The joys of a Refractor

[Astro_Baby]

Cos its one more thing to play with.....lets face it with the weather we have in the UK your only going to use that shiny new telescope for a few nights each year. Collimating gives you something to do when its cloudy which is most of the time.

With a newt you can do stuff like collimate, flock the tube, fit a fan, build some rotating rings in your non observing time which is most of the time.

[brianb]

Collimating gives you something to do when its cloudy

Yeah, but it's a pain. There's something wrong with a scope that needs collimating continuously, in my experience a Newtonian should keep its collimation near enough for all practical purposes for months or years, unless it's handled roughly. Same as any other scope, really. The issue with most smaller 'fracs and many but not all Maks is that they simply can't be collimated - if the alingment is wrong from the factory, you have to live with it. And, believe me, they're not all perfect, even before they've been bounced around your car boot for a few hundred speed hump & pothole ridden miles.

[Adz]

I have looked up the other things, but what are rotating rings?

[brianb]

what are rotating rings?

A huge convenience for a Newtonian on an equatorial mount. You know how, with a frac, Mak or SCT, you tip the diagonal to get a comfortable observing posture? You can't do that with a Newt ... so you rotate the whole tube in rotating rings. Or, just occasionally with larger instruments, the whole top of the tube rotates relative to the rest of the tube - Patrick Moore's 15" which frequently appears on Sky at Night is like this; convenient & saves buying rotating rings, but must make collimating even more complicated ....

[Adz]

Interesting thank you. I find myself moving the ota all the time when I am going from object to object. I never seem to be able to find a 'sweet spot' where most of the viewable objects can be seen in a good position without having to move everything. I wonder if anyone has found an optimal position.

[yesyes]

You forgot about collimating the focuser to the tube when you collimate to the nth degree

But first you need to collimate the Collimator itself! ;-)

[brianb]

You cannot beat the quality views through a good 5" refractor......

Except in a 6" refractor

Or a larger reflector ...

[Astro_Baby]

But first you need to collimate the Collimator itself! ;-)

Only if your soppy enough to use a laser

[Adz]

Only if your soppy enough to use a laser

I am definitely starting to pick up a vibe

Seriously though, you can get the fine precision using a cheshire just as good as a laser?

This is probably another one of my completely pointless questions ha ha but I would like to know anyways.

[brianb]

Seriously though, you can get the fine precision using a cheshire just as good as a laser?

Better, in my experience. The laser just makes it easy to do the thing wrong.

[great_bear]

Lasers just magnify the error to an unworkable degree.

Get it right with a laser on a small Sky-Watcher scope, then pop the scope's dust cap on and off a couple of times, and you'll see it's "well off" again - at least according to the exaggerated viewpoint of the laser.

People blame too many unrelated problems on collimation.

[sunoficarus]

You can't beat a refractior for pure ease of use.

[Adz]

Better, in my experience. The laser just makes it easy to do the thing wrong.

Then I still feel like a young padwan, with much to learn...

[Moonshane]

I had a 120mm achro refractor and although it gave lovely pin sharp views of star fields and was very nice on double stars, when I compared planetary/lunar images with my 6" f11 newtonian (and even to some extent my 12" f5) there was no comparison. the contrast difference, lack of CA and just the general colouration was amazing with the with newt the clear winner. as a result I sold the frac and retained the newt. my 15x70s effectively replaced the frac for wider fields and I have the 12" for fainter stuff and general use.

I have never regretted selling the refractor.

the 12" gives better detail occasionally when the seeing allows but generally the 6" is far better on planets.

at the end of the day we buy the scopes we like and use. there's no real right or wrong - just enjoy them!

[mdstuart]

That picture of Jupiter is better than I have ever seen jupiter in my 10 inch dob so my eyes must not be "trained".

Mind you saturns rings are stunning..

Mark

[Astro_Baby]

you can't beat a refractior for pure ease of use.

If you dont mind kneeling on wet grass when looking at the zenith

[MG1]

refractors just look like telescopes...end of!

none of this aperture fever nonsense...girth isn't all it's cracked up to be.

you want longer focal lengths....lets go back to massive tubes like the peak to valley scopes....a joy for all!

(hastily beating a retreat and ducking for cover....i'd never had had the guts to type that on CN!)

[MG1]

my niece loves my frac because it's just like grandpa pig's

[SiriusB]

Yeah, but it's a pain. There's something wrong with a scope that needs collimating continuously, in my experience a Newtonian should keep its collimation near enough for all practical purposes for months or years, unless it's handled roughly..

I completely agree Brian, a well designed & made Newt should rarely need re-collimating. IMO the whole collimation thing is over hyped.

Of course just like anything else, you'll get the well executed ones & the poorly executed ones.

....But i'm still taken with the joys of a Refractor.

Guess i'm just a back to front rather than an upside down person.

[Adz]

Does anyone have a rough opinion on the views of comparing the main two types? I would guess that one is more contrasty, the other more crisp or something like that...

Also does a 5" refractor produce same brightness and images of say a 4" reflector?

[brianb]

Does anyone have a rough opinion on the views of comparing the main two types?

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other. It entirely depends on the optical quality. A good reflector of aperture X will beat an average refractor of the same aperture and vice versa - in terms of contrast and light grasp ... all other things being equal, a refractor will work slightly better than a reflector of the same aperture when the seeing is poor (unsteady) but not necessarily when the seeing is stable.

[metz]

i own a refractor ..... bcoz its no hassle and it works for me ..and yes id buy a reflector , however im a beginner but after looking on youtube just how easy it is to collimate im not worried at all , theres not one example from a newbies view that ive seen on apart from youtube on how to collimate a reflector all the others are something like outa blue peter ie cut cardboard here and place there and most make collimation look really hard when its not.its not rockett science so why make it so ...the only other thing if your buying a laser make sure you get a goodun becoz some are not set correctly and that would cause you trouble .. for a beginner to understand collimation look on youtube this is my own personal opinion

[Adz]

6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other. It entirely depends on the optical quality. A good reflector of aperture X will beat an average refractor of the same aperture and vice versa - in terms of contrast and light grasp ... all other things being equal, a refractor will work slightly better than a reflector of the same aperture when the seeing is poor (unsteady) but not necessarily when the seeing is stable.

Thanks for the reply, very interesting