Best scope for studying the moon

[MrsR]

If your obsession was with the moon and there was a very high probability you would want to go the astrophotography route later what scope would be you go for? Budget in region of £500 for scope and mount.

[ollypenrice]

This is astrophotography of the moon and planets, not deep sky? The requirements are often diametrically opposed.

For the moon and planets, visual and later with fast frame camera (webcam derivative) something with a long focal length and sharp optics.

The 127mm Maksutovs on the FLO site above are ideal ;

Maksutov

For webcamming the moon and planets you could go for the inexpensive and handy alt-azimuth versions. This would leave you enough to buy a good high powered eyepiece like a TeleVue Radian or Baader Genuine Ortho.

These scopes have a focal ratio far too slow for deep sky imaging and would need an HEQ5 mount anyway, for that purpose.

Olly

ollypenrice's Photos

[Ben Ritchie]

If your obsession was with the moon ... what scope would be you go for?

The Maksutov-Cassegrain design is very good for this. As Olly says, the 127mm Mak is good, but if you can stretch to a Skymax 150 then it's a terrific lunar/planetary 'scope, without being quite so affected by the cooling times of the 180. They turn up used quite frequently if you're patient, and the older gold-tube ones are great value for money.

...and there was a very high probability you would want to go the astrophotography route later...

As Olly says, what sort of astrophotography do you mean? If it's deep-sky (i.e. long exposures) you're looking at very different requirements and trying to do it with one 'scope risks ending up with a compromise. In particular, a Mak-Cass is *not* a good choice deep-sky imaging 'scope.

If you mean lunar/planetary astrophotography with a webcam or fast-frame CCD then your requirements are the same as for visual use, and the Mak-Cass design would be great.

[Moonshane]

I am gonna sound like a broken record but I'd recommend you spend half your budget and buy an 8" dob. you can then mount this on an EQ mount later if you want to go down the AP route. also, you could possibly get away with lunar and maybe even some planetary photography on the dob as it is.

the 8" dob will give you a lot of great views of all targets and is a brilliant all rounder.

[MrsR]

Thanks everyone, it will be lunar/planet photography for the short term, deep space probably a lot later down the line but a lot later.

[Doc]

If you were not interested in Astrophotography then I would say a big Dob. My 16" will blow you away when observing the moon.

[MrsR]

Doc would you say you can do AP on the Dob easily enough like Moonshane mentioned?

Moonshane just to clarify - sorry is this is stupid but when you say EQ mount do you mean the general heavy duty mounts that most scopes are put on? Wouldn't that be a collosol structure?

[Moonshane]

hi Mrs R

I am not a photographer (astro) but yes you are right it would be a quite hefty mount generally for photography of the type you describe. This would be for the serious AP rather than webcam at the moon etc but I am edging towards the cliff tops of ignorance now

The reason I suggested the 8" dob is that it's big enough to give good visual impact but also small enough to mount on a decent mount and tripod if required.

Personally though I'd not really think seriously about AP yet as the budget starts to rocket. When you do, you may even decide to go the tried and tested route of a small refractor on a big EQ mount and have the dob alongside for visual while the camera does its thing. You can also pick up 6" reflectors for not much cash as well to do the same thing.

[Ben Ritchie]

The reason I suggested the 8" dob is that it's big enough to give good visual impact but also small enough to mount on a decent mount and tripod if required.

IMO an 8" f/6 really needs an EQ6 - i've had an 8" f/4 on a HEQ 5 before but that's close to comfortable limits.

As Doc says, a big dob is stunning - my 14" is great too, although a little like looking into full-beam headlights unless you have a neutral density filter in place to cut down the light. However, they're big, very big, and the Mak-Cass design puts a lot of performance into a small, easy-to-handle package.

[MrsR]

No matter what type of question I ask it always ends up at the Mak-Cass - I am thinking maybe this is the way to go and try to get the best for my money.

[nightfisher]

this is a difficult one, for lunar a lot of people favour maks, but i have seen some amazing lunar images done with tal100 and 120ED, just look at luis`s pics, my omc-140 is a right lunar/planet killer, but i have seen some really nice dso images done with these, but they not usually used for dso.

One scope will never do every thing well, so i would say a mak on EQ5 between 127 and 150mm

[MrsR]

This is the one I keep falling back too

Maksutov - Skywatcher Skymax 127 (EQ3-2)

without GOTO so I can buy a Barlow and a few other filters.

[Moonshane]

I did say I was no imager but what I do seem to gather is for visual it's generally aperture that counts and for imaging it's the mount.

I have a big dob and little dob and if I had to choose one for visual it would be the big one even though the little one beats the big one on planets in most situations.

[Capricorn]

No idea of the prices but for moon a good refractor will give the sharpness and contrast required. If a reasonable f number then it will be OK for AP.

Dobs do not do astrophotography. They are a visual tool. To remount the newtonian would require a mount well in excess of your present budget at some later date.

Maks have a long focal length so any mount used would have to be very accurate as the long focal length makes any tracking errors much more significant. Think of it like 2 sticks, 1 foot and 10 feet. If the short stick is 1 degree out then the further end is pretty close to where you want it to be, whereas that 10 foot stick is a long way off at the further end for the same sngle of error.

Have a look at the TS site and see what they have in the ED line of about 80mm and say f/7.

[nightfisher]

that would be a good choice, i would add motor drive to r/a for lunar and planets but not a must

[ollypenrice]

Let's just clarify what an EQ mount is. It is one on which one of the two axes of movement is aligned to point at the north celestial pole. The advantage of this is that it follows an object across the sky while eliminating the slow rotation of the object in the eyepiece or camera. This has no advantage of any kind for visual use and is of minimal importance for webcam imaging. It has four disadvantages;

- You need to align the mount towards Polaris before using it.

- The design requires a counterweight (heavy).

- You need to balance it before starting.

-The movement of the scope is not intuitive and the eyepiece ends up in funny places and needs rotating.

None of these is 'important' but they add up to more faffing before starting.

A modern alt-azimuth alternative moves right-left, up-down and, when controlled by a mini computer in the mount, can track the object just as well as an EQ. But, over the evening, the object rotates in the frame of view, so no long exposure photography. But fast webcam work is not a problem.

The EQ3 has, on paper, the potential to allow deep sky imaging later but that is only on paper, and certainly not with a long focus Maksutov.

Please ignore me, but if I wanted to go out and see the moon and planets my own mount of choice would be a motorized alt-az. I have all of them in my line of work, Dob, EQs, Alt Az. I find manual tracking at high magnification a real hassle so would not like to be doing it with a Dob. Too much of my concentration goes into moving the mount, not teasing out the detail in the eyepiece.

Olly