Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_solar_25_winners.thumb.jpg.fe4e711c64054f3c9486c752d0bcd6f2.jpg

Northernlight

Age old Question of MN190 Vs 10" CF Quatto

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I'm now residing to the fact that the second hand RC i bought was a lemon, and i need to move on instead of pulling my hear out.  So i'm looking at the Skywatcher MN190 Vs CF Quattro 10" and just wanted to get peoples views on the 2 scopes. I know everone will have their own views and i probably wont get a resourding answer either way, but still interested to get peoples feedback.

Weight is not an issues as i have an EQ8, so weight can be discounted in the argument.  Also cool down is not an issues as it will live permanently in my obs.

 

What i Like about MN190   : Flat field and no need for coma corrector or flattner,  Pretty Fast at F5,   Easy to fit a direct replacement Feather touch Focuser without opening the tube, good optics providing sharp refractor like perfoamance. Good for visual as well as imaging.

What I Like about the 10" Quattro :  Very Fast @ F4 so great for Fickle british weather,  Larger Aperture (10")

 

 

So i guess it comes down how much more detail would the 10" Quatto resolve over the MN190 for a given exposure length, lets say 600 secs.  Is the 10" & F4 optics of the Quattro going to make a huge difference or will it be marginal ?

Also, when itcomes to collimation of the 2, which is likely to holid it collimation better ?   Is the MN190 colllimated in the same way as a normal Netwtonian ?

 

Many Thanks,

Rich.

 

 

                                 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the best to advise, not having owned either scope, but I've read a few reviews on here and elsewhere and if it were me I'd probably go for the Mak.

On the plus side for the Quattro.

  • The faster F ratio of the Quattro is equivalent to gathering about 1.5 times as much light, so you would need about 2/3 the exposure time (relative exposure scales with the square of the ratios between the two F ratios, so 4/5^2)
  • The larger aperture means a smaller Dawes limit and theoretically higher resolution. Great if you often image from a mountain in the Atacama desert, probbaly means nothing in the UK.

Against:

  • Collimation will be extremely critical, and quite prone to getting out of whack. I get the impression there is a big difference between F5 and F4 in this regard, but others will know better.
  • I've read reports about this one being tricky to collimate and not holding it well (though at F4 even the tiniest shift will put you out).

By contrast:

  • The Mak-Newt seems to get consistently good reviews
  • Collimation should be relatively easy
  • Pretty much coma free due to the corrector plate
  • No diffraction spikes

I'd go for the Mak personally, but not any kind of expert. Be interested to see what others think.

Billy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Billy,

you just made a very good point about the resolution and the fickle british weather, which i had never even considered. Which i guess renders the extra aperture almost irrelevant. This makes my decision a lot easier.

Deep down in my heart i've always leaned towards to the MN190, as i like the idea of not needing any sort of corrector, which just means extra glass which can potentially fog up, which i have personally experienced.  Going to Give my 8" RC one last try, and if i'm still not happy with it, i'll be dumping the RC and pulling the trriger on the MN190 with an upgraded feather touch focuser as it fit's directly into the skywatcher base plate without needing to open the scope up.

 

Rich.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always been happy with my 190 and no spikes was a real bonus for me. I fitted a Moonlite to mine and opening it up to fit the new base plate was easy. The feathertouch will be a nice unit but I wouldn' restrict your options because some may need you to remove the corrector to fit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Freddie, 

the feathertouch focuser bolts directly onto the Skywatcher base plate, so no need to open the tube :-) 

guess I'm just worried about mucking up the scope by opening it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MN190 is a nice imaging scope, the corrector plate shows round stars to the edge even with a APC-S size chip. Hence the reason I never changed to focuser as most of my imaging with the scope was with a dslr.

If I had the cash now and had to choose just one scope over what I have now, it would be another MN190.

Edited by Skyline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've not had much fun trying to get the RC into collimation. (Neither did I when I was trying to help one of our robotic shed clients with his. We knew the theory and had the Glatter tools but one adjustment always threw another out.) This being so, how keen are you to risk another struggle with the Quattro? F4 does make a big difference to collimation and tilt as compared with F5. (The depth of field is so much shallower.) It really isn't easy to make an F4 system and trying to do it at a budget price is even harder.

I don't think you can expect the Mak Newt to be necessarily plug and play either but it might be less of a trial than the Quattro. Singlin wrote an excellent and detailed account of fettling a Quattro a couple of years back on here. If you can find it I think it would be very instructive.

Not tempted by the 12 inch F5 Newt?

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Northernlight said:

Olly, a 12" newt is just too much of a big beast, the MN190 is the biggest wind sail I would want in my obs.

Good answer.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grrrrrr, so sick of those BBC baboons, once again they forecast clear sky all night, and surprise surprise half way through collimating testing thick cloud cover rolls in. They couldn't get the weather right if their life depended upon it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Olly,

I gave the RC collimation one last bash last night whilst waiting for the clouds to clear.  I gave my best effort with the Tak Scope, which when adding lots of extra lighting in the room was a lot easier to read.  finally the clouds cleared enough at 2am to do some collimation testing. The conditoins were less than ideal as it was really murky, so i couldn't get the best focus.

This was the best i could get with the Rc last night.  it's not the best, but it's also not the worst and i'm attributing the slightly elongated stars at the edge being down to my AstroPhysics .667 Reducer.   On the next clear night i'll try a test at the Native F8 and see if i still have the elongated stars or not, and if they still persist i'll pull the trigger on the MN190.

Have a look and let me know your thoughts.   Attached image was taken at F5.3 with the AstroPhysiscs .667 reducer and the FL was approx 1050mm.  Please excuse the unprocessed single image taken through thick murky conditions, but at least it still gives an idea on the state of collimation.

Rich.

 

test_300sec_1x1_L__frame1_-20C.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Northernlight said:

Well Olly,

I gave the RC collimation one last bash last night whilst waiting for the clouds to clear.  I gave my best effort with the Tak Scope, which when adding lots of extra lighting in the room was a lot easier to read.  finally the clouds cleared enough at 2am to do some collimation testing. The conditoins were less than ideal as it was really murky, so i couldn't get the best focus.

This was the best i could get with the Rc last night.  it's not the best, but it's also not the worst and i'm attributing the slightly elongated stars at the edge being down to my AstroPhysics .667 Reducer.   On the next clear night i'll try a test at the Native F8 and see if i still have the elongated stars or not, and if they still persist i'll pull the trigger on the MN190.

Have a look and let me know your thoughts.   Attached image was taken at F5.3 with the AstroPhysiscs .667 reducer and the FL was approx 1050mm.  Please excuse the unprocessed single image taken through thick murky conditions, but at least it still gives an idea on the state of collimation.

Rich.

 

test_300sec_1x1_L__frame1_-20C.jpg

Well that looks pretty darned good to me. I could live with it as is, though I'm not of the pixel peeping mindset. A few dabs with a recorded 'star rounder' action in two of the corners would sort it completely. It might just be the disance to the reducer, anyway.  I'd call that nailed to within a gnat's crotchet, as Humphrey Littleton would have put it.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not too shabby at all is my opinion; the stars in the centre look quite good to my (albeit uncultured) eye.

I can't see from the image but are the elongated stars at the edge of the image comatic or are they symmetrical around 2 axes? If the later then is this not likely to be the RC itself? I thought that was the point in the RC design, trading off increased (but symmmetrical) astigmatism against coma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're at approx 1050mm focal length then you're right at the limit of the focal reducer, the CCDT67 is very forgiving up to it's maximum reduction of a spacing (of I think 85mm) from chip to reducer. I would just reduce the spacing and I think you'll find those corners will be just fine. I have mine set to reduce about x0.7 on my 6" RC, just a little under the maximum tolerance.

But like Olly, I'd be happy with that, don't forget you'll lose the edges anyway cropping the RGB channel overlaps.

Edited by johnrt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks All,

It's nice to make some progress with the RC as i was ready to throw it out of the window.  One other factor that may have helped was that i completely stripped it down and rebuit it, which may have resolved issues like pinched optics etc.

John, thanks for the heads up on the focal reducer spacing. I set it to exactly 85mm as that was the quoted spacing distance to use on the Teleskop Express website where i bought it from. On the next clear night, i'll reduce the spacing down maybe 5mm and see how i get on with that,whilst it would be slightly slower, i would welcome a little bit of extra focal length.

I'll post another image after i reducing the spacing on the next clear night i get.

 

Cheers,

Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a M.N 190mm and have always been very happy with it, purely for visual use I find it realy does almost offer APO views. I am not sure about your claim that it is easy to change the focuser, I remember reading a sizeable thread on this and then thought I will stick with what I have. I have seen some first class images taken with them too and although I don't know much about AP it does just come into Olly's a meter or less F/L is best quote that he made a long time ago. My AZ EQ 6 handles it with ease, I even had it on a HEQ 5 Pro before but only for visual you understand.

Alan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Alan,

on the MN190 focuser side of things, you can get a feather touch focuser with adapter that fits directly onto the Skywatcher base plate, no opening the tube or removing any base plates, literally swap out the Skywatcher focuser with the feather touch and the associated adapter and it's perfectly aligned, no faffing and no worries about positioning it correctly, just a direct swap.

you can get them directly from FLO

 

Rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i managed to get a 15m break in the clouds so rushed to power up the obs and test RC again. I reduced the recommended 85mm spacing down to 75mm for the AP CCDT 667 reducer, which has added approx 100mm to the focal length. scope has went from approx 1050mm @ F5.3 to  1150mm f/l @ F5.75

so gained a bit of extra focal length and speed still acceptable, but now has now greatly improved the corners and reduced the vignetting significantly.

 

Rich

 

test1.jpg

Edited by Northernlight
correct spelling mistakes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not 100% happy as there stars are now slightly elongated to the left side of the image, and looking at CCD inspector i can see that i'm slightly off, so i'll keep plugging away, but at least it show that the image is fairly flat.

 

 

ccd_Inspector.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hard bit now it trying to interprate what ccd inspector is showing me. Is that pink area due to primary or secondary, who knows. Guess I'll just have to try with trial and error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By AstroRuz
      £180
      Selling a nice portable wide telescope with great glass and a great field of view
      I have two telescopes and I'm using the 80ED more currently and so this Telescope just isn't getting used anymore
      It has a longer dovetail (originally from the 80ED) so declination balance can be reached.
      Great performer for the price
      Collection only as P&P is like £40 (Northamptonshire - UK)
      Selling to fund a scope or mount upgrade.🤔
      Selling





    • By AstroRuz
      Skywatcher 150/1200 f8 planetary Newtonian.
      Bought this originally intending to set up a planetary rig but circumstances call for sale.
      Will come with eyepieces and a collimation eyepiece. Not used by myself and has seen very little use. Mirrors in good condition
      Collection only
      £50



    • By jadcx
      Skywatcher 80 ED DS-Pro outfit including matched flattener and motor focus. Now only £350
      This kit gives you a great introduction to astronomy and imaging, which is why it's so popular.  You can see details over at FLO but there is:
      80 ED Ds-Pro OTA (Objective Lens Diameter: 80mm, Telescope Focal Length: 600mm,  f/7.5)
      SW Eyepiece (2"): 28mm
      2”/50.8mm Di-Electric Star Diagonal
      9x50 Finderscope
      Dual-Speed 11:1 2” Crayford Focuser (Backlash-Free)
      Supplied with Tube Rings & Mounting Plate - please note there is a longer black vixen type dovetail fitted, not the fancy new green short one you will see on the FLO site
      SW motor focus and fitting kit - I've never used this, hence it's not fitted (more details over on FLO)
      Dedicated SW 0.85x reducer/flattener (see FLO for more details)
      Aluminium Carrying / Shipping Case
       
      The RRP is over £720, so grab a bargain while you can.
      Collection from Nottingham, or DHL for £20 (within UK)



    • By tooth_dr
      I scrapped all the Oiii and Sii data I previously took during a full moon (about 15 hours worth) and retook it all when the moon was a bit smaller at 76%.  Ha was taken during 98% and 67% moon.  All the lights were taken on the following nights: 12th, 19th and 20th September 2019.
      Integration times, all in 600s subs unbinned:
      Ha = 28.33 hours
      Oiii= = 5.67 hours
      Sii = 5.67 hours
       
      The Ha data is really nice, and unsurprisingly the Oiii and Sii is not as strong (or nice).
      I'm missing that (vital) step in my processing routine of getting the Sii and Oiii properly stretched to match the Ha, before combining.  I dont really know how to deal with the weaker data properly.  Any pointers would be appreciated.
      What I do currently:
      All the data is loaded into APP into separate channels/sessions.
      The data is stacked and registered against the best Ha sub
      This produces individual stacks of Ha, Sii and Oiii that are all registered
      Each channel is processed with DPP in APP and then saved as a 16bit TIFF
      Each is opened in PS
      Stars removed with AA and any remnants removed and tidied up
      I then open a blank RGB document in PS
      I paste Ha into Green, Sii into Red and Oiii into Blue
      Adjust the selective colour settings to get 'Hubble palette'
      Adjust levels, curves, saturation until looks ok
      All the Ha Sii Oiii data is then combined together in a single 'super' stack in APP using quality weighted algorithm to create a 'luminance'
      That luminance layer is adjusted using levels, curves, and NC tools such as local contrast enhancement and deep space noise reduction (using masks to apply as required)
      The luminance is pasted onto the above colour layer, and incrementally added using gaussian blur
      Cropped and saved.
       
       
      Here it is anyway   I haven't intended on any more exposure time for this one, but will consider it, if the expert opinion dictates otherwise!
       
      CS
      Adam
       


    • By GiovanniF
      Hi to everyone, I used to do some astrophotography in the past with a Celestron AVX and DSLR but after few month had to give up for several reasons, including light pollution (I'm living in zone 3 east London), and also working shifts. Now I want to start again, and this time more serious. I've been searching around for a couple of months to choose all the gear and I'm quite happy with the list so far although it's a bit over the price I planned at first.
       I will get an William optics Z73 with his 50mm guide scope, a flattener/reducer 0.8, light pollution filter IDAS D2 and as camera I will use a Canon 600D modded and I will buy a ZWO 183MC Pro, after so much research, I'm very happy with the scale and framing I will get with this combo, but I'm starting to get confused with the mount.
      My first idea was to go for an HEQ5 Pro, as my previous experience with the AVX has been awful, then I realized that the FLO, sells that mount with belt modification and also some cleaning and tuning if required, I heard that it's a big improvement over the stock one and the price it's ok, but another important factor for me it's portability. Unfortunately, my garden doesn't allow me to do much so I will need to carry around on trolley, for a km walk, I'm a strong person and been doing plenty of time with the AVX, so my confusion came recently when the iOptron mounts entered my radar. I start comparing the heq5 pro with belt, with the iOptron cem25EC and the CEM40 without encoders, and I'm so unsure of which to buy, the cem25 seem to be the equivalent of heq5 at least speaking of payload, but in some threads I read people saying it's a bit fragile so kind of remove it from the equation although the weight it's interesting for my situation, then the cem40, seem to be quite similar on weight to the heq5 but with higher payload and that's interesting too as I will buy a C11 at some point.
      Now it will all come down to the accuracy of tracking I guess, how the heq5 and cem40 would compare on tracking and guiding? If the cem40 it's better, I would probably go with that since it holds more and would last longer as I don't plan to get anything bigger than a C11, but if the skywatcher it's better, I could decide to go for that, and when I move to a place with better garden then get a second mount with higher payload.
      Apologise for the long post and my english.
      Kind Regards,
      Giovanni. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.