![]() ![]() Using a coma corrector added so much extra length that the leverage introduced fatal sag into the system. The metal tube was not capable of holding the focuser at right angles to the light path. I've tried a variant of the cheaper scope and it was awful. I don't believe it's true that the carbon tube won't affect functionality. Thank you laser_jock99 and for all membersĬan you Recommends more Newtonians for me An 80mm apo refractor should also be in your 'collection'. The plain truth is though that no single scope can do everything- if you take up the hobby seriously you will end up owning several telescopes. It is true a small refractor is easier to set up and handle- but find me an 8" F4 TRUE APO refractor for under 600 Euros? These fast Newtonians do offer significant 'bang for you buck' even though they do require more effort to master. You will need to get a good coma corrector for imaging (add say another 150 Euros?). Collimation is not rocket science and nothing to be afraid of. The UNC scope has a nice focuser but the carbon tube won't add a lot to the functionality. This scope is much cheaper and does exactly the same thing image wise (probably has identical optics)Ī quick search of the web finds plenty of images taken with this scope (bear in mind they may be by experienced imagers) but will give you an idea of what is possible. ![]() Like to have Your comments on it ,is it good for astro image and what about the prices for it I am building my new setup, with new sky-watcher neq6 mount ,for that i would like to have new telescope for it, is Newtonian good for astrophotography, and limit with budget ,i was looking on the web and see this TS 8" F4 UNC Newtonian Carbon tube Telescope I really don't think that can be compared with getting the best out of a reflector. This image was taken in an F3.9 apo which has never been collimated from new and was simply taken outside, pointed at the sky, focussed and told to get on with it. Image with a fast Newtonian if you are really, really, up for it. Image with a Newtonian if you are up for it. This is not to say that they can't be made to work, but I totally agree with RikM in his post above. In imaging fast Newtonians are, in my view, as complicated as it gets and that's why I don't use them. This rather suggests that they don't think a Newtonian is as simple as it gets. I'm not anti-Newtonian but if you go to a firm like Takahashi in search of a focal length around 500mm you find, in looking at ther prices, that they charge even more for a corrected Newtonian than they do for a quadruplet apo. Briefly, the problems associated with Newtonians, especially fast ones, are collimation, orthogonality, coma and frontal area presented to the wind. ![]() A well made refractor is as simple as it gets but is generally far more expensive. A Newtonian is not by any means as simple as it gets. It depends on how right you want it and on how big your chip is etc. It seems to me that a Newtonian is about as simple as it gets. I suppose there's more time collimating every now and again, but that's all daytime work. I get my 200p onto the mount, attach the camera and away I go. What's the "great deal of effort required to get it repaired and working properly"? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |