C-6 refractor vs 8" Newt ! First light report...New refractor convert!

After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8" F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the 6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon. Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows, I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****, they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

Did you ever try to do anything about improving the contrast of your
reflector? (ie, flocking?) I myself like detail, and wouldn't trade my 6"
f/10 reflector views of planets and the moon for anything. I've had a chance
to peek through some primo 4"apo and a 4" f/15 unitron and can say I prefer
the detail the "Marscope" (name the builder gave it, and having a maritime
background I will never change a name without a proper christening, which I
won't do on a scope). One day I'll get around to flocking the tube to
increase contrast, but there's too many planets to kill right now.

-Tim

btw collimation takes about 15 seconds with a well secured secondary and a
laser collimator. (deluxe style, with viewing port)




"Orion" wrote in message
...
After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8" F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was
MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus
and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a
SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the
6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon.
Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there
was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows, I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned
out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a
very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none
whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none
issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****,
they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need
around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the
ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

Did you ever try to do anything about improving the contrast of your
reflector? (ie, flocking?) I myself like detail, and wouldn't trade my 6"
f/10 reflector views of planets and the moon for anything. I've had a chance
to peek through some primo 4"apo and a 4" f/15 unitron and can say I prefer
the detail the "Marscope" (name the builder gave it, and having a maritime
background I will never change a name without a proper christening, which I
won't do on a scope). One day I'll get around to flocking the tube to
increase contrast, but there's too many planets to kill right now.

-Tim

btw collimation takes about 15 seconds with a well secured secondary and a
laser collimator. (deluxe style, with viewing port)




"Orion" wrote in message
...
After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8" F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was
MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus
and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a
SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the
6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon.
Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there
was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows, I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned
out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a
very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none
whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none
issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****,
they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need
around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the
ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

First thing I did when I took over ownership of the Meade Newt was to baffle
the OTA, it is as dark as pitch.
When you shine a flashlight down the OTA, all you see is the mirror.
I too, do a laser collimation prior to a star collimation, as a ROT.
The difference is that I ALWAYS do an adjustment on the Newt OTA, not so on
the Refractor OTA
Clearskies!
Orion


"Tim Powers" wrote in message
...
Did you ever try to do anything about improving the contrast of your
reflector? (ie, flocking?) I myself like detail, and wouldn't trade my 6"
f/10 reflector views of planets and the moon for anything. I've had a
chance
to peek through some primo 4"apo and a 4" f/15 unitron and can say I
prefer
the detail the "Marscope" (name the builder gave it, and having a maritime
background I will never change a name without a proper christening, which
I
won't do on a scope). One day I'll get around to flocking the tube to
increase contrast, but there's too many planets to kill right now.

-Tim

btw collimation takes about 15 seconds with a well secured secondary and a
laser collimator. (deluxe style, with viewing port)




"Orion" wrote in message
...
After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the
proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8"
F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was
MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus
and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a
SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the
6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon.
Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings
of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there
was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows,
I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no
kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms
of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of
darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar
observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned
out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a
very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none
whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none
issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****,
they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need
around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA
sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a
damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real
downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the
ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure
worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

First thing I did when I took over ownership of the Meade Newt was to baffle
the OTA, it is as dark as pitch.
When you shine a flashlight down the OTA, all you see is the mirror.
I too, do a laser collimation prior to a star collimation, as a ROT.
The difference is that I ALWAYS do an adjustment on the Newt OTA, not so on
the Refractor OTA
Clearskies!
Orion


"Tim Powers" wrote in message
...
Did you ever try to do anything about improving the contrast of your
reflector? (ie, flocking?) I myself like detail, and wouldn't trade my 6"
f/10 reflector views of planets and the moon for anything. I've had a
chance
to peek through some primo 4"apo and a 4" f/15 unitron and can say I
prefer
the detail the "Marscope" (name the builder gave it, and having a maritime
background I will never change a name without a proper christening, which
I
won't do on a scope). One day I'll get around to flocking the tube to
increase contrast, but there's too many planets to kill right now.

-Tim

btw collimation takes about 15 seconds with a well secured secondary and a
laser collimator. (deluxe style, with viewing port)




"Orion" wrote in message
...
After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the
proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8"
F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was
MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus
and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a
SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the
6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon.
Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings
of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there
was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows,
I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no
kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms
of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of
darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar
observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned
out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a
very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none
whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none
issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****,
they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need
around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA
sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a
damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real
downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the
ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure
worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

I also just received a 6" f/8 Celestron and will confirm the excellent
contrast and snap-to-focus. I had noticeable violet fringe on Jupiter, but
this was reduced by a Sirius MV20 filter. I have not tried collimating it
yet, this may help. IMHO this scope is a good value.

Mike

"Orion" wrote in message
...
After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8" F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was
MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus
and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a
SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the
6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon.
Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there
was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows, I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned
out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a
very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none
whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none
issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****,
they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need
around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the
ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

I also just received a 6" f/8 Celestron and will confirm the excellent
contrast and snap-to-focus. I had noticeable violet fringe on Jupiter, but
this was reduced by a Sirius MV20 filter. I have not tried collimating it
yet, this may help. IMHO this scope is a good value.

Mike

"Orion" wrote in message
...
After waiting more years than I care to admit, I finally became the proud
new owner of a 6" F-8 Celestron C6-RGT
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
It is "mostdef" better when it comes to the Moon. While I admit the 8" F-6
Meade mirror shows slightly more detail, the 6" Celestron refractor was
MUCH
better in terms of contrast and the easy ability to achieve "snap" focus
and
hold it for a long time.
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking (BTW, The Meade has a
SUPERB
mirror, and a small-as-you-can-get secondary of 1.5" ) I now see why the
6"
refractor is the preferred OTA of choice when is comes to the Moon.
Through
the Celestron Refractor, the Moon looked like the pen and ink drawings of
Harold Hill. The blacks were truly black, and the Moon really looked 3D.
Last night, when I turned the Celestron on Jupiter, I had no idea there
was
a couple of transits currently going on.
(It was Io emerging and Europa, I believe,that were causing the shadows, I
always view first, and then look at Sky&Tel/Astronomy/web afterwards, to
find out what I was viewing, so as not to bias my observation)
The moon shadows on Jupiter looked like a couple of bullet holes, and at
first I thought I had a couple of specks of dirt on my ocular, no kidding!
The Gallilean moons were truly spheres, not dots.
Saturn was as superb in the refractor as the Newt, and better in terms of
contrast.
I should point out I am in horrible suburban skies, in terms of darkness.
Streetlights 'till hell won't have'em. Magnitude 3-3.5 if I'm lucky.
I cannot address deepsky issues, but if you are a planetary/Lunar observer
like me , you will LOVE a 6" Celestron Refractor.
BTW, the much dreaded "Chromatic Abberation" issue of a 6" Achro turned
out
to be a none issue. Last night, on the full Moon,
I had a VERY slight tinge of yellow around the Moon, around Jupiter, a
very
slight tinge of blue ( not purple or violet) around Saturn, none
whatsoever.
Since I ususally use a variable polarizer on the moon, it was a none
issue.
It is clear to me that having a OTA that does not reflect photons 180
degrees has much going for it.
Lastly, this myth about refractors not needing collimation is bull****,
they
most certainly do. BUT, once you achieve collimation, they hold it well.
Much MUCH better than a Newt.
BTW, the 6" F-8 OTA is one big , heavy OTA. About 28lbs when the OTA is
counterbalanced. The Lens side of the OTA is top heavy, and you need
around
12 lbs of finderscope, oculars, and counterweights to get that OTA sliding
up to a respectable level in the OTA cradle.
The Celestron GT mount handles the OTA OK(and for the money, it is a damn
good mount!), but at ~29lbs, it is about at it's limits. The real downside
was for me, as a longtime Newt owner, to get used to being low on the
ground
when viewing, it can get tought on the neck and back, but damn sure worth
it...
Cleardarkskies!
Orion







---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004

"Orion" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
[SNIP]
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking [SNIP]

Orion,

Have you made any modifications to the Starfinder to improve cooling? I
have an 8" Meade Starfinder here some of the time, and it simply does not
perform as well as an 8" Newt should because it is always hampered by
thermal problems. If you are constantly refocusing, they could certainly be
an issue.

To check for thermal problems, rack a bright object out of focus. If tube
currents are an issue, you will see a round disk of light with a plume of
light going off it on one side of focus, and on the other side of focus the
disk will have a dark dent in it (on the side opposite where the bright
plume was). As long as you see any hint of this, performance is going to be
compromised.

Clear skies, Alan

"Orion" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
[SNIP]
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking [SNIP]

Orion,

Have you made any modifications to the Starfinder to improve cooling? I
have an 8" Meade Starfinder here some of the time, and it simply does not
perform as well as an 8" Newt should because it is always hampered by
thermal problems. If you are constantly refocusing, they could certainly be
an issue.

To check for thermal problems, rack a bright object out of focus. If tube
currents are an issue, you will see a round disk of light with a plume of
light going off it on one side of focus, and on the other side of focus the
disk will have a dark dent in it (on the side opposite where the bright
plume was). As long as you see any hint of this, performance is going to be
compromised.

Clear skies, Alan

Fortunately for me, thermal OTA issues are not a problem. I have the good
fortune of being in a geographically ideal observing location, (in terms of
steadiness) , i.e.. south Florida.
My scopes are always at ground (i.e. sea level , stored @ local ambient
temperature.
Primo planetary skies!
Orion

"Alan French" wrote in message
...

"Orion" wrote in message
...
[SNIP]
Being a long time newt owner ( 8" F-6 Meade Starfinder) I was concerned
about "stepping down" in terms of aperture.
I am happy to report , that in terms of Lunar observation and planetary
issues, the refractor is as good, if not better.
[SNIP]
With the newt, it is constant focusing/tweaking [SNIP]

Orion,

Have you made any modifications to the Starfinder to improve cooling? I
have an 8" Meade Starfinder here some of the time, and it simply does not
perform as well as an 8" Newt should because it is always hampered by
thermal problems. If you are constantly refocusing, they could certainly
be
an issue.

To check for thermal problems, rack a bright object out of focus. If tube
currents are an issue, you will see a round disk of light with a plume of
light going off it on one side of focus, and on the other side of focus
the
disk will have a dark dent in it (on the side opposite where the bright
plume was). As long as you see any hint of this, performance is going to
be
compromised.

Clear skies, Alan



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/2004