Skywatcher Quattro f4 Imaging Newtonian telescopes

[blackparticle]

You should see if you can track down a supplier that will do tall beach wind-breaks in matt black. I imagine they would be quite effective and be dual-purpose.

[FLO]

Would the HEQ5 be good enough for the 10"?

No, I wouldn't recommend that, not with the 10", certainly not for imaging. Nothing would bend, break or fall over but it would be undermounted.

HTH

[Deneb]

Now the only thing you need is to upgrade that Dovetail on it, to something like ADM's offering...

Nadeem

[MikeWilson]

Yes please!

[fatwoul]

Oooh another question: I've just noticed that this one has a straight-through finderscope, not a right-angled one like on my MN. I always assumed this was because mine was an imaging-dedicated scope, not that I could make sense of why that would be a reason.

I know the "normal" Skywatcher newts have straight-through finders, but I expected these new newts (also described as imaging scopes) to have the same finder as my scope.

If I'm honest, right-angled finders make more sense to me on newtonians, and straight-throughs on refractors. Anybody know the reason for Skywatcher's finders?

[ollypenrice]

Very interesting indeed. In my view what is absolutely critical in a system like this is orthogonality. Both the tube and the focuser contribute to this so the CF tube version would be my choice.

Olly

[Rossco72]

I can see a 10" CF in my future somewhere.....

[russ]

They look superb. Would love to convert the 10" or 12" carbon into a dob (hehe just waiting for the cries of dismay ).

Are they supplied with a coma corrector or do Synta even have a matched coma corrector for it yet? I know they have the F5 coma corrector but guessing that wouldn't work with these.

[Macavity]

They certainly compare well with my GS/TS/whatever "Photo-Newts" (whatever!) - Price-Wise. <Doh>. Though perhaps, similarly, a set of (FLO naturally) 2" extension tubes, is quasi-mandatory? I need 80mm for non-coma-corrected Hyperion 2" visual use, 50 mm for Watec use etc. etc. In that, I guess the Quattro is [somehow] standard 2" focusing as well?

The Carbon Fibre looks cool (sic?) tho'! I'm equally convinced by BOTH sides of the (passionate) convection/conduction/radiation "physics" arguments! <G> At +£200, maybe the sticky backed plastic, would have been my (retrospective) limit?

Aside: I'd love to see F4 Newts become popular. As an SGL discussion topic? <G> Much as my first MAK purchase(S) seemed to go against onetime "popular opinion", may their PRACTICAL capabilities convince the dissenters?

[Revs]

I look forward to seeing more details. The focuser looks better than expected, similar to the TS one on mine. Should be interesting

[FLO]

Very interesting indeed. In my view what is absolutely critical in a system like this is orthogonality. Both the tube and the focuser contribute to this so the CF tube version would be my choice.

Olly

Consider also the mirror-cell, the mechanism that holds the primary mirror securely on axis. The success of a fast Newtonian depends greatly on collimation, which requires a well designed mirror cell with a high mechanical accuracy, this is where other f4 Newtonians fail. Skywatcher have an excellent reputation for their mirror cells so we have high hopes for the Quattro series. We think they will do more to popularise fast 'imaging Newtonians' than anything else previously available.

Currently apo refractors are in-vogue, perhaps that is about to change...

[FLO]

If I'm honest, right-angled finders make more sense to me on newtonians, and straight-throughs on refractors. Anybody know the reason for Skywatcher's finders?

Straight v angled is a subjective thing, I rather like the straight-through type as I can use the 'both eyes open' method.

Steve

[Daniel-K]

the wife has just shot me down as my b-day is the 3rd july and she said no

[russ]

the wife has just shot me down as my b-day is the 3rd july and she said no

oh dear. You could always sneak it in under a very baggy jumper.

[MjrTom]

oh dear. You could always sneak it in under a very baggy jumper.

I am pondering the same thing myself... NEQ6 might be a bit more difficult to hide tho!

[step_hen]

oh dear. You could always sneak it in under a very baggy jumper.

I get the impression you've actually tried that Russ;)

[russ]

I get the impression you've actually tried that Russ;)

I have but not with something that big

[MjrTom]

I have but not with something that big

Is that not the norm for a lot of astronomers!

Along with greatly under stating the value of items bought lol

[Macavity]

An 8" F4 is surprisingly small (light). I had thought that my "dicky ticker" would preclude the use of (relative) "light buckets" on an EQ mount - Idem a 6' wide observatory with barely room to "swing a cat"! LOL. But a nifty (instant gratification) VIDEO(!) astronomy setup is a possibility (I hope) too...

[adamsp123]

IMHO straight through finders are the work of the Devil, maybe that is why Steve (FLO) likes them

[FLO]

It requires an extraordinarily high level of skill to properly use the 'both eyes open method'

[adamsp123]

It requires an extraordinarily high level of skill to properly use the 'both eyes open method'

And a wricked Neck, twisted spine etc.

Mind you Straight finders do make good lightweight guidescopes, their only reason that are not in the lower levels of Hell.

[Ant]

It requires an extraordinarily high level of skill to properly use the 'both eyes open method'

No it doesn't, you just don't shut your other eye!

[FLO]

Straight or angled, if I had my way they would 'all' be erect-image.

Bear in mind the photo at the start of this thread is a stock photo, we won't know for sure what accessories will be supplied until they actually arrive.

[FLO]

No it doesn't, you just don't shut your other eye!

Joking aside, I cannot be the only one who observes the actual sky through one eye and the magnified finderscope view with cross-hair simultaneously through the other. Once you get the hang of it it is a quick way to centre something.

Steve