Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | >> (show all)
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6224952 - 11/30/13 11:09 AM

I'd like to add that I once critically viewed a C14 that performed very well. I was tempted to get one, but it was more scope than I thought I could handle at the time. I should have bought one.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
nicklane1
sage
*****

Reged: 03/04/08

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6224955 - 11/30/13 11:10 AM

Eddgie, this is all tongue in cheek, right? Seems like you are just sitting back and letting others parry and counter parry.

I think you once said that you like your 8" EdgeHD so much that you hardly use your 6" A-P refractor anymore.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
EFT
Vendor - Deep Space Products
*****

Reged: 05/07/07

Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6224992 - 11/30/13 11:32 AM

Quote:

All that said, I don't expect a far lower cost SCT to perform at the same level of a much more expensive scope. However, I would like it to perform better than the ones I tested long ago. I'm in the market for one (or two).




You need to try out an Edge HD.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: EFT]
      #6225051 - 11/30/13 12:03 PM

Quote:

Quote:

All that said, I don't expect a far lower cost SCT to perform at the same level of a much more expensive scope. However, I would like it to perform better than the ones I tested long ago. I'm in the market for one (or two).




You need to try out an Edge HD.




Thanks, I'll read up on them, and check them out at a star party. I had originally thought about getting an 11" SCT, but given that I got a 10" Mak-Cass, I'm now thinking of getting a 14" SCT I can share with a community.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: Eddgie]
      #6225079 - 11/30/13 12:17 PM

Quote:

But these days, I am more inclined to recommend a small refractor. Nothing to do. Just plug and play.




This is where I have come to.

There is nothing wrong with SCTs until there is everything wrong with them and it has to do with what I refer to as their "shifty" nature; shifting collimation, shifting mirror, shifting focus/focuser, shifting cooling, shifting/bending corrector in HyperStar implementations, etc. SCTs don't seem to command the solidity that their counterparts do. This may not affect visual observing to the extent it does imaging. Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
johntrob
sage
*****

Reged: 03/14/11

Loc: Georgia, USA
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: mmalik]
      #6225089 - 11/30/13 12:21 PM

I love the balance of the SCT's. I can hang my raincoat over it as I come in the house and it does not move. Cannot do that with my refractor?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ErikB
super member


Reged: 02/05/06

Loc: Central Arizona
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6225116 - 11/30/13 12:36 PM

This debate is obviously being conducted by experienced people, as a lover's quarrel for the sake of having something to do and deepen the love for the subject. That is ok, as most of us come to forums just to waste some time of a favorite subject. Anyway, beginners will also be reading the thread, and with most posters taking a pro-sct stance, I will add my 2c not to fuel the tongue in cheek fun but for counterbalancing the extreme pro-sct statements made in jest. Some have said that sct's "are good for imaging". Meaning planetary, which is true. However, beginners need to know that good for planetary doesn't mean good for imaging other sky objects. The reason sct's are good for planetary imaging is that a planet needs extreme magnification (provided by the unusually long focal length) and extreme resolution, which is provided by the sct's big aperture, which is hard to match with a refractor. A newt can easily provide the aperture, but most of them these days don't provide as much focal length for a given aperture. Planets are very bright, which means exposure times generally are in the milliseconds. This means a mount good enough for visual is good enough for imaging planets. There is a reason for the saying that imagers spend more for the mount for the ota. If the mount is a GEM in the lower price range, it won't be steady enough for the long exposures needed for dim objects, except maybe for a very small sct. An sct on a cheap GEM is likely not steady enough to avoid vibration, and its periodic error may be difficult to correct for by guiding and/or PEC. A forked sct may in some cases be less prone to vibration, but may have totally unacceptable periodic error, and when you find out, you may notice that there is no easy way to replace the mount and keep the optics. Most objects do not require the extreme magnifications that planets do, so a refractor or newt provides a more suitable focal length, which is compatible with a somewhat affordable mount. Focal reducers for sct's have their own problems. Another problem with sct's for general astro imaging is contrast. Actually, contrast and resolution have to be considered together and not as separate specifications. By virtue of its large aperture the sct has high resolution, suitable for planetary imaging. However, contrast varies with the level of resolution you make use of. At the extreme resolution used for planetary imaging, the contrast of an sct tends to be very very low. Only aggressive computer processing brings up contrast to where we can see the tiniest details on the planet. Such processing tends to make things a bit unnatural. When we are looking for detail on a planet, we tend to be happy to see any at all, no matter if the image is unnatural. For most other objects, we don't need the extra magnification, and we may be better off with an instrument such as a refractor that provides better contrast without aggressive processing. Going to image tiny *and* dim objects? An SCT may be appropriate, but it had better be an Edge or ACF, and plan on spending the price of a new car on the mount. How about the visual observer? Here the convenient eyepiece position of an sct is wonderful, and if the fork mount has some jumps in the periodic error, it doesn't matter. The contrast generally doesn't match that of a refractor or newt, but again, contrast varies with resolution for a given scope. If a given detail doesn't show enough contrast in a given sct, that can be remedied with a bigger sct, which will have more contrast for a given scale of detail. Even the bigger sct may cost less than a refractor that shows the same detail comparably. I like my sct's for visual use, but I would not expect my old plain 8" to be able to resolve much at all in M13. Now, I have never tried an 8" Edge...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ATM57
sage


Reged: 01/01/10

Loc: Tehachapi, CA
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6225119 - 11/30/13 12:37 PM Attachment (21 downloads)

Quote:

Quote:

I won't go into the details concerning the three 8" refractors I have built. That's not the reason for this thread. I will say that the lenses were tested before I built scopes around them though.

Scopejunkie




The answers would obviously help frame your earlier comment, but if you don't want to share them, that's your choice. Frankly, I think it's interesting to hear the lengths that some folks go through to build their own equipment. I wish I had the time to learn how to properly grind, polish, test, and coat refracting lenses with my own hands.

To my original point, I doubt a 9.25" (Celestron or Meade) SCT would outperform even a top-notch 7" apochromatic refractor (e.g., made by a company in the league of Astro-Physics or Zeiss). And that wouldn't stop me from considering one for purchase. However, I did not buy any 11" SCT I tested about a decade ago, because none of them performed well enough for the intended purpose (critical high magnification visual work). At that time, I didn't have interest in retrofitting them to see if it was a thermal issue.

In 1999, I critically tested Roland Christen's 8" and 10" Mak-Cass prototypes in very good seeing against his 180 mm and 200 mm class refractors (one was Sue & Alan French's scope that is a Moon killer). The test target was Saturn. The 8" Mak-Cass delivered images on par with the 7" apos, and the 10" just edged out the 8" refractor, but not by much. Given the compact nature of the Mak-Cass, I ordered a 10" varietal, and received it a few years later. When the seeing is good, that scope is stunning (it had better be for the list price of $10K), and I've never seen even an 11" SCT come anywhere close to this instrument's capability. I often use the Mak-Cass at 1000x to see the central star in the Ring Nebula, something I have not been able to accomplish with any 11" SCT. Roland's 10" Mak-Cass doesn't defy the laws of physics. When I want to hunt down very faint galaxies, I use a 25" Dob-Newt.

All that said, I don't expect a far lower cost SCT to perform at the same level of a much more expensive scope. However, I would like it to perform better than the ones I tested long ago. I'm in the market for one (or two).




I didn't want to go into details because they were not needed. I'm not saying that all C-9's are as good as the one I have. Most SCT's are good but not exceptional. Every now and then you can get your hands on one that is on the "high end" in optical performance. I have owned a few.

With the right mods they can be made into excellent high power instruments. My point is: You don't have to mortgage your home to get top level high resolution performance.

I used to hate SCT's with a passion until I looked into why, with many of them, their performance was lacking. I discovered a lot of things that can make them bad. Some belong to the makers and some belong to the end user. How many times have Newtonians been compared to refractors over the years with many stating that refractors are superior?

My posts are for the tinkerers who lack the funds for high end iron and give them an alternative to costly apos and high end maks.

I have read here complaints against C-11's. That is strange to me since I have had some really good ones (and a few dogs). Just lucky I guess. The pic shows one that I put a lot of time into and should have never sold.

I enjoy the challenge of making them work well.

Scopejunkie


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: mmalik]
      #6225244 - 11/30/13 01:49 PM

Quote:



There is nothing wrong with SCTs until there is everything wrong with them and it has to do with what I refer to as their "shifty" nature; shifting collimation, shifting mirror, shifting focus/focuser, shifting cooling, shifting/bending corrector in HyperStar implementations, etc. SCTs don't seem to command the solidity that their counterparts do. This may not affect visual observing to the extent it does imaging. Regards




Well, it really doesn't affect either.

--Collimation "shift" only becomes a problem if you haven't done it correctly.

--Focus shift is minimal in modern scopes and is really only (maybe) a problem for high power planetary imagers. For them, there is the Crayford.

--Never seen a focuser "shift" unless there was something badly wrong with the scope--like the owner slathering grease on the baffle tube.

--Cooling doesn't "shift." An SCT may take a while to cool, but there are easy ways to get around that.

--The correctors neither shift nor bend when using Hyperstar.

--Solidity is a function of the mount, not whether you are using an SCT. In fact, mount for mount, an SCT with its short tube is usually MORE solid on any mount.

Other than these things, though, you are 100% correct.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6225246 - 11/30/13 01:50 PM

Well for me it was about money and I assume it is for most people. I wanted a 10" scope, I read that's where the magic starts to happen.
My used 10" SCT tube costs about 500 bucks, that's the same price as an 80mm APO. No one can tell me they are going to see the spiral arms in M51 with an 80mm scope. I do love the fov in an 80mm refractor but I also like filling the fov with M13 in my 10" SCT and resolving stars to the core.
My 10" dob is great and the view is brighter and wider, but of course, it's F4.5. The stars absolutely suck at the outer 20% though, and the cost to fix that dam near is what I paid for the SCT. I also have to carefully collimate it every time I use it, not so with the SCT.
There is no way I would consider mounting the newt on my GEM, that eyepiece would be all over the place and rotating rings would cost what I paid for the SCT.
A premium 8" APO costs about the same as a Lockwood 30" F3.7, the poor little really expensive apo would fall down hard compared to that. (But it wouldn't have diffraction spikes!) Also, maybe I am wrong, but that 20 thousand dollar APO would outperform my lowly 10" SCT I'm sure, but not by that much, it's not like I would look through my scope and the 8" refractor and see a 20 thousand dolar difference. (Plus the cost of the mount to hold it!) More likely I would think, WOW, that does look better, but for the price difference I could move to Chile, set my scope up in sub-arcsec seeing at one of the best sites on the planet and smoke the view of an 8" APO every night with my junky little SCT...just sayin...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: ErikB]
      #6225249 - 11/30/13 01:51 PM

Quote:

Some have said that sct's "are good for imaging". Meaning planetary, which is true. However, beginners need to know that good for planetary doesn't mean good for imaging other sky objects. The reason sct's are good for planetary imaging is that a planet needs extreme magnification (provided by the unusually long focal length) and extreme resolution, which is provided by the sct's big aperture, which is hard to match with a refractor.




An SCT can be just as good for imaging DSOs than any other design, and usually better. A Newtonian is harder to balance and mount, and a refractor lacks aperture, which is also important unless all you want is wide field.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: shawnhar]
      #6225318 - 11/30/13 02:32 PM

Quote:

Well for me it was about money and I assume it is for most people. I wanted a 10" scope, I read that's where the magic starts to happen.
My used 10" SCT tube costs about 500 bucks, that's the same price as an 80mm APO. No one can tell me they are going to see the spiral arms in M51 with an 80mm scope. I do love the fov in an 80mm refractor but I also like filling the fov with M13 in my 10" SCT and resolving stars to the core.
My 10" dob is great and the view is brighter and wider, but of course, it's F4.5. The stars absolutely suck at the outer 20% though, and the cost to fix that dam near is what I paid for the SCT. I also have to carefully collimate it every time I use it, not so with the SCT.
There is no way I would consider mounting the newt on my GEM, that eyepiece would be all over the place and rotating rings would cost what I paid for the SCT.
A premium 8" APO costs about the same as a Lockwood 30" F3.7, the poor little really expensive apo would fall down hard compared to that. (But it wouldn't have diffraction spikes!) Also, maybe I am wrong, but that 20 thousand dollar APO would outperform my lowly 10" SCT I'm sure, but not by that much, it's not like I would look through my scope and the 8" refractor and see a 20 thousand dolar difference. (Plus the cost of the mount to hold it!) More likely I would think, WOW, that does look better, but for the price difference I could move to Chile, set my scope up in sub-arcsec seeing at one of the best sites on the planet and smoke the view of an 8" APO every night with my junky little SCT...just sayin...




There's no doubt that commercial SCTs are a great value, and there's absolutely no need for anyone of us to justify any of your equipment. If something low-cost or high-end works for us, that's great.

However, when I was in the market for a 11"-class instrument for high resolution visual work, I wasn't concerned about the cost, I just wanted the best instrument I could handle by myself and make good use of. Regrettably, the C-11s I checked out a decade ago simply weren't up to the task. I'm pretty good at math and statistics (the thought of critically testing 100 SCTs wasn't appealing) so I decided to look elsewhere.

My particular needs at that time may have differed from yours or someone else's. That's obviously fine. I think we're all pretty fortunate that we have a decent number of relatively small companies willing to make a wide range of equipment that almost satisfies our spirit for this hobby.

Your premise about viewing in Chile is a bit more extreme than buying a high quality apo. In the latter case, you can enjoy your "investment" every clear night, and sell it when your eyes go South, as they eventually will. It's highly unlikely that many of us will quit our jobs and move to a remote mountain top in Chile. That said, I've given some thought to moving to Crete.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: ATM57]
      #6225322 - 11/30/13 02:34 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I won't go into the details concerning the three 8" refractors I have built. That's not the reason for this thread. I will say that the lenses were tested before I built scopes around them though.

Scopejunkie




The answers would obviously help frame your earlier comment, but if you don't want to share them, that's your choice. Frankly, I think it's interesting to hear the lengths that some folks go through to build their own equipment. I wish I had the time to learn how to properly grind, polish, test, and coat refracting lenses with my own hands.

To my original point, I doubt a 9.25" (Celestron or Meade) SCT would outperform even a top-notch 7" apochromatic refractor (e.g., made by a company in the league of Astro-Physics or Zeiss). And that wouldn't stop me from considering one for purchase. However, I did not buy any 11" SCT I tested about a decade ago, because none of them performed well enough for the intended purpose (critical high magnification visual work). At that time, I didn't have interest in retrofitting them to see if it was a thermal issue.

In 1999, I critically tested Roland Christen's 8" and 10" Mak-Cass prototypes in very good seeing against his 180 mm and 200 mm class refractors (one was Sue & Alan French's scope that is a Moon killer). The test target was Saturn. The 8" Mak-Cass delivered images on par with the 7" apos, and the 10" just edged out the 8" refractor, but not by much. Given the compact nature of the Mak-Cass, I ordered a 10" varietal, and received it a few years later. When the seeing is good, that scope is stunning (it had better be for the list price of $10K), and I've never seen even an 11" SCT come anywhere close to this instrument's capability. I often use the Mak-Cass at 1000x to see the central star in the Ring Nebula, something I have not been able to accomplish with any 11" SCT. Roland's 10" Mak-Cass doesn't defy the laws of physics. When I want to hunt down very faint galaxies, I use a 25" Dob-Newt.

All that said, I don't expect a far lower cost SCT to perform at the same level of a much more expensive scope. However, I would like it to perform better than the ones I tested long ago. I'm in the market for one (or two).




I didn't want to go into details because they were not needed. I'm not saying that all C-9's are as good as the one I have. Most SCT's are good but not exceptional. Every now and then you can get your hands on one that is on the "high end" in optical performance. I have owned a few.

With the right mods they can be made into excellent high power instruments. My point is: You don't have to mortgage your home to get top level high resolution performance.

I used to hate SCT's with a passion until I looked into why, with many of them, their performance was lacking. I discovered a lot of things that can make them bad. Some belong to the makers and some belong to the end user. How many times have Newtonians been compared to refractors over the years with many stating that refractors are superior?

My posts are for the tinkerers who lack the funds for high end iron and give them an alternative to costly apos and high end maks.

I have read here complaints against C-11's. That is strange to me since I have had some really good ones (and a few dogs). Just lucky I guess. The pic shows one that I put a lot of time into and should have never sold.

I enjoy the challenge of making them work well.

Scopejunkie




If you're willing to describe how you built your refractors via PM, as Spock shoud have said, I'm all ears.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ATM57
sage


Reged: 01/01/10

Loc: Tehachapi, CA
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6225343 - 11/30/13 02:47 PM Attachment (13 downloads)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I won't go into the details concerning the three 8" refractors I have built. That's not the reason for this thread. I will say that the lenses were tested before I built scopes around them though.

Scopejunkie




The answers would obviously help frame your earlier comment, but if you don't want to share them, that's your choice. Frankly, I think it's interesting to hear the lengths that some folks go through to build their own equipment. I wish I had the time to learn how to properly grind, polish, test, and coat refracting lenses with my own hands.

To my original point, I doubt a 9.25" (Celestron or Meade) SCT would outperform even a top-notch 7" apochromatic refractor (e.g., made by a company in the league of Astro-Physics or Zeiss). And that wouldn't stop me from considering one for purchase. However, I did not buy any 11" SCT I tested about a decade ago, because none of them performed well enough for the intended purpose (critical high magnification visual work). At that time, I didn't have interest in retrofitting them to see if it was a thermal issue.

In 1999, I critically tested Roland Christen's 8" and 10" Mak-Cass prototypes in very good seeing against his 180 mm and 200 mm class refractors (one was Sue & Alan French's scope that is a Moon killer). The test target was Saturn. The 8" Mak-Cass delivered images on par with the 7" apos, and the 10" just edged out the 8" refractor, but not by much. Given the compact nature of the Mak-Cass, I ordered a 10" varietal, and received it a few years later. When the seeing is good, that scope is stunning (it had better be for the list price of $10K), and I've never seen even an 11" SCT come anywhere close to this instrument's capability. I often use the Mak-Cass at 1000x to see the central star in the Ring Nebula, something I have not been able to accomplish with any 11" SCT. Roland's 10" Mak-Cass doesn't defy the laws of physics. When I want to hunt down very faint galaxies, I use a 25" Dob-Newt.

All that said, I don't expect a far lower cost SCT to perform at the same level of a much more expensive scope. However, I would like it to perform better than the ones I tested long ago. I'm in the market for one (or two).




I didn't want to go into details because they were not needed. I'm not saying that all C-9's are as good as the one I have. Most SCT's are good but not exceptional. Every now and then you can get your hands on one that is on the "high end" in optical performance. I have owned a few.

With the right mods they can be made into excellent high power instruments. My point is: You don't have to mortgage your home to get top level high resolution performance.

I used to hate SCT's with a passion until I looked into why, with many of them, their performance was lacking. I discovered a lot of things that can make them bad. Some belong to the makers and some belong to the end user. How many times have Newtonians been compared to refractors over the years with many stating that refractors are superior?

My posts are for the tinkerers who lack the funds for high end iron and give them an alternative to costly apos and high end maks.

I have read here complaints against C-11's. That is strange to me since I have had some really good ones (and a few dogs). Just lucky I guess. The pic shows one that I put a lot of time into and should have never sold.

I enjoy the challenge of making them work well.

Scopejunkie




If you're willing to describe how you built your refractors via PM, as Spock shoud have said, I'm all ears.




Which one are you interested in, the single tube, split tube or Rail Scope? They all used lenses from China (Po' Boy refractors)

BTW, the cooled C-11 in the previous picture was traded for my first 8" lens. I thought I was building my dream scope. An 8" F/12 refractor is a lot to live with when you have to set it up each night.

Scopejunkie


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: rmollise]
      #6225362 - 11/30/13 02:57 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Some have said that sct's "are good for imaging". Meaning planetary, which is true. However, beginners need to know that good for planetary doesn't mean good for imaging other sky objects. The reason sct's are good for planetary imaging is that a planet needs extreme magnification (provided by the unusually long focal length) and extreme resolution, which is provided by the sct's big aperture, which is hard to match with a refractor.




An SCT can be just as good for imaging DSOs than any other design, and usually better. A Newtonian is harder to balance and mount, and a refractor lacks aperture, which is also important unless all you want is wide field.




Rod, how are you defining "better" here?

From what I've experienced and seen, SCTs are interesting and flexible imaging platforms (long to short focal lengths in one instrument with relatively small additional investments).

That said, I was fortunate to find a used Ceravolo 300 Astrograph (f/4.9 & f/9) that has none of the issues associated with lower-cost SCTs. I don't have a lot of imaging time logged on this scope (the weather has been extremely uncooperative for the last few years), but the COS 300 seems lke an ideal instrument (easy to collimate, good resolution, fixed primary, compact, great thermal response, rugged, etc.). Regrettably, Peter stopped making them for now.

While rebuilding SCTs might be fun for some, and a significant cash-saving process, I don't enjoy that process. I used to, but other stuff started consuming a lot of my time about 20 years ago.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
orion61

*****

Reged: 10/20/07

Loc: Birthplace James T Kirk
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6225380 - 11/30/13 03:07 PM

I love watching people..
We are just..
If you want the most ease of use, Transportation, the best OVER ALL performance for the money, buy a Schmidt.
If you want the most light grasp,for the $ buy a...
If you want to spend your Childrens College fund for slightly better performance, buy a....
there is no changing of ones mind! I have or Have had one of each type, I CHOOSE my Schmidts as MY favorite.
If money meant nothing, and had a Dump truck of it, I'd own a Mountain home with a 30" Refractor housed in an Observatory. Right next to my 100" Schmidt!
I'll see you all at the Star Party where well all be enjoying the Skys..
see what you started Eddy....


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
PowellAstro
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 10/14/09

Loc: Tennessee
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: orion61]
      #6225393 - 11/30/13 03:15 PM

If you want to see what a cheap scope can do with a little work, I just posted test images here...

Before & After Test Shots


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: JJK]
      #6225397 - 11/30/13 03:18 PM

Quote:



Rod, how are you defining "better" here?






Easier to use for imaging and capable of delivering results as good or better than any other design as attested to by over 40 years of outstanding SCT pictures.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
A6Q6
professor emeritus


Reged: 05/31/11

Loc: Stroudsburg,Pa,U.S.A
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: rmollise]
      #6225399 - 11/30/13 03:19 PM

I can see a C11 or C14 in my future. After having a very good 6" Mak Cass for 35 years, I found an old orange tube C5 in a pawn shop. It has no “image” or “mirror” shift like I have seen, even in some Questars. My Mak doesn't have any ether. But what really got me about the C5 was the sharpness of the image. I had never seen that in a SCT,and the portability is unbelievable. I hate to say It, but I would take that little C5 over the RV6 that I once had and that scope you could set next to anything. So for me that's why "people even buy SCTs???" even if its an optical gamble.

Edited by A6Q6 (11/30/13 03:26 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
drago
sage


Reged: 01/11/08

Loc: Latvia
Re: Why do people even buy SCTs??? new [Re: PowellAstro]
      #6225409 - 11/30/13 03:27 PM

i hear, Anatoliy Sankovich, a word famous Santel MCT maksutov scopes maker once says: "who understand, choose newtonian..."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | >> (show all)


Extra information
14 registered and 19 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 13973

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics