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.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_nb_dso.jpg.eb6cd158659331fd13e71470af6da381.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
billyharris72    299

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
Freddie    1,709

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
Skyline    206

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
ollypenrice    16,764

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
ollypenrice    16,764
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
ollypenrice    16,764
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
billyharris72    299

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
johnrt    2,151

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
alan potts    3,587

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Graham F
      Hi to all you members on SGL.
      I am a novice with 3 months experience with a SW200P dob, having started initially with a pair of Oregon 15 x 70 Bins on a tripod mount.
      I have referenced some good books and spent some time with Stellarium and I am encouraged by my new learnt ability to navigate the night sky with the 200p.
      I have connected my Nikon D600 (24mp full frame) DSLR to the scope and produced some satisfying photos of the moon, however I am interested in imaging some DSO's. ( I have caught the bug with no cure in sight!)
      I intend to get a tracking mount such as a SW HEQ5 Pro Synscan, but for now would like to purchase a wide field refractor and produce some wide field imaging with a basic mount, I understand that subs of around 30 sec can be produced with mediocre results initially until I get a better mount. Also it would be nice to have a grab and go scope which is more convenient than the big DOB.
      Also this would give me some images to experiment with the software such as DSS and Registax 6.
      So, I have been researching three achromatic telescopes, The Skywatcher ST80 and ST102 (both come with kit mounts ranging from AZ3 to EQ1 and the Bresser Messier AR-102/600 (which looks stylish and has the Hex focus)
      However, despite spending somewhere in the region of 4-5 hours so far researching for reviews on the BM102, nothing has been forthcoming>?
      I am aware of the issues of CA with these small tube Achromats, however the plan is to Purchase one of the three now, save for the HEQ5 mount, then at a later stage use the scope purchased now as a guide scope and but a better APO doublet or triplet scope for the main tube.
      So, having laid the table so to speak, which of the three would you advice and why please, I have been told by two companies stocking the BM102/600 that mechanically it is far superior to the two Skywatchers, but I am concerned that I cannot find ANY reviews on this OTA for its optical quality ?. I am aware that Synta make a few of these 80 and 100mm scopes for different suppliers but I am let to believe that the BM is a separate manufacturer.
      Any advice or better still hearing from someone who owns the Bresser Messier AR-102/600 would be amazing, so thank you for reading this long post and thank you in advance of your reply.
      Regards
      Graham
       
      Side note:-
      I have a VERY heavy duty pan tilt Manfrotto tripod which I previously used to support my Sinar 5x4 Large format bellows camera so its very steady and has a pan tilt head already fitted, I intend to mount the new scope on this as an AZ to begin with.
       
    • By Beardy Bob
      This has been sat boxed up in my garage for a couple of years now since moving to a town with lots of trees and light pollution! It's in great condition optically and physically other than a scratch on the outer paintwork that it's had since I got it (see the bottom picture). Comes complete with tube rings as seen on the pictures. Buyer can collect or I can meet at the Kelling Star Party with it as I'm only a few miles down the road. Reduced to £160.
      Bob



    • By Dan-G
      Hello!
      I've recently bought a Skywather 102/1000 refracting telescope mounted on an EQ3 with aluminum tripod.
      The optics are okay, but I'm very disappointed by the low quality of the mount. Here's why.
      1)First of all, it is too wobbly for my taste.
      2)Then, the latitude markings are off by about 10 degrees from the vertical/horizontal. This is not a functional problem, rather an eye sore. Can it be fixed? I guess not. The black plates seem to have been glued into place.  

      3)There are two marks on the mount for setting the declination circle but they are not on the same diagonal, meaning they don't show the same declination. One of them is on the declination knob assembly, which is slightly rotated so as to not hit the telescope. Does this second indicator have any meaning? I don't think so.


       
      4)Hard as I tried, I was unable to attach the round cover to the polar scope (the part where you are supposed to stick it in). Do you need a polar scope to be able to attach it? 
      5)The manual is very light, it should really more information on the mount. For instance, what's the use of the piece I've marked by a red circle? 

       
    • By Grumpy Martian
      I have just spent a week in Swanage.There were several very good dark and clear night skies before the Moon rose earlier.I took full advantage by testing my new 200mm Newtonian. I am coming back to Swanage later this month and have decided to leave the setup down here.This gives me to opportunity to concentrate on building a travel or grab and go setup. I have an older blue colour Skywatcher ED 80mm f 7.5 telescope. I have used it with a large Manfrotto photographic tripod.But this has limitations as the telescope cannot be pointed to the zenith. An AZ 4 mount would work well I know.But it is quite large to transport.I have be looking at the Skywatcher AZ Discovery setup.The tripod does not look to be anything near the 1.75 inch diameter of the EQ5 tripod. Also there is the new AZ5 Delux mount with height extension.Just wonder if I could buy the mount and extension and fit it to may Manfrotto tripod.Has anyone else had any experience of such mounts? Even goto would be considered if portable enough.
      Thanks
      Martin
    • By ItsTheWhittle
      Hi guys,
      Im currently using a Sky Watcher Star Discovery 150P, Ive had it for around 7 months now using only the eyepieces that came with it which are a 10mm, 25mm and 1.25" 2x barlow. Ive had some great nights with these viewing the Moon and various stars but now im looking to expand what eyepieces I have in order to get more out of my viewing experiences. 
      Basically im looking for recommendations as im still very much a beginner, any help will be most appreciated.
      Thanks Everyone!
       
       
×