Newbie: Scope opinions sought.

I noted the comments about Orion Telescope & Binoculars, concerning the
upcoming comet impact. Their products seem quite reasonably priced.
But what of their quality?

I'm interested in the SkyView Pro 8 EQ Reflector. I guess the question
might be: would I be blown away by the difference between this scope and
one of the same size costing many thousands of dollars, given the same
eyepieces, or would I find that the more expensive scopes are simply of
better construction quality, etc.

A separate question: I do amateur photography, and would like to try my
hand at astrophotography as well. I'm also by way of looking for a rig
to do "digiscoping". One of the problems with the latter is the lack of
light gathering ability of the spotting scopes, causing assorted
problems. I would think that an 8" objective and an F5 focal length
would essentially eradicate that problem. I would also think that a
deep sky scope would have the resolution and clarity to challenge the
best of camera optics; if not, what am I missing here?

Incidentally, I'm well aware that an 8" reflector is a cumbersome rig,
and plan on using present locations (feeders, etc) for targets, so size
and weight is not a problem. I'm also aware that the second question is
not topical here, but would appreciate what input might be forthcoming.

Thanks for all responses.

Longfellow

Be sure and find out if this scope can be used for astrophotography if you
really mean to use it for that.
Most Newtonians are not built to achieve focus unless you use afocal
photography or make adaptations.
As far as quality goes, it probably is a very good scope, I know that I have
been pretty happy with my old Orion 10" Dob. But I would rather have an EQ
if I could afford it.

"Longfellow" wrote in message
...
I noted the comments about Orion Telescope & Binoculars, concerning the
upcoming comet impact. Their products seem quite reasonably priced.
But what of their quality?

I'm interested in the SkyView Pro 8 EQ Reflector. I guess the question
might be: would I be blown away by the difference between this scope and
one of the same size costing many thousands of dollars, given the same
eyepieces, or would I find that the more expensive scopes are simply of
better construction quality, etc.

A separate question: I do amateur photography, and would like to try my
hand at astrophotography as well. I'm also by way of looking for a rig
to do "digiscoping". One of the problems with the latter is the lack of
light gathering ability of the spotting scopes, causing assorted
problems. I would think that an 8" objective and an F5 focal length
would essentially eradicate that problem. I would also think that a
deep sky scope would have the resolution and clarity to challenge the
best of camera optics; if not, what am I missing here?

Incidentally, I'm well aware that an 8" reflector is a cumbersome rig,
and plan on using present locations (feeders, etc) for targets, so size
and weight is not a problem. I'm also aware that the second question is
not topical here, but would appreciate what input might be forthcoming.

Thanks for all responses.

Longfellow

Howdy Longfellow,
I don't have any personal experience with this particular scope you
speak of, but I think for a first scope, this scope should provide quite
enjoyable visual views with halfway decent eyepieces, on Lunar,
Planetary, and many Deep Sky Objects. Having some sort of a drive will
make things a bit more enjoyable, in that you won't have to keep nudging
the scope along to counteract the earth's rotation. Still, many love
thier Dobs, and they don't find this an issue. One friend I know owns
a 20" Obsession, and it sure doesn't bother him at all!

Many have taken very nice pictures of the Solar System Objects with
nothing more than low-mid-priced consumer CCD Cameras, and something
like a Scopetronix adapter, which will permit coupling an eyepiece to
the Camera, and then inserting this into the scope's focuser.

There shouldn't be any problems reaching focus with this type of an
arangement provided you have a CCD camera which can incorporate some
form of adapter.

Using more "Capable" CCD Consumer cameras for relatively short exposure
deep sky imaging, such as lets say the Canon 10D, or the newest Canon
20Da, will cost a lot more than the telescope you mention itself.

As to the question you ask about whether a higher grade scope will be
noticeably different in the quality of views, yes they will!

Image scale between this scope, and lets say an identically sized, high
quality 8" F-5 Maksutov-Newtonian will be the same. The views in the 8"
F-5 MN Scope will have a wider corrected field of view, meaning objects
at the edge of field will be more coma-free, and won't look like little
seagulls. Scopes in this class, and good high quality generally cost in
the vicinity of $3800-$4500.

There are correctors which alleviate this to a degree with fast standard
Newtonians. (Televue Paracorr comes to mind)

Also, better grade Newtonians (Lets say for instance, the 8" Portaball
Reflector with Zambuto Mirrors) will offer better, higher quality views,
due to thier higher degree of wavefront quality/precision, much smoother
ground, and polished optics, and will be able to better utilize these
better optics with a higher degree of mechanical precision/build
quality.

For a first scope, the 8" Portaball would be just dandy, that is, if you
have the extra money to easily spend/burn. Most beginners don't, and
probably shouldn't for a first scope.

Many of us, like myself, first owned a Tasco 4-1/2" $232.00 Department
Store Reflector, and for me, that was back in 1972. As time went by,
some of us knew we loved the hobby, wanted to stick with it, learned the
shortcomings with scopes such as this, longed for more, and naturally
graduated as time went by, and our budgets could afford it.

My best recommendation for you, would be, to do tons of homework, and
take into consideration the advantages, and disadvantages of this
design.

In your area, find out if you have any local Astro-Clubs, and see if you
can attend one of thier upcoming starparties. Here, you will get to
sample views through different owner's scopes of perhaps numerous
different designs, and will better be able to make a decision on what
you really would like to own for yourself.

All Newtonians do require a bit of tinkering to align/collimate the
optics, and while it's not really hard to do, even for a beginner, note
that this is something all newtonian owners must learn to do if you wish
to get the best performance from your scope.

Hope some of my input has helped, Mark D.

Longfellow wrote:
I noted the comments about Orion Telescope & Binoculars, concerning the
upcoming comet impact. Their products seem quite reasonably priced.
But what of their quality?

I'm interested in the SkyView Pro 8 EQ Reflector. I guess the question
might be: would I be blown away by the difference between this scope and
one of the same size costing many thousands of dollars, given the same
eyepieces, or would I find that the more expensive scopes are simply of
better construction quality, etc.

A separate question: I do amateur photography, and would like to try my
hand at astrophotography as well. I'm also by way of looking for a rig
to do "digiscoping". One of the problems with the latter is the lack of
light gathering ability of the spotting scopes, causing assorted
problems. I would think that an 8" objective and an F5 focal length
would essentially eradicate that problem. I would also think that a
deep sky scope would have the resolution and clarity to challenge the
best of camera optics; if not, what am I missing here?

Incidentally, I'm well aware that an 8" reflector is a cumbersome rig,
and plan on using present locations (feeders, etc) for targets, so size
and weight is not a problem. I'm also aware that the second question is
not topical here, but would appreciate what input might be forthcoming.

Thanks for all responses.

Longfellow


When it comes to astrophotography (deep sky) the scope is only as good
as the mount it's riding on.
So give it some due dilligence.

Clear Skies,
Uncle Bob

"Uncle Bob" wrote in message
ng.com...
Longfellow wrote:


When it comes to astrophotography (deep sky) the scope is only as good as
the mount it's riding on.
So give it some due dilligence.


IMHO, when it comes to photography, the mount is everything !!!!
The highest quality optics in the world are useless on a mount
that is not up to the weight, and tracking issues !!!!!!!!!!!!

























Allan


Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will

On 2005-05-23, Longfellow wrote:
snip

Thanks for the responses!

I conclude that mixing usages is not a good idea. Conflicting
requirements for focal length, objective size, mounting architecture,
etc, would seem to doom such things to mediocrity. And mediocrity is
rather quickly discerned and so becomes unacceptable.

I looked into amateur astronomy a few years ago, and decided that a 12
inch Yolo schiefspeigler would be an excellent instrument. IIRC the
primary is a parabola mounted slightly off axis, and the secondary is a
slightly distorted plane. Seems buildable with care and patience.

Unfortunately, terrestrial scopes need aperture to make action
photography doable, and that means expensive gear suited for the
purpose.

Another bad idea to stand down amongst the host of other such I've come
up with over the years...

Thanks again.

Longfellow