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 >> Classic Telescopes

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
svdwal
Vendor (mBrain Software)


Reged: 03/10/13

Loc: Leiden, The Netherlands
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Petrus351]
      #6344915 - 01/30/14 11:11 AM

Quote:


Yes, but what are the margins???

I mean, we´re talking about a 4" refractor in comparison to a C14? or are we talking about a 6" vs 8" scope?
What you say, can be true between small differences in aperture, but not between important ones.




It depends a lot on the scopes. A Ritchey-Chretien with a big central obstruction will have to be bigger than a Newton for it to beat a refractor. And a mass-market SCT with 1/4 lambda spherical abberation will have to be bigger than one with 1/10 lambda.

Apparently the heuristic of subtracting the central obstruction from the objective diameter works quite well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jim Curry
Pooh-Bah
*****

Reged: 10/29/07

Loc: STL
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Chuck Hards]
      #6345096 - 01/30/14 12:55 PM

I have the answer to that!

Jim


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Chuck Hards
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 05/03/10

Loc: The Great Basin
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Jim Curry]
      #6345123 - 01/30/14 01:11 PM

Quote:

I have the answer to that!

Jim




Lol, you and everyone else!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rcwolpert
professor emeritus
*****

Reged: 08/13/12

Loc: San Jose, CA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Jim Curry]
      #6345165 - 01/30/14 01:25 PM

With 50 years of observing behind me and often pondering this question of "Is Bigger Better", I've come to the following 5 conclusions that seem to work for me:

1. A small aperture telescope out under the stars seems to always out perform a much larger aperture telescope in the garage.
2. Larger aperture provides better resolution of clusters and double stars.
3. Larger aperture provides better views of galaxies and nebulae.
4. On nights of bad seeing, both will perform about the same if the same POWER is used. If the same EYEPIECE is used, the small aperture scope may provide a much better view.
5. On nights of good seeing, both large and small aperture telescopes can have you totally awed all night long when viewing the moon, Jupiter, and Saturn.

- Bob


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
BigC
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 09/29/10

Loc: SE Indiana
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: rcwolpert]
      #6345203 - 01/30/14 01:41 PM

+1

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TCW
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 11/05/13

Loc: The North 40
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: actionhac]
      #6345206 - 01/30/14 01:43 PM

That is quite a scope! Can it reach zenith?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
starman876
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/08

Loc: VA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: TCW]
      #6345488 - 01/30/14 04:05 PM

For the next post it will be is smaller better

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
starman876
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/08

Loc: VA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: starman876]
      #6345493 - 01/30/14 04:07 PM

Of course all the data that has been presented are theories that were developed many years ago. I have always wondered if these same theories still hold true with all the advancements in lens making and the exotic glass that is used today.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
actionhac
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 08/09/08

Loc: Seattle
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: TCW]
      #6345789 - 01/30/14 06:49 PM Attachment (7 downloads)

Quote:

That is quite a scope! Can it reach zenith?




Yes I make sure the tube will reach zenith. You can see its close! I can roast marshmallows up at the other end of the tube. It settles down quickly once the sun sets. I've got a few more refinements to make to it. Its a ongoing experiment and I enjoy trying new ideas with it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Is bigger better? [Re: SpooPoker]
      #6346153 - 01/30/14 10:07 PM

Quote:

A 6" APO could be very well color corrected down to about f/5. A Newtonian on that same focal ratio would get absolutely hammered in terms of contrast, fine resolution, details etc...




Have you ever seen a 6 inch F/5 apo? They might exist but I don't know of any...

Jon


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

Reged: 06/04/13

Loc: North Bay CA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6346191 - 01/30/14 10:27 PM

Here is a 6incher on a short FL:
http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5630_TS-PHOTOLINE-...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: SpooPoker]
      #6346525 - 01/31/14 05:24 AM

Quote:

Here is a 6incher on a short FL:
http://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5630_TS-PHOTOLINE-...




It's actually a 130mm f/7 with a field flattener that can be screwed into the focuser. It's a 5 inch along the lines of the NP-127 but less intergrated and possibly not capable of visual use .

I don't know of any "native" 6 inch F/5 apos. It might be possible but the ones I see are relatively slow and within range of focal lengths where a planetary 6 inch Newtonian is possible.

Jon


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Petrus351
sage


Reged: 12/17/12

Loc: Spain
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6346575 - 01/31/14 07:02 AM

"Only for some objects, although undermagnification is often a problem, even for experienced observers. The penalty for increased magnification is reduced field of view and brightness; faint objects grow fainter as the magnification is increased This is why larger aperture telescopes are so effective on faint objects; they provide enough light to stimulate the eye at high magnifications. For example, a 4-inch telescope will only view a globular cluster effectively at 80X, and it will appear as a blob. A 6-inch will resolve the outer stars at 130X, an 8-inch will resolve further in at 200X. 10 and 12.5-inch telescopes will make them glitter to the core at 300 and 400X".

Copy and paste from the Sky Watcher home web page.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
svdwal
Vendor (mBrain Software)


Reged: 03/10/13

Loc: Leiden, The Netherlands
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: starman876]
      #6347128 - 01/31/14 12:23 PM

Quote:

Of course all the data that has been presented are theories that were developed many years ago. I have always wondered if these same theories still hold true with all the advancements in lens making and the exotic glass that is used today.




Those theories still hold, AFAIK. What has changed is that ray tracing is much faster on a computer.


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

Reged: 06/04/13

Loc: North Bay CA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6347478 - 01/31/14 03:50 PM

Quote:


It's actually a 130mm f/7 with a field flattener that can be screwed into the focuser. It's a 5 inch along the lines of the NP-127 but less intergrated and possibly not capable of visual use .

I don't know of any "native" 6 inch F/5 apos. It might be possible but the ones I see are relatively slow and within range of focal lengths where a planetary 6 inch Newtonian is possible.

Jon






You are right, dunno where 130mm = 6" came from. Late night I guess. Yeah, it seems anything in APO world larger than 4" generally comes in f/7 - f/9 forms. I guess the reason would be correcting a 6" f/5 for visual would be prohibitively expensive or nigh on impossible to manufacture. A 6" f/5 on a crown flint form (achromat) would have phenomenal CA and there is only so much a triplet can do. I guess it is far easier to correct via triplet form a f/7 or f/8 than a f/6 or less.

In saying that, your TV 100mm f/5 APO does a good job on color correction - correct?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CHASLX200
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 09/29/07

Loc: Tampa area Florida
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: DAVIDG]
      #6347962 - 01/31/14 08:02 PM

Bigger is always better until ya have to move it around or set it up.

Chas


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
starman876
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/08

Loc: VA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: CHASLX200]
      #6348242 - 01/31/14 11:02 PM

I would say bigger is better when you get around 20" and if it is your scope it is the best ever.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Datapanic
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 10/17/09

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: starman876]
      #6348372 - 02/01/14 01:01 AM

This thread belongs in the Beginners Forum!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jon Isaacs
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/16/04

Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: SpooPoker]
      #6348514 - 02/01/14 04:43 AM

Quote:

In saying that, your TV 100mm f/5 APO does a good job on color correction - correct?




It is excellent, even out of focus. But it's not really a 4 inch F/5.4, or at least the objective is not. It's a bit of a simplification but it's basically a long focal length apo double with a fancy ED focal reducer/field flattener at the rear of the scope. NP stands for Nagler-Petzval.

You could do a similar thing with a 6 inch apo but then you could do a similar thing with with a Newtonian but neither makes much sense.

Jon


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

Reged: 06/04/13

Loc: North Bay CA
Re: Is bigger better? new [Re: Jon Isaacs]
      #6350147 - 02/01/14 10:11 PM

Quote:


It is excellent, even out of focus. But it's not really a 4 inch F/5.4, or at least the objective is not. It's a bit of a simplification but it's basically a long focal length apo double with a fancy ED focal reducer/field flattener at the rear of the scope. NP stands for Nagler-Petzval.

You could do a similar thing with a 6 inch apo but then you could do a similar thing with with a Newtonian but neither makes much sense.

Jon




Cool sounds like an awesome scope.

Is the FOV just like a f/7 or f/8 frac or does the design get around that? I am seriously considering getting one of these for a big FOV, but if it has the same FOV as a regular 4" ED doublet, then I may sit tight on my money


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)


Extra information
23 registered and 27 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Rich (RLTYS), Brian Risley 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 2351

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics