Best all rounder for a budget of £1100?

[ollypenrice]

Sorry to Fatwoul, I crossed my threads there! Sara, the ED120 on a good night and with the right EP (giving about 200x) should be very nearly as good as it gets on the planets. Keep trying!

I did try the F4 imaging Newt but I am a CCD imager and I found that the weight of my setup, especially hung out on the long lever of the coma corrector, pulled the chip off from orthogonality and I had nothing but distorted stars. I think the tube was flexing but can't be sure. With a light DSLR it might be another story, I don't know. Revs, your M42 strongly suggests that it would work well. Very good image. Increasingly I feel that the best DSLR images are taken in fast optics because without cooling very long exposures are out. This is from looking at results, not from using a DSLR.

Olly

[AndyUK]

Increasingly I feel that the best DSLR images are taken in fast optics because without cooling very long exposures are out

I can concur with Olly - I recently found a fair amount of noise showing on 10min exposures with a 40D on an MN190 (f5.3). I'm sure it could be circumvented in a number of ways (flexible gel cooler packs (thanks Olly!), shorter subs, greater qty of subs, dithering etc etc), but at f7 it might make this issue ever so slightly more prominent...

You can still get 2000mm @ f/10.6 with a 2x barlow on an MN (3000mm @ f/15.9) which with an SPC900 would give some very reasonable views of both Saturn and Jupiter, which is actually fairly comparable to my Mak 180, which is generally considered a planet cruncher (2700mm @ f15)

Having owned a 100mm/f9 refractor, I certainly wouldn't want to go for anything as slow as that for DSO's again, but I'm still biased - For an all-round scope, I'd still go for an MN190, if you can manage the comparative extra weight / awkwardness when compared to a refractor (oh, and collimation... )

[Revs]

Cheers for the feedback, Olly. Being a fast scope is why this F/4 newt appeals to me. I'll be using a DSLR for the foreseeable future. My main worries are collimation and weight, but it still seems the best option for now.

[LMC]

Well, IMHO an IM715D is definately what you need!

Actually, for an all-rounder in your budget, its very hard to beat a Meade 10", a Celestron 9.25 or a 10-12" Newt.

Depending on your observing likes and dislikes.

Both will give great views of the moon and planets, while having JUST enough FoV for DSOs.

If you are prepared to go 2nd-hand, you might even have enough left over for a 3-4" apo for widefield obs.

[banner001]

for about £950 you could get a skywatcher 12" 300P with tracking, or the 10" 250P GoTo...if you are viewing DSO's it will be stunning, plus gives you 150 notes for a nice eyepiece, or a paracorr...

[merlinxlm]

I already have the mount, so the budget is for the OTA. I'm torn between C9.25 or the SW 120DS Pro with a specific SW focal reducer for the 120. Has anybody on the forum had any first hand experience comparing these scopes side by side?

Thanks.

[ollypenrice]

Well, IMHO an IM715D is definately what you need!

Actually, for an all-rounder in your budget, its very hard to beat a Meade 10", a Celestron 9.25 or a 10-12" Newt.

Depending on your observing likes and dislikes.

Both will give great views of the moon and planets, while having JUST enough FoV for DSOs.

If you are prepared to go 2nd-hand, you might even have enough left over for a 3-4" apo for widefield obs.

Well, I have a ten inch Meade SCT and it gives a great view of the planets, a good view of DSOs which are small enough to fit in the FOV and it is not bad at all for webcamming the planets. For deep sky imaging it is, quite simply, next to useless.

Olly

[nightvision]

Merlinxlm, I think there is one bit of crucial data missing, what do you want to compromise on? A good all rounder (if such a thing exists) is not likely to be particularly good at anything.

Tony.

[nightvision]

I am in a similar position but still trying to figure out if I want to continue just observing or get into imaging also. So far I have learnt and deduced that:

(Interesting to see if anyone corrects my perceptions)

- £ for £ for observing big reflectors rule especially in a good location.

- £ for £ for imaging the latest specialised astrograph reflectors and Mak-newts are fast and capable of impressive resolution.

- Good APOs (6" or less) seem to be very good for imaging but can't compete with a large reflector for observing DSO.

- SCTs long FL create all sorts of challenges but the Edge series with secondary removed are impressive for imaging but expensive like a large APO.

- A F2.8 Powernewt appears to be an impressive Astrograph but not sure how it does for observing compared to the MN190

Conclusion (to date): I am saving for a Powernewt and a sensitive Sony CCD camera and will continue to use the 12" dob for observing.

Tony.

[AztecastroMcJ]

For Planets and Moon viewing and imaging C9.25 would b much better,

120 would be gud for dso imaging i reckon,

but larger 190mak newt or similar 200mm newt wud be better esp for viewing,

added light benefit which has been mentioned already

sum C9.25 are fastar compatible and

new edge HD are more suited towards DSO flatter field and are fastar compatible aswell

8" Edge is £1500 tho for OTA but would be worth considering with any of above depending on your priorities

good luck with ur decision

James

[merlinxlm]

Hi Tony,

I'm after a good all rounder, I know that I'd be loosing out on a specific scope for a specific job. I'm just debating which one to go for, I could stretch to £1200 for the OTA. FLO have a very good deal on the C9.25 at the moment and fair play Steve has given me good advice on which one to buy. I just like the SW 120DS pro, because its just a set-up and go, no need for any maintenance. I understand that they are totally different in the applications.

Thanks.

[swag72]

I notice in your sig that you have a SW Evostar 80mm already. Will you be moving that one with the new scope purchase? I ask as I have the 120ED, but can not imagine a great benefit of having them both. I am overall pleased with the 120ED, but have absolutely nothing to compare it to I'm afraid.

Are you wanting to image?

[merlinxlm]

I've just sold the SW 80DS pro, so I'm looking to upgrade. I did like the 80DS, a very good scope. But I'm after a bigger unit. I will be doing some imaging.

Thanks.

[swag72]

Just regarding the different sizes that you can see things (very important to me at this stage!!) Have you looked at the FOV calculator? That will give you some ideas on whether you may like the FL of certain scopes.

Hope that helps.

[merlinxlm]

Thanks for that Sara, I'm looking at the web site now. From what I can see, the C9.25 looks to be showing a lot more objects.

Thanks.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I have an 80mm triplet APO and a C8, and the latter is much the better all rounder. It is very good on planetary observation and imaging, excellent on DSO observation, even up to 1.38 deg FOV. I hunted down very many galaxies (down to magnitude 13) with it in the last months. The 80mm (and the same holds for 120mm) would be left in the dust when it comes to all smaller DSOs. For wider objects (few and far between) the 80mm and 15x70m bins are king and queen. Once I get into imaging, I will no doubt be using the 80mm F/6 most, but I will certainly give the C8 and reducer a try. The C9.25 is by most descriptions the optically superior to my old C8. As all round scopes go, they are great. They offer great aperture in a compact package.

The MN190 is also a very good scope by all accounts, and should also be a great all round scope (more barlowing needed for planetary photography, but that is a minor hassle). The C9.25 is better in DSO observation, but only by a small margin, and a good deal lighter (important when transportation is an issue). Both beat 120EDs by a good margin in DSO and planetary observing and planetary photography (aperture does rule here).

My take: if transportation/weight is an issue: go for the C9.25. If it is not, seriously consider the MN190

(I am no SCT freak, I like all big cats)