Is this combo a good/bad choice for AP?

[Offscreen]

I've been planning on getting a scope for the summer for a pretty good amount of time now, this is the set I came up with and I got a couple of questions:

Scope: Meade Series 6000 APO, 115/80mm

Mount: Orion Atlas GoTO

Guidescope: IDK, Any suggestions?

• Is the Meade refractor a decent choice for AP?
  
• Would the 115mm scope be too heavy for the Atlas and would it make a big difference compared to 80mm one?
  
• The Orion Atlas is 34kg fully assembled, compared to the 19kg Celestron CG-5 that's a 15kg difference, would the CG-5 manage to mount a 115mm Meade APO and do AP?
  
• Zoom eyepieces, do or don't?
  

This will be my first scope (got a pair of binos), any advice is welcome. Thanks!

[VigdisVZ]

Coming from a beginners point of view, at first glance it looks lite a solid combo, the CG-5 should handle 15kg and the Atlas 19kg. The 115mm frac weights about 8kg so that leaves room for extras.

However if you have the budget, always go for the better mount in AP. Stability and reliability is key here. Most people I've talked to say the mount is way more important than the OTA.

Unfortunately I know very little about refractors so lets wait for a veteran to comment on the picture quality.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Looks like a sensible setup. I think the EQ-G is the Orion counterpart of the (N)EQ6, so that should be OK. The Meade 80mm F/6 might well have the same optics as my APM branded 80mm F/6 triplet (there are a lot of clones floating around, all using the same optics). You might want to shop around if similar combos cannot be had for a lower price. The 80mm will be easier to guide than the 115mm. In AP you want to keep well away from the listed weight capacity of the mount, and keep focal lengths short.

[ollypenrice]

I have reviewed similar scopes from Altair Astro. They are very good. However, the Meade advertisement is rather dishonest because without a field flattener these scopes are not ready for deep sky imaging. The flattener is essential and comes in the deal from Altair Astro.

Go for the larger mount unless you choose the 80.

Be quite clear why you choose one or the other size of scope. In AP bigger is not better, it is different. The scopes have different focal lengths and so will cover different amounts of sky. For larger targets choose the 80, for smaller ones the 115. Personally I think the 115 is too short for galaxies and a bit long for many nebulae. The 80 is too short for many galaxies as well but it can fit in more nebulae.

The 80 is F6, the 115 is F7. The 80 therefore exposes considerably faster. On the other hand the optics of the 115 I tested were slightly better than those of the 80 but in practice it made no perceptible difference. Quality varies randomly anyway.

Olly

[sologuitarist61]

Yes, I believe Carl is right, a good mount will really pay off in the end. If you have the money for an expensive scope as well then so much the better, but I would get the mount sorted first and then see what is left over for the scope - even quite cheap ones (from well known names of course) are often more than adequate and you can always up-grade later if needs be.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I forgot to say I also got the APM 80 F/6 with flattener (TS branded). I have not imaged yet, but I got this with imaging in mind, so once I get a good mount and camera, I can have a bash at it

[Offscreen]

I have reviewed similar scopes from Altair Astro. They are very good. However, the Meade advertisement is rather dishonest because without a field flattener these scopes are not ready for deep sky imaging. The flattener is essential and comes in the deal from Altair Astro.

Go for the larger mount unless you choose the 80.

Be quite clear why you choose one or the other size of scope. In AP bigger is not better, it is different. The scopes have different focal lengths and so will cover different amounts of sky. For larger targets choose the 80, for smaller ones the 115. Personally I think the 115 is too short for galaxies and a bit long for many nebulae. The 80 is too short for many galaxies as well but it can fit in more nebulae.

The 80 is F6, the 115 is F7. The 80 therefore exposes considerably faster. On the other hand the optics of the 115 I tested were slightly better than those of the 80 but in practice it made no perceptible difference. Quality varies randomly anyway.

Olly

Thanks for the input, I will get a focal reducer.

Basically what you're saying is that any decent AP set would include multiple sized appertures, you don't think that the 115mm would be somewhere inbetween and might be able to cover a wide variety of targets? Am I better off with a 80mm scope?

[sloz1664]

My input as a relative newbie into Astrophotography. I started out trying to image using my Tal 200K f8.5 using a ST80 as a guide scope. I struggled & struggled and eventually

gave up that avenue. But I learnt a lot amongst the very frustrating hours trying to get decent subs. I have since purchased the SW 80ED pro together with the dedicated SW focal reducer / flattener.

What a difference, sharp stars, longer imagining times, decent subs and above all confidence and pleasure. I will not give up on the Tal 200K with the dedicated focal reducer it reduces to a f5.3

and coupled with an OAG will make a good galaxy scope. With the experience I am gaining now will put me in good stead.

My advice is to get the 80mm scope / focal reducer and learn the skills necessary to obtain successful & repeatable images.

cheers

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Thanks for the input, I will get a focal reducer.

Basically what you're saying is that any decent AP set would include multiple sized appertures, you don't think that the 115mm would be somewhere inbetween and might be able to cover a wide variety of targets? Am I better off with a 80mm scope?

I have 328, 450, 980 and 2380mm available for imaging. (Not a millionaire, it's my job!) Of these I find the least productive is the 980mm FL. Sure, it has its targets and it's a lovely scope but a metre of FL is not enough for many of the galaxies. Longer is difficult and needs extremely good autoguiding. Shorter is easier and has a huge range of targets.

Olly

[Offscreen]

I scanned the web now for the same type of telescopes, just like looking for binoculars - lots of brands selling identical optics. The glass is FPL-53 ED, manufactured by Ohara in Japan.

• Meade 6000 Series APO Refractor
  
• Altair 115mm Triplet APO Refractor
  
• Explore Scientific APO 80 mm (seems identical to the Meade 5000 Series)
  
• Astrotech 90mm Triplet APO
  
• Skywatcher Evostar 80 ED
  
• Vixen APO 115mm refractor
  
• Orion APO refractor
  

And here's a nice review by Astronomy now of the Altair Triplet APO. Hope someone will find this usefull.

[ollypenrice]

I scanned the web now for the same type of telescopes, just like looking for binoculars - lots of brands selling identical optics. The glass is FPL-53 ED, manufactured by Ohara in Japan.

• Meade 6000 Series APO Refractor
  
• Altair 115mm Triplet APO Refractor
  
• Explore Scientific APO 80 mm (seems identical to the Meade 5000 Series)
  
• Astrotech 90mm Triplet APO
  
• Skywatcher Evostar 80 ED
  
• Vixen APO 115mm refractor
  
• Orion APO refractor
  

And here's a nice review by Astronomy now of the Altair Triplet APO. Hope someone will find this usefull.

This may not be a safe assumption. I'm told that the rebranders have a choice of optical grades with a price that varies accordingly. Whether this is really so or not I can't say since I have no direct access to the factories.

Olly

[Offscreen]

This may not be a safe assumption. I'm told that the rebranders have a choice of optical grades with a price that varies accordingly. Whether this is really so or not I can't say since I have no direct access to the factories.

Olly

That's interesting, would like to hear someone confirm this.

[cantharis]

(there are a lot of clones floating around, all using the same optics).

And the same mount !!

[whooshbang]

I am sure i read on here that a focal reducer is not required for the Meade? (127mm series 5000 anyway). As long as you don't mind the odd halo around blue stars close to the edge of the field.

shouldn't this be the case for the 6000 series too?

[whooshbang]

Sorry, just dug out that old post and it does state that the 5000 series "will cover a DSLR APS chip fairly well without a flattener, though corner stars will not be perfect"

Would be very interested to know if the same applies for the 6000 series. they do offer a flattener as an optional extra for wide field when purchasing though so i guess its down to what you want to image also.