Half decent 6" Achro refractor?

[GordonCopestake]

Looks interesting Steve, thanks for that. I'll have a look around and see if i can find it as an OTA only. I already have a mount and dont really want to be lumbered with 2 as i can only use one at a time!

Im looking more and more at the ED100 but feel that the reduced aperture will disapoint me, even if the views are excellent and contrasty. But on the pro side, it will be much more portable and wont break my back lugging it around.

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

The more I hear about the new Bresser Messier range refractors/mounts, the more I like them.

This one has particularly caught my eye:

http://tinyurl.com/plnxj

Didn't like the blurb myself. Specifically the "will under good conditions reveal the Cassini division within Saturns rings" bit. I have a achromat which cost a lot less and I can see the Cassini division with no trouble.

Captain Chaos

[FLO]

The more I hear about the new Bresser Messier range refractors/mounts, the more I like them.

This one has particularly caught my eye:

http://tinyurl.com/plnxj

Didn't like the blurb myself. Specifically the "will under good conditions reveal the Cassini division within Saturns rings" bit. I have a achromat which cost a lot less and I can see the Cassini division with no trouble.

Captain Chaos

I wasn't referring to the blurb

[Ambermile]

The more I hear about the new Bresser Messier range refractors/mounts, the more I like them.

This one has particularly caught my eye:

http://tinyurl.com/plnxj

Didn't like the blurb myself. Specifically the "will under good conditions reveal the Cassini division within Saturns rings" bit. I have a achromat which cost a lot less and I can see the Cassini division with no trouble.

Captain Chaos

Now, you see this bugs me. I look at Saturn and see the division, fine. How much of that seeing is because I know what I am looking at?

Arthur

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

OK so I have a cheaper Achromat and got Cassini on the webcam. Not on many frames, but visually I can see better than the webcam, I assume that my eye focusses to compensate automatically for poor seeing?

I was trying to point out out the "well I should think so" with my previous post, rather than anything else. It's not such a big thing with a 'scope, or is it?

Captain Chaos

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

All that I'm saying is that, with the 'scope that I have, that is not advertised as Apo, Semi Apo or Pseudo Apo, I can see the Cassini division visually. I thought that it was a "cop out" to brag about this in selling a "better" 'scope so that they could claim something "easy" to avoid any comeback.

If you want to see the Cassini division, get a cheaper 'scope and save the cash. If you want to do whatever it is that you can do with an Apo that you can't with an Achro, then get the Apo. I don't know what that is yet, but I'm sure that I'll find out and then I'll need the Apo. It's nature's way of letting you know that you had a payday.

Captain Chaos

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

I think I'll need a 10" Apo to satisfy me.

Greedy so and so!

Captain Chaos

[russ]

Im looking more and more at the ED100 but feel that the reduced aperture will disapoint me, even if the views are excellent and contrasty. But on the pro side, it will be much more portable and wont break my back lugging it around.

Gordon, the latest Astronomy Now has a review of all the Skywatcher Pro models, it's a pretty good review too. It was the ED100 he picked out for special attention, reckons it's the jewel in the Synta crown. Couldn't find fault with the optics, better than the ED80 and the ED120. Perfect star test. He also said that he compared it to larger reflectors and was amazed that it outperformed them.

The coolest thing about refractors is the cool down time and the zero maintenence. With good clear skies now consigned to myth and legend, don't want to be flaffing about with collimation and hours of cool down. If there's a clear spell, want to be making the best of it quickly. Both my refractors are useable after 30mins and fully up & running within 60mins. The SCT and Mak both took 2 hours minimum to fully get into their stride.

Russ

[GordonCopestake]

Im looking more and more at the ED100 but feel that the reduced aperture will disapoint me, even if the views are excellent and contrasty. But on the pro side, it will be much more portable and wont break my back lugging it around.

Gordon, the latest Astronomy Now has a review of all the Skywatcher Pro models, it's a pretty good review too. It was the ED100 he picked out for special attention, reckons it's the jewel in the Synta crown. Couldn't find fault with the optics, better than the ED80 and the ED120. Perfect star test. He also said that he compared it to larger reflectors and was amazed that it outperformed them.

The coolest thing about refractors is the cool down time and the zero maintenence. With good clear skies now consigned to myth and legend, don't want to be flaffing about with collimation and hours of cool down. If there's a clear spell, want to be making the best of it quickly. Both my refractors are useable after 30mins and fully up & running within 60mins. The SCT and Mak both took 2 hours minimum to fully get into their stride.

Russ

You make a good point Russ. Especially when i saw this http://www.pulsar-optical.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=131&products_id=948 which I think is excellent value for money given what i've seen.

[FLO]

Now, you see this bugs me. I look at Saturn and see the division, fine. How much of that seeing is because I know what I am looking at?

You have to see something before it can be noticed.

I saw the shadow of Jupiter's moon Io on the planet surface 2-3 mins before I 'noticed' it. It was the same when I saw nebulosity around Pleiades - I first checked all the optics were clean then posted the question here on SGL before fully realising what I had seen.

[Jamie]

Thats a very good point Steve.

When you look through an eyepiece you have to train your eye/brain

to pick up detail seen.

This takes practice.

I have tried to show people "that have no prior experience at looking

through an eyepiece" some detail in an object.

I could see it just fine but they had major problems making out any detail.

[GordonCopestake]

I would think that it's true to say that we see with our brains and not with our eyes. We use our eyes to collect information, the same as we use all our other senses. But we use our brains to actually do the seeing. As such our brain is the best image processing computer known to man!