Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

APO vs NEWT for imaging. Please Help.

paulobao

By paulobao
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

paulobao

paulobao

Posted
Posted

Hello,

I need help from people with experience in Newton imaging.

I have2 APO's (Takahashi FS102 NSV and FS60C both at f/6.2) and a canon 40D Baader. I would like to have a more faster setup. Since Faster APOS are very expensive for the diameter I thought in Newts more precisely:

-OO Europa 150 f/5

-OO SPX 200 f/4.5

and of course a coma corrector (like a MPCC).

Could anyone with experience with those help me?

Regards,

paulo from portugal

Link to comment
Share on other sites
narrowbandpaul

narrowbandpaul

Posted
Posted

what kind of imaging/resolution (wide field, high res?) do you want.

The FS60 has a new flattener down to f4 ish, but the focal length is short, so may not be of use.

Havent used the FS102, but have used the 128, and its very nice, so i am convinced that the FS102 would be just as good.

I have a 10" orion at f4, and love it.

Go for the SPX for the better quality tube.

It will take a while to arrive, but it will come in good quality. Some folk havent had a good experience. I have.

With MPCC should flatten over DSLR chip.

Hope this helps.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eddie

Eddie

Posted
Posted

The GSO is indeed a great option, I have one myself. One thing to bear in mind is that all reflectors are APO's.

Paul, the MPCC corrects the field for a 35mm chip also (albeit with some vignetting)

An incredibly flat field without an MPCC 8)

It's twice the price though!

Eddie

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FLO

FLO

Posted
Posted

It's twice the price though!

Eddie

Eddie, the man already owns two Takahashis.....

Also, wouldn't he need the 'deluxe' version of the GSO f4 (with larger secondary) at £529 plus the MPCC at £100? If so, the Mak-Newt is only 30% more expensive, doesn't need an MPCC, is a sealed tube, heavier construction and baffled.

Anyhow, it was only a suggestion :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulobao

paulobao

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you for all the replies.

I need to see some pics taken with all those tubes and a DSLR to see the differences. I would like to make the right choice (as everyone else)...if not I need to justify to my wife the need of another telescope :-).

Cheers,

paulo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nostromo

Nostromo

Posted
Posted

Hi Paulo here are some pros and cons:

If it is hot where you are, then the Newtonian will cool off a lot faster than the Mak Newtonian, which has a lens over the front that stops the warm air escaping. You can however cut a hole in the side of the OTA and install a filtered fan, which is what a lot of people do with Mak Newtonians.

On the other hand, eventually you always need to clean Newtonian mirrors, whereas Mak Newts don't suffer from so much dust build up because the meniscus lens stops it.

They both dew up, but the Mak Newt dews up faster than the Newtonian. I have a feeling there isn't much dew on Portugal though compared to the dewy UK :D

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bern

bern

Posted
Posted

Also, wouldn't he need the 'deluxe' version of the GSO f4 (with larger secondary) at £529 plus the MPCC at £100? If so, the Mak-Newt is only 30% more expensive, doesn't need an MPCC, is a sealed tube, heavier construction and baffled.

Actually no, my initial tests show the Mak-Newt is more strictly comparable with the standard GSO, in terms of field illumination and focuser quality.

Even with the cost of the MPCC added you'll need an extra £371 to buy the Mak Newt over the GSO, almost 72% more for a smaller aperture slower scope :shock:

I haven't finished my tests yet but when I do there'll be a full report 8)

bern

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bern

bern

Posted
Posted

Sorry Bern, I based my assumption on your website's product description "Deluxe models have a larger 70mm secondary - ideal for larger format cameras (DSLR to 35mm)."

No probs Steve, it's just that my criteria are more stringent than Skywatcher's in this regard.

bern

Link to comment
Share on other sites
paulobao

paulobao

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks again.

I've no idea how a Newt performs against my apo but I saw some really nice pictures taken here in portugal with a simple Meade 150f/5 and a 350d. I mentioned OO UK products because for what I know they are not mass produced and seems sturdy and nice. Optically I don't know how they perform against the other brands. I don't know too, about the delivery times of OO products. Anyway I have no prejudices about chinese products. What I need is a good product that don't disapoint me.

Cheers,

paulo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nostromo

Nostromo

Posted
Posted

Yes, OO optics are very good. I have an OO 14" F4.5 mirror in my homebuilt Dob. According to the test report I got with this scope it has a Strehl of .98. I'm not an expert, but the stuff I have seen with this scope is totally awesome and it's a nice size for starparties. Jupiter is very good, and so was Saturn and Mars. Clusters are pin sharp at high power. One day I will put this mirror into a proper tube and do some serious planetary imaging with it (when there are next some planets that is so I will probably have a zimmerframe by then).

There are very few UK companies who can make optics, and Orion are very good at making Newtonian mirrors. Talk to Barry or John Pemberton there. They were very proud of the mirror I now own, and Barry called me to check all was well too. But for wide field prime focus DSO imaging you don't need such smooth optics methinks... For visual you most definetly do.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.