Quote:

---

The TEC 200 APO because refractors look soooooooo cool.

---

yep

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Visual and planetary imaging. I have never compared the scope to any other.

---

Then I'd go with the AP Mak. It would be corrected for a wider range of wavelength, in fact virtually perfect across the board in what's required for planetary imaging. And since it's native f-ratio f14.6 vs. the f8 of the TEC200FL, it would have a greater CFZ (focus sweet-spot). Throw in the fact that you'd have a slight resolution advantage along with a slightly brighter image with the AP, it would beat the 200FL in planetary imaging.

Now for my own choice of the two, I'd take the TEC200FL. I love refractors, and I've looked through one of these beasts a few times as a friend of mine has owned one for a few years. But for planetary imaging, I'm currently working on the mechanicals of a 14.5" f18 D-K.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL.

If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Visual or imaging?

I am visual only with prime interest in lunar planetary, with that in mind I would go for TEC200FL. If imaging was my main interest I would consider TEC200FL for widefield DSO imaging, for planetary imaging neither choices makes sense, the good old C14 would outperform both of these jewels hands down, no contest here.

Vahe

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Chris,

Looking at the photo of your toys I see that you have a Rob Miller Tripod, which model is yours? Last month I ordered a Tri36M, expecting it sometimes in mid July, is yours M or H?

Vahe

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

---

I've observed the central star in M57 from here (and at the BFSP), but that required the DSO to be nearly overhead and about 1000x, which the scope can handle because of its smooth optics.

In addition to visual work, I hope to use the scope for imaging globs, etc.

---

I can confirm that I (and 10 others) also observed the central star of M57 through the 10" AP Maksutov at the Oregon Star Party a few years ago. Seeing is obviously important with this object, but this is a good example of how the superb quality of the 10" optics appears to defy the established rules of what is required to see objects like this. This is an instrument, that albeit specialized for certain types of observing, deserves every bit of its reputation. I will also say that through extensive use in my part of the world, (California) I have rarely if ever had cool down issues with this telescope, and it is always ready for observing from Sunset onwards. It's thermal management is remarkable. External seeing issues at the greater 10" aperture are also from my experience not conspicuously worse than viewing through my 6.3" AP160 refractor, though I benefit from upper atmospheric conditions near the coast.

As far as imaging deep sky objects such as globulars with longer exposures is concerned, compared to large refractors I have found that the 10" Maksutov requires a much higher level of guiding precision. (Not surprising at 3,708mm focal length) I have experimented with several solutions, but generally off-axis or on-axis solutions are required for anything 5' or longer. However I often use the AP CCD telecompressor when imaging objects such as compact galaxies and globulars which brings the focal ratio down to a more manageable F/9 (ish) depending on its spacing.

Chris

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You need to toss in the mount for this exercise. I would think a 10" AP Mak would work visually on an Atlas. I wouldn't even consider putting a 200mm TEC on anything less than a G11 and even that is pushing it.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Assuming they both cost the exact same thing, which would you choose and why?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I have decided to go with the AP 10" Maksutov.
Two super scopes!

---

No kidding!!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If and when weather and busy schedules cooperate Marty Cohen, benevolent dictator of Company 7, and I plan on side by siding my 10" Mak with his AP 206 EDF. Should be interesting.

---

Great looking setup, Paul. I am somewhat local (work in the Baltimore area) and could bring a TEC160FL. I have never viewed through an AP 10 MAK.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you want to look through a perfect mirror with a tiny obstruction, or through unobstructed, perfect crystal? I know what I would walk out with in a heartbeat - TEC200FL.

---

Have you ever looked through an AP Mak-Cass? I have one and decided to get it after looking through Roland's 8" and 10" prototypes. I have absolutely no regrets. The AP Mak-Cass is a superb lunar/planetary/globular instrument.

---

I gotta admit after considering the mounting options especially but after reading the rest of this thread, I'm leaning to the Mak-Cass. OK I change my vote!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Well, one popped up on Amart (TEC200FL) this morning, Id say this is some sort of trade.

---

I just checked out the ad..the plot thickens

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Yeah, me too. I have to ask though, have you considered a nice 10" Dobsonian?

---

Actually I have a 15" Obsession and my 14.5" Zambuto replacement mirror is due next month! I just got a nice quartz Protostar secondary too. I'm not an AP guy so this should work for me.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If and when weather and busy schedules cooperate Marty Cohen, benevolent dictator of Company 7, and I plan on side by siding my 10" Mak with his AP 206 EDF. Should be interesting.

---

Great looking setup, Paul. I am somewhat local (work in the Baltimore area) and could bring a TEC160FL. I have never viewed through an AP 10 MAK.

---

I'll let you know when we get around to it. It would be nice to add the 160 to the mix, plus your expertise in evaluating optics would be helpful as well.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I just noticed a TEC200FL on Amart "located in the US"....

---

...and I just noticed that someone, who might have intentionally ignored this thread, grabbed it in less than 48h...

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The 8" Mak has shown me detail on Ganymeade. I have never seen such a feature with the 180.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Jim,

While asking this, you are certainly aware that Roland keeps in his own observatory a 10” Mak and a 180EDT side by side. I recall him stating more than once that, only when seeing is approaching Pik 9, thus *very seldom*, his Mak delivers slightly better planetary performances than the nearby Apo. As soon as the air starts moving a bit, the Mak lies behind (his words). That’s the reason why he has been always keeping the 180EDT.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Jim,

While asking this, you are certainly aware that Roland keeps in his own observatory a 10” Mak and a 180EDT side by side. I recall him stating more than once that, only when seeing is approaching Pik 9, thus *very seldom*, his Mak delivers slightly better planetary performances than the nearby Apo. As soon as the air starts moving a bit, the Mak lies behind (his words). That’s the reason why he has been always keeping the 180EDT.

---

Hi... I'm reviving this kind of old thread because I found the above quote interesting. As a person who wasn't aware of that, I wonder if anyone happens to have a link to documentation about it, like a quote from the man himself? I'd be interested to read what he had to say about it verbatim. I did a search but couldn't find it.

ps wow 12/12/12! nice.

---

He has said his refractors are best for imaging and that there are better choices for visual.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Since his refractors are nulled at peak visual wavelength I'd be interested in seeing the context of his comment; given that and the minimum guaranteed Strehl of 0.984 it's hard to imagine another scope of similar aperture being a better visual instrument. His 10" Mak, for instance, was designed as a no-compromise visual lunar/planetary scope.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Buying is not the question. Let's say neither would sell for more than the other. You walk into a store and can walk out with one, no charge. Which would it be?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

---

He has also said refractors larger than 7 or 8 inches have problems that make other options more attractive for visual use.

---

Problems such as?

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Theres a reason D. Peach lugs those heavy C14s all the way to Barbados during opposition. For imaging the extra 4" will win.

As to the op, its a tough one. For imaging Id go with the AP, for visual, the TEC. Letting go of that TEC is dicey, 8" chunks of fluorite are going the way of the dodo.

---

He also doesn't have an AP Mak-Cass.

---

Very true but post imaging processing would fly right past the AP10 images. Oh I'm sure the 10mak is dandy and probably the best in the world and I believe other c14 owners who give the visual nod to that Mak. But being that processing can manipulate contrasts with extreme efficiency that little contrast edge the mak might have had is left behind as wavelet sharpening brings out micro details only a 14" can access through angular resolution. I would suggest perusing some of the 180mm AP APO planetary images and it's clear even a ten inch f/4 newt is outdoing it.

Which one would I owner though - money no object. It'd be the Mak hands down. The c14 has that angular edge to be sure but in terms of visual contrasts and an aperture less needy of seeing than the 14 and the ten is king. The eight - any eight by ANYBODY- will never outdo a ten inch aperture in imaging. Visually it might do better in lesser seeing but don't we observe for those better nights?

Pete

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

No doubt the AP 10" Mak is capable of superior performance on the Moon and planets over the TEC 200. Question is, in the field how often will that happen.

In my experience there are two components to the final "seeing." One is the atmosphere over which we have no control. The other is the thermal stabilization of the telescope. My experience with telescope thermal stability was with the 9" refractor an, by the time it was set up, it was ready to go. Not so with the 8" MAK. With very few exceptions it never reached equilibrium.

In my location it was my experience with a TEC 200 F/15 Mak that it reached it's planetary and double star potential 2 or 3 time in 4 years. Visually, side by side, the 160 class APO's outclassed it on Mars and double stars. That's why I made the decision to go with an APO refractor for myself. I'm not talking about just after set up, I mean for the observing session. My favorite double to judge the seeing is Epsilon Lyrae. I recall a friend shaking his head when looking through my 8" MAK. That hurt. OTOH, I had E-Lyrae at 400x in the MAK one night (literally one night) when seeing must have been perfect and had an image I can still see. On that night it was better than a 160 could be. Is that enough? It isn't for me.

I prefer the consistency of the refractor over the MAK in my location. If you live in an area where you have minimal nightime cooling the MAK may be a better choice.

When all is just right with the MAK it was the better scope but on run-of-the-mill nights the refractor is the better choice.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You don't now anything about the AP 10" Mak-Cass with your statements. Roland designed his 10" with a removable back cover exposing the primary mirror's backside, a primary mirror fan if needed, and a primary figured with aspheric curves for a flatter field and made of quartz. The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from AIRES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production. This design quickens equilibration time and even allows great observing at moderate powers right after setting up outside before sunset. The 10" AP Mak-Cass is far superior in design to any other Cat. As you focus at any power. there is absolutely no mirror slop, either. Also, the Mak is not a reflector. It is a Cat.

Quote:

---

No doubt the AP 10" Mak is capable of superior performance on the Moon and planets over the TEC 200. Question is, in the field how often will that happen.

In my experience there are two components to the final "seeing." One is the atmosphere over which we have no control. The other is the thermal stabilization of the telescope. My experience with telescope thermal stability was with the 9" refractor an, by the time it was set up, it was ready to go. Not so with the 8" MAK. With very few exceptions it never reached equilibrium.

In my location it was my experience with a TEC 200 F/15 Mak that it reached it's planetary and double star potential 2 or 3 time in 4 years. Visually, side by side, the 160 class APO's outclassed it on Mars and double stars. That's why I made the decision to go with an APO refractor for myself. I'm not talking about just after set up, I mean for the observing session. My favorite double to judge the seeing is Epsilon Lyrae. I recall a friend shaking his head when looking through my 8" MAK. That hurt. OTOH, I had E-Lyrae at 400x in the MAK one night (literally one night) when seeing must have been perfect and had an image I can still see. On that night it was better than a 160 could be. Is that enough? It isn't for me.

I prefer the consistency of the refractor over the MAK in my location. If you live in an area where you have minimal nightime cooling the MAK may be a better choice.

When all is just right with the MAK it was the better scope but on run-of-the-mill nights the refractor is the better choice.

---

---

I agree with Peter. The AP 10" Mak-Cass's thermal management and mirror shift are well executed.

In addition, its optics are impressive. The scope can be pushed productively to far greater magnification than any SCT with which I've observed.

Edited by JJK (12/13/12 12:07 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the cost, the mount or the size is not an issue, then, aperture for aperture, a refractor is best (within limits). If, however, any of these are an issue, you'll have to compromise. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

Can you afford a 12" refractor? I can't. Can I afford a 12" newtonian? Yup! Are they equal? No, but there are worse alternatives: No scope at all!


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

---

He has also said refractors larger than 7 or 8 inches have problems that make other options more attractive for visual use.

---

Problems such as?

---

9 plus inch refractors become bloody big and heavy. Not too many people have adequate mounting to support them. Not too many people have the equipment available to move them. They require serious dedication to even house in an observatory large enough. There are a few people who manage to do so, but they are rare indeed.

A well executed 10" such as the AP Mak is a total lightweight in a short manageable package in comparison to the 10" AP refractor Clint(sp) has. I shudder with the thought of even moving the pier he uses, never mind that monster mount and OTA!

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

A well executed 10" such as the AP Mak is a total lightweight in a short manageable package in comparison to the 10" AP refractor Clint(sp) has. I shudder with the thought of even moving the pier he uses, never mind that monster mount and OTA!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from ARIES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production.

---

The two optical elements have to be more than 1/10 wave corrected. 1/10 wave is what A-P guarantees is the wavefront quality at the eyepiece and being mirrors, both secondary and primary surfaces have to be figured to 1/20 wave. Roland's said he stopped making this design because it was a "female dog" to make with its aspheric curves.

While Roland put considerable thought into the cooling aspects of the scope, such as a rear-polished quartz primary, fans, removable backplate, etc., the fact remains that large scopes will have trouble catching up to ambient when it drops faster than the rate at which they can reasonably cool off. In the northern climes, especially when it's a bit dry, temperatures often keep dropping into the early morning. Any large scope, including the venerable A-P Mak, will have to wait till this time for optimum performance. FWIW, my 7" refractor performs optimally only at this time, not from its own cooldown problems but from the fact that the atmosphere had stabilized by then.

Tanveer.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Buying is not the question. Let's say neither would sell for more than the other. You walk into a store and can walk out with one, no charge. Which would it be?

---

Without busting a spinal disk I doubt any of us codgers could actually walk out of a store with a 200mm refractor.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The two optical elements Mirror and corrector are 1/10 wave as is all of Roland's telescopes! Imagine that – 10 inches of 1/10th wave optics!! Who else is doing that? After the optics were bought from ARIES Optical, Roland was dissatisfied with their quality and totally refigured them to his high specs. Roland didn't make much money on these scopes after all of his extra work on them. Perhaps, this is why he dropped continuing the Mak-Cass production.

---

The two optical elements have to be more than 1/10 wave corrected. 1/10 wave is what A-P guarantees is the wavefront quality at the eyepiece and being mirrors, both secondary and primary surfaces have to be figured to 1/20 wave. Roland's said he stopped making this design because it was a "female dog" to make with its aspheric curves.

While Roland put considerable thought into the cooling aspects of the scope, such as a rear-polished quartz primary, fans, removable backplate, etc., the fact remains that large scopes will have trouble catching up to ambient when it drops faster than the rate at which they can reasonably cool off. In the northern climes, especially when it's a bit dry, temperatures often keep dropping into the early morning. Any large scope, including the venerable A-P Mak, will have to wait till this time for optimum performance. FWIW, my 7" refractor performs optimally only at this time, not from its own cooldown problems but from the fact that the atmosphere had stabilized by then.

Tanveer.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Peter, speaking of comparing large refractors and Maks, are you happy with your AP175, or is there something about it you wish were more AP Mak-like?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Ziggy makes a good point too. Consistency in achieving potential performance may very be the most overlooked issue in scope selection (and discussion about it). One factor that often affects consistency is location. Those that live in high desert have to contend with far different ambient conditions than someone that lives on the coast. Detrimental effects from CO become exacerbated by less than ideal seeing conditions as well.


Case in point: all the folks who endlessly refer to Peach's planetary images as 'proof' of how good all C14's are.

There are too many factors to consider to lay down blanket statements.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Thank you for your comprehensive thoughts! Very interesting comparison. It seems to me that... a refractor can do everything a Mak can do, but some things not as well (for example, achieve high mag as easily, and of course the size gets unmanageable with higher aperture), while a Mak simply cannot achieve as a wide a field as refractor can... so it kind of makes a refractor more essential to have as a scope, unless you really aren't interested in wide fields. Of course, as is pointed out so often, one can have more than one scope... your post makes it very clear why that might be a good idea.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'll take the TEC

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Consistency in achieving potential performance may very be the most overlooked issue in scope selection (and discussion about it). One factor that often affects consistency is location.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Because much more often than not, the 8" apochromat will consistently outperform the Mak on lunar planetary. Imaging is all about aperture and you can manipulate the the contrast, sharpen the image all you like and add a nice dark background. That has absolutely zero to do with the reality of observational astronomy. If one intends to image, I would easily go with the Mak.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets

---

Oh really?

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/ngc2903c.html

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/ngc604.html


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

---

Yes, oh really! They are excellent examples of, ahem, um, not so great images, at least in my opinion. Yes, they ARE images and the 10" AP mak-cass can be forced to work on some deep sky objects producing specific results such as some detail within NGC 604 or catching Pease 1. A high QE cam such as an ST10XME is pretty much a basic necessity to do so with it though. A compressor would be helpful as well. I think I'll stick with my natively f6 - f10 instruments for imaging thanks.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I am not an imager, but I thought these images were excellent and both show details rarely seen in amateur images, because people often image with very short focal length scopes.

I did not include the image here: http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/roland/soapbubble3.html but it seems to be another (to me) really excellent image taken with a long focus instrument (f/12.5 in this case).

What is an excellent image, in your opinion?


Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm not so sure that makes a lot of sense. The AP Mak-cass is 10" aperture, but is f/14.6. Not a really great imaging platform other than for the brightest of objects such as the moon or planets and best suited for these with a webcam stacking frames to capture the best possible instances of seeing.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Because much more often than not, the 8" apochromat will consistently outperform the Mak on lunar planetary. Planetary Imaging is all about aperture and you can manipulate the the contrast, sharpen the image all you like and add a nice dark background. That has absolutely zero to do with the reality of observational astronomy. If one intends to image, I would easily go with the Mak.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.

---

Post Extras:

The 10" f/14.6 Mak-Cass with 3600mm fl. is a very specialized scope designed for planetary and double star observing. It excels with showing detail and contrast in brighter objects. I wouldn't use it for observing DSO's, at least the one's that I like observing. 10" aperture doesn't do that very well for my tastes since I'm used to observing with 18"-24" Dobs. When I used the 10" Mak-Cass for nine years, it sat in its storage box most of the year. My larger ap Zambuto Dob's always got first use. Better to use your faster set-up 12.5"-18" or larger Dob's for DSO's. Once you get used to observing DSO's with larger ap scopes, the 10" Mak-Cass is a let down on those objects.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.

---

I think 180mm vs. the 10 inch Mak is a better comparison, I think most people would take the 8 inch apo over the Mak (I would take the 8-inch). A 7 inch also weighs about the same as the 10-inch Mak. An 8 inch refractor is going to be heavier and need a bigger mount.

Great topic for debate though! I'd love the improved views of DSO's with the 10 inch Mak, it would be a tough decision with a 180mm apo. But the apos have the incredible low-power, wide-field views too. If I was going with one "dream scope" it would probably be the refractor for that reason.

---

Post Extras:

C'mon mate. Nobody would argue that a 18-24 inch scope of ANY design wouldn't blow away the views of either of the scopes in this thread. Good grief.....

Quote:

---

The 10" f/14.6 Mak-Cass with 3600mm fl. is a very specialized scope designed for planetary and double star observing. It excels with showing detail and contrast in brighter objects. I wouldn't use it for observing DSO's, at least the one's that I like observing. 10" aperture doesn't do that very well for my tastes since I'm used to observing with 18"-24" Dobs. When I used the 10" Mak-Cass for nine years, it sat in its storage box most of the year. My larger ap Zambuto Dob's always got first use. Better to use your faster set-up 12.5"-18" or larger Dob's for DSO's. Once you get used to observing DSO's with larger ap scopes, the 10" Mak-Cass is a let down on those objects.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The largest apo I've done that with is an AP180 f/9 EDT. Frankly, I thought the Mak-Cass had the edge, but it takes a night of very good seeing to make a meaningful comparison.

---

I think 180mm vs. the 10 inch Mak is a better comparison, I think most people would take the 8 inch apo over the Mak (I would take the 8-inch). A 7 inch also weighs about the same as the 10-inch Mak. An 8 inch refractor is going to be heavier and need a bigger mount.

Great topic for debate though! I'd love the improved views of DSO's with the 10 inch Mak, it would be a tough decision with a 180mm apo. But the apos have the incredible low-power, wide-field views too. If I was going with one "dream scope" it would probably be the refractor for that reason.

---

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

C'mon mate. Nobody would argue that a 18-24 inch scope of ANY design wouldn't blow away the views of either of the scopes in this thread. Good grief.....

---

Post Extras:

You're right! That's why I'm observing with the largest ap scope I can manage (a 24" SST) while I'm able to. I'm 62 now, strong and healthy and will surely someday become less interested in transporting this large scope to and from dark sites. Right now, It takes no more energy for me to transport to a remote site my 24"er than my AP 175 along with at it's ATS transportable pier, its AP 900 GTO mount, its 2 x 19 lbs. of counter weights, etc. I have been observing frequently with a friend who has always used his AP 155EDFS on a 900GTO and AP pedestal for his observing of DSO's. He is very satisfied with how deep he gets with DSO's with his 6" ap scope. He has just completed the H400 list. He wants to do the HII list next but I recommended that he get at least a 12" Dob to do that with to enjoy them more. I've observed both of these lists years ago with 18"-20" Dobs -- totally enjoyable! He comes over and occasionally takes a look through my 24" scope and is WoWed at how bright and easily seen my objects are, but happily returns to his dimmer looking DSO's in his 6" APO. He says the sharpness of his views always make him the happiest -- it's the pin-point stars with nice diffraction patterns. The brightness factor with a larger ap Dob isn't as important. Dobs slightly mushy stars just don't do it for him. I say he hasn't seen really deep stuff after 20 years of observing, and I'm glad I am enjoying the deep stuff. To each his own

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

C'mon mate. Nobody would argue that a 18-24 inch scope of ANY design wouldn't blow away the views of either of the scopes in this thread. Good grief.....

---

yes, I tend to view everything by "weight class", similar to boxing or wrestling, because of back problems. Large scopes are not an option for me.

I know that I could obtain a gigantic scope for the cost of my 6-inch apo, but it's not very relevant for those of us that are limited to "small" scopes for one reason or another.

There are aesthetic reasons for not wanting a monstrosity of a telescope too. Not everybody wants to "go big or go home"!

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm on team TEC but I've got to say those two images by the 10" mak are just awesome.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

You're right! That's why I'm observing with the largest ap scope I can manage (a 24" SST) while I'm able to. I'm 62 now, strong and healthy and will surely someday become less interested in transporting this large scope to and from dark sites. Right now, It takes no more energy for me to transport to a remote site my 24"er than my AP 175 along with at it's ATS transportable pier, its AP 900 GTO mount, its 2 x 19 lbs. of counter weights, etc. I have been observing frequently with a friend who has always used his AP 155EDFS on a 900GTO and AP pedestal for his observing of DSO's. He is very satisfied with how deep he gets with DSO's with his 6" ap scope. He has just completed the H400 list. He wants to do the HII list next but I recommended that he get at least a 12" Dob to do that with to enjoy them more. I've observed both of these lists years ago with 18"-20" Dobs -- totally enjoyable! He comes over and occasionally takes a look through my 24" scope and is WoWed at how bright and easily seen my objects are, but happily returns to his dimmer looking DSO's in his 6" APO. He says the sharpness of his views always make him the happiest -- it's the pin-point stars with nice diffraction patterns. The brightness factor with a larger ap Dob isn't as important. Dobs slightly mushy stars just don't do it for him. I say he hasn't seen really deep stuff after 20 years of observing, and I'm glad I am enjoying the deep stuff. To each his own

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

The TEC250 was technically challenging.

---

Post Extras:

I bet it was in its thermal characteristics.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The TEC250 was technically challenging.

---

Can you elaborate?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Maybe it was caused from head in his vehicle, who knows.

---

You guys obviously have more fun observing than I!

Quote:

---

We spent a few sessions with it. We had some beautiful telescopes set up at the time and some great observers present. The idea was that the internal fans were to "stir" the thermals, but it was still too difficult in fact after the fans were turned off, Curry expressed some issues about actual heat plumes coming off the tiny, heated electrical motors. He even tried putting compressed gas into the OTA which turned cool upon release and we knew there was no way that would work.

I realize the AP is well ventilated, but even still, the entire optical train has to work in harmony. An anonymous owner in the CN forums has expressed that it's been easier for him to use his 5" AP apo with pleasing results. Larger aperture of high quality will produce the best angular resolution on planets, but thermals can degrade any aperture. The best results come from hard labor at the eyepiece. I can not state that enough. People can throw the numbers around all they like, but until an observer is actually in the field dealing with this stuff, it's just a numbers game.

It doesn't tell the truth about what really happens. People think I'm a refractor lover and I'm not. I love Newtonians and my experience has taught me that ultimately, the Newtonian with proper tuning is the ultimate setup, but it comes with some work. The reason I'm suggesting the 8" apo is because there are many observers who have no idea how amazing they can be and I mean STUNNING! So much detail it would blow your mind, all in high definition. I've tested several large apos and the image quality is consistently reliable; you can count on it to work if it's a good sample. If people are just going to throw numbers around, then I can assure others they need to spend some time in planetary bootcamp. I'm talking about visual planetary observations, not imaging.

If you can get a large scope working on a good night then boy are you in for a beautiful surprise, but the key is that it's gotta work for you! I love the TEC200 Mak. I have nothing but admiration for Yuri. He does beautiful work overall, particularly his refractors.

---

Post Extras: