SCT v. Newts

Hi all,
having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven scope
there is a huge gap.

Is the SCT that much better performing than a Newt for 'serious' observing a
la 'The Astronomer' type? Or is it a fashion thing?

cheers,
clear skies,
patrick
--
54.94N, 1.43W

"páidi" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting
for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven
scope
there is a huge gap.

Is the SCT that much better performing than a Newt for 'serious' observing
a
la 'The Astronomer' type? Or is it a fashion thing?

cheers,
clear skies,
patrick
--
54.94N, 1.43W



Mainly it is for the computer controls that allow rapid finding of objects.
The SCT will have a wider useful field, as the Newtonian will be subject to
coma. But if your need is planetary detail and/or light-gathering power
then for a much lower price you can get a fine Newtonian. You will probably
have to use the old fashioned method of looking up a chart and locating
faint objects by finder and field.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...


"páidi" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting
for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven
scope
there is a huge gap.

Is the SCT that much better performing than a Newt for 'serious'
observing
a
la 'The Astronomer' type? Or is it a fashion thing?

cheers,
clear skies,
patrick
--
54.94N, 1.43W



Mainly it is for the computer controls that allow rapid finding of
objects.
The SCT will have a wider useful field, as the Newtonian will be subject
to
coma. But if your need is planetary detail and/or light-gathering power
then for a much lower price you can get a fine Newtonian. You will
probably
have to use the old fashioned method of looking up a chart and locating
faint objects by finder and field.

Not necessarily Mike
Orion do Newts on the Sphinx mount

Best regards, Kev

In message , páidi
writes
Hi all,
having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven scope
there is a huge gap.

Compactness and convenience were my reasons for choosing a SCT. YMMV

Is the SCT that much better performing than a Newt for 'serious' observing a
la 'The Astronomer' type? Or is it a fashion thing?

You could get more aperture, higher quality mirror and/or a better mount
by spending your money on a Newtonian. But then you have to store it
safely in the dry - and a 10 or 12" Newt is physically rather big and
bulky.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:51:08 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

In message , páidi
writes
Hi all,
having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven scope
there is a huge gap.

Compactness and convenience were my reasons for choosing a SCT. YMMV

Is the SCT that much better performing than a Newt for 'serious' observing a
la 'The Astronomer' type? Or is it a fashion thing?

You could get more aperture, higher quality mirror and/or a better mount
by spending your money on a Newtonian. But then you have to store it
safely in the dry - and a 10 or 12" Newt is physically rather big and
bulky.

I've a 10" Newt and a 10" (LX200) SCT - the weight of the SCT isn't
insignificant compared to the Newt. Carrying the SCT outside and
lifting it onto a wedge on top of a tripod is considerably harder than
carrying the Newt outside and lifting it onto an equatorial tripod
head. Bulk wise, you are correct of course but I don't think the
difference is as great as would at first be imagined when you take the
fork mount etc. into consideration.

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Home of the Lunar Parallax Demonstration Project

"páidi" wrote:

having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven scope
there is a huge gap.

Compactness, fork-mounted alt-az goto convenience on many (no polar
alignment hassles*), lack of coma, fewer collimation hassles, seated
observing and "slower" focal ratios.


Tim

* unless you mount your fork on a wedge of course, eh Pete!
--
Copyright, patents and trademarks are government-granted,
time-limited monopolies. Intellectual property does not exist.

"Tim Auton" wrote in message
...
"páidi" wrote:

having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting
for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven
scope
there is a huge gap.

Compactness, fork-mounted alt-az goto convenience on many (no polar
alignment hassles*), lack of coma, fewer collimation hassles, seated
observing and "slower" focal ratios.


Thanks for the answers lads. Something for me to think about
(

cheers
patrick

Tim Auton wrote:
fewer collimation hassles

I'm not so sure. Whilst an SCT tends to hold its collimation better, it
is generally a lot more sensitive to slight miscollimation than is a
Newt.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

In message , Stephen Tonkin
writes
Tim Auton wrote:
fewer collimation hassles

I'm not so sure. Whilst an SCT tends to hold its collimation better, it
is generally a lot more sensitive to slight miscollimation than is a
Newt.

I agree. But OTOH my SCT has only needed serious recollimation after
brutal international removals. Apart from the potential image shift when
focussing they are otherwise very well behaved.

On the planets it certainly matters to get the collimation exact, but on
faint fuzzies I remain sceptical that it makes any significant
difference.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Newt has a much smaller secondary obstruction, (20-25%) than SCT or Maks
(35-40%).
SCT's are more compact and portable, Newts bulkier, need constant
collimation, more maintenance, but some people like s to use Newts for
planets and splitting doubles, cause the smaller secondary.
Newts cost less than SCT, aparture vs. $$$$, also Newts are easier to
fabricate if you're into ATM.

Julius

"páidi" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
having looked at many websites, most amateurs seem to be opting
for
SCTs. Is there any particular reason other than compactness? Price-wise
compared to Newtonians eg Orion Optics (the British one) for a driven
scope
there is a huge gap.

Is the SCT that much better performing than a Newt for 'serious' observing
a
la 'The Astronomer' type? Or is it a fashion thing?

cheers,
clear skies,
patrick
--
54.94N, 1.43W