So the time to decide.

[sewbank]

I do like the look of the Orion 10" f/3.9 Newtonian Astrograph Reflector Telescope or even the 8" version. Good price and seen images on here taken through them. I also like the look of the Meade lx85 mount with goto etc. It's payload weight is a little more than the heq5. Any thoughts on these combinations. The 10" orion weighs in at 11.6kg the 8 " at 7.9kg. The payload capacity of a meade lx85 mount is 15kg whereas the heq5 is 11kg for photography.  

[Seanelly]

The 254mm Orion reflector at 11.6k is beyond the recommended capacity for either of these mounts (though the capacity of the HEQ5Pro is 13.6k), especially for photography, which should see your payload at not much more than half the capacity of the mount. Visual is another story, one I can't vouch for in this situation, but I think you can get away with a good deal more payload than 50%.

[Demonperformer]

I would recommend you get to see these scopes "in the flesh" before you part with cash. A lot will depend on if you can organise a permanent setup. I found a 10" dob to be too big to be manageable (in my circumstances, others in different circumstances have no such problems). Don't let aperture-fever blind you to the realities of these beasts - a small scope that gathers photons is infinitely more use than a big one that only gathers dust.

[dannybgoode]

A lot depends on what camera you’re planning to use as well. Both scopes have a reasonably long focal length and consequently a narrow field of view so with a small sensor camera targets will be limited. 

Weight isn’t the only consideration when looking at the mount either. A long scope requires more torque to swing it and even if a 10” newt was within the right weight range it could still tax a more moderate mount like the HEQ5 simply due to its size. The slightest breeze as well will cause vibrations and movement which will ruin an imaging session very quickly. 

Finally long focal lengths require precise guiding so the set up has to be just so. 

Is there a particular reason you want a large long focal length scope for imaging as opposed to the more common short fast refractor?

[sewbank]

9 minutes ago, dannybgoode said:

A lot depends on what camera you’re planning to use as well. Both scopes have a reasonably long focal length and consequently a narrow field of view so with a small sensor camera targets will be limited. 

Weight isn’t the only consideration when looking at the mount either. A long scope requires more torque to swing it and even if a 10” newt was within the right weight range it could still tax a more moderate mount like the HEQ5 simply due to its size. The slightest breeze as well will cause vibrations and movement which will ruin an imaging session very quickly. 

Finally long focal lengths require precise guiding so the set up has to be just so. 

Is there a particular reason you want a large long focal length scope for imaging as opposed to the more common short fast refractor?

Non really, I supposed I want be able to image deep sky stuff with good quality but then look at local stuff like planets, for immediate impact, for the wife....lol. For imaging i was gonna try my Olympus 4/3rds camera as it's nice and light which has wifi so no wires to worry about.

[PeterCPC]

IMO you are going to be making it very hard work to get good DSO imaging with that set up.

Peter

[ollypenrice]

The problem with fast reflectors is getting them to work. They look great on paper and when they are fully sorted they give good results - but getting them to that stage can sometimes be a very long drawn out process. Problems include collimation and tilt, to both of which they are highly sensitive.

There is no reason why you cannot go deep with a small refractor. This image shows the notoriously faint Integrated FLux nebulosity around M81/82 in colour. The scope was a 4 inch refractor.

I wouldn't want to image with a mount which was approaching its limit and I wouldn't want to buy anything from Meade unless they have seriously improved their customer service quality in recent years. I'd try a Google search on that.

Olly

[alacant]

8 hours ago, sewbank said:

Orion 10" f/3.9 Newtonian

Hi. You'll need to pull it apart and change the springs in the mirror, add a long wide dovetail, a rigid rail along the top of the rings opposite the mounting dovetail and -for us at least- 'glue' the mirror to the cell with silicone sealer. @laser_jock99is the fast reflector expert and has a thread with the details I mention. Unfortunately, there's a lot of mis-information about fast Newtonian reflectors out there. Once you have done the modifications, they behave just like any other reflector.

But hey, none of the modifications are difficult, so have a go; having moved from a miserably dim 80mm refractor which gave fat blue star images to a 208mm f3.9, you'd never go back;)

HTH

**EDIT: forgot to mention; to look through them, you need specialised eyepieces and a coma corrector which will accept eyepieces. I think that's an expensive upgrade...

[Rush]

If u really have the time and patience to tame this beasty combination.  Well,  its possible.

This is going to be a challenge every night. A Little wind is enough  for the horror trip. Forget about collimating / weight / balancing  stuff.

Permanent pier in a shed or similar might help. Or  else Olly's advice is very much the truth. 

Buying  stuff by the Looks , not recomendable. Functionality,easy handling, stability of the equipment makes this mad hobby enjoyable.

best regards

Rush

 

 

 

[laser_jock99]

Just to add to Olly's comments - fast Newts are indeed interesting scopes and can work very well when set up optimally- BUT probably not suited for begginers in astrophotography. The technical challenges are way greater than a simple refractor set-up.  I spent 2 years imaging with refractors  (80mm & 120mm Skywatchers) before I bought my first F4 reflector. 

If you do decide you absolutely have to own either of these scopes, the 8" will be slightly easier to tame and better suited to the mount.

[david_taurus83]

12 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

 

Is this yours Olly? Its stunning! Any details on the integration?

[ollypenrice]

11 hours ago, alacant said:

 having moved from a miserably dim 80mm refractor which gave fat blue star images to a 208mm f3.9, you'd never go back;)

 

Ooooh.  From a miserably dim 80mm refractor struggling to control hot blue stars - though I admit the refractor can't find all those bright crosses shooting out of the stars...

I went from a 14 inch reflector to a 5.5 inch refractor and won't be going back, that's for sure.

Olly

 

 

[ollypenrice]

4 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

Is this yours Olly? Its stunning! Any details on the integration?

Yes, we did this one here. There was a lot of integration. Luminance 18x30 minutes, colours 14x10 minutes per channel. At the time of this capture, a good few years ago, there was some debate over the colour of the IFN and I was inspired to try for its colour following a post by Peter Shah. I sent the data to Tom O'Donoghue so we could process it independently as a check on any colour we found and, mercifully, we agreed on the result.

Olly

[SamAndrew]

I started off with a a big 10" F4 newt on an NEQ6. It took a fair amount of time to setup because you had to strip everything apart between sessions (Typically 45 minutes from memory). The guiding on an NEQ6 wasn't really sufficient, although perfectly acceptable for a newbie. I wouldn't say it was hard, mine didn't require any modifications (to my newbie eyes at the time). The field of view was a challenge, the majority of popular nebula targets won't fit on a DSLR sized camera chip, which is why I later got an 8" F4 as well. I took it to a few remote sites and wind was always an issue. If I did it again I would have got the 8" over the 10". 

I've now got a 71mm refractor which is much more pleasurable to use; setup time is typically 15 minutes from opening the back door to starting the first image, so I'm far more likely to be in the mood to use it.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Something to bear in mind perhaps: "bought too big a scope" is commonly cited by imagers as the biggest mistake they made when starting out.