Jump to content

  •  

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.

Photo

Parks Newts in the 12"-16" Range, Thoughts?

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Lukeed

Lukeed

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2024

Posted 24 June 2024 - 01:05 PM

Anyone here have experience using using an old Parks newt in the 12"-16" range and are currently using the same rig for astrophotography and visual? What's the learning curve like knowing the old EQs are not computer driven (I know they can be updated if you want to go that route). Other things to be aware of. This is a large system from what I'm used to (sub-1000mm focal length), so I'm trying to understand pros/cons/things to look out for.

 

I have the space and I'm in a fairly dark area just outside of Yosemite.

 

Thank you in advance



#2 macdonjh

macdonjh

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,478
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2006

Posted 24 June 2024 - 08:41 PM

Lukeed, welcome to Cloudy Nights.

 

Parks?  Yes.  Visual?  Yes.  Photography?  No.  A Parks mount?  No.

 

I have a Parks 10" HIT Cassegrain/ Newtonian.  I use it for visual.  Optically I find it good.  The option to use f/15 or f/4 is also fun.  The scope is really heavy: 55 lb.  It is all my G11 can handle.  Since the secondary mirror is cored for the Cassegrain light path, I can't use a laser to collimate it, which is a pain.

 

As for the Parks mounts, be careful.  If the mount has a tangent arm declination drive it cannot be converted to go-to unless you build a whole new drive for that axis.  

 

Parks 3.JPG


  • deSitter and Lukeed like this

#3 Lukeed

Lukeed

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2024

Posted 24 June 2024 - 08:49 PM

Lukeed, welcome to Cloudy Nights.

 

Parks?  Yes.  Visual?  Yes.  Photography?  No.  A Parks mount?  No.

 

I have a Parks 10" HIT Cassegrain/ Newtonian.  I use it for visual.  Optically I find it good.  The option to use f/15 or f/4 is also fun.  The scope is really heavy: 55 lb.  It is all my G11 can handle.  Since the secondary mirror is cored for the Cassegrain light path, I can't use a laser to collimate it, which is a pain.

 

As for the Parks mounts, be careful.  If the mount has a tangent arm declination drive it cannot be converted to go-to unless you build a whole new drive for that axis.  

 

attachicon.gif Parks 3.JPG

Thank you!

 

I've been lurking CloudyNights for years, always found the information so helpful and a great community.



#4 jragsdale

jragsdale

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,597
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Idaho

Posted 25 June 2024 - 11:20 AM

I think it should be excellent for a visual instrument and for planetary imaging, but with deep sky long exposure imaging, the bottleneck will be your mount and how accurate it can guide. Also most modern cameras have smaller pixels, so you might be a little oversampled, which doesn't affect detail, but can give you a lower SNR than if you were properly sampled. But this is much less of a concern than accurate guiding.


  • Lukeed likes this

#5 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 39,572
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 25 June 2024 - 06:29 PM

I had them built me a 12.5" F/7.5 OTA back in 1990.

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_0820.JPG

  • Lukeed likes this

#6 Lukeed

Lukeed

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2024

Posted 26 June 2024 - 03:18 PM

I think it should be excellent for a visual instrument and for planetary imaging, but with deep sky long exposure imaging, the bottleneck will be your mount and how accurate it can guide. Also most modern cameras have smaller pixels, so you might be a little oversampled, which doesn't affect detail, but can give you a lower SNR than if you were properly sampled. But this is much less of a concern than accurate guiding.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to figure out. 

 

I'm happy with visual, but so enjoy astrophotography as well and wouldn't mind the extra (almost double) focal length.



#7 rolo

rolo

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,469
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2007
  • Loc: GA

Posted 28 June 2024 - 03:37 PM

Anyone here have experience using using an old Parks newt in the 12"-16" range and are currently using the same rig for astrophotography and visual? What's the learning curve like knowing the old EQs are not computer driven (I know they can be updated if you want to go that route). Other things to be aware of. This is a large system from what I'm used to (sub-1000mm focal length), so I'm trying to understand pros/cons/things to look out for.

 

I have the space and I'm in a fairly dark area just outside of Yosemite.

 

Thank you in advance

I used to have 12.5" f/6 Cave on Parks mount that I used for planetary and limited deep space imaging. The mount was upgraded with an Optic-Craft drive and original motorized dec tangent arm. For Guiding I used a JMI Mototrack V. 90mm guidescope, Meade DSI camera for guiding and PHD software. This was a long  time ago but I had success with the set up. Auto guiding was fine specially after doing a PEC round to minimize tracking error. The main issue was no imaging unless the wind was dead still to prevent vibrations or movement. 

Not the ideal deep space imaging rig but planetary was much easier, able to keep Jupiter or Saturn on the chip with barely any tracking corrections.

 

As far as visual goes its the scope that I rate all the others by. 

 

M1 in HA & M13

Attached Thumbnails

  • Cave 017-2.JPG
  • m1_in_ha.jpg
  • M13-30X1min.jpg

Edited by rolo, 28 June 2024 - 03:38 PM.

  • davidmcgo, deSitter, tim53 and 8 others like this

#8 bjkaras

bjkaras

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 May 2019
  • Loc: Santa Clara, CA

Posted 12 July 2024 - 11:29 PM

I think it should be excellent for a visual instrument and for planetary imaging, but with deep sky long exposure imaging, the bottleneck will be your mount and how accurate it can guide. Also most modern cameras have smaller pixels, so you might be a little oversampled, which doesn't affect detail, but can give you a lower SNR than if you were properly sampled. But this is much less of a concern than accurate guiding.

That’s what I have found too. I have the 10” f/5, and it’s great for visual observing. From a dark site I managed to see the central star in M-57. I tried a little imaging and got some good results with lunar and planetary, but I had trouble guiding for DSOs. I attributed that at the time to the tube not being well enough balanced, so maybe I’ll try it again some time.




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






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics