Is aperture king?

[Charic]

48 minutes ago, Stu said:

Over and out ?

Lol!....... Your expecting a reply ( Over )  yet you've  gone, finished  with  ( Out ).

The times I got pulled up for that when I was on the airwaves?
Nice to know I'm not the only one!!!!

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Charic said:

Lol!....... Your expecting a reply ( Over )  yet you've  gone, finished  with  ( Out ).

The times I got pulled up for that when I was on the airwaves?
Nice to know I'm not the only one!!!!

Oops! I guess I probably thought everyone would be too bored to reply by the time they got to the end of my post! ??

[mikeDnight]

40 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Any David Hinds "A" quality 8.5" and upwards and probably top end OOUK optics. Refractors are best for what small telescopes are best at, wide field visual and imaging, double stars and solar. For most else there are better options IMO.     

Oops! You forgot to mention refractors being better for planetary and lunar observing Peter. 

[John]

I'd start with a clear sky being "King" I think. Without that, all scopes of whatever size and wherever they are located, are redundant. Mine range from 70mm to 300mm in aperture but have seen far too few photons lately due to seemingly endless cloudy conditions

 

 

[Rob]

Once again I echo all that's been said here. The real issue (king) is the sky conditions in the UK. If the king wants to deliver, then depending where you are and how dark your skies are. The weapon of choice then varies.

Many a time I've been in the middle of the New Forrest at 3am with what appear to be fantastic clear skies. You soon find out which scope will perform best in conjunction to seeing conditions, and the targets you want to observe/image.

Rob

[Peter Drew]

12 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

Oops! You forgot to mention refractors being better for planetary and lunar observing Peter. 

Not necessarily. My C8 in Tenerife gives better lunar and planetary views than any refractor I've yet used, just think what your eyesight would make of it. In the UK, if the seeing is so poor it needs a small refractor to see any planetary detail I'm happy to look at something else until things improve.   ?

[Cosmic Geoff]

"Aperture is King"?  This is one of those catch-phrases which is true up to a point, but...  The aperture is the most significant parameter of a telescope, but a capable mount and a usable design follow closely.  There is also, as others have pointed out, the question of the atmosphere, which can cause large apertures to perform no better than small apertures.

If aperture was the only thing that mattered, anybody wanting an 8" telescope would buy the £300 Dob and not the £750 GoTo Dob, or the £1500 C8, or the £2000 Celestron Nexstar Evolution (and even more expensive models of 8" exist up to ~£6 K ).

[mikeDnight]

2 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

Not necessarily. My C8 in Tenerife gives better lunar and planetary views than any refractor I've yet used, just think what your eyesight would make of it. In the UK, if the seeing is so poor it needs a small refractor to see any planetary detail I'm happy to look at something else until things improve.   ?

I've seen an old 1980's C8 give a jaw dropping view of Jupiter, so I know they can deliver the goods. It's just that they tend not to! Internal heat, massive central obstructions and stars that never seem to come to a true focus puts me off the design. I've never yet seen an SCT produce a truly sharp star image - they always look like little ping pong balls to me! On the other hand, the AC's 8.5" refractor always delivers the goods, so there's more than aperture at play, which really shows that aperture is only a part of a far more complex issue, and so aperture cannot possibly be considered king! 

I dont suppose theres much chance of an all expenses paid field trip to Tenerife Peter, is there? Im always up for a scientific expedition! ?✈️✨

[Peter Drew]

I agree Mike, I've never seen as sharp star images in the night sky as the best refractors although some small Maks and long focus small Newtonians come close. Unless one is a keen double star observer, less than perfect star images are good enough and the faint stars that small telescopes will never see tend not to look mishapen or bloated. So in summary, a refractor can be claimed to be best for double stars, Moon, solar and a few of the planets. That leaves an overwhelming number of objects for which larger telescopes of different designs have an advantage.   ? 

[paulastro]

I can't help but smile after having waded through all the posts in this thread.  Many interesting opinions, some of which I may align myself with more than others.

What they all do is set out the writers individual opinions and personal preferences for telescopes they like to use and some of them (but not all) infer that anyone who has different opinions and preferences are at least to some degree just wrong somehow.

I've never really felt uneasy or feel threatened if anyone prefers different telescope types  and sizes to the one's I may choose to use, and I have never felt the need to try to convert others to my may of thinking.  Being 'right' or 'wrong' just doesn't come into it. 

All of us have individual telescope needs depending on among other things:  observing conditions, observing interests, where we live and where we want to observe, if we are visual observers, imagers or both, available expenditure,  physical health, time available to observe etc etc.

Of course I've not mentioned the one thing that many observers have but rarely admit to (at least on SGL) - the irrational preference to use one telescope type  and possibly manufacturer and size above all others despite all the evidence that there may be something better for some of their observing needs.  Come on admit it .... we know who you are ! 

Of course, many of the experienced observers who have contributed to this thread know this already - but spare a thought for the poor newcomer who asks for some advice through the various forums on SGL expecting EVERYONE to offer an objective and unbiased view!  ?  No chance!!!!  

 

 

[Paul73]

Agreed. Shall I start the “Are Televue Eyepieces worth the money?” thread? ????

[estwing]

One thing has become clear in this thread....nothing. 

[estwing]

We all could argue that certain scopes are better than others but in the end it's down to personal taste/usage/targets/budgets.

[Rob]

I have said on (I don't know how many threads like this) certain scopes suit certain climates also. As mentioned earlier that C8 produced better views was no doubt down to the climate. Dry air, warmth etc.

However personal taste does come into play for sure, we are all individuals.

Rob

[Geoff Lister]

15 hours ago, estwing said:

We all could argue that certain scopes are better than others but in the end it's down to personal taste/usage/targets/budgets.

My 250PX 10" Dob. is a 2-part carry from my garage to my patio. All of my other setups are portable, and, unlike the 250PX, will fit in my Mazda MX5 roadster. If the seeing conditions are good, I use the 250PX, but most of the time I use the Skymax with the 127mm Mak., and capture roughly a quarter of the available photons.

Geoff

[SIDO]

I would agree with those saying Dark Skies are King as it has just been my overall experience less all the variables and some of my best observations have occured with what some would consider low potential low capability telescopes. Dark skies have been my crutch making even the smallest apertures exceed what many others discribe as their limitations by leaps and bounds. So aperture for me is more for getting to the target's I want too see that are beyond the exit pupil of a smaller aperture or a more detailed view is desired but all said the Darkness is responsible more than for 99% of the contrast we see so King might even be an understatement...