what's diff between scopes now vs scopes ~20yrs ago

There's a celestron 8" reflecting telescope up for auction in 'fabulous'
condition that I am interested in, but I wanted to check on one thing first.
This scope is about 20 years old. Even if it is in fabulous condition, could
it be that the reflecting telescopes of today have such greatly superior
qualities that it would be dumb to get one this old? I mean, a reflecting
telescope is a reflecting telescope (this design is a Schmidt-Cassegrain);
that hasn't changed. The only thing that could be better in today's scopes
is the accuracy of the mirrors or the optics - are the current mirrors or
optics so much superior to telescopes of 20 years ago? (I would think there
would not be that big a difference, maybe some).

This scope is not a computerized 'go-to' scope either (of course), but has a
'Kencor Worm and Wheel RA drive' that is supposed to, when properly aligned,
allow this scope to take very good long-exposure photographs of the skies
(John Gleason was original owner). Can I expect the drive to be comparible
in accuracy to today's drives? I don't care about 'go-to' - as long as I
know I can get good shots through this thing, I'd be happy.

Any knowledge shared greatly appreciated...
G.

"glenn" wrote in message
om...
There's a celestron 8" reflecting telescope up for auction in 'fabulous'
condition that I am interested in, but I wanted to check on one thing
first. This scope is about 20 years old. Even if it is in fabulous
condition, could it be that the reflecting telescopes of today have such
greatly superior qualities that it would be dumb to get one this old? I
mean, a reflecting telescope is a reflecting telescope (this design is a
Schmidt-Cassegrain); that hasn't changed. The only thing that could be
better in today's scopes is the accuracy of the mirrors or the optics -
are the current mirrors or optics so much superior to telescopes of 20
years ago? (I would think there would not be that big a difference,
maybe some).
The big changes, have been the reductions in the number of 'dogs', and
improvements in the coatings. Some of the older scopes, do have excellent
optics, but the total light 'passed' by the system, will be down on a
modern unit. However there are many examples of people using old and new
'side by side', and either not being able to tell the difference, or
preferring the view in the older scope...
Some old scopes (especially those from around the Halley era, when the
companies where trying to produce more than the factory was really capable
of), can be really appaling.

This scope is not a computerized 'go-to' scope either (of course), but
has a 'Kencor Worm and Wheel RA drive' that is supposed to, when
properly aligned, allow this scope to take very good long-exposure
photographs of the skies (John Gleason was original owner). Can I expect
the drive to be comparible in accuracy to today's drives? I don't care
about 'go-to' - as long as I know I can get good shots through this
thing, I'd be happy.

Any knowledge shared greatly appreciated...
G.
For 'unguided' imaging, if properly polar aligned, the system may well be
better than the modern drives on most basic scopes. The odds are that a
lot more time was spent getting the gears finished, than applies with a
modern unit. However unless there is a drive on both axes, and an
autoguider input, getting the scope really accurately aligned, will better
suit it being used in an observatory setting, where a lot of time can be
spent to really get the alignment good.
The aluminising on the mirror, will have aged a little, so the scope will
not perform quite as well as when it was new.
With modern scopes, and autoguiders, the amazing thing is that you can
just get polar alignment 'reasonable', and let the electronics fix the
problems (provided you don't go for really massive exposure times). This
will not apply in this case.

Best Wishes