Large scope = 150mm in S@N!

[Zeffer]

I know I brought this up before, but according to S@N a large scope is now >150mm for a reflector - a change from >200mm.

It seems that the definitions get even less credible as time goes by although a refractor has gone up from >90mm to >100mm.

Maybe they are trying to gradually get the sizes of reflectors and fracs closer together?

Maybe they have changed the targets so smaller reflectors can see them?

Maybe I shouldn't care as I'll have no scope tomorrow

Still, I won't be leaving SGL so may as well start a discussion

[FLO]

Still, I won't be leaving SGL...

Very pleased to hear it

[GazOC]

I'd heard they were going to adjust the old (ridiculous) frac/ reflector relationship of 90mm/ 200mm as a 'large scope'. I just assumed they'd make it 150mm/200mm which is accepted as pretty close, sounds to me like they don't want to tell too many of their readers that they have small reflectors....

[Astroman]

Wow, a 150mm is large? What's that make the .9m SARA, the "smallest" scope on Kitt Peak?

I have to sit down and breath into a paper bag....

[The Warthog]

Well, I do think of my 6" as a medium-small scope. And I think of my 105mm frac as a pretty big refractor as refractors go - there aren't that many 150mms about. Perhaps they should just define small, medium and large by objective diameter, and leave it at that. If your scope is >100mm, it may be a large refractor, but it is still a 100mm scope.

[Andrew*]

I read the other day that a 10" was small!

I consider my 114mm newt a baby. 150mm, small, 200mm medium and anything above that - massive! Now I don't knwo why anyone decided to make 76mm newts :nono: Maybe so they could market them as "pocket" scopes! (how many "pocket dictionaries" can you fit into your pocket?!?)

Andrew

[Astroman]

Excellent point, Andrew.

[GazOC]

WH, it wasn't so much what they choose to call a large or small scope (I don't care! ) but the refractor/ reflector size comparision, its in the "Monthly Observation" section so they are inferring the views are similar in those scopes.

[magician]

It Ain't the size its what you do with it :D

Cheers Frank

[GazOC]

It Ain't the size its what you do with it :D

Cheers Frank

Unfortuneatly Frank, for visual astronomy it is the size......

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I read the other day that a 10" was small!

Andrew

Your point being?

I know I brought this up before, but according to S@N a large scope is now >150mm for a reflector - a change from >200mm.

It seems that the definitions get even less credible as time goes by although a refractor has gone up from >90mm to >100mm.

Maybe they are trying to gradually get the sizes of reflectors and fracs closer together?

Maybe they have changed the targets so smaller reflectors can see them?

Maybe I shouldn't care as I'll have no scope tomorrow

Still, I won't be leaving SGL so may as well start a discussion

No you mustn't leave SGL, it's against the law! :nono:

I've done stuff that I liked with a 135mm camera lens which is only f/3.5, so an aperture of less than 40mm, and it really did work!

Captain Chaos

[Macavity]

Going back a LONG way now, there was the prevailing idea (I willingly absorbed) that the 3" refractor was "the basic minimum" and a 6" refractor "highly desirable" for the amateur. (The author didn't think much to e.g. 4" reflectors etc). That does seem to have changed, perhaps with advances in optical technology? FWIW, I never thought I'd EVER own a 4" (O.K. albeit and ST102!) refractor and a 5" Mak 127 might not have "passed muster" by that definition?

The refractor / reflector "equivalence gap" has closed and the "worthwhile scope" idea relaxed? But, like an astronomical Kylie Minogue, pretty much EVERYTHING appears big to me (Keep it clean, folks!)

[The Warthog]

WH, it wasn't so much what they choose to call a large or small scope (I don't care! ) but the refractor/ reflector size comparision, its in the "Monthly Observation" section so they are inferring the views are similar in those scopes.

Yes, I did have a problem with that, which is why I said they should just differentiate between large and small scopes on the basis of aperture. Perhaps they didns't want people who had just spent a lot of cash on a 5" refractor to feel inadequate.

[tenbyfifty]

this site shifts the goalposts a bit:

http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/

[The Warthog]

this site shifts the goalposts a bit:

http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/

Well, that's the difference between a large telescope and a honkin' huge telescope, which is another category.

[Kain]

I consider my Dob a medium large Scope.

Though I saw an ad for the soon to arrive Orion Optics 20" Dob /me drools

God if only I had the room.

Kain