Sct Or Refractor

[coolskies]

Hello

I am new to this site and came across it through comments on you tube. My first telescope was a celestron c6 on an advanced cg5, Thanks to my dad who thought me a certain knowledge of the night sky, and the ease of setting up the cg5 I was overjoyed to see through the eyepiece the stars become the planets (Saturn Jupiter, so much detail on the moon) amazing, but after 2 years of every chance of a clear sky I was hooked and wanted an upgrade.

My local buyandsell has a 1 year old Meade 8" lx90 acf with gps. My question to ye  experienced astronomers is, would there be much of a difference from the c6 in viewing. I have read so many articles saying anymore than 8" aperture is a waste because of atmospheric disturbance.

Also in the future I would like to start learning to image and the alz mount from research would not be best suited.

My Budget is 1500 euro maybe a little more, on another website (uk buy and sell) a second hand sky watcher heq5 and 120ed seems perfect.

would the skywatcher be a good scope for viewing until I save enough for imaging accessories.

I want to start with a good platform and build on it and any advice on mounts and scopes would be gratefully appreciated.

Every company tells you there scopes and mounts are the best and through research aperture is king. All very confusing.

Kind regards

coolskies

[DRT]

Hi,

I have owned a Celestron C6 and also have a Celestron CPC1100 (11") so can say with some certainty that a larger aperture improves what you see.

As for where you go next I think that depends on how quickly you think you will move on to serious imaging. The 120ED is a great scope and I am sure the 8" Meade is too but neither of them are ideal for imaging. One aspect of the 120ED is that it will give you much less magnification for observing use than your C6 so on that front it might seem like a step backwards. That said, the 120ED would provide a much crisper view so it is a trade off between small, high contrast and sharp views versus larger images with less contrast and sharpness. The debate about whether refractors or reflectors are best is one of the great questions of the universe - enter that debate on this website if you dare

Both of the scopes you are considering would be a step forward, but I think you need to decide whether you are pursuing observing or imaging before selecting which route to go down.

On mounts, imaging requires a tracking equatorial mount whereas I find a giro (alt-az) style mount much easier and convenient for visual use.

[Dave In Vermont]

I would agree with Derek (above) on issues of contrast between an SCT and a refractor. But this can get us astro-folks into needless and lengthy debates. So I'd prefer to comment on the issue of aperture. When you've read that going up from such and such, you'll have too much air-disturbance to have a good effect? Pure nonsense.....

In fact, I'd say the jump from 6" to 8" is probably to one where people see the greatest positive effect. You can certainly do "real astronomy" with a 6-inch scope. But going to an 8-inch is where you will be seeing just about everything the sky has to offer and seeing these things very well displayed indeed. A faint nebula in a 6" become a detailed and fascinating denizen of the sky. Likewise for a faint smudge of a galaxy, to becoming an identifiable type of galaxy with unique characteristics. This is why I, and many others, tend to encourage people to save up and go for the 8" telescope as this will give you something capable of showing you a new and fascinating view every night of your life.

This has been my experience, and that of many other folk's accounts I've read. As for the type of telescope, the humble Dobsonian-Newtonian usually springs to mind. But it can be a SCT too. But unless you've got the winning ticket for the lottery, an 8" refractor is generally not in the running. Those cost an arm & leg. But we can dream!

Enjoy!

Dave

[Stephen Green]

 Hi a warm welcome to the SGL

  Stephen

[JamesM]

Hi and welcome to the forum. You might want to consider asking your question over on the Getting Started Equipment Help and Advice section as more people visit that area than here.

Clear skies and hope you enjoy your stay here.

[ollypenrice]

The idea that there is an upper limit for useful aperture is not true. What can be true is that too much aperture can impede planetary and lunar viewing, but not deep sky.

For visual use aperture is generally a benefit but if you like very wide views then a long focal length narrows down the field of view. This may or may not be a factor for you. I'm very keen on wide vistas, personally, but not everyone feels this way.

Imaging: it comes in two favours, lunar/planetary and deep sky. The scopes, cameras, skills and budgets are radically different and very difficult to combine into one package. For the solar system you need a long focal length and a fast frame camera. Pretty well any tracking mount will do at a pinch. An SCT is ideal.

For deep sky only a high quality equatorial mount will do and a short focal length and fastish focal ratio are what beginners should aim for. A small refractor is ideal. But a small refractor cannot do well visually on anything but widefield targets.

The nearest you can have to all in one would probably be a Newtonian on a German Equatorial.

Olly

[laudropb]

Hello and a warm welcome to the SGL

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I moved from a 6" F/8 Newtonian to am 8" SCT and don't regret it. My C8 on a Great Polaris mount is now more than 20 years old, and is a clear step up from the 6", which had little in the way of central obstruction, and was considered a bit of an "APO-killer". The C8 does have slightly lower contrast, but certainly provides more detail. I also have a small frac for imaging purposes.

[seo]

Hi and welcome aboard.

IMHO, for your budget, a refractor at around "native" f/7 focal ratio (f/7 with no reducers installed on it) and a camera, DSLR for your present budget and CCD for later with pixel size at around 5 to 6.5 µM, will be you best "all around" choice.

1. Less possible weight, in comparison with other telescope types, so less overall demands from the mount... so less money to spend on mount purchase.

2. Good overall results on both small and big DSO targets.

3. Can easily do planetary with a use of a barlow.

4. Can easily go faster and cover a bit wider field with a use of a reducer.

5. Less dew problems compared with a SCT and also can be used on more windy weather compared to other bigger telescopes.

That been said, all telescope types have their pos and cons and the final choice is depended on what we want to use them for and regardless what our final choice will be, we always gain something and lose something else. There is not one telescope type that can do the best job for everything.

In any case and as I said, IMHO, I believe that the above combination, for your specific budget can yield the best overall target results.

[Dave Lloyd]

Hi and welcome.

[Pete Presland]

Hi welcome to SGL from Pete in Bedfordshire

[mikeDnight]

Hello

I am new to this site and came across it through comments on you tube. My first telescope was a celestron c6 on an advanced cg5, Thanks to my dad who thought me a certain knowledge of the night sky, and the ease of setting up the cg5 I was overjoyed to see through the eyepiece the stars become the planets (Saturn Jupiter, so much detail on the moon) amazing, but after 2 years of every chance of a clear sky I was hooked and wanted an upgrade.

My local buyandsell has a 1 year old Meade 8" lx90 acf with gps. My question to ye  experienced astronomers is, would there be much of a difference from the c6 in viewing. I have read so many articles saying anymore than 8" aperture is a waste because of atmospheric disturbance.

Also in the future I would like to start learning to image and the alz mount from research would not be best suited.

My Budget is 1500 euro maybe a little more, on another website (uk buy and sell) a second hand sky watcher heq5 and 120ed seems perfect.

would the skywatcher be a good scope for viewing until I save enough for imaging accessories.

I want to start with a good platform and build on it and any advice on mounts and scopes would be gratefully appreciated.

Every company tells you there scopes and mounts are the best and through research aperture is king. All very confusing.

Kind regards

coolskies

Hi Coolskies

For what it's worth id suggest you go for the ED refractor. It will give you the sharpest views of the moon and planets and will reveal a wealth of intricate detail. Even on deep sky it is no slouch and its sharp optics will give you textbook perfect star images. I've used many very large telescopes and of every major design, as well as some oddities, but very few have ever approached the crisp, laser etched high contrast, high definition views produced by a good refractor, and none have ever been the equal.

I am a purely visual observer and after 36/37 years of observing and after owning some large aperture kit, my choice is a small "high quality" refractor. Ive never been inclined down the imaging route, im too busy and too happy observing the living thing.

Mike

[Pig]

I would agree with Mike ..... some of my best views have come via my small refractor and if the focal length is short enough they perform brilliantly with both very high power and low power eyepieces.

I like SCT 's and still own a 150mm. However, due to the restrictive sky coverage and the lack of crispness when viewing stars it is used almost exclusively for higher power lunar observations.

The next scope I purchase will almost certainly be a 10-12 inch Dobsonian and I will sell the SCT to go toward an eyepiece for it

[glowjet]

Hi Coolskies and welcome to SGL, enjoy the forum

[coolskies]

Hi Coolskies and welcome to SGL, enjoy the forum

Thanks John.

[coolskies]

Hi,

I have owned a Celestron C6 and also have a Celestron CPC1100 (11") so can say with some certainty that a larger aperture improves what you see.

As for where you go next I think that depends on how quickly you think you will move on to serious imaging. The 120ED is a great scope and I am sure the 8" Meade is too but neither of them are ideal for imaging. One aspect of the 120ED is that it will give you much less magnification for observing use than your C6 so on that front it might seem like a step backwards. That said, the 120ED would provide a much crisper view so it is a trade off between small, high contrast and sharp views versus larger images with less contrast and sharpness. The debate about whether refractors or reflectors are best is one of the great questions of the universe - enter that debate on this website if you dare

Both of the scopes you are considering would be a step forward, but I think you need to decide whether you are pursuing observing or imaging before selecting which route to go down.

On mounts, imaging requires a tracking equatorial mount whereas I find a giro (alt-az) style mount much easier and convenient for visual use.

Hi Derek.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

I think I will save for a while longer an go for an 8 - 10 inch sct on an eq mount..

Clear skies

Ciaran

[coolskies]

I would agree with Derek (above) on issues of contrast between an SCT and a refractor. But this can get us astro-folks into needless and lengthy debates. So I'd prefer to comment on the issue of aperture. When you've read that going up from such and such, you'll have too much air-disturbance to have a good effect? Pure nonsense.....

In fact, I'd say the jump from 6" to 8" is probably to one where people see the greatest positive effect. You can certainly do "real astronomy" with a 6-inch scope. But going to an 8-inch is where you will be seeing just about everything the sky has to offer and seeing these things very well displayed indeed. A faint nebula in a 6" become a detailed and fascinating denizen of the sky. Likewise for a faint smudge of a galaxy, to becoming an identifiable type of galaxy with unique characteristics. This is why I, and many others, tend to encourage people to save up and go for the 8" telescope as this will give you something capable of showing you a new and fascinating view every night of your life.

This has been my experience, and that of many other folk's accounts I've read. As for the type of telescope, the humble Dobsonian-Newtonian usually springs to mind. But it can be a SCT too. But unless you've got the winning ticket for the lottery, an 8" refractor is generally not in the running. Those cost an arm & leg. But we can dream!

Enjoy!

Dave

Hi Dave

Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

I will save a while longer and go for a 8 - 10 inch sct on an eq mount,

Clear skies

Ciaran

[coolskies]

 Hi a warm welcome to the SGL

  Stephen

Thank you Stephen

Clear skies

[coolskies]

The idea that there is an upper limit for useful aperture is not true. What can be true is that too much aperture can impede planetary and lunar viewing, but not deep sky.

For visual use aperture is generally a benefit but if you like very wide views then a long focal length narrows down the field of view. This may or may not be a factor for you. I'm very keen on wide vistas, personally, but not everyone feels this way.

Imaging: it comes in two favours, lunar/planetary and deep sky. The scopes, cameras, skills and budgets are radically different and very difficult to combine into one package. For the solar system you need a long focal length and a fast frame camera. Pretty well any tracking mount will do at a pinch. An SCT is ideal.

For deep sky only a high quality equatorial mount will do and a short focal length and fastish focal ratio are what beginners should aim for. A small refractor is ideal. But a small refractor cannot do well visually on anything but widefield targets.

The nearest you can have to all in one would probably be a Newtonian on a German Equatorial.

Olly

Hi Olly

Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

I will save for a while and go for an 8 - 10 inch sct on an eq mount.

Clear skies

Ciaran

[coolskies]

I moved from a 6" F/8 Newtonian to am 8" SCT and don't regret it. My C8 on a Great Polaris mount is now more than 20 years old, and is a clear step up from the 6", which had little in the way of central obstruction, and was considered a bit of an "APO-killer". The C8 does have slightly lower contrast, but certainly provides more detail. I also have a small frac for imaging purposes.

Hi Michael.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

I will save a while longer and go for an 8 - 10 inch sct on an eq mount.

Clear skies

Ciaran

[coolskies]

Hi and welcome aboard.

IMHO, for your budget, a refractor at around "native" f/7 focal ratio (f/7 with no reducers installed on it) and a camera, DSLR for your present budget and CCD for later with pixel size at around 5 to 6.5 µM, will be you best "all around" choice.

1. Less possible weight, in comparison with other telescope types, so less overall demands from the mount... so less money to spend on mount purchase.

2. Good overall results on both small and big DSO targets.

3. Can easily do planetary with a use of a barlow.

4. Can easily go faster and cover a bit wider field with a use of a reducer.

5. Less dew problems compared with a SCT and also can be used on more windy weather compared to other bigger telescopes.

That been said, all telescope types have their pos and cons and the final choice is depended on what we want to use them for and regardless what our final choice will be, we always gain something and lose something else. There is not one telescope type that can do the best job for everything.

In any case and as I said, IMHO, I believe that the above combination, for your specific budget can yield the best overall target results.

Hi Seo.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom.

Kind regards

Ciaran

[coolskies]

Hi and welcome.

Thank you Dave

Clear skies

Ciaran

[coolskies]

Hi welcome to SGL from Pete in Bedfordshire

Thank you Pete

Clear skies

Ciaran

[coolskies]

Hi Coolskies

For what it's worth id suggest you go for the ED refractor. It will give you the sharpest views of the moon and planets and will reveal a wealth of intricate detail. Even on deep sky it is no slouch and its sharp optics will give you textbook perfect star images. I've used many very large telescopes and of every major design, as well as some oddities, but very few have ever approached the crisp, laser etched high contrast, high definition views produced by a good refractor, and none have ever been the equal.

I am a purely visual observer and after 36/37 years of observing and after owning some large aperture kit, my choice is a small "high quality" refractor. Ive never been inclined down the imaging route, im too busy and too happy observing the living thing.

Mike

Hi Mike

Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Curious to know what you would recommend as a small "high quality" refractor.

With having so many years experience and experience on large aperture scopes to settle and be happy with a small refractor would save me a lot of time and money wasting knowing that you have already done so. Added to the fact if I get the same scope I know when using it I have a great scope.

Also it rains a lot where I live and some nights I might only get an hour or two and the small refractor would be easier as a grab and go, less cool down time, and less problem with the dreaded dew.

Clear skies

Ciaran

[DRT]

If you want something to plonk outside and use for short sessions but with great views you should consider a 6" Newt. Cheap as chips and capable of great observing and basic imaging provided you have a dual purpose mount.