Which would you buy?
This one;
http://www.astromart....asp?cid=232144
or this one?
http://www.astromart....asp?cid=232140
And why?
$1150 to spend
Started by
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
, Nov 28 2003 03:10 AM
42 replies to this topic
#2
IDONTSEEIT
-
-
- Posts: 1,147
- Joined: 04 May 2003
Apollo
Posted 28 November 2003 - 03:33 AM
Heli,
Well, FWIW, the D&G is allegedly a great scope, but I think you'd have to spend at least twice that on a mount for it.
Where as, the Vixen would probably be handled well by your Stellarvue EQ mount.
Just my idiotic thoughts.
Well, FWIW, the D&G is allegedly a great scope, but I think you'd have to spend at least twice that on a mount for it.
Where as, the Vixen would probably be handled well by your Stellarvue EQ mount.
Just my idiotic thoughts.
#3
Mike Sandy
-
-
- Posts: 1,764
- Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Surveyor 1
Posted 28 November 2003 - 03:35 AM
The Vixen would be much smaller and easier to handle. The D&G's are great scopes - but they are big! The Vixen would be about 36" long while the D&G is more like 60". That means that the D&G is harder to move, store, set-up, and needs more of a mount. If none of that bothers you....I'd go for the D&G - more aperture, a very good planetary scope, and D&G has a great reputation. If you are more human - you'd likely to use the Vixen (also a good company) more often (a lot more often) - it is just much easier to use, and I'd bet it wouldn't give much up in performance.
Not much help in the way of a solid answer....but IMHO scopes are very personal kinds of equipment, and I don't know much about what you might care about.
Not much help in the way of a solid answer....but IMHO scopes are very personal kinds of equipment, and I don't know much about what you might care about.
#4
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 10:57 AM
If I had a mount that would handle the D&G I'd snap that up in a second at that price. 5" @ f/12??? At lease CA will be one of your lesser problems.
That will require a substantial mount for steady viewing.
Heck, I'd probably buy it even if I didn't have a mount. You can always get that later.
That will require a substantial mount for steady viewing.
Heck, I'd probably buy it even if I didn't have a mount. You can always get that later.
#5
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 11:47 AM
Keith, the Vixen is pretty close in size to your Nighthawk. Would you keep the Nighthawk? If you got the Vixen, would you ever want to use the Nighthawk again???
#6
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 12:44 PM
IDSE, Mike, Schultze;
I hadn't really thought about the size difference all that much, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
I was planning on having to get a new mount when I bought a new scope. I am going to roof over my patio in the next couple of years. When I do that I am going to sink a post into the ground and build a roll off roof type of observatory in the top of it (I know, ambitious plans, but...
) If I do that, the 5" would be a good size on a permanent mount. I think it would be a significant increase over my 80mm Nighthawk.
I think a 4" APO would be better for photography than the 5" D&G, Any thoughts?
Tom;
Yes I would keep the Nighthawk. My wife joins me while observing at times so it would get use, and it travels better for my trips. However If I had the Vixen and I was the only one observing I would probably grab it first.
Thanks all
Keith
I hadn't really thought about the size difference all that much, thanks for pointing out the obvious.
I was planning on having to get a new mount when I bought a new scope. I am going to roof over my patio in the next couple of years. When I do that I am going to sink a post into the ground and build a roll off roof type of observatory in the top of it (I know, ambitious plans, but...
) If I do that, the 5" would be a good size on a permanent mount. I think it would be a significant increase over my 80mm Nighthawk. I think a 4" APO would be better for photography than the 5" D&G, Any thoughts?
Tom;
Yes I would keep the Nighthawk. My wife joins me while observing at times so it would get use, and it travels better for my trips. However If I had the Vixen and I was the only one observing I would probably grab it first.
Thanks all
Keith
#7
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 01:02 PM
Hi Heli,
The D&G 5" f/12 looks real good. I have a 5" f/9.3 and its a handful too.
You would need an EQ6 to hold that D&G scope.
Al M
The D&G 5" f/12 looks real good. I have a 5" f/9.3 and its a handful too.
You would need an EQ6 to hold that D&G scope.
Al M
#8
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 01:08 PM
I don't know for sure about the photography. You are probably not going to have a color issue with a FL that long. That's where achro's excell if you can handle the OTA.
At that ratio, I'd take the extra inch of the D&G rather than a 4" APO.
You might want to try and check one out at a star party somewhere to get an idea of the color, if any, in the D&G, but the scope is probably not going to last long at Astromart.
At that ratio, I'd take the extra inch of the D&G rather than a 4" APO.
You might want to try and check one out at a star party somewhere to get an idea of the color, if any, in the D&G, but the scope is probably not going to last long at Astromart.
#9
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 01:08 PM
Since you have to get a mount for either one and you already have an 80mm, I would personally go for the 5" f/12 because it 1) greatly increases light gathering ability and 2) you have a very slow scope compared to your fast Nighthawk. Either way, I want to see it!
#10
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 01:19 PM
Tom;
Don't hold your breath,
it will be a while.
I'm planning on taking Schultze's advice and trying to check some things out before leaping into my next purchase.
I thought the timing of the 2 different type of refractors I have been considering at the same cost was a great opportunity for discussion.
(future planning on my part.)
Al M;
Do you have the Meade 5"? I have read some good things about those.
Blessings
Keith
PS: if anyone wants to buy the scope feel free. You won't be cutting me out as I am not in the position to purchase yet.
Don't hold your breath,
it will be a while. I'm planning on taking Schultze's advice and trying to check some things out before leaping into my next purchase.
I thought the timing of the 2 different type of refractors I have been considering at the same cost was a great opportunity for discussion.
(future planning on my part.)Al M;
Do you have the Meade 5"? I have read some good things about those.
Blessings
Keith
PS: if anyone wants to buy the scope feel free. You won't be cutting me out as I am not in the position to purchase yet.
#11
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 02:38 PM
Keith,
I have a few pointers I can give you about the Meade 5" since I own one. Firstly forget photography with it. It has a really crappy focuser assembly, the optics are ok actually better than the 6" because of the higher fl. If I was even considering seriously photography then an APO is a must period regardless of aperture. Ive seen wonderful pics from APOs smaller than 4" so FOV is only concern then and most APOs have accessories to change the FOV with astrophotography in mind anyway. The D&G would be a better scope than the Meade if you can afford a decent mount for it. If taking pics is more a passing whim for now then get the biggest refractor period, they are great DSO scopes with very nice dark backgrounds, just smaller FOVs than some other scopes. The 5" Meade with the regular LXD55 mount without go-to is a pretty good priced setup. It could however have a few probs that must be worked out as I and Schultz know all too well.............Dave
I have a few pointers I can give you about the Meade 5" since I own one. Firstly forget photography with it. It has a really crappy focuser assembly, the optics are ok actually better than the 6" because of the higher fl. If I was even considering seriously photography then an APO is a must period regardless of aperture. Ive seen wonderful pics from APOs smaller than 4" so FOV is only concern then and most APOs have accessories to change the FOV with astrophotography in mind anyway. The D&G would be a better scope than the Meade if you can afford a decent mount for it. If taking pics is more a passing whim for now then get the biggest refractor period, they are great DSO scopes with very nice dark backgrounds, just smaller FOVs than some other scopes. The 5" Meade with the regular LXD55 mount without go-to is a pretty good priced setup. It could however have a few probs that must be worked out as I and Schultz know all too well.............Dave
#12
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 09:54 PM
Hi Keith,
I own the pre-Meade 5" f/9.3 refractor. Burgess sent it to me. Its an excellent telescope. The AR5s that I looked through were also excellent, except for that stupid weak LXD55 mount. The Atlas/EQ6 or the HEQ5 mounts would do it justice. These 5 inchers really draw in the planets and do a decent job on doubles and DSOs.
Al M
I own the pre-Meade 5" f/9.3 refractor. Burgess sent it to me. Its an excellent telescope. The AR5s that I looked through were also excellent, except for that stupid weak LXD55 mount. The Atlas/EQ6 or the HEQ5 mounts would do it justice. These 5 inchers really draw in the planets and do a decent job on doubles and DSOs.
Al M
#13
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 09:56 PM
Hi Keith,
Its true about the focuser ... crappy. I replaced mine with my own Crayford. Bill Burgess has a focuser for these scopes.
Al M
Its true about the focuser ... crappy. I replaced mine with my own Crayford. Bill Burgess has a focuser for these scopes.
Al M
#14
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 10:00 PM
Dave;
I read somewhere that someone changed out the Mead focuser Assy for an aftermarket one. Supposedly it was a cost effective change out and made a huge difference in the way it operated. Do you know anything about that? Any links? I can't seem to find it again.
Thanks
I read somewhere that someone changed out the Mead focuser Assy for an aftermarket one. Supposedly it was a cost effective change out and made a huge difference in the way it operated. Do you know anything about that? Any links? I can't seem to find it again.
Thanks
#15
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 28 November 2003 - 10:03 PM
Al M,
Thanks for the reply. I was writing the question at the same time you answered.
What is a "pre Meade" refractor?
Keith
Thanks for the reply. I was writing the question at the same time you answered.
What is a "pre Meade" refractor?
Keith
#16
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 November 2003 - 12:02 AM
Keith,
Only thing ive found so far is a guy on Astromart selling only the 2" adapter custom made which dosent help at all. I finally bit the bullet and bought a Starlight Feathertouch with the 10/1 micro focuser as well as the course focuser. Its the cats meow and works on any telescope with a 2" receiver so I change it as necessary making the investment worthwhile at least for me it was however a $300 item. A custom machined backplate and focuser wouldnt help me at this point besides the Feathertouch has a built in brake too making heavy eyepieces and cameras a no brainer its worth every cent Ill never sell it unless I completly get out of astronomy you have to really use one to app. its quality and usefulness...The hi-end APs now come with it that should tell you something. I really love the 10/1 fine focuser for lunar & planetary. Dave
Only thing ive found so far is a guy on Astromart selling only the 2" adapter custom made which dosent help at all. I finally bit the bullet and bought a Starlight Feathertouch with the 10/1 micro focuser as well as the course focuser. Its the cats meow and works on any telescope with a 2" receiver so I change it as necessary making the investment worthwhile at least for me it was however a $300 item. A custom machined backplate and focuser wouldnt help me at this point besides the Feathertouch has a built in brake too making heavy eyepieces and cameras a no brainer its worth every cent Ill never sell it unless I completly get out of astronomy you have to really use one to app. its quality and usefulness...The hi-end APs now come with it that should tell you something. I really love the 10/1 fine focuser for lunar & planetary. Dave
#17
IDONTSEEIT
-
-
- Posts: 1,147
- Joined: 04 May 2003
Apollo
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:06 AM
Dave,
Would you mind ellaborating exactly how that feathertouch attaches to the scope? Do you need to remove the stock focuser? Would it work, on let's say, the Orion 80ED, or any of the synta 80-102mm refractors? Maybe some pics if not too much trouble?
Thanks, best regards,
Would you mind ellaborating exactly how that feathertouch attaches to the scope? Do you need to remove the stock focuser? Would it work, on let's say, the Orion 80ED, or any of the synta 80-102mm refractors? Maybe some pics if not too much trouble?
Thanks, best regards,
#18
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 November 2003 - 08:26 AM
Hi Joe,
My digital camera is history took swim when canoe accidently overturned this summer, sob.....and i havent had the interest to replace it yet. Was quite expensive lesson. However its a no big deal to explain the focuser. The Starlite is a 2" dia unit like a 2" eyepiece and just slides into any scope that has a 2" eyepiece receiver/focuser. You just leave your existing focuser body alone and simply insert the Starlite and use it instead of the stock assembly or use the stock to do the rough focusing first. What I like about it is firstly the 10/1 micro focusing and the built in brake, second is no more image shifting regardless of scope type. In order to use it on my Schmidt and Mak I did have to buy a Televue 2" cassegrain adapter so that the scope would have a 2" receiver instead of just a threaded back since the visual back that came with them was 1-1/4" and too small. Hope ive helped, you can see pics of the focuser via the web tho if you want to see them. They are very pretty to look at, I get a lot of oohs and ahhs about my fancy looking black and gold focuser when its seen in daylight. Dave
My digital camera is history took swim when canoe accidently overturned this summer, sob.....and i havent had the interest to replace it yet. Was quite expensive lesson. However its a no big deal to explain the focuser. The Starlite is a 2" dia unit like a 2" eyepiece and just slides into any scope that has a 2" eyepiece receiver/focuser. You just leave your existing focuser body alone and simply insert the Starlite and use it instead of the stock assembly or use the stock to do the rough focusing first. What I like about it is firstly the 10/1 micro focusing and the built in brake, second is no more image shifting regardless of scope type. In order to use it on my Schmidt and Mak I did have to buy a Televue 2" cassegrain adapter so that the scope would have a 2" receiver instead of just a threaded back since the visual back that came with them was 1-1/4" and too small. Hope ive helped, you can see pics of the focuser via the web tho if you want to see them. They are very pretty to look at, I get a lot of oohs and ahhs about my fancy looking black and gold focuser when its seen in daylight. Dave
#19
rboe
-
-
- Posts: 69,790
- Joined: 16 Mar 2002
ISS
Posted 29 November 2003 - 12:10 PM
Too you canoeing digital camera users - or boaters of any ilk; Sea&Sea make water proof digital camers that are "reasonable". Certainly cheaper than a Nikonos.
If you already own a digital camera, ewa-marine makes flexible underwater bags for cameras. While not too much more than a glad wrap bag, some models have flexible bellows for your zoom lens, neck strap - and they are not cheap. Running from $65 to $260 depending on the model.
Ikelite makes your traditional rigid housing for camera but now we are talking some serious money, cheapest in the high $200's and go to over $1600.
There are others too, but for the price of digitals today a little extra spent to protect it saves much crying later.
If you already own a digital camera, ewa-marine makes flexible underwater bags for cameras. While not too much more than a glad wrap bag, some models have flexible bellows for your zoom lens, neck strap - and they are not cheap. Running from $65 to $260 depending on the model.
Ikelite makes your traditional rigid housing for camera but now we are talking some serious money, cheapest in the high $200's and go to over $1600.
There are others too, but for the price of digitals today a little extra spent to protect it saves much crying later.
#20
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 November 2003 - 12:24 PM
Glad I'm a landlubber.
#21
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 November 2003 - 01:28 PM
Rboe,
yes I learned an expensive lesson, I had canoed down that river several times but this last time I went close to the shore to investigate a rock overhang well, it sucked me my wife and the canoe completely under the rocks! It was scarier than an IRS audit! We both almost drowned actually had to be rescued because the current was pulling us back under the rocks. The camera at that time was the least of my worries. The water there was about 10" deep everywhere else on the river it was knee deep, figures dosent it? I was later told several people lost their lives under that rock overhang and that canoes regularly overturn there almost daily but there was no danger sighs posted anywhere Im surprised the canoe trip Co. isnt sued regularly or the Park. Anyway, my next water camera will be a $10 throw away period, no crying there then ever. Dave
yes I learned an expensive lesson, I had canoed down that river several times but this last time I went close to the shore to investigate a rock overhang well, it sucked me my wife and the canoe completely under the rocks! It was scarier than an IRS audit! We both almost drowned actually had to be rescued because the current was pulling us back under the rocks. The camera at that time was the least of my worries. The water there was about 10" deep everywhere else on the river it was knee deep, figures dosent it? I was later told several people lost their lives under that rock overhang and that canoes regularly overturn there almost daily but there was no danger sighs posted anywhere Im surprised the canoe trip Co. isnt sued regularly or the Park. Anyway, my next water camera will be a $10 throw away period, no crying there then ever. Dave
#22
Echo
-
-
- Posts: 3,320
- Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Gemini
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:21 PM
Good Grief Dave! I'm glad you're still here with us after that kind of accident. I think that would be it for me and water sports.
#23
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:26 PM
Hi Echo,
Yes I was very frightened about Robin, I figured if I was freaking she had to be spazzing big time, all she screamed was OH MY GOD! over & over........she says she will never enter a canoe again, I dont blame her. Think ive lost interest as well to be honest as I get older living sounds better and better as long as poss. Dave
Yes I was very frightened about Robin, I figured if I was freaking she had to be spazzing big time, all she screamed was OH MY GOD! over & over........she says she will never enter a canoe again, I dont blame her. Think ive lost interest as well to be honest as I get older living sounds better and better as long as poss. Dave
#24
Echo
-
-
- Posts: 3,320
- Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Gemini
Posted 29 November 2003 - 05:42 PM
"to be honest as I get older living sounds better and better as long as poss. Dave "
Don't it though? I sure have calmed down the past ten years or so. It's pretty amazing how we change as we grow older. I just hope it's for the better!
Don't it though? I sure have calmed down the past ten years or so. It's pretty amazing how we change as we grow older. I just hope it's for the better!
#25
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
-
-
topic starter
Posted 29 November 2003 - 05:52 PM
Confused more than ever. I love refractors. D & G Optical sounds great. Home-made alt. mounts work fine. What about it?
Carl Armstrong
12.5"dob
4" refractor
3.5" ETX
Carl Armstrong
12.5"dob
4" refractor
3.5" ETX
CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.
Recent Topics
-
-
ARP 84 Heron Galaxy- Celestron RASA & Altair ETX 115pyrasanth - Today, 08:12 PM
Experienced Deep Sky Imaging
-
Tracking a dragon capsule during re-entry?
sternenhimmel - Today, 07:39 PM
General Observing and Astronomy
-
-
-
-
Geekom Mini air12, are they observatory worthy?
jwj1217 - Today, 06:59 PM
Astronomy Software & Computers
-
Can’t get Zwo 2600 duo air to connect to NINA and PHD2 properly
peetyg - Today, 06:58 PM
Astronomy Software & Computers
-
Does anyone here have some old Rolyn Optics catalogs (pdf/scan)?simple.joy - Today, 06:49 PM
ATM, Optics and DIY Forum
-
