If you could only choose one telescope for everything

[Chris]

Hi all. 

Martin aka Grumpy Martian recently started a thread to help him decide between buying a 6" f/5 Newtonian and a 4" f/7 Refractor. I've often thought either of these could be all the scope you ever need.

Both scopes can be used effectively for many areas of astronomy including; DSO imaging and observing, planetary imaging and observing, solar, and EAA. so I decided to put together a video singing their merits....not literally singing their merits, you don't want to hear that  

I really do think either of these could be all the scope you ever need, but what do you guys think? 

Is there another scope you would choose instead?

 

 

[Tomatobro]

I would probably go for the VLT in Atacama........

[xtreemchaos]

id be happy with any 4 inch +f10 ish frac aslong as it had a good focuser, it dont have to be ED . charl.

[JohnSadlerAstro]

I'd stick with my 5" f/5 130PDS. With a coma corrector though. (which costs as much as the scope, so hopefully thats allowed)

John

[Saganite]

Excellent Chris, very informative, and I pretty much agree. My choice, because I have one, would be the 4" F7.4 refractor. If just one telescope, it would have to be a refractor.

[JOC]

I thought the general answer to this was a 200P, but I know the standard scope has limitations esp. for imaging.  However,  I like what I've got and having also now owning a small refractor I'd still want my first scope:

A 200P, truss tube, on a Goto and tracking Dobsonian mount.

Easy to transport and store

A fair amount of light gathering - can see many DSO's as well as the planets, moon and sun (with appropriate filters)

Goto makes finding things easy

Tracking removes the constant 'nudge' and allows for a moderate amount of imaging.  OK, this is probably the weaker point, but I think if you want a one scope does all you will probably have to compromise on something and at least the tracking Dob doesn't put making a permanent record of views and images completely out of reach.

[mikeDnight]

An excellent, easy to listen to video Chris. I really can't fault your reasoning in any way and completely agree that if I had either of the scopes you mention, I be a very happy observer. Both scopes are very capable and serious instruments that could provide a lifetime of enjoyment. Of course, I'm of an age where I can remember if someone owned a 4" refractor or a 6" Newtonian, they would be regarded with a measure of awe, and with good reason. After nearly 40 years at the eyepiece I'm still passionate about 4" refractors and rarely imagine using anything else. With regard to Newtonians, I confess to having a soft spot for the 6" F8; and remember Harold Hill mentioning in his book "A Portfolio Of Lunar Drawings", that his 6" Newtonian showed all the same detail on the moon that his 10" F10 did, only not as bright. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

I'd stick with my 5" f/5 130PDS. With a coma corrector though. (which costs as much as the scope, so hopefully thats allowed)

John

Can you use the coma corrector to improve the views for visual observing? 

Or is it just for imaging. 

[Rick_It]

I have only one scope, and I do pretty much everything with it.

Orion Optics VX8L + DIY dobson mount + Nexus II.

25% CO and good optics = good performances on visual hi-res.

200mm + HiLux = good performances for visual DSO.

With a EQ6 I could even take some long exposure pictures, but I'm not interested. And with a 3x barlow some serious hi-res imaging. Again, not interested but definitely possible.

Set-up time around 4 minutes.

What's left? It's not grab&go and I can't take it with me for holidays. But I'm totally in love with that scope, and I have lost all interests for new big scopes. I just want a small APO and a small ALT-AZ push-to mount.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Rick_It

[Alkaid]

I haven't had it that long, so perhaps unjustified, but I'm really liking my C8.  It performs really well for me on the Moon and surpassed my expectations in terms of image quality (for this unit anyway).   It did confirm double the resolution of my 4" frac (expected with aperture, but I equally wanted a sharp image too and I got it).  I'm yet to really give it the deep sky test, but initial visual on M42 was rather good.  It's a compact tube, easy to carry around and out of the house and far easier to manoeuvre than the frac.    I like it.

[Rick_It]

Yes, but a C8 is not a rich-field scope, so it's not universal. For example, you can't frame the Pleiades. With a 200/1200 you get up to 2.26° FOV.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Rick_It

[JohnSadlerAstro]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Martian said:

Can you use the coma corrector to improve the views for visual observing? 

Or is it just for imaging. 

Yes, its pretty essential if you're using the 28mm 2" eyepiece that comes with it. Spacing hardly matters, anywhere in the optic train improves the view!  

John

[John]

Of the scopes that I have got, I guess the ED120 refractor is a pretty good "all rounder". 3 true degrees with the 40mm Aero ED eyepiece and up to 300x when target / conditions allow at the other end. The showpiece DSO's look nice under dark skies with the aperture as well.

 

 

[DaveS]

Possibly a 6" f/8 triplet apo on a good mount, Mesu 200 minimum. Add a small pixel camera and you can get good images of galaxies, add a reducer and big sensor and semi widefield imaging is possible.

But I have to say that one scope can't really do it all.

[Paul73]

12” ultra light, ultra rigid f4.5 Collapsable Dob. ?. I could use it at home. Or, carry it up a mountain. It could sit on a gourmet wedge for imaging. I see no reason why, given the right materials & guiding, it couldn’t rival a traditional EQ Mount.

Look at what McLaren have done with road cars and bicycles.... I wonder if they could be persuaded to build me a scope?

Paul

 

[Alfian]

I've had both a 150p and an ED100 (f9) both should have been more than enough to keep me happy - so your analysis is pretty well spot on. However, I'm beginning to think that when it comes to 'scopes its a bit like an itch that you scratch but the itch then  gets worse. Scratch, scratch, scratch! Of my current scopes, if I had to keep just one, the 102 Mak on the Goto would make the most sense but the Tal 100r has that smile factor that is so winning.

[Chris]

9 hours ago, Tomatobro said:

I would probably go for the VLT in Atacama........

I'm just wondering what focal length eyepiece you'd need for the double cluster? 

[Chris]

9 hours ago, Saganite said:

Excellent Chris, very informative, and I pretty much agree. My choice, because I have one, would be the 4" F7.4 refractor. If just one telescope, it would have to be a refractor.

Thanks Steve, taking every aspect into account including transportation, mounting, imaging and observations of various objects, they are the best compromise I can think of  

[GavStar]

5 minutes ago, Lockie said:

Thanks Steve, taking every aspect into account including transportation, mounting, imaging and observations of various objects, they are the best compromise I can think of  

I do really like my 100mm f7.4 doublet. But as an airline travel scope I prefer my 95mm f5.9 Triplet which is much easier for carry on, virtually the same aperture so good for planetary and has a nice wide field.

[niallk]

I've just ordered my 4th scope, making a mockery of my answer ?

To pick just one, it would be my 15" truss dob.

But no one scope does it all :- my 15" is a bit useless for solar

[Chris]

7 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

An excellent, easy to listen to video Chris. I really can't fault your reasoning in any way and completely agree that if I had either of the scopes you mention, I be a very happy observer. Both scopes are very capable and serious instruments that could provide a lifetime of enjoyment. Of course, I'm of an age where I can remember if someone owned a 4" refractor or a 6" Newtonian, they would be regarded with a measure of awe, and with good reason. After nearly 40 years at the eyepiece I'm still passionate about 4" refractors and rarely imagine using anything else. With regard to Newtonians, I confess to having a soft spot for the 6" F8; and remember Harold Hill mentioning in his book "A Portfolio Of Lunar Drawings", that his 6" Newtonian showed all the same detail on the moon that his 10" F10 did, only not as bright. 

Thanks Mike, very kind of you to say, great minds hey  Yes, we are spoilt with aperture now days which is of course a good thing. However, when you take into account setup, cool down, average seeing conditions, focal length etc, the old 4" frac/6" Newt's seem like very practical scopes to own for those of us without an obsy.

As for the 6" f/8, I had the 150p Skyliner Dob f/8 a couple of years back and couldn't believe how formidable it was on Jupiter. Best bang for buck planetary/Lunar scope I can think of that one.     

[Chris]

5 hours ago, Alkaid said:

I haven't had it that long, so perhaps unjustified, but I'm really liking my C8.  It performs really well for me on the Moon and surpassed my expectations in terms of image quality (for this unit anyway).   It did confirm double the resolution of my 4" frac (expected with aperture, but I equally wanted a sharp image too and I got it).  I'm yet to really give it the deep sky test, but initial visual on M42 was rather good.  It's a compact tube, easy to carry around and out of the house and far easier to manoeuvre than the frac.    I like it.

C8's are great scopes once collimated accurately! I miss my C8 Edge, but selling it will ultimately result in me owning a C11 Edge in an obsy once moved, so it will be worth it. 

[Chris]

3 hours ago, DaveS said:

Possibly a 6" f/8 triplet apo on a good mount, Mesu 200 minimum. Add a small pixel camera and you can get good images of galaxies, add a reducer and big sensor and semi widefield imaging is possible.

That would be a dream scope in a obsy for sure!  Setup and cool down would be a nightmare if you had it bring it all out from the warm, but what a wonderful obsy scope that would make!

3 hours ago, DaveS said:

But I have to say that one scope can't really do it all.

I guess it depends on to what extent? and where we draw the line? But to the standard of many amateurs including myself I think one scope can. We might have to agree to dis agree  

Edited March 28, 2019 by Lockie

[Chris]

1 hour ago, Alfian said:

I've had both a 150p and an ED100 (f9) both should have been more than enough to keep me happy - so your analysis is pretty well spot on. However, I'm beginning to think that when it comes to 'scopes its a bit like an itch that you scratch but the itch then  gets worse. Scratch, scratch, scratch! Of my current scopes, if I had to keep just one, the 102 Mak on the Goto would make the most sense but the Tal 100r has that smile factor that is so winning.

There is a lot of grass is greener when it comes to telescopes I feel, I know the itch far too well Ian 

[L8-Nite]

The older I get, the simpler I like things to be, and as a visual only observer I don't care to fuss about with unnecessary gadgets. So, considering that  my Wife and I like travelling to dark destinations, our little kit  here would be my one scope choice.

.