Skywatcher Quattro f4 Imaging Newtonian telescopes

[Revs]

I'm dead good at that with the Telrad

[MikeWilson]

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

I've tried that but it's too confusing for my brain. It might help if I wasn't in a position between twister and limbo dancing trying to look through an inverted finder with my head twisted to the side.

I am so looking forward to these Quattros. I hope you have enough for everybody!

Mike

[FLO]

I hope you have enough for everybody!

So do we....

[RobH]

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

I do exactly the same Steve, works a treat

[MikeD]

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

You are not alone , I do, Straight through and both eyes open and can't work out why people would use anything else.

Mike.

[Whippy]

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.

+1 . It's initially a bit confusing but once you've got the hang of it, it's easy.

Like with the MN190, I still think a 6" version of these would be a much more manageable solution for those without obs. Certainly the 10 and 12" versions are for those with EQ6's and wind-less nights.

Tony..

[Demonperformer]

Now this throws my purchasing plans for the end of summer into confusion. Any ideas on how these scopes (specifically the 8") would be for AP? Will it require a coma corrector to be any good? (What sort of price would we be talking if it will?) Will the focusser be suitable (I'm sure I've read about problems with newt in-travel on focussers?)?

Thanks

[FLO]

Any ideas on how these scopes (specifically the 8") would be for AP?

These telescopes are imaging Newtonians, they are designed primarily for astrophotography

Will it require a coma corrector to be any good? (What sort of price would we be talking if it will?)

Yes, all fast Newtonians require a coma corrector for imaging. The Baader MPCC Coma Corrector has an excellent reputation, Skywatcher also offer one of their own.

Will the focusser be suitable (I'm sure I've read about problems with newt in-travel on focussers?)?

Definitely, the focuser has been chosen for imaging, there will be no problems with lack of inward focus travel. (The difficulties you have heard are related to Newtonians intended for visual use).

HTH,

Steve

[Si W]

The 10" carbon-fibre would look the business on an NEQ6, topped off nicely with the Startravel 102T as a guidescope.

[RobH]

I thought I had all my scope requirements covered....but a fast 10 inch CF imaging newt....hmm

[shaunster]

Do the steel ones still have the carbon look, or are they white or another colour?

[Tim]

I thought I had all my scope requirements covered....but a fast 10 inch CF imaging newt....hmm

My thoughts exactly. Save me one if you can Steve please, 10" CF.

Thanks

Tim

[FLO]

Do the steel ones still have the carbon look, or are they white or another colour?

They are black, like this f5 Explorer 200p

[FLO]

My thoughts exactly. Save me one if you can Steve please, 10" CF.

Consider it done Tim

[Steve 1962]

Do you think that, if I bought a 10" CF and put it in the cupboard for a few weeks until my wife found it..and when she interogates me I say something like "Oh that old thing? - I've had that for ages", I'd get away with it???? :)

[Tim]

Do you think that, if I bought a 10" CF and put it in the cupboard for a few weeks until my wife found it..and when she interogates me I say something like "Oh that old thing? - I've had that for ages", I'd get away with it???? :)

Well this is exactly what I am planning to do, just get it mounted and then come the innocent. Does anybody know how to disable a laptop and smartphone from accessing SGL???

Thanks Steve Give me a call on my mobile when you get breathing space.

[johninderby]

Do you think that, if I bought a 10" CF and put it in the cupboard for a few weeks until my wife found it..and when she interogates me I say something like "Oh that old thing? - I've had that for ages", I'd get away with it???? :)

Good plan, but you'll need some of this to make it look as if it's an old scope that's been in the cupboard for years.

Kobweb Cobweb Spray

Cobweb/dustweb effect from an aerosol can.

http://www.tvandfilmsupplies.co.uk/setdressing/cobwebs/kobweb-spray-450ml.html

John

[Steve 1962]

you'll need some of this to make it look as if it's an old scope that's been in the cupboard for years

Brilliant!

Thanks John - I feel a cunning plan coming together

Steve

[fatwoul]

Another Q: Forgive my dimness, but what specifically makes these "imaging" scopes? I thought the whole point of the MN190 was that it had the corrector plate to make an otherwise visual-oriented newtonian into an astrograph.

[George]

The connection has timed out.

The server at firstlightoptics.com is taking too long to respond.

Server crashed Steve?

[FLO]

Another Q: Forgive my dimness, but what specifically makes these "imaging" scopes? I thought the whole point of the MN190 was that it had the corrector plate to make an otherwise visual-oriented newtonian into an astrograph.

They are different optical systems. The 190MN uses a spherical mirror and a front corrector whereas the Quattro uses a faster parabolic primary with a coma corrector (purchased seperately). We haven't seen or tested a Quattro yet but my gut feeling is, when comparing a 190MN and a Quattro, you are trading some field flatness for increased speed and aperture.

Regarding what makes the Quattro an astrograph: Compared to a regular Newtonian the Quattro has a faster f-ratio for shorter exposure times and a larger secondary mirror for increased field illumination. The focal point extends further out of the focuser so cameras can achieve focus and the focuser is 'beefed up' to carry the weight associated with imaging kit. And the tubes are stiffer to reduce flexure. I think that about covers it

Threads discussing the pros/cons of Newtonians, refracators and catadioptrics for imaging will never reach a definitive conclusion because they all have something to offer. But for those in the Newtonian camp, these Quattros are very special indeed

HTH,

Steve

[Revs]

Looks like the Quattro has baffles! I suspect vignetting could be an issue as they look to really reduce the tube's inner diameter.

[FLO]

The connection has timed out.

The server at firstlightoptics.com is taking too long to respond.

Server crashed Steve?

Oops, sorry I meant to post a notice here on SGL. I recieved this Monday:

We would like to inform you that we will be carrying out some scheduled maintenance to the server which hosts your website, resulting in a temporary service outage. This maintenance is essential, and will not become a regular occurrence. The maintenance will occur within a window between 23:00 on 15/06/2011 and 02:00 on 16/06/2011.

The work itself is expected to take less than 3 hours to complete.

If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact us. We apologise if this maintenance period causes disruption and will do everything possible to minimise it.

[blackparticle]

Another Q: Forgive my dimness, but what specifically makes these "imaging" scopes? I thought the whole point of the MN190 was that it had the corrector plate to make an otherwise visual-oriented newtonian into an astrograph.

Not having seen or used either I'm only guessing here but I suspect each has its pros and cons.

For example.

Out of the box, the MN190 is going to produce exceptionally flat images across the field. The Quattros will require a coma corrector for wide-field images and even then, may not be as truly optically flat as the MN190.

The Quattros may excel at smaller / dimmer objects located in the centre of the field. Faint galaxies for example which you would then drizzle upwards and crop.

An advantage I can see for the MN190 is that it's going to remain dust-free inside the tube whereas the Quattros are open-ended Newts. I wouldn't want to be using a Quattro right now where I live with all the tree-sap around.

I suspect the MN190 will hold its collimation better as well?

A plus for the Quattro is that you could probably get reasonable subs unguided, even if you're restricted to sub 30 seconds (which is highly likely at 800mm+)

I suspect the MN190 will fare better with high MP cameras and DSLRS and utilise more of the CCD successfully than the Quattros.

I'm not in the market for either at the moment but both the Quattros and the MN190 are giving me a sense of scope-lust... Then again.. so are those big Dobs.

[FLO]

Looks like the Quattro has baffles! I suspect vignetting could be an issue as they look to really reduce the tube's inner diameter.

You are thinking of the GSO 8-inch f4

The Quattros are not adaptations of previous models. Synta/Skywatcher have produced new tubes designed specifically for the new f4 mirror-sets so if they do have baffles (unlikely with carbon-fibre tubes) then I am confident the tube diamaters will be wide enougth to enable them to function without vignetting.