#71
|
|||
|
|||
John Deer wrote:
Read my message again in context. Someone named DOINK suggested a 18" dob for the next real step. I repeat : If you want to see more deep sky objects a 10" or 12" dob makes more sense. OK, I will apologize. I had assumed that you were simply trolling, but it's always smarter to give people the benefit of the doubt -- when there's doubt. With Doink, of course, there's no doubt. His suggestion that the next step up from an 8" SCT is an 18" Dob is so wildly out of touch with reality that it has to be either a joke or a troll. I dismissed it out of hand as not worthy of comment, and almost forgot that it had been made. You're certainly right that for somebody considering upgrading from an 8" SCT to an 11" SCT, a 10" or 12" Dob is a much more reasonable suggestion than an 18" Dob. If you had wanted to avoid argument, you could have made that explicit. And the wider field of view will allow objects to be found much more easily. Sorry, as someone who owns a 12.5" Dob and loves it, I do not agree. Just last night, I was thinking how nice it would be to have an equatorial mount so that I would *know* immediately which way was celestial north instead of having to infer it from star charts. I'm quite sure that I could find stuff faster with an equatorial- mounted 11" SCT. Especially since much of the stuff I look for isn't visible at low magnifications. That's not to say that I would trade my Dob for an 11" SCT, mind you! It has many advantages. But finding things isn't one of them. - Tony Flanders |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Please note that after my simple three word reply, _our_ conversation ended,
and even though you continued to jump in there, I left you out of it. My beef isn't with you. I'm sorry that you felt you were in the middle of this, but frankly it was what came after my three word reply that escalated this into the same old crappy point-counterpoint discussion. The entire argument is predicated on the insistance that the SCT is not the "best" choice, and that it is somehow a group responsibility to make sure that everyone knows it. Personally I DO NOT have a bias. I just find that the SCT better suits my needs, as do literally thousands of other amateurs like me. I take issue with the idea that the Dob is the end all and be all of solutions, which it is not. The SCT is far more versatile by design and execution, right out of the box, for people who need a versatile solution, like for imaging _and_ observing. To the Dob lover, that statement apparently makes me an SCT "fan", which I am not. At least not exclusively. I like all scopes that provide a solution that I need. I am willing to make compromises to meet those needs, just like anyone else. I have no problem with the Dobsonian given it is properly accessorized, as is the case with any other solution. The big difference is that I accept the possibility that the SCT user, is an SCT user because they made that choice based on the SCTs virtues. I don't question the validity of their reasons for being a user of any particular scope. When the discussion turned to GoTo GEMs, I suggested the SCT as an alternative to the Newtonian for reasons of portability, useability of eyepiece position, and aperture. But the idea was rejected flat out in favor of rotating rings on the Newtonian, and not because the Newtonian was better or worse, but because the SCT is not even a consideration. In fact, the GoTo mount is uniquely beneficial to the SCT user. Why would someone with a Newtonian's wide field of view, or an affordable wide field refractor with it's limited aperture even consider a GoTo mount? So, who has a telescope bias now? Surely not me. I used both an F5 and an F4 Newtonian on a GEM with and without GoTo and never complained about either solution. I merely decided in the end that the SCT made more sense in that configuration for both high resolution imaging and deep sky observing. If asked which is the best telescope for deep sky "observing", well, that's an entirely different discussion. Clearly the Dobsonian has more advantages than disadvantages compared to any other design. However, I don't see it as anyone's responsibility to make sure that an SCT user has considered a Dobsonian in the context of a discussion about upgrading their smaller aperture SCT to a larger aperture SCT, and, even if I were to convey the idea, it wouldn't involve superlatives due to the history of Dobsnobbery, and Dobvangelsim on this group. Again, a Dobsonian makes sense, and apparently "more" sense to you. No problem. It just doesn't make more sense to everyone. That's all I intended. -Stephen Paul PS. If Jon Isaacs so much as sneezes after this post, I'm outta here permanently. "John Deer" wrote in message ... Quite frankly your response takes on huge evangelistly proportions Read my message again in context. Someone named DOINK suggested a 18" dob for the next real step. I repeat : If you want to see more deep sky objects a 10" or 12" dob makes more sense. And the wider field of view will allow objects to be found much more easily.' My reason is there, a dob allows objects to be found more easily because of its wider field. There are far stronger opinions express on this thread, I own APOS and MAKS too. I suggest you follow your own advice and show some TACT. JD The history here is that folks unwittingly put on the aires of an evangelist, in particluar, when it comes to the Dobsonian. In my heart, I call them "Dobvangelists", and they are every bit as annoying in their solicitations as evangelists if any persuasion who jump at any opportunity to push their ideas on others. It's not the message, it's the seeming inability of the messenger to convey the message in a proper context, and with sufficient tact. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
-Stephen Paul
PS. If Jon Isaacs so much as sneezes after this post, I'm outta here permanently. ==== Here's my 2 cents, I hope that you decide to remain.... S.A.A. is an open forum, a place to share ideas and experiences. Hopefully everyone's goal is to help others enjoy this hobby. To do that, I believe it sometimes it requires "thinking outside the box.." This means not just answering the question on the surface but addressing the broader picture if it seems appropriate. There is no one right answer. Certainly rotating rings on a Newtonian are one solution, but there is no one "right" solution, an SCT is also a viable option. Certainly an 11 inch SCT is one viable option. But there are others as well. Imagine the guy spends the money on the 11 inch SCT, runs into some guy with a 15 inch DOB and says, jeeze, I should have bought one of those instead.... My hope is that when the OP buys the 11 inch SCT he does so because he knows that it is his best choice, that he has considered the alternatives. Yes, I am a DOBvangelist. I am also a Newt-vangelist RefractorVangelist, a CAT-Vangelist. I own an enjoy using/owning just about every type of scope I can afford. I am a ALT-AZ-Vangelist, an EQ-Vangelist.... A widefield-Vangelist, a Ortho-Vangelist..... a Starhop-Vangelist and even, yes, even at times, a GOTO-vangelist. I hope this group keeps an open mind to accept a variety of viewpoints, we each have something to add, it is the sum of the viewpoints is what makes it work. ----------------------------- SP wrote: If asked which is the best telescope for deep sky "observing", well, that's an entirely different discussion. Clearly the Dobsonian has more advantages than disadvantages compared to any other design. ---- I hope you are not turning into a DOBvangelist.... G Best wishes, clear skies Jon Isaacs |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
All right we all learnt something here and in fairness agree my wording was
not clear and the C11 is also a fine choice, especially with GOTO that was lacking in my classic C11. JD |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|