Scope for Visual

[Kenza]

Hi! I already have an APO for astrophotography. Can anyone recommend a good scope for purely visual observing. It will be stationary so portability is not an issue. Maybe occasional trips. Thanks!

[fredster]

Good old Dobsonian is a good bet and good value. Excellent aperture vs price ratio. And so simple to use. Plus still portable in a car. The 10" is a good compromise of portability and aperture.

[Kenza]

I have an EQ6 mount so a newton OTA would also be good.

[Dave79]

If you can just get the ota without the mount, then the Meade LXD75 is an awesome and under rated scope.

I have the 10" and sadly the original mount. As soon as I can afford an NEQ6 I'll change it.

[Dave79]

Ha. Your last one just beat me. I can't recommend the 10" LXD75 enough.

[Kenza]

Ha. Your last one just beat me. I can't recommend the 10" LXD75 enough.

I was thinking between that and a similar Skywatcher scope.

[swamp thing]

For a static visual scope the Skywatcher 16" Flextube is a pretty tough act to beat. Just don't try and move it about.

[Ganymede12]

A big dobsonian!

[Moonshane]

for me at least visual astronomy is about aperture. this is for a number of reasons:

• almost everything looks better with more aperture even those bright Messiers
  
• you can see things you cannot otherwise see with more aperture like the faint NGCs
  
• you get more resolution with more aperture on moon and planets (but see below)
  
• I like the increased contrast on moon and planets as well as tighter star images (with the smaller exit pupils when you use an aperture mask to increase focal ratios (only really possible with 12" apertures or more)).
  

disadvantages are larger size and weight, possibly more stress on eyepieces with faster ratios and of course cost.

if your skies are OK then a 10"-12" scope will provide excellent visual images but having had a 12" I can confirm that a 16" is a whole different ball game in terms of what you see and the size of the the thing - but very worth it.