Celestron NexStar 102 f/9.8--Celestron 80mmED f/7.5--AT72ED f/6--Vixen A 70 lf f/12.9 (Soooo Pretty..) c. 60s Tasco 15te (My $20 Vintage Scope) Vixen Polaris Mount, Vixen Porta II
C11 Edge HD, C925 XLT TEC 140 (#352) w/ AT65EDQ Skywatcher 100ED w/ WO66SD ZenithStar, ES 80mm Apo Sirius, Atlas EQ-G, "Atlosmandy" Pro AZ/EQ-G, T-Rex Apex,Porta II DBK21AU04, DBK21AU618, DMK21AU618, DMK31AU03, ASI120mm/mc, Hutech 500DH Beaglehaven Observatory (BYO #168)
Joined June 2012: Location, Ottawa, Ontario
Mes télescopes et jumelles:
150mm F5 Newt on EQ5, 127mm Mak Cass on AZ4
Oberwerk BT70-45 and 15X70 SkyMasters
Apertura ad8 w/ tweakers package (haven't messed wit this one yet!) Orion ed100 with custom gso focuser Barska magnus 65ed apo triplet heavily redone Celestron granite 10x50 Skyprodigy Vixen porta II Explore Scientific 82* 4.7mm, 8.8mm, 18mm, and 30mm.
Quote:Thank you. What do you usually observe? DSO or lunar/planetary? What changed for you with the new scope?Thanks!
Celebrating the 30th anniversary of the USFL, when football was more than a game.
That's me in the avatar running back a pass I intercepted for a touchdown
Skywatcher 120ED Refractor Assorted Zhumell Planetary, Skywatcher and ES eyepieces, a 2x barlow and a few filters. iOptron MiniTower II Sony NEX 3 for astrophotography
The opinions expressed herein are solely mine as an amateur astronomer hobbyist & consumer. Information herein was correlated from experience, discussions with others, & research from multiple sources freely available at time of posting. All reasonable care & skill was used, but no warranty is made as to accuracy, & liability cannot be accepted for errors/omissions. This is for information only and not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional advice.
Quote:I would wait for the 120ED, the 100ED is too small for detailed planetary views.
There are also 6" achromats to consider.
Quote:If you really want a meaningful improvement, this is the way you should get it.
Quote:Quote:I would wait for the 120ED, the 100ED is too small for detailed planetary views.There are also 6" achromats to consider. IMO there is a bulk/mount consideration when moving between a 4" to 5" class instrument that is not trivial. As far as details comparitively in a 100 vs 120 I'm not so sure I would chanracterize it as so dramatic for planetary. It's a 20% gain in resolution, which is about the same as going from an 85mm to a 102mm. So if the OP wants to get a flavor of a difference in details between a 100 and 120, all they have to do is make an 85mm mask for thair Celestron 102, point it at Jupiter, and observe with and without the mask to get an idea of the relative difference in resolution.And as far as details, a 4" can see quite a bit. Below is what I see *typically" on average with Jupiter - boundry details are etched when viewing, my sketching skills not good enough to represent this well however. Last week at about 4:30am I got a peek of Jupiter that was far better than this in my 4" APO as the atmosphere was very clear and stable. This is a binoviewer sketch and the 4" APO was mounted on a simple Vixen PORTA II. Eyepieces and bino were not exotic either.
Quote:I would wait for the 120ED, the 100ED is too small for detailed planetary views.There are also 6" achromats to consider.
Quote:I am waiting for delivery of my TSA102 and am certainly not expecting to see Jupiter like that. I haven't even seen that much detail on Jupiter with a TOA130!
Quote:Almost all scopes only perform at their full potential when the target is within a few arc minutes of the center of the field.For reflectors, coma is the contrast killer if you let the planet get out of the center of the field by more than 5 or 6 arc minutes for a typical reflector. Beyond this and the image is no longer diffraction limited.For refractors, it is field curvature. Once you let the target drift about 5 or 10 arc minutes out of the center of the field it is no longer at best focus.