Best scope for planetary and star doubles

[bomberbaz]

28 minutes ago, mikeDnight said:

I agree! However I keep looking at them and that's a bad sign. It's more the price that's holding me back from trying them out (almost €300 each). I'm not sure of the price in £, I daren't do the conversion, because I know I'm stupid enough to do it. 

The only advantage I imagine they may have over a sharper lower power eyepiece could possibly be in splitting close binaries. Over magnifying a planet is a sure way to destroy the finer detail, coupling that with our temperamental seeing, probably means they're be a pricey novelty. However, that shouldn't stop Steve from buying a set, as I can then buy them off him for a greatly reduced price. 

Mike

 

Fraid not old bean, the ER is to tight for us speccies 

[bomberbaz]

although I did findmyself looking at the ES82 4.7mm, there is the tiniest of gaps that needs filling, if only it was 4.5mm 

[John]

Congratulations on the ED100 Steve

They are lovely scopes. I had one of the early "blue tube" ones and loved it. It was the 1st scope that I saw the Veil Nebula with, oddly enough but back then 10cm was my largest aperture.

I've just picked up a TV Nagler 2-4mm zoom which I'm intending to use to stretch my refractors to their limit on the Moon and double stars and also for Mars when it' starts to show.

[alan potts]

2 hours ago, John said:

Congratulations on the ED100 Steve

They are lovely scopes. I had one of the early "blue tube" ones and loved it. It was the 1st scope that I saw the Veil Nebula with, oddly enough but back then 10cm was my largest aperture.

I've just picked up a TV Nagler 2-4mm zoom which I'm intending to use to stretch my refractors to their limit on the Moon and double stars and also for Mars when it' starts to show.

John,

Are you sure you are going to keep it that long.

[John]

21 minutes ago, alan potts said:

John,

Are you sure you are going to keep it that long.

At least a couple of days Alan

[Stu]

4 hours ago, John said:

Congratulations on the ED100 Steve

They are lovely scopes. I had one of the early "blue tube" ones and loved it. It was the 1st scope that I saw the Veil Nebula with, oddly enough but back then 10cm was my largest aperture.

I've just picked up a TV Nagler 2-4mm zoom which I'm intending to use to stretch my refractors to their limit on the Moon and double stars and also for Mars when it' starts to show.

Glad you got one John, I saw your wanted ad.

It will be interesting to see how you get on with it. I guess I can always Barlow my 3 to 6 to get similar results

[John]

I've owned the 3-6 zoom a few times now but I thought I'd give the 2-4 a go this time around. My "history" with the Nagler zooms is dodgy though as Alan hints so we will see how it goes.

They are lovely little things though - they ooze quality

[recceranger]

I have a MAK 150 pro and its outstanding. I imagine the SW MAK 127 Pro wouldn't be far off and at around £250 only half the price.

you could easily mount onto a SW EQ3 Pro mount.  Both items together come in at around £500 and would be an excellent set up

[neil phillips]

I will only input about planetary imaging, I have no experience with double stars. So my views will have to reflect that from the question header.

Just my two cents, I owned a meade 7" Mak f15 for years, its the scope I started imaging with.

Replaced with my Orion 245 Newt. the Orion killed the Mak stone dead. I have images that proved this. it didn't take me long to realise. Great as grab and go scopes go,

size matters no matter how perfect, or a lack of a Central obstruction. A good biggun will always beat a good smallun. This was not subjective as in this view is nice, or that view was great.

The images are not subjective, the Orion killed the poor Mak.

 Yes I loved the Mak.

But I loved the Orion even more. Of course if collimation is not someone's bag. Or they don't like lugging big scopes. That's a consideration for the question asked.

But other than that. There's a lesson here I think, a rather unpopular one at that, because, there is a lot of hype around so called planetary instruments

At 7"  a Mak is great. But it wont beat a good 10" Newt in most areas. let alone a good 5" frac Physics plays a part. I've seen some lovely SMALL images of Jupiter with a world class frac, lovely high contrast, and pure colours. But here's the kicker. My Orion killed that stone dead too. There is no get out of jail free card here, by suggesting visual has different merits. Yes it does. But are the images lying. I know they was not. It was the best decision I ever made.

Its important to balance these views to anyone reading this thread, as they could be left with the impression a 5" Apo will beat a good 10" Newt  ( I say good ten times) or a 7" Mak 

Its just not so. Would I love a 5"Apo yes of course, would I love A Mewlon yes of course. But that's not the question asked here.

Money no question, I am not sure, A 12" Mewlon, a large quality frac say 9" minimum Perhaps ? A C14  A very large newt 16" or above. Hard to say the best, but that's  money no object

 

 

[Alkaid]

15 hours ago, neil phillips said:

 A good biggun will always beat a good smallun.

Yep. 

[recceranger]

On another note - nothing I have had has give a cleaner, crisper, more visually colourful image than my ED80.  Central obstructions are central obstructions!  It's as simple as that and don't get me started on collimating scopes!

i compare the image in my ED80 to a MAK 180, MAK 150 and CPC 1100.  Obviously the ED has its light gathering limit compared with the others but when it came down to it M45, 42, 31 and Jupiter/Saturn were more visually stunning through the ED80 (although much smaller)

[Chris]

13 minutes ago, recceranger said:

On another note - nothing I have had has give a cleaner, crisper, more visually colourful image than my ED80.  Central obstructions are central obstructions!  It's as simple as that and don't get me started on collimating scopes!

i compare the image in my ED80 to a MAK 180, MAK 150 and CPC 1100.  Obviously the ED has its light gathering limit compared with the others but when it came down to it M45, 42, 31 and Jupiter/Saturn were more visually stunning through the ED80 (although much smaller)

I'm glad to hear someone else say this! Admittedly my all time best view of Jupiter was with a C8 Edge HD where the detail wasn't a million miles away from a Damian Peach renditon. However, my second best view of Jove has to have been with a humble C80ED. The strikingly sharp and rich caramel banding really took me by surprise! 

ED, Apo's, and long focus achros are both HD and technicolour

[Scooot]

I was very impressed with my view of Jove in the early hours of Sunday using my 16" masked to 6". It was very sharp in a black sky and the colours seemed much deeper as well. I only made the mask recently but I'd previously noticed a more obvious colour difference between some stars and doubles as well. 

I need to try it out more often but as its been cloudy so much I wanted to look at some old deep sky favourites without the mask the other night.

[neil phillips]

13 hours ago, recceranger said:

On another note - nothing I have had has give a cleaner, crisper, more visually colourful image than my ED80.  Central obstructions are central obstructions!  It's as simple as that and don't get me started on collimating scopes!

i compare the image in my ED80 to a MAK 180, MAK 150 and CPC 1100.  Obviously the ED has its light gathering limit compared with the others but when it came down to it M45, 42, 31 and Jupiter/Saturn were more visually stunning through the ED80 (although much smaller)

Its not just a smaller issue. Its a resolution issue, a image can be made to be any size, tiny if you like. its actually resolution. that can make a big difference

COs are COs  if it were that simple I Think the likes of Damien peach would be imaging with refractors. Or even long focus Newtonians ?

There is reason he is not for fracs, is. To get the resolution required would require a very large refractor. very expensive. But very nice, agreed there.

 Something like a ED 80 wouldn't cut it by miles. I would challenge anyone to show me some images of Saturn or Jupiter with a ED 80 That would come within a hairs whisker of what he does with the C14. Its impossible

Regardless how steady or crisp and colourful, a small view of a planet would be, with a small frac ?

This old chestnut about visual against imaging differences, only holds water on the steadiness of a image. A crisp image with tiny resolution, will always be a crisp image but with tiny resolution ?

 in fleeting moments of better seeing, big scopes with big COs will show more. And not just a little either, but quite a lot more.  its just physics. Its actually as simple as that. Small fracs in the hands of Damien peach wouldn't produce the world class resolution that he gets with he's large C14 and large central obstruction. you can not get that kind of resolution with a small Frac. or I guess the boards would be filled with high resolution images of the planets with small fracs, and small mounts. No need to lug a big heavy scope and big heavy mount out

Just do it with a small frac.

We may have to agree to disagree. I respect your views. Just hope you respect mine. At all times these discussions are fine. We are all friends on here, and different opinions wont change that my end. Hope others feel the same

[neil phillips]

13 hours ago, Scooot said:

I was very impressed with my view of Jove in the early hours of Sunday using my 16" masked to 6". It was very sharp in a black sky and the colours seemed much deeper as well. I only made the mask recently but I'd previously noticed a more obvious colour difference between some stars and doubles as well. 

I need to try it out more often but as its been cloudy so much I wanted to look at some old deep sky favourites without the mask the other night.

Agreed its a poor seeing advantage those with small fracs are seeing. And likely contrast too,

perhaps enhancing the colours more, this also applies to your stopped down scope.  And what you say here proves it. Take the large scope to Barbados and compare the masked down version. you will lose a ton of detail. Its the UK skies to blame for this.  Not the aperture

[Scooot]

4 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Agreed its a poor seeing advantage those with small fracs are seeing. And what you say here proves it. Take the large scope to Barbados and compare the masked down version. you will lose a ton of detail. Its the UK skies to blame for this.  Not the aperture

i presume avoiding the spider vanes and secondary also accounts for some of the improved view. i'd like to set it up next to a 6" APO to compare but that's not going to happen

[Stu]

I saw a very real demonstration of these effects last night. Observing Jupiter with a Tak FC-100 and an excellent 8" dob, they behaved exactly as you would expect.

The Tak's image was easier to view in that it was stable, less affected by seeing and beautifully crisp and clear. There was plenty of detail visible and the moons against the sky background were beautifully resolved.

The 8" was harder work. The image varied a fair amount as the seeing came and went, sometimes the features were blurred out, at others the clarity was startling. Ultimately there was much more detail available in the 8" and I found that I observed more with it as it was more rewarding. The image was brighter, held a higher magnification and also showed more colour.

Had I only had the Tak, I would have been more than happy with it, but the 8" showed me details I would have missed otherwise. Aesthetically though, I still prefer the Tak ?

[neil phillips]

11 minutes ago, Scooot said:

i presume avoiding the spider vanes and secondary also accounts for some of the improved view. i'd like to set it up next to a 6" APO to compare but that's not going to happen

Yes of course those other considerations do play a part too. But not as much as losing a ton of resolution. The test you suggest should be done under great skies too, like a better country.

As of course the advantage wouldn't be so great As it would under UK skies. And here lies the rub if we are stuck with poor seeing, as was mentioned earlier stopping the scope down would help for visual.

But don't forget for imaging, those fleeting moments of better seeing can be stacked up with the higher resolution advantage.

You can not do that visually, there will be so much unsteadiness under poor seeing,  it will give the impression a smaller scope is better. it actually is not, its just coping more. Though agreed with more seeming contrast, but also less resolution

[Moonshane]

The only answer is to have both!

I found recently that my 120ED was far more sharp and steady on a low Jupiter than my 12" dob, no matter what I did with the dob, even masking it down to 110mm. However as Jupiter rose in the sky, the 12" dob started to stretch ahead and whilst I went to bed before it reached it's highest point in the sky, you could tell that eventually the views in the dob would have been more detailed and as sharp and contrasty as the 120ED.

[neil phillips]

15 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

The only answer is to have both!

I found recently that my 120ED was far more sharp and steady on a low Jupiter than my 12" dob, no matter what I did with the dob, even masking it down to 110mm. However as Jupiter rose in the sky, the 12" dob started to stretch ahead and whilst I went to bed before it reached it's highest point in the sky, you could tell that eventually the views in the dob would have been more detailed and as sharp and contrasty as the 120ED.

Refractors do have there own advantages too,  it doesn't surprise me at all stopping down a dob to 110 would lose out against a 120 ED. I would love a frac like that. But I mostly image now. So for planets and under good seeing my Newt would beat it.  But as you have noticed things are not always what they seem when we consider the atmospheres effect on a instrument shane Glad you noticed it.  I am going to be in the firing line, here help.

I loved my Mak shane but the Orion was better for imaging. I new that pretty soon

[Scooot]

I suppose from my viewpoint its should i ever buy a larger Frac? Apart from the cost, a 6" frac would be just as heavy & cumbersome to set up. A 4" ? Maybe if the imaging bug takes hold but otherwise masking down the 16" or using the 10" Dob is probably just as good for me. Interestingly I don't think the area of the 10" dob without the secondary is that different to the masked 16" so I should compare the two one night.

[neil phillips]

BTW your right just have both. No axe to grind about instruments.

But we must be careful how the discussion unfolds a newbie might read this  get a small frac, then get into imaging later in life and wonder why the images are not as detailed as larger scopes on planets

[Moonshane]

In general I think two things (OK three if you include a dark sky for faint objects) really matter for the two types of observing:

Seeing matters for high contrast bright objects at high power. Without good seeing, aperture is often a hindrance (unless you wait a long, long time or image over long periods).

Transparency (and dark sky) matters for faint/extended objects. Aperture is a bonus here but often only when the skies are dark enough.

[Moonshane]

4 minutes ago, Scooot said:

I suppose from my viewpoint its should i ever buy a larger Frac? Apart from the cost, a 6" frac would be just as heavy & cumbersome to set up. A 4" ? Maybe if the imaging bug takes hold but otherwise masking down the 16" or using the 10" Dob is probably just as good for me. Interestingly I don't think the area of the 10" dob without the secondary is that different to the masked 16" so I should compare the two one night.

I think it depends how long a session you have planned and where Jupiter (or the object) is in the sky when you observe. Albeit still a massive dob fan, I have genuinely been impressed with my ED fracs (I have a Skywatcher 120ED and 80mm Meade triplet) for visual, on planets and moon. They don't beat my 6" f11 dob (or for that matter the 12" f4 or 16" f4 dobs) though in fairness - if there's time for it to cool down and the object is high enough in the sky.

[neil phillips]

5 minutes ago, Moonshane said:

In general I think two things (OK three if you include a dark sky for faint objects) really matter for the two types of observing:

Seeing matters for high contrast bright objects at high power. Without good seeing, aperture is often a hindrance (unless you wait a long, long time or image over long periods).

Transparency (and dark sky) matters for faint/extended objects. Aperture is a bonus here but often only when the skies are dark enough.

Totally agree Shane, And lets not forget all the problems with large mirrors cooling down, tube currents and such, straight out of this house a small frac might do better. But wait until my newt has stabilized

Different story unfolds. So many variables at play here that are easy to gloss over. when some one says whats the best planetary scope. It can really depend on so many things to get a balanced answer