Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor
Aloha Ann One of our group just got a CGEM by Celestron, weighty and solid but manageable. We used the mount w/ a variety of scopes (C11, C9.25, C8, 80mm FD, 127Apo) and all worked well and pointing was very very acceptable. With the components broken down I think you would enjoy the mount. To get a closer inspection, contact Chuck Hards, he has one and can give you his pinion of the mount. Or come to Maui and use ours ;^) Aloha Rob
Thank you, as I look out at our wintery skies, the last option (except for$) sounds wonderful! -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Rob Ratkowski Photography Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:01 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor Aloha Ann One of our group just got a CGEM by Celestron, weighty and solid but manageable. We used the mount w/ a variety of scopes (C11, C9.25, C8, 80mm FD, 127Apo) and all worked well and pointing was very very acceptable. With the components broken down I think you would enjoy the mount. To get a closer inspection, contact Chuck Hards, he has one and can give you his pinion of the mount. Or come to Maui and use ours ;^) Aloha Rob _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
BTW Ann It has been sunny, warm, light trades and the ocean is still quite nice. I may go to the beach today after a few appts. and get a bit more sun. Aloha Rob
Ann: This list and SLAS in general tends to be "refractor-centric". If you are looking for low weight alternatives to the CPC 11, have Craig at least look at some newtonians. A 130mm refractor is just a 5 inch telescope and the images will not come close to what you see in the 11 inch. An 8 inch newtonian tube assembly from ORION weighs 16 pounds and costs less than $500. The younger members of SLAS with families to support and less room in their smallish cars are using 8 and 10 inch dobs. The views through these scopes are much better than through a 5 inch refractor, they weigh less and definitely cost much much less. I have been looking at low weight alternatives and I like the 10 inch dob because the tube only weighs 27 pounds. Newtonians and dobs are the way to go for many amateurs. That is unless you really just have to spend a lot of money. DT
Also Orion has new Dobs on tracking/goto mounts that are easy to use, have great views and are way cheaper than refractors of the same aperture size. On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:07 PM, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ann:
This list and SLAS in general tends to be "refractor-centric". If you are looking for low weight alternatives to the CPC 11, have Craig at least look at some newtonians. A 130mm refractor is just a 5 inch telescope and the images will not come close to what you see in the 11 inch. An 8 inch newtonian tube assembly from ORION weighs 16 pounds and costs less than $500. The younger members of SLAS with families to support and less room in their smallish cars are using 8 and 10 inch dobs. The views through these scopes are much better than through a 5 inch refractor, they weigh less and definitely cost much much less. I have been looking at low weight alternatives and I like the 10 inch dob because the tube only weighs 27 pounds.
Newtonians and dobs are the way to go for many amateurs. That is unless you really just have to spend a lot of money.
DT
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Ann, I've owned three or four Newtonians, the smallest of which is still my 10-inch, which I put together over 20 years ago. (If you don't count the "80 POWER!!!" 3-inch Gilbert my brother and I shared 50 years ago. If I can find it I may also consider selling it if you're interested. ;-) I also have an 8-inch SCT. Nothing beats my refractor for planetary and double-star observing. Problem is, I rarely set out to do only one type of observing. I'm just not that disciplined. That said, when conditions have been good enough, I've not been dissapointed using my reflectors for planetary or double-star observing; I just can't push the magnification like I can with my refractor. I have also not been dissapointed using my refractor for faint-fuzzy observing. I just know I won't see as much detail or be able to see relatively fainter objects. Just know and accept the limitations of whatever scope you finally choose. Daniel, the preference for refractors has been a recent phenomenon, one I don't really understand. I bought mine precisely for planetary and double-star observing, but it was relatively inexpensive compared to some I've seen at star parties lately, and I still use my SCT or a Newt for most of my observing. I'm surprised by the change. Anyone know why this evolution? I could understand it if the refractors were inexpensive. $10K buys an awful lot of aperture in a Dobsonian. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:07 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor Ann: This list and SLAS in general tends to be "refractor-centric". If you are looking for low weight alternatives to the CPC 11, have Craig at least look at some newtonians. A 130mm refractor is just a 5 inch telescope and the images will not come close to what you see in the 11 inch. An 8 inch newtonian tube assembly from ORION weighs 16 pounds and costs less than $500. The younger members of SLAS with families to support and less room in their smallish cars are using 8 and 10 inch dobs. The views through these scopes are much better than through a 5 inch refractor, they weigh less and definitely cost much much less. I have been looking at low weight alternatives and I like the 10 inch dob because the tube only weighs 27 pounds. Newtonians and dobs are the way to go for many amateurs. That is unless you really just have to spend a lot of money. DT _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Kim, I think there are several reasons for the popularity of refractors: they generally have a larger field, they weigh less and they have superb optics. -- Joe --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 11:22 AM Ann,
I've owned three or four Newtonians, the smallest of which is still my 10-inch, which I put together over 20 years ago. (If you don't count the "80 POWER!!!" 3-inch Gilbert my brother and I shared 50 years ago. If I can find it I may also consider selling it if you're interested. ;-) I also have an 8-inch SCT. Nothing beats my refractor for planetary and double-star observing. Problem is, I rarely set out to do only one type of observing. I'm just not that disciplined. That said, when conditions have been good enough, I've not been dissapointed using my reflectors for planetary or double-star observing; I just can't push the magnification like I can with my refractor. I have also not been dissapointed using my refractor for faint-fuzzy observing. I just know I won't see as much detail or be able to see relatively fainter objects. Just know and accept the limitations of whatever scope you finally choose.
Daniel, the preference for refractors has been a recent phenomenon, one I don't really understand. I bought mine precisely for planetary and double-star observing, but it was relatively inexpensive compared to some I've seen at star parties lately, and I still use my SCT or a Newt for most of my observing. I'm surprised by the change. Anyone know why this evolution? I could understand it if the refractors were inexpensive. $10K buys an awful lot of aperture in a Dobsonian.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:07 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor
Ann:
This list and SLAS in general tends to be "refractor-centric". If you are looking for low weight alternatives to the CPC 11, have Craig at least look at some newtonians. A 130mm refractor is just a 5 inch telescope and the images will not come close to what you see in the 11 inch. An 8 inch newtonian tube assembly from ORION weighs 16 pounds and costs less than $500. The younger members of SLAS with families to support and less room in their smallish cars are using 8 and 10 inch dobs. The views through these scopes are much better than through a 5 inch refractor, they weigh less and definitely cost much much less. I have been looking at low weight alternatives and I like the 10 inch dob because the tube only weighs 27 pounds.
Newtonians and dobs are the way to go for many amateurs. That is unless you really just have to spend a lot of money.
DT
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Mostly true; the OTA's may weigh less, but the sturdier mounts are not lightweight. Why the resurgence lately, i.e. last five years or so, especially for such expensive packages? Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:12 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor Kim, I think there are several reasons for the popularity of refractors: they generally have a larger field, they weigh less and they have superb optics -- Joe --- On Wed, 11/17/10, Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
From: Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 11:22 AM Ann,
I've owned three or four Newtonians, the smallest of which is still my 10-inch, which I put together over 20 years ago. (If you don't count the "80 POWER!!!" 3-inch Gilbert my brother and I shared 50 years ago. If I can find it I may also consider selling it if you're interested. ;-) I also have an 8-inch SCT. Nothing beats my refractor for planetary and double-star observing. Problem is, I rarely set out to do only one type of observing. I'm just not that disciplined. That said, when conditions have been good enough, I've not been dissapointed using my reflectors for planetary or double-star observing; I just can't push the magnification like I can with my refractor. I have also not been dissapointed using my refractor for faint-fuzzy observing. I just know I won't see as much detail or be able to see relatively fainter objects. Just know and accept the limitations of whatever scope you finally choose.
Daniel, the preference for refractors has been a recent phenomenon, one I don't really understand. I bought mine precisely for planetary and double-star observing, but it was relatively inexpensive compared to some I've seen at star parties lately, and I still use my SCT or a Newt for most of my observing. I'm surprised by the change. Anyone know why this evolution? I could understand it if the refractors were inexpensive. $10K buys an awful lot of aperture in a Dobsonian.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:07 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Opinions on Astro-Tech Refractor
Ann:
This list and SLAS in general tends to be "refractor-centric". If you are looking for low weight alternatives to the CPC 11, have Craig at least look at some newtonians. A 130mm refractor is just a 5 inch telescope and the images will not come close to what you see in the 11 inch. An 8 inch newtonian tube assembly from ORION weighs 16 pounds and costs less than $500. The younger members of SLAS with families to support and less room in their smallish cars are using 8 and 10 inch dobs. The views through these scopes are much better than through a 5 inch refractor, they weigh less and definitely cost much much less. I have been looking at low weight alternatives and I like the 10 inch dob because the tube only weighs 27 pounds.
Newtonians and dobs are the way to go for many amateurs. That is unless you really just have to spend a lot of money.
DT
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3233 - Release Date: 11/02/10 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I like the contrast and wide field views of refractors. My suggestion, given a GEQ mount, would be to get BOTH a smaller refractor AND a smaller SCT OTA. But I don't really like GEQ mounts for visual use. Goto solves some of the problems, but as the scope moves you still have to at least rotate the diagonal, and I found that the alignments sometimes get off a little when doing this. The finder can be in odd positions as well, and even though it's not as critical with goto it can still be annoying. In my opinion one of the best all-around scopes is the Meade LX-90 8 inch at 33 pounds. Or potentially the Nexstar 8 on which you could also mount a refractor, although movement would be limited. I'm not sure about the Meade LS and LT scopes. But if you want the best overall views with the least weight, an 8 or 10 inch dob is hard to beat. But check the weight specs -- every brand is different. The Orion XX12i is also very manageable. Craig Smith
participants (7)
-
Ann Blanchard -
Craig Smith -
daniel turner -
Joe Bauman -
Julie Clyde -
Kim Hyatt -
Rob Ratkowski Photography