[M]: Re: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6
| Subject: | [M]: Re: LX200 8" vs 10", f/10 vs f/6 |
| From: | Brian Straight |
| Date: | Wed Sep 13 07:39:27 2000 |
> Part 2 of this question. I am not only a deep-sky person. I like to look
> at Jupiter just as much as Galileo did.. but I need to figure out if I
want
> an F/10 or an F/6.
I would argue that you should decide what you primarily want the scope for.
If
youre doing mainly planetary work, I wouldnt get an LX200--you dont need
all
the wonderful goodies to image planets, or to observe them. Id look at a
refractor,
or maybe the 7 inch Mak if you want to keep LX200 capabilities. You
might also look at the LX-90 if you want GOTO but without the refinements of
the
LX200.
I want to do photography, yet would I be sacrificing
> planetary/solar observing by going with an F6?
Long focal lengths are highly desirable for planetary imaging,
so you would probably sacrifice something here if you went
F6.
The old adage is "the best scope for you is the scope you use most."
I have 8 inch and 10 inch scopes. plus an old ETX. Guess which
scope gets used the most?--the ETX. Ive even taken images of
Jupiter with the darn thing using a color Quickcam that are as good as any
Ive taken with the 10" and 216XT. Ive posted this link before, but check
out
http://www.emmgraphics.com/pilot/astro/astroindex.html
to see just what you can do with extremely inexpensive equipment.
I really got into the astrophotography thing--thats why I bought the 10",
but after a while, I found that taking images of faint fuzzies that had been
photographed hundreds of times before, and a hell of a lot
better by Hubble, seemed to me (and I speak only for myself here), rather
a waste of time. Now Im very active in planetary and solar observation,
and
most of my CCD work centers on imaging in these areas. LX200
capabilities are rather overkill for this kind of work. Sure, its nice to
have the scope, but, looking back, Id probably buy an optically-
equivalent, well-mounted non-GOTO scope and spend more money on accessories,
or
even a nice observatory.
> Phew,
> Gary
Hope I havent muddied the issue even more.
All the best,
Brian
> at Jupiter just as much as Galileo did.. but I need to figure out if I
want
> an F/10 or an F/6.
I would argue that you should decide what you primarily want the scope for.
If
youre doing mainly planetary work, I wouldnt get an LX200--you dont need
all
the wonderful goodies to image planets, or to observe them. Id look at a
refractor,
or maybe the 7 inch Mak if you want to keep LX200 capabilities. You
might also look at the LX-90 if you want GOTO but without the refinements of
the
LX200.
I want to do photography, yet would I be sacrificing
> planetary/solar observing by going with an F6?
Long focal lengths are highly desirable for planetary imaging,
so you would probably sacrifice something here if you went
F6.
The old adage is "the best scope for you is the scope you use most."
I have 8 inch and 10 inch scopes. plus an old ETX. Guess which
scope gets used the most?--the ETX. Ive even taken images of
Jupiter with the darn thing using a color Quickcam that are as good as any
Ive taken with the 10" and 216XT. Ive posted this link before, but check
out
http://www.emmgraphics.com/pilot/astro/astroindex.html
to see just what you can do with extremely inexpensive equipment.
I really got into the astrophotography thing--thats why I bought the 10",
but after a while, I found that taking images of faint fuzzies that had been
photographed hundreds of times before, and a hell of a lot
better by Hubble, seemed to me (and I speak only for myself here), rather
a waste of time. Now Im very active in planetary and solar observation,
and
most of my CCD work centers on imaging in these areas. LX200
capabilities are rather overkill for this kind of work. Sure, its nice to
have the scope, but, looking back, Id probably buy an optically-
equivalent, well-mounted non-GOTO scope and spend more money on accessories,
or
even a nice observatory.
> Phew,
> Gary
Hope I havent muddied the issue even more.
All the best,
Brian
