Reflector vs Refractor

[StarryEyes]

Hi,

I posted previously in another thread and got answers to my questions. I have since been reading and researching different scopes before spending my money!

This has thrown up a few more questions that I'm hoping some of you may be able to help me with.

I ultimately would like to purchase a scope for astrophotography but also to use for viewing. It was suggested that a refractor scope would be good for imagng but not so good for viewing. So am I right in thinking that a reflector would be the way to got if I just want to view and a refractor would be the best for imaging? If so why would this be? Are there any other main pros and cons between the two?

Whilst doing my research I have discovered that there is a Catadioptric. Are these any good for imaging and any better than a reflector or refractor?

Many thanks

[John]

Your understanding is broadly right although I've seen good images produced with reflectors and I have great fun observing with refractors so there are no hard and fast rules. In truth there is no scope that is good at everything which is why many astronomers own more than one. I've got 4 and I'm not even into imaging !.

With imaging I believe it depends whether you go for planetary / lunar or deep sky - the optimal scope differs there as well !.

One thing all the imagers seem to agree on is that the mount is the most important thing - as solid and heavy duty as possible seems to be the key so I suspect that's where most of your £'s will go if you are keen on imaging.

[nightfisher]

A bit of advice, if you want a scope mainly for observing, and you want to just do a bit of planet and lunar imaging have a look at the TAL100rs refractor, as a jack of all trades scope i dont think this can be beaten, every one that has this scope all say just how good it is, never a bad word

[GazOC]

I'd guess another question would be whats your budget? An 8" Newt is a great all round scope that will give impressive views and is capable of DSO, lunar and planetary imaging.

[StarryEyes]

I'd guess another question would be whats your budget? An 8" Newt is a great all round scope that will give impressive views and is capable of DSO, lunar and planetary imaging.

Would that be something like an explorer-200PDS?

[GazOC]

Yes.

[rowan46]

catadioptric telescopes are a type of reflecting telescope ther main advantage is they give apparture without the length required by reflectors and refractors the sct, and mak are cats as is the ritchey chretienne of these apparently only the rc is a great imaging scope. any scope can be imaged with but not all types are good imaging scopes, as has been said if imaging is the prerequisite then the mount is your first priority. once that is in place it guides what the rest of the set up is. I imagine a paramount se mount gives a lot more options than a heq5. in short the less good the mount the smaller and faster the scope has to be at least as I understand it.

[StarryEyes]

Thanks very much for everyones help, lots to think about.

rowan46, I was thinking of an EQ5 mount with say an Explorer 150 or 200 or an Evostar 80.

[GazOC]

Think about the Evostar if you are sure you only want to image. If you think you may spend a decent amount of time viewing then the 150 and the 200mm are much better options.

That said, while its fine for visual, I think the EQ5 may be considered a little light for imaging with the 200mm newt.

[Trull]

As a general idea, a 4" refractor makes a fine visual or imaging scope. Its highly portable, has reasonable light grasp and collimation is not a problem. If you are just visual then you can get away with spending less on the mount, and you may be tempted to get a wide dob as this has the highest aperture to cash ratio. Personally I've got both - and enjoy them.