190 mn or f4 Quattro ?

[Blind Io]

Hi All

I’m keen on moving forward with imaging, due to the lack of a motorized mount my experience so far has been limited to wide angle DSLR 30 sec exposure photos of constellations and so on.

I have recently purchased a EQ6 pro with the intention of purchasing a scope suitable for imaging, having been a silent follower of SGL for quite a while I have narrowed my choice to a SW 190 mn or a f4 Quattro of undecided size. My problem is that this will be my only scope so it will also be used for visual observing.

My question to you all is which would serve the duel purpose I have in mind, I don’t know if it has a bearing but I live in the centre of town with a fair amount of light pollution

Thanking you all in advance

BI

[Keiran]

Hi and welcome, this is a hard one.

The 190mn is apealing because of the corrector plate, but a 10" F4 at half the price.

Personnally i would go for the F4, with a coma corrector

[RikM]

Do the F4's have larger secondaries than the normal SW Newts? Wouldn't that be a pain for visual use?

[Tim]

For a dual purpose scope I would def go for the MN190. (I have both mn190 and an 8" F4 newt)

[drewzilla]

Can someone explain why a fast scope is best for Imaging for all us noobies!

Cheers

[fatwoul]

drewzilla - Shorter exposure times, for one thing.

MN190. Definitely.

I have one, and I wouldn't be without it. It's more versatile than a standard Newtonian, which is saying something considering Newtonians are considered to be one of the best all-rounders to begin with.

The size and weight make it manageable, whilst still plenty fast enough for imaging.

It takes a little longer to cool down because of its Mak glass sealing the tube, but that's about the only snag, and its a very small one.

Because the tube isn't open-ended like a newt, the mirror is less prone to getting caked in filth, too - any junk headed that way lands on the glass at the front, and a blower brush easily gets rid of it.

For some reason MN190s also seem a little more robust and need less collimation (at least, that's how it seems, but I don't know why it would be). On the subject of collimation, the MN190, being f/5.3, is easier to collimate than the f/4 Quattros would be. That's not to say collimating any of them is fantastically hard, once you understand what all the concentric circles mean. However, f/4 will be less forgiving to inaccuracies in collimation compared to an f/5.3

Having said all of that, I do find the 10 inch Quattro very tempting, but only the carbon tube variety. The extra speed might prove useful to me in my location and work schedule, meaning I can't spend as much time imaging as I would like, so the quicker I can get data the better. The carbon tubes are also supposed to be less flexy, causing fewer problems with orthogonality.

As has been said, however, the steel tube Quattro 10 inch is almost half the price of the MN190, so if budget is another consideration, that could make a big difference, or at least free up funds for other bits you might need - a camera and guide system, for example.

[themos]

A fast scope is like a larger magnifying glass. It concentrates more light, making the image brighter.

[Blind Io]

Thanks to all it seems the 190 is tops at the moment. I shall keep an eye on this thread. And post my choice accordingly.

Once again SGL's guru's never fail to excel, good advice from all

IO

[AztecastroMcJ]

depends on ur budget the 200mm quattro being around half price makes it good value,

but SW make both scopes so pricing says 190mak newt overall better quality,

[themos]

But you are going to need a corrector for the Quattro straight away. That should add another £100 or so.

[fatwoul]

But you are going to need a corrector for the Quattro straight away. That should add another £100 or so.

Definitely. Also, the 200mm is a shorter focal length than the MN190. The like-for-like comparison in terms of field of view is with the 250mm, surely. Yes, the steeltube 250 is half the price of the MN190, but what I find so appealing about the Quattro is the idea of a CF tube, which will be stiffer, albeit possibly more tricky to balance with a heavy camera hanging off the front end. By the time you add on the corrector (the Baader MPCC seems the most popular), you're looking at £950 anyway, which isn't far off the price of an MN190.

[Blind Io]

Ok 190 mn it is then, thank you for all your advice, all clearly put.

One last question. Are there two models in circulation.? As prices seem to vary by as much as 10% online.

BI

[MikeWilson]

I'd say avoid the f4 Quattro until OVL/Synta/Skywatcher have pulled their fingers out of their bottoms and figured out how to pack a box. They've got QA issues - wait for the first, first light reports.. they'll be out in about a month or later...

The MN190's have had a bad batch too.

Bear this in mind if you're buying second hand and if you're buying new go with a good retailer that you can send stuff back to / get a refund from easily.

Clear skies,

Mike

[MikeWilson]

I'd say avoid the f4 Quattro until OVL/Synta/Skywatcher have pulled their fingers out of their bottoms and figured out how to pack a box. They've got QA issues - wait for the first, first light reports.. they'll be out in about a month or later...

The MN190's have had a bad batch too.

Bear this in mind if you're buying second hand and if you're buying new go with a good retailer that you can send stuff back to / get a refund from easily.

Clear skies,

Mike