|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
October 12th 03, 03:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
$3000 and which scope???
If you had a limit of $3000, what scope setup would you buy and why?
No, I haven't won the lottery... David 
|
|
#2
October 12th 03, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
3k gets you a nice scope.
My first choice would probably be a Discovery 15" DOB with the observers package added on. That gives you a 35mm Panoptic and digital setting circles. If I wanted total go to, I'd look at a Meade 200 series scope or a Celestron GPS. You could get 10 or 11" of aperature with 3k. mjd (david) wrote in message . com... If you had a limit of $3000, what scope setup would you buy and why? No, I haven't won the lottery... David
|
|
#3
October 12th 03, 09:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
|
|
#5
October 12th 03, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:28:55 -0400, "Mike Fitterman" ...reflected:
How about a 15" discover PDHQ, and a DGM Optics 4" scope and a platform for a drive! Get the big dob and still have that 4" APO ability. A grab and go setup as well as a big setup. all for right around 3K Mike. You've introduced...variables. 8^) Alan
|
|
#6
October 13th 03, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
Is this your first scope? If it isn't, I'd start with an 8" dob from
Discovery or whomever. If you already have a "large"scope, I'd go with an 11" Nexstar from Celestron. I started with a 4.5" Bushnell reflector, then an 11" Celestron dob, and currently have a 17.5" PDHQ from Discovery. I was pleased with all of the above scopes, and am really happy with my 17.5" dob. If I could do it all over again, I would do it the same way, except maybe scrounged up some money for a Nexstar 11" along the way. It is really really great to have 17.5" of crisp aperature, but when the CCD bug still lingers, you have to suffer. Good luck! David Carlstrom "Alan W. Craft" wrote in message ... On 12 Oct 2003 07:31:51 -0700, (david) ...reflected: If you had a limit of $3000, what scope setup would you buy and why? No, I haven't won the lottery... ...but you obviously have $3000 burning a hole in your pocket. 8^) The answer is simple...well, for me anyway: A Parks 8" f/5 or 10" f/5 Newtonian on either their "Superior" equatorial mounting or a similarly substantive mount by another maker, like the Losmandy G11 for instance, perhaps. Why? Why, to have something more, and a lot more, to observe once you quickly exhaust the Moon and the planets. Though, there would still be a plethora of double and multiple star systems to gaze upon with a lesser instrument; and by "lesser" I refer to aperture, and specifically to various and sundry apochromatic refractors incurring similar expenditures. Still... But don't get an f/4! You'd be asking for trouble; f/5 and slower, only. Of course, then there's Parks's 12.5" f/5 Superior...and for a "paltry"... ...$4,599.95. Now, that's what I call a "YEEHAW!" 'scope... "Billy Joe Bob! Toss me 'nuther beer! I done got that thar Whirly Pool swirly thang in thuh eyepace!" Alan
|
|
#7
October 12th 03, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
If you had a limit of $3000, what scope setup would you buy and why?
No, I haven't won the lottery... David Hi: No ifs, ands or buts, the Celestron Nexstar 11...'nuff said. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers! Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html
|
|
#8
October 13th 03, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
|
|
#9
October 13th 03, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
I disagree, as the focal length would be quite a run given a common set of oculars, and therefore not as observationally- versatile as, say, a 12.5" f/5 Newtonian; not that the catadioptric's useless; just not as versatile... 2800mm focal length / 32mm ocular = 87.5x... ...so much for even an inkling of a wide-field view. 2800mm focal length / 32mm ocular = 87.5x... 2800x0.63=1764mm With a 42 mm ocular this will provide about 42x, and a FOV greater than 1 degree. SCTs are versatile because they put a lot of optics into a small package. You want to do astrophotography with a 12.5 inch F5 Newt it will end up costing well over that $3000 figure to get it on the mount. Newtonians are nice scopes and so are SCTs. There was a time when Meade, and perhaps Celestron, too, offered f/6.3 instruments, but no more, and out of manufacturing difficulties, I suspect, rather than lack of demand. Now, focal reducers are proffered en lieu As I understand it, optically F6.3 is pushing the SCT design and results in some rather unfortunate compromises and that a focal reducer/corrector is provides a flatter field as well. If I had $3000 to buy a telescope I would put it the bank as I am happy with what I currently have. jon
|
|
#10
October 13th 03, 04:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
$3000 and which scope???
...so much for even an inkling of a wide-field view.
Wide field is sorta over rated. It's really cool and all that. But the vast majority of deep sky objects are actually rather small. john
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
