Advantages and disadvantages of each type of scope

[cowasaki]

The history:

I was selling a package of portable studio lighting in order to put towards a scope and then miraculously found someone selling a complete scope setting to buy a portable studio setup so we swapped We were both selling about £2000+ of bits but were both hoping to get about £1200 so this way we both got a lot more.

The main reason I did it was because with my research I wanted an NEQ6 pro synscan and the kit included that so at a £1000 I was effectively getting a scope and £500+ of eyepieces for £200 as the mount had only been used twice, was all boxed up and was what I was going to buy anyway.

The scope I got was a MAK180

The question(s):

The MAK180 is a £700+ scope but there seem much larger scopes costing much less. I'm not complaining but why would someone spend £700+ on this scope rather than say £400 on a much larger 10inch Dob ?

What are advantages and disadvantages of reflectors, refractors and Maksutov reflectors (I think that is the right term).

What are people's views because it is clear that some people like one type over another?

Why is one better for planets etc and one for deep space, I would have thought that bigger is better?

[carlc]

I'm a complete newbie at this but I would happily sell my first born for that scope.

My (limited) understanding is that in terms of price (low to high) for aperture it goes reflector, catadioptric, refractor.

Dobsonians are a form of reflector that are relatively cheap because they use a simple mount and thus you get a lot more aperture for your money. The general rule seems to be 'aperture rules' but it depends on what you want to see.

Refractors are very good at planets but are the most expensive and the achromats are prone to chromatic aberration (CA) though how much of problem this is seems to be personal to each individual. The higher end refractors (apochromats) are less prone to CA but a lot more expensive.

Reflectors may suffer from something called 'coma' - I'm not entirely sure what that is but I believe it's something that affects the edges of the viewing field. From a newbies point of view they have the (much) dreaded possibility of requiring collimation.

Catadioptrics (like you have) appear to be a good compromise between the two and are less likely to require collimation.

From what I have read the following things are important (the exact ranking depends on who is doing the ranking) - aperture, mount, GoTo (especially in light polluted areas).

The best advice I have seen (I think it was from Astrobaby) was stop reading (and agonising) - buy a scope and do some viewing. I reckon you'll have some fantastic viewing with your scope (can I come round for tea)?

All this is from a complete know nothing and based on web based reading so I expect (and hope) those with more experience will be along soon to give better answers.

Clear Skies

Carl

PS sorry about the smiley in the title - I don't know how that happened - it was supposed to be in the thread.

[ollypenrice]

In truth the great debates over this and that type are really a bit overbown, particularly for visual observing. What you have is probably optimized for high power viewing of the moon and planets and double star observing but it will allow you to see lots of other things as well. It should hold collimation well but will need to cool down thoroughly.

Its long focal length makes it a good planetary imaging tool but its slow F ratio makes it a poor choice for deep sky imaging. In imaging you do have to pay attention to F ratio and focal length when choosing. The needs of palentary and deep sky imaging are almost diametrically opposed.

Olly

[cowasaki]

I reckon you'll have some fantastic viewing with your scope (can I come round for tea)?

I haven't been well enough to use it but set it up yesterday as per a set of videos on youtube (inside). It was too cloudy last night so hoping for a clear night as soon as possible. To be honest I could probably do with someone who knows what they are doing coming round and going through it with me Having taught people how to photograph in my studio it is clear that some things are just better shown than read about.

[carlc]

In truth the great debates over this and that type are really a bit overbown, particularly for visual observing.

Olly

That's what I love about this forum - on others this would turn into a 'Great Debate' - here the wind is taken out of the sails straight away!

[cowasaki]

l but its slow F ratio makes it a poor choice for deep sky imaging.

Basically what I wanted to do.... I will probably treat myself to something else later in the year for that purpose.

[E621Keith]

Basically what I wanted to do.... I will probably treat myself to something else later in the year for that purpose.

I am sure many will be happy to swap their ED80 with your 180

[carlc]

I am sure many will be happy to swap their ED80 with your 180

Puts hand in air - Me, Me, Me.

[ollypenrice]

There you go then. You'll always be able to swap the big Mak for a DS imaging scope.

First off, though, I'd just get some observing time in and get comfortable with the dozens of unavoidable astro-rituals like polar aligning, focusing, learning the sky...

Webcam planetary and lunar imaging is a great way to start, the cameras are cheap, the software is free, you don't need to track accurately and you have the perfect scope.

Olly

[cowasaki]

There you go then. You'll always be able to swap the big Mak for a DS imaging scope.

First off, though, I'd just get some observing time in and get comfortable with the dozens of unavoidable astro-rituals like polar aligning, focusing, learning the sky...

Webcam planetary and lunar imaging is a great way to start, the cameras are cheap, the software is free, you don't need to track accurately and you have the perfect scope.

Olly

That's my plan for next week when it's clear enough. I've done the setup that I can do in the house like the polar scope centralisation etc. Now for some observing