any astronomers here?

Borodog · #1 11-06-2005, 11:47 PM

Unless you want something really high end, I would recommend the Edmund Scientific Astroscan, the Deluxe Package (it has the Barlow lens amongst other nifty things included). It's $400 and is an amazing piece of technology for the price.

If you want something higher end, you're going to have to spend more. I would recommend either a Meade or Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain 8".

Borodog · #2 11-07-2005, 12:46 AM

On second thought, Holy Crap I Need One of These.

mostsmooth · #3 11-10-2005, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend either a Meade or Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain 8".

[/ QUOTE ]
from reading a bit and looking at pricing, ive noticed the schmidt style is more expensive than the maksutov. im assuming there is some advantage to the schmidt over the mak. could you explain this for me? all i can tell so far is the optics are different, but im not sure what the results and pros/cons of the difference is.

BruceZ · #4 11-11-2005, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend either a Meade or Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain 8".

[/ QUOTE ]
from reading a bit and looking at pricing, ive noticed the schmidt style is more expensive than the maksutov. im assuming there is some advantage to the schmidt over the mak. could you explain this for me? all i can tell so far is the optics are different, but im not sure what the results and pros/cons of the difference is.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have similar advantages and disadvantages, but Maksutov-Cassegrains actually have better contrast and resolution on the moon and planets than Schmidt-Cassegrains or reflectors because of their smaller secondary mirror obstruction. In this regard, they are the best of all the catadioptrics and reflectors, and nearly as good as refractors of the same aperture. Their thicker correcting lens makes them heavier than Schmidt-Cassegrains, and they take longer to cool down to a stable temperature, though that is mainly a problem with larger appertures > 90 mm. They cost less because they are easier to make, not because they have poorer performance.

This page from the Astronomics website I referenced discusses them briefly.

While both of these are fine instruments, most are above your $500 price range, especially with an 8" aperture. You could probably find some 3-4" Maksutov's in that range. Reflectors are generally much less expensive for the same aperture, though not as portable.

mostsmooth · #5 11-11-2005, 09:36 AM

thanks bruce
somehow i didnt come across that info at astronomics.
also, after further review, ive increased my price range to the $1000 neighborhood and probably will go over that [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Borodog · #6 11-11-2005, 12:48 PM

If you really want to do it right, find a local stargazing group and attend their outings. They will have a wide range of scopes on hand and will be happy to let you use the different types, makes, and models so you can make a more informed decision.

BruceZ · #7 11-11-2005, 03:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to do it right, find a local stargazing group and attend their outings. They will have a wide range of scopes on hand and will be happy to let you use the different types, makes, and models so you can make a more informed decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You can find one in your area here.

TomBrooks · #8 05-04-2006, 03:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to do it right, find a local stargazing group and attend their outings. They will have a wide range of scopes on hand and will be happy to let you use the different types, makes, and models so you can make a more informed decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You can find one in your area here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Concur
American Amateur Astronomers Association

mostsmooth · #9 12-22-2005, 03:55 PM

ive decided i will need a scope with the "goto" type feature for sure. another requirement would be the ability to handle the deep space stuff, and photography. youll notice ive upped my price range to the $1400 max area.
im not sure if i would be happy with the newtonian style depending on how much maintenance is really required, the difficulty of said maintenance, and maybe the size, although im not really concerned about the size. but the 10" newt apparently would offer greater detail of our planets (althought the rating at this particular site is "fair" for that use. i need to find out what "fair" means)
i also will be contacting a local group if possible to maybe check some out. if any of you smart people could point out some drawbacks to the two below and/or recommend better/similar, that would be cool.
the two below are the early contenders
why wouldnt i want this?

and

option 2