Az/Eq-6). I will only get a Dob once I have a dedicated observatory in dark skies. A dob would be impractical for me in my suburban home: I would need to carry the Dob up stairs to get the Southern views from my house and my North /Northeast facing front slopes (no problem for a tripod that I can level). As far as performance, my c9.25 Edge has out performed every Newtonian 10” or less and Refractor 6” or less it has come across (for objects that could fit in its 1.13 degree FoV). CS! Jeff
  2. I have a C9.25 (Edge version, but my comments will be applicable to standard C9.25). Note: my C9.25 is Excellent, this line can have various performance, especially in non-Edge versions 1) My C9.25 is best double star, moon, planetary and small DSO scope I own (I have 80ED, 4” FPL-53 triplet APO, 120mm f/5 RFT and 150 mm MCT) (basically everything except on big targets where the 120 f/5 rules). 2) I have done field tests vs friend’s 8” Dob, C9.25 wins on both deep sky (bc of larger light gathering area) and planets. Planets may be a surprise, even though 200mm Dob has a contrast effective diameter of 160mm (200mm minus 40mm CO) vs 150mm (235mm minus 85mm CO) for C9.25, the extra light gathering and overall diameter of the C9.25 gives more color, more resolution and a better ‘experience’. 3) The first time I saw the E&F in the Trapezium was on my C9.25 (just two nights ago actually). So yes it can see the E&F stars. CS!
  3. Also another key consideration: Newts (of which a Dob is a type) can’t do terrestrial viewing. So if you want to look at mountains, lakes, oceans, birds, etc. have to get a refractor, Mak-Cass or SCT (latter two would be a bit of overkill, but can do it).
  4. It would help to know price range, portability requirements, if you are good with learning collimation, want zero maintenance, if you want to learn the sky via star hopping, push to or go-to. Of course ask if you are not sure on any of these. Without knowing the above, I say 4” AT102EDL on StarSeeker IV mount or a 8-10” Dob on push or go to. First is more portable/less maintenance, latter has more aperture/more logistics.
  5. Contrast effects (important for planets) largely goes as the linear diameter of central obstruction. So a 127mm Mak with a 33% obstruction by linear dimension (ie 42 mm) will give contrast of an 85mm ED/APO refractor. When most people say XX refractor vs YY Mak or SCT on planets, they are generally comparing contrast performance. Brightness effects (important for DSOs, and in a Mak we are talking planetary nebulas and globular clusters, not widefield DSOs like Veil or North American nebulas) depends on area of obstruction. The same 33% obstruction in a 127mm Mak by linear diameter will only impact area by 11%, so a 127 mm Mak provides the same brightness as a 120mm ED/APO. And a Mak 127 is less expensive than 120mm ED doublets (and triplet 85mm APOs for that matter), weigh less, and are shorter (ie easier to mount, travel with, store, etc.) But Maks also only give narrow fields of view (no sweeping the Milky Way or seeing all of M45). Also Maks and SCTs require either insulation (what I recommend) or cool down to eliminate thermals interior to the tube. Current 150mm and larger MCTs now have 2” visual backs, so that helps, but again that will only get you to about 1.5 degrees. Doing widefield isn’t why you get a Mak. Planets, detailed lunar crater views, double stars, planetary nebula, small tight open clusters (eg Wild Duck) and globular clusters are a Mak’s domain, at a fraction of what a refractor would cost to give equal performance on these objects. You can then take the saved money and get a Rich Field Telescope (small focal length, low magnification telescope, eg ST80, 120ST, ED80) to give you the big open clusters, big nebula and Milky Way sweeping at 3 degrees plus TFOV, that the Mak (or an SCT for that matter) can’t deliver.
  6. Got into astronomy this fall (with all the lock downs), joined Cloudy Nights earlier this year, now joining this forum. I am a new binocular (Oberwerk 12x60), Cass (Orion Mak150) and Frac (Orion ED80) user (for size and portability to get to dark skies). Been checking out dark sky sites in the area, but home is not too bad (Bortle 4-6 depending on what direction I look). From home, even in suburban LP, I can see all the Messier Open Clusters, brighter PNs (eg M57, Ghost of Jupiter, Saturn, NGC 1535) and GCs (M2, M13, M15, M92, etc.), M31, even some fainter stuff like M1 and Sculptor Galaxy, and of course, M42, double stars and planets. If anyone is in Albuquerque area and wants to chat about local astronomy, give me a shout. Same if anyone has MCTs, SCTs or Refractors, I have been reading a lot and have a whole series of purchases I am looking out to fill out my repetoire over the next couple months-years (120ST, C9.25 EdgeHD, Night Vision, SW120ED, AT102EDL, etc.). As I am still a 'newbie', I am sure I don't have all the answers and would be happy to chat on pros/cons/thought process on these and the mounts needed for them.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.