C14 seems to be the "go-to" telescope for cutting-edge planetary andmoon imaging

Lots of people seem to use them for this. I wonder if it's because for its aperture, it's portable allowing them (the owners) to seek-out better seeing conditions more easily?

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Lots of people seem to use them for this. I wonder if it's because for its aperture, it's portable allowing them (the owners) to seek-out better seeing conditions more easily?

I knew a person who owned an old, orange c14, loved it!
She had a few big DOB's before, but found the C14 the best compromise among big scopes!

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:49:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Lots of people seem to use them for this. I wonder if it's because for its aperture, it's portable allowing them (the owners) to seek-out better seeing conditions more easily?

Well, people mostly like their scopes to be portable so they can take
them to dark locations, not locations with better seeing (the latter
often involving much greater travel distances). And you don't need
particularly dark skies for lunar and planetary imaging.

At 14 inches, a telescope's resolution is likely to be limited by
seeing, not optical capability. But lucky imaging techniques, which
are commonly used with bright objects, can overcome that. And since
this method depends upon taking as short of exposures as possible, it
requires lots of photons, and that means aperture helps.

So I'd say that aperture is the key factor, not portability.

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 7:20:14 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:49:43 -0700 (PDT),
Lots of people seem to use them for this. I wonder if it's because for its aperture, it's portable allowing them (the owners) to seek-out better seeing conditions more easily?

Well, people mostly like their scopes to be portable so they can take
them to dark locations, not locations with better seeing (the latter
often involving much greater travel distances). And you don't need
particularly dark skies for lunar and planetary imaging.

At 14 inches, a telescope's resolution is likely to be limited by
seeing, not optical capability. But lucky imaging techniques, which
are commonly used with bright objects, can overcome that. And since
this method depends upon taking as short of exposures as possible, it
requires lots of photons, and that means aperture helps.

So I'd say that aperture is the key factor, not portability.

Also, C14 easier to use for astro photography than a large DOB!
An older C14 can be inexpensive to buy too, seen them around $2-3k or so.
Easier to transport, store, set up and take down, holds collimation!

On Thursday, 11 October 2018 10:20:14 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 16:49:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Lots of people seem to use them for this. I wonder if it's because for its aperture, it's portable allowing them (the owners) to seek-out better seeing conditions more easily?

Well, people mostly like their scopes to be portable so they can take
them to dark locations, not locations with better seeing (the latter
often involving much greater travel distances). And you don't need
particularly dark skies for lunar and planetary imaging.

Better seeing overall is linked to larger geographical areas, but improving local seeing can be as easy as going to a large park, getting away from buildings since 80% of us live in larger cities now. Darker skies aren't paramount for planets, but it doesn't hurt, especially if they are clearer of pollution of any kind, which usually means rural skies.