What is your "someday" scope?

[Earl]

The TEC 140 is the killer visual apo, I can confirm! Alas I don't know the bigger TECs. WHo does??

I'm an imager first and find the Takahashi Baby Q the most infallible optic I ever use... so I'd like five of them on a multi scope array. Five? Mais oui!!

L, R, G, B, Ha. Each has its own camera. FIve hours in an an hour. Yessss....

Olly

The Mesu would breeze them also at 100kg capacity

[L8-Nite]

The Questar 7 is a very good scope indeed. The optics and mechanical finish are as close to perfection as you an get. However, at the end of the day it is a 7" scope. Will it beat a C14 on CGE-Pro mount in practice? I can buy 2 C14 CGE mounted scopes for the price I saw listed for a Q7 OTA .

Guess I misinterpreted this thread. I didn't think it was about money, competition, or about "two bigger for the price of one", but that it was about what each person would consider to be one of their ideal scopes.

Although the Questar is a 7" scope, its like you said... "as close to perfection as you can get".

Sounds good to me.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Guess I misinterpreted this thread. I didn't think it was about money, competition, or about "two bigger for the price of one", but that it was about what each person would consider to be one of their ideal scopes.

Although the Questar is a 7" scope, its like you said... "as close to perfection as you can get".

Sounds good to me.

No misinterpretation on your part. I just wonder why people choose what they choose. Yes I like quality, but at some point quality is beaten in practical use by aperture. Olly loves his TEC 140, and with reason. As visual man I prefer his 20" Dob. Each to his own. And Olly has the luxury of having both (and more goodies).

[L8-Nite]

Several reasons why I would choose Questar are, because of the well thought out user friendly design, 50+ year track record, proven eyepieces and accessories, and just the best of everything in a reasonably portable Maksutov telescope; from what I have researched.

[John]

Guess I misinterpreted this thread. I didn't think it was about money, competition, or about "two bigger for the price of one", but that it was about what each person would consider to be one of their ideal scopes.

Although the Questar is a 7" scope, its like you said... "as close to perfection as you can get".

Sounds good to me.

Thats my interpretation of what this thread was all about too

Everyone will have a different view on what they aspire to own, should the circumstances ever enable it. There are no "right" or "wrong" responses

[neil phillips]

Several reasons why I would choose Questar are, because of the well thought out user friendly design, 50+ year track record, proven eyepieces and accessories, and just the best of everything in a reasonably portable Maksutov telescope; from what I have researched.

Several reasons why I would choose Questar are, because of the well thought out user friendly design, 50+ year track record, proven eyepieces and accessories, and just the best of everything in a reasonably portable Maksutov telescope; from what I have researched.

Yes but likely beaten on performance by my £600 scope. Maks are planetary lunar and double star scopes for the most part, as such another scope outperforming it seems to me to be a big reason to prefer such said scope.

I thought the thread was about a someday scope we might actually get.

Of course if we change the question and say if i won the lotto hey ill have a questar, a tak, and quite a few other lovely scopes of beauty.

Its nothing to do with a competition, I would have thought performance was right at the top of the list of reasons to buy a scope ?

But i guess thats not true for everyone.

Some may prefer inferiour performance. For other reasons. Though. I conceed the lack of diffraction spikes on double stars could be seen as a performance adavantage over great newtonian optics true. As might portabillity.

But its a high price indeed to pay for those advantages, when i say high price i dont just mean bucks. I mean planets could lose out visually or imaging wise to good cheap newt optics.

Saturn is so dim it would be hard for this Mak to do as well at similar powers as my present affordable scope. Each to there own.

[neil phillips]

Guess I misinterpreted this thread. I didn't think it was about money, competition, or about "two bigger for the price of one", but that it was about what each person would consider to be one of their ideal scopes.

Although the Questar is a 7" scope, its like you said... "as close to perfection as you can get".

Sounds good to me.

I think it might have been about money we will afford. Its certainly nothing to do with competition. But to me its everything about performance, ( and nothing about competition ) as i cant afford lots of scopes, as such my comments might be meanigful to some.

Though i understand a little if one is loaded and can afford Taks, questars, astrophysics, whatever. And can have performance ( say a C14 ) for planets too. People seem to say a lot of these wish list items in terms of performance. But under closer disscussion, portabillity or a nice finish, or items that go with the scope are the primary reasons that then become discussed.

Those are the reasons if money was no object i would like these scopes too you bet, fully agree on that.

One last comment to tickle debate or not. A scope that loses out on planets when one is available that betters it. When its supposed to be a premium planetary scope is far from as close to perfection as one can get. if you mean inferiour, but close to perfection as one can get, for a small scope, which i think you do. Then i fully agree with you.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The idea that Maksutovs are not suitable for DSO viewing is a persistent misunderstanding (just like SCTs). The have a narrow field of view, but an F/10 scope with 22 mm Nagler gives the same view as an F/5 scope with an 11 mm Nagler.

[neil phillips]

The idea that Maksutovs are not suitable for DSO viewing is a persistent misunderstanding (just like SCTs). The have a narrow field of view, but an F/10 scope with 22 mm Nagler gives the same view as an F/5 scope with an 11 mm Nagler.

No Not suggesting they cant be used on DSO, Just that most people buy them not for DSO.

They are optimized more for high power views. Especially at f15. A f10 Mak with focal reducer would give reasonable views on DSO. Globulars, and planetary nebula certainly targets that maks might work well with.

But big widefeild views not there strength, Comet hunters they are not.

[Stu]

All the comments about fov are of course correct. My f20 mak has a maximum fov of around 0.6 °, and yet works perfectly well on any smaller dso's. It is particularly strong on globulars, and will resolve M13 pretty much to the core on good nights, showing lovely image scale. Also, planetary nebulae, and even the smaller open clusters are fabulous in it.

M42 looks wonderful, even though only a portion of it fits in the fov.

The scope is fairly hopeless at anything large, open clusters, the larger galaxies, although only M31 is a real problem, and larger nebulae like the Veil.

Actually using a focal reducer doesn't help the fov beyond a certain point, I just use long f/l 2" ep's when I want the biggest fov.

Stu

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

All the comments about fov are of course correct. My f20 mak has a maximum fov of around 0.6 °, and yet works perfectly well on any smaller dso's. It is particularly strong on globulars, and will resolve M13 pretty much to the core on good nights, showing lovely image scale. Also, planetary nebulae, and even the smaller open clusters are fabulous in it.

M42 looks wonderful, even though only a portion of it fits in the fov.

The scope is fairly hopeless at anything large, open clusters, the larger galaxies, although only M31 is a real problem, and larger nebulae like the Veil.

Actually using a focal reducer doesn't help the fov beyond a certain point, I just use long f/l 2" ep's when I want the biggest fov.

Stu

Similar to my experience. The F/10 SCT grabs a bit more sky, and almost all galaxies are framed nicely (8 in one FOV around M86 and M84 is my record to date). The exceptions are M31, the LMC, the SMC, and to a lesser extent M33. These are viewed much better in a real wide field instrument, like my little 80mm F/6 and my bins. M42 does fit in my case, and the Q7 at F/13.5 would hold it nicely as well.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

No Not suggesting they cant be used on DSO, Just that most people buy them not for DSO.

They are optimized more for high power views. Especially at f15. A f10 Mak with focal reducer would give reasonable views on DSO. Globulars, and planetary nebula certainly targets that maks might work well with.

But big widefeild views not there strength, Comet hunters they are not.

I prefer not to use a reducer on my F/10. Using 2" EPs at longer focal lengths gives better results visually. A reducer is really better suited for photography.

[Moonshane]

Personally I feel that discussions about whether or not this scope or that scope are good for this or that are rather irrelevant. All scopes will provide an image of the target (assuming adequate aperture and dark enough skies to see it in the first place). To me, the key criterion for any scope is whether or not the object you seek will actually fit into the field available at a magnification that provides adequate detail given your eyepieces and focal length. If they do not then you either need to change your observing preference, buy a different scope or change your eyepieces.

Other than the above, you then start stretching aperture to see 'deeper' or 'fainter' or start increasing contrast to start seeing increasingly subtle detail.

These last options really dictate what these further choices might be.

All that said, a dream scope is like a dream partner - we will all have different ones for different reasons!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Very true, Shane. For me a dream scope also includes an affordable price tag, but maybe I am cheap others may have bigger price tags on their dreams. Perhaps I have been living in the Netherlands too long . Same as with cars. Some people (like a Greek former PhD student of mine) dream of great looking cars capable of doing 200 mph. He balks at my purely utilitarian view of cars: a machine with enough passenger and luggage capacity, sufficient comfort for long distance trips (rarely drive short distances, that's what bikes are for), reliable, and preferably low cost (both purchase and running costs).

[Macavity]

+1 Guys.

I think it good to understand that those who see their "dream scope" as a Maksutov (or SCT)

might vaguely know what they're doing? [doubly teasing]

To me, the thread is about (thought) "experiment". It's inevitable that we glimpse (be shown?) the size of others' "Wad" (as Harry Enfield might say!). But until you actually OWN a scope, y'never completely and practically know it's limitations... or it's virtues?

As a complete flight of fantasy (I remember now!) it's gotta be the... GLADIUS!

Alpine Astro Link (Almost affordable, if you don't have kids? LOL)

A sort of Head... "Optical Bench" on a stick (sic)?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

+1 Guys.

As a complete flight of fantasy (I remember now!) it's gotta be the... GLADIUS!

Alpine Astro Link (Almost affordable, if you don't have kids? LOL)

A sort of Head... "Optical Bench" on a stick (sic)?

Optical bench onna stick? Supplied by C.M.O.T. Dibbler, perhaps?

Seriously, interesting looking scope. Dew problems might be expected, however.

[Moonshane]

As much as I love the idea of a massive scope, may mate has a 22" f5 and this has an eyepiece height at the zenith of about 9 feet off the ground. The views are worth the climb but I'd sooner have my 16" f4 any day. The difference in size between the 22" and the 16" is bordering on ridiculous. So I agree that practicalities certainly temper my enthusiasm!

[L8-Nite]

As much as I love the idea of a massive scope, may mate has a 22" f5 and this has an eyepiece height at the zenith of about 9 feet off the ground. The views are worth the climb but I'd sooner have my 16" f4 any day. The difference in size between the 22" and the 16" is bordering on ridiculous. So I agree that practicalities certainly temper my enthusiasm!

I would agree also. For me, the larger scope's and the commensurately larger, heavier, and complicated equipment associated with them would not be practical. This is a hobby after all, so it's a matter of what works for your particular level of interest, and gives you pleasure.

A dream scope can be affordable, just like a nice car. I can see no difference why one can be thought of as obtainable, and the other not. It all comes down to the choices and sacrifices we make over time, to reach our goals.

Sorry my post opened a can of worms, it was "not" my intent.

[E621Keith]

I would agree also. For me, the larger scope's and the commensurately larger, heavier, and complicated equipment associated with them would not be practical. This is a hobby after all, so it's a matter of what works for your particular level of interest, and gives you pleasure.

A dream scope can be affordable, just like a nice car. I can see no difference why one can be thought of as obtainable, and the other not. It all comes down to the choices and sacrifices we make over time, to reach our goals.

That is a very good point. Not everyone can live with a 48" dob like this guy. That said, I'd love to look through it if it appears in a star party. The view through a 24" was shocking, imagine what would a 48" do.

OMI: 48" Dob project

[John]

.....Sorry my post opened a can of worms, it was "not" my intent.

I'm sure it was not. You simply told us about the scope you would aspire to own, should circumstances someday allow it.

Some other posters could not understand or did not agree with your preference and for some reason decided to question it

[swamp thing]

I agree about the practicalities of large scopes.

It's very easy to let your heart rule your head on such matters.

I had my heart set on a 22" f/3.6 this gives a reasonable eyepiece height but I wanted to build an obsession style scope and in this guise a 22" won't fit through a standard doorway.

This would be a major handicap as all my scopes must fit through a standard door frame. At the moment.

Once my 20" is finished I can't see myself going bigger but you can never say never (that front door and frame will have to be replaced one day)

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Previously I listed an 8" suitcase dob as ideal travel scope. I have just been side-tracked by this page (Dutch), for a 12" F/4 suitcase dob which when packed measures 41x41x19 cm. AMAZING!! Now that would be my perfect travel scope . Taking that down-under would be a dream. Best thing is that it would also extend my current capabilities aperture-wise, and is within my building skills (and budget in the foreseeable future). Someday might be closer than I first thought.

[Moonshane]

amazing scope Michael. my only concern would be the weight for airline travel?

[neil phillips]

I would agree also. For me, the larger scope's and the commensurately larger, heavier, and complicated equipment associated with them would not be practical. This is a hobby after all, so it's a matter of what works for your particular level of interest, and gives you pleasure.

A dream scope can be affordable, just like a nice car. I can see no difference why one can be thought of as obtainable, and the other not. It all comes down to the choices and sacrifices we make over time, to reach our goals.

Sorry my post opened a can of worms, it was "not" my intent.

No can of worms its just a discussion. Cant be expected to agree all the time. Whats important for one mifght not be important for another. I Think i make the mistake of assuming performance will be the biggest consideration that most will strive for. I understand a 20" is unreasonable to move around.

I find my 245mm reasoanbly easy to move around so its performance seems worthwhile. others may want even more portabillity even if they pay thousands extra, and get less performance into the bargain.

My brain finds it hard to compute those numbers. But after listening to the replys im starting to see, why some might prefer something i would see as wasted money. we have differnt considerations i guess

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

amazing scope Michael. my only concern would be the weight for airline travel?

Many airlines allow 6 kg carry-on luggage. I will ask how heavy it is.