Jump to content

new scope for imaging


Recommended Posts

Hi,

i'm looking into a new scope for imaging. I really like my FS60cb but would like to get something with a bit longer focal length. I'll soon be receiving a Paramount MX so currently budget is limited. I can't justify two major purchases just now. I am considering the following instruments:

all skywatcher:

Equinox 120

MN190

Quattro 10CF

I'm personally mostly a refractor guy. having little experience with newtonians and their needs for collimation. But maybe I worry about that too much. Thanks for your advices. Just for information: camera to be used is a SBIG ST2000XM with filterwheel.

Kind regards,

Wouter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with that mount you can get into some long FL for sure. If long FL is what you want then I wouldnt get the Equinox 120. By the time you get the reducer on it the FL has shrunk a lot and it still a bit slow. Plus for that kind of money you could get a RC. The MN190 is pretty nice with a good FL. I think Gina has one. She could be more specific about the details. The Quattro would be a nice fast scope with a decent step into long FL but it really is a big scope. I think either the MN190 or Quattro are the two to choose from out of the ones mentioned.

If it was me and I got your mount I would be considering a 6" or 8" RC for my long FL needs. Have you though about a RC? There's several makers out there that have 6" or 8" that would fit in your budget with the FF/R that you would need. But i bet there is a steep learning curve coming from a frac to a long FL RC. But I know I would want to bite the bullet and figure it all out so I could jump to and even bigger RC and longer FL! But thats just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I'm looking for somewhat longer focal lenght (FS60 is 360mm).. Not too much either. That's why I chose instruments in the 800-1000mm focal length range. Also i'm not very famliar with collimation and I heard RC's are rather difficult to collimate. At least if you want them to perform to their best. Another factor are the average seeing conditions I have to cope with. Which aren't the very best. So long focal length work would hardly improve my images. Most of the time i think i will just get bigger stars but hardly more detail. So based on all these factors 800-1000mm focal length would be a safe focal lenght to work with giving a good compromise between both resolution and field of view.

Thanks,

Wouter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then for straight up ease of use I would go with the MN190. Its slower than the Quattro but would need far less collimating. Its also smaller so it wont act so much as a sail and get jerked in wind gusts and ruin your sub. But the faster scope means less time on any given target. I'm sure there's others out there that can give a better comparison than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The refractor is likely to be the easiest, as you say. There are some very experienced people on here who have struggled with the GSO Ritchey Chrétiens. A lot depends on the luck of the draw. Some are nearly right from the box, others are devils. I've read enough to know that I don't want one myself! The Quattro will also need a lot of careful collimation. However, the MN190 might be the best of the reflectors, and by a significant margin, both optically and in terms of collimation. It has a large flat field, a fast F ratio and, when collimated, pin sharp optics. A good MN190 is about as good as scopes in that aperture class and focal length are likely to get.

The objection to the 190 is the weight and bulk but the Paramount takes of that, and then some! Optically the 190 has the potential to match pretty well anything at a FL of around a metre. Once sorted (and it should be easier to sort than the other reflectors) it will be worthy of the Paramount. There might be a question mark over the focuser but this would apply to all the scopes on your list, and to the RCs. You have an excellent camera but a fairly bulky one and keeping it orthogonal might be an issue. You might need a focuser upgrade on all these scopes.

Olly

http://ollypenrice.smugmug.com/Other/Best-of-Les-Granges/22435624_WLMPTM#!i=2277139556&k=FGgG233

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Olly,

Thanks for your input. A focuser upgrade was accounted for for any ot the telescopes I mentioned. Most likley I will opt for a Moonlite. Sounds like there are two votes for the MN190 already :-)

thanks,

Wouter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three...

Having gotten myself a 190MN I must agree with Olly. It is a dynamite scope, albeit one in need of minor tweaks (better focuser and more stable primary mirror mounting). Mine had an accident and the secondary fell onto the primary during collimation (who's fault was that...) and chipped it a bit. Still, with a new secondary (GSO) it produces decent images. The example below was taken with a QSI 683 from my balcony, 14km from Stockholm city centre, and the scope was not in good collimation...

It is a rather bulky scope - mine is 19kg with everything mounted - but that will not be an issue with the bisque mount.

/per

M101_v3_1024.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

I just got an MN190 yesterday from a fellow SGL member in The Netherlands. Looks like a very nice instrument. In very good shape. To be honest I was a bit surprised with the focuser. It's surprisingly well masd for a Chinese telescope. They obviously come a long way. Not sure how well the focuser can handle a big camera, but for visual use it's pretty nice and smooth. (it's the older single speed crayford). The scope appeared to be very slightly out of collimation. I hope to receive the few parts I still need to setup the PM-MX and then give the telscope a nice first light.

kind regards,

Wouter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

And here's the setup. Got a first test yesterday and things look promising. I added a Baader steeltrack focuser which appears to be pretty smooth and holds the ST2000 and filterwheel just fine. And was much cheaper than other options. Bought it discounted at the ATT fair in germany last weekend.

post-24417-0-08735200-1369769456_thumb.j

Kind regards,

Wouter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's the setup. Got a first test yesterday and things look promising. I added a Baader steeltrack focuser which appears to be pretty smooth and holds the ST2000 and filterwheel just fine. And was much cheaper than other options. Bought it discounted at the ATT fair in germany last weekend.

post-24417-0-08735200-1369769456_thumb.j

Kind regards,

Wouter.

Hi Wouter,

That looks like a killer set up. The mount is a beauty, long way from my EQ5 pro. Good luck.

A.G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the mount looks a bit oversized with the mn190 (like my eq6 with an ed80) :rolleyes:

maybe you should have taken a 12" Quattro :grin:

There is no such thing as a overmounted telescope :rolleyes: BTW The MN190 is quite heavy. I had to use both 20lb counterweights to get it balanced. Actually it's a very nice fit for the PM-MX.

Wouter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.