Is the SCT the all rounder?

[Earl]

I have been pondering, so per the Title is the SCT the all rounder?

With reducers Fast Imaging is doable, without reducers Planetary and luna is doable.

any thoughts?

[TheThing]

Well, that's my hope seeing as I have recently picked up a mighty fine OMC140!

[CGolder]

i think the 8" could be the jack of all trades but certainly the master of none

[nightfisher]

I will confirm when i get my focal reducer for my 180

[hunterknox]

Small field of view for visual. I like that wide field immersive feeling and I don't like using finders. Other that that they're ace.

[JohnC]

I have settled on Maks.

Had a fantastic omc140...went a little larger with an intes 715.

I won't be parting with it!!

Have tried a basic reducer and was suitably impressed.

As for lunar and planets, it is simply stunning.

Had a few sct and was always reasonably happy but i never got the snap to focus which comes with a refractor or mak.

I do think that the sct is responsible for getting a lot of people started in the hobby and should therefore be respected.

just my 2p worth

[nightfisher]

I have settled on Maks.

Had a fantastic omc140...went a little larger with an intes 715.

I won't be parting with it!!

Have tried a basic reducer and was suitably impressed.

As for lunar and planets, it is simply stunning.

Had a few sct and was always reasonably happy but i never got the snap to focus which comes with a refractor or mak.

I do think that the sct is responsible for getting a lot of people started in the hobby and should therefore be respected.

just my 2p worth

Funny you mention the "snap" focus, i get that on my 180, and i had heard tales of mirror shift, which i dont seem to get, it really snaps into sweet spot

[blinky]

For planets they are great (Look at the top planet imagers and they use SCT's) for deep sky with the reducer (The reason I bought one) they are OK but due to the size of the SCT focuser opening (You know what I mean!) they do suffer from a bit of vignetting and even with a reducer you are still a long way away from an F4 Newt BUT, they are OK, I used one for deep sky for over a year and it was fine. Also, remember that you can image deep sky @ F10 - its great for the small planetry nebs, check out the Eskimo Neb on my blog.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Visually they are great all-round scopes, photographically, they are great on planets, and OK on DSOs, as others have said. The "small" FOV of my C8 is just 1.38 deg (with 2" visual back and Paragon 40mm). Big enough for most deep sky objects, bar a dozen or so really big objects (Hyades, Pleiades fit, but not well framed, Rosette, North America Nebula, and M31 spring to mind).

I have had mine for just over 15 years, so it cannot be too bad;)

[Alma]

No. I think SCT's do planetary and deep sky well but the one thing they can't do is big, wide star fields. I think the description is better applied to large aperture Newtonians.

[Peter Drew]

A 16" SCT is my most used night scope, I've a number of alternatives to choose from.

[E621Keith]

I think SCT is a good all rounder.

They do well on planets compared to Newt, but with the exception of C9.25, Mak and big APO usually do better. Their FOV is wider than Maks, but narrower than Newts and refractors. They are reasonably fast when fitted with reducers, but they do suffer from field curvature and coma when used for imaging.

They are fairly portable for their aperture, but KCTs like Vixen's VMC are even lighter.

They can do wide field when fitted with Fastar/Hyperstar and at F1.9 it's about the fastest astrograph you can get, but that's for imaging only.

[great_bear]

A 16" SCT is my most used night scope

Now that's a scope I'd like a look through!

Do you stroke the "lucky dog" to keep the clouds at bay up there?

[swamp thing]

They work pretty well visually on most things but the big ones are about as portable as a legless elephant.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter Drew]

Come on down Great_ Bear. I've got 2 so we can use one each!

[great_bear]

You mean you've not got them set up as a binoscope yet?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

They work pretty well visually on most things but the big ones are about as portable as a legless elephant.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Given that we also require photographic capability, I would argue that for a given aperture, the SCT is reasonably portable. Just compare a C14 to a 14" Newtonian on an equatorial mount, or worse, a 14" F/8 refractor. If a 14" SCT is a legless elephant, the two alternatives would be dead-drunk dinosaurs

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

You mean you've not got them set up as a binoscope yet?

That's a nice idea for a grab'n'go setup

[Peter Drew]

It crossed my mind.

[great_bear]

a 14" Newtonian on an equatorial mount

Ah - just what you need for discovering impacts on Jupiter:

http://jupiter.samba.org/AnthonyWesley.jpg

(Anthony Wesley, discoverer of the 2009 Jupiter impact, with the 14" Newtonian scope used in that discovery)

[Earl]

The general opinion I see here is Good for most except wide field.

This does make me ponder if a 9.25 and 80mm is probably the most ideal setup?

[damnut]

I love my sct its my all rounder. I have a 254mm sct and two fracs, st120 for grab & go and 127mm f9.5 .

Though the goto is great on the sct I often just use in plain old alt az.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I also combine my 8" SCT with an 80mm APO for wide field (and bins of course). The SCT is used most, followed by the bins, with the 80 mm bringing up the rear.

[Merlin66]

Since I crushed my back, in the early 90's I had to give up on the Dobbie's - I had a 29", 18" 13", 10"....went to the 12" Lx200 - and I've only just sold it for a.....C9.25 and a C11 but this time on a NEQ6pro mount.

The SCT is ideal for the work I do - spectroscopy. The amount of backfocus allows me to mount various attachments and the spectroscope....

(I do use an ED80 for solar work and an ol' Genesis for double stars and wide field stuff.)

[swamp thing]

Given that we also require photographic capability, I would argue that for a given aperture, the SCT is reasonably portable. Just compare a C14 to a 14" Newtonian on an equatorial mount, or worse, a 14" F/8 refractor. If a 14" SCT is a legless elephant, the two alternatives would be dead-drunk dinosaurs

Indeed, sorry my bad.

You are quite right didn't read the OP properly:iamwithstupid:

Regards Steve