Recommend a scope

[Grok]

I have an old 6" inch scope and in truth I rarely use it. It's big. It's cumbersome. It has one of those tripod thingies with the counterweight. It is difficult to adjust and I get too frustrated to actually enjoy using it. I want a scope that is able to capture deep space objects, galaxies, star clusters, nebulas, everything far out, and also have a high amount of clarity for the moon and planets, and I want my kids to be able to easily use it. I was looking at an ad, and this scope looked pretty good to me. What do you all think?<br /><br />http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=14904&itemType=PRODUCT&RS=1&keyword=xt10<br /><br />

 

[wisefool]

Grok, here's my two cents: I have an 8" Orion f4 with a crappy equatorial mount that I have used as much as possible in an alt/az mode, like the Dob. I have not had any problems with the edge of the field, even though you might notice it in CCD photos, which are definitely not what this scope is made for. I also have a 16.25" f4.89 custom truss alt/az Newt that is huge and unwieldy, but gives heavenly images under dark skies.<br /><br />My recommendation is for you to go with the 10" Orion. The weight will be your problem, not your kids'. They will be able to stand on the ground and look through the eyepiece. There is a big difference between what a 10" can see and a 6" can see, probably a greater jump up than it is from ten to sixteen inches.<br />'<br />You will not experience significant problems with distortion toward the edge of your viewing field, and I definitely do NOT recommend a Parcorr. That thing is very expensive and won't make much difference in your nightly viewing. Also, it adds more glass between your object and your eye. No matter how well an eyepiece is built, more glass means dimmer images, which can be an issue when looking at truly faint fuzzies.<br /><br />I do recommend that you get one or two inexpensive eyepieces from Gary Russell. He sold me a 16.8mm 2" recently, and it stacks up in image quality with my 22mm Orion Lanthanum SuperWide. The Russell delivered to my door was $56; the Orion thing was about $250. Gary Russell also has fine 15mm and 19mm eyepieces. You really only need one that's short, such as an 8mm or thereabouts, and a wide angle, such as something in the 30mm area, and something in between, such as his 19mm. Both Russell and Harry Siebert make good eyepieces with wide apparent fields of view. Also, you might consider Orion's Expanse series of eyepieces, with 65 degrees apparent field of view. I have their 6mm, and it is a fine performer. You can find these and other eyepieces if you go to my astronomy links site:

 

[bbrock]

grok<br /><br />I purchased the Orion XT10 Intelliscope about 8 months ago. It is an excellent piece of equipment, and I might add under-rated. <br /><br />If you really want to go with the Intelliscope computer, make certain the scope is on a rock hard surface and the scope initially adjusted level as described in the manual. If not, you will get close to your targets, but probably not within your field of view. <br /><br />If I had to do it again, I would have gotten the scope without the computer. In truth, I have used it a few times the first couple of weeks, and haven't used it since. -- There is no need to. Once you learn your way around the sky, even a little, you can locate objects faster and easier with charts, binoculars and especially with an EZ Finder 11. I suggest you get the Classic Orion XT10 without the computer. <br /><br />This scope will perform well for the application you described. The f/4.7 is a Rich Field - fast focal ratio that will work great on deep sky objects at low to moderate power. I have resolved individual stars on M15 ( Glob Cluster 39,000 LY ) with a 10mm plossel . Because it is a Dob, you really won't be going much over 200x anyway. I have gone to 400x on the moon and planets. The view is great at 200x on everyting with this scope. At 300x I start to wish I had a longer focal ratio. But still not a bad image for the less expensive EP's I use. I plan to purchase some Tele Views this next year. I do like the Orion Expanse EP's. The 6mm Expanse ( 200x ) is my favorite EP. <br /><br />Saturn is grat at 200x with the Dob Mount. If seeing is steady you can count up to 5 of the major moons and resolve the Cassini division. You can also see a faint weather band without a filter. Not bad for f/4.7 . I have gone to 400x on the moon and my images are always sharp and clear except for "Seeing" waves. <br />I haven't really tried it on Jupiter or Mars. I have looked at Uranus and Neptune. Not much to talk about there. Littl

 

[wisefool]

Bill, well said about the 10" you have. Glad to see that somebody else understands the ultimately self-defeating nature of go-to. I have a motorized alt/az system (Tech2000), and also a software program that works with the motors to go to objects. However, I have never been tempted to use it, relying instead on the search mode of my motors, which basically works around the initial spot where the scope was pointed. This simple technique works just as well, in fact better, when you are moving things around by hand without any motors.<br /><br />I think you should think twice about TeleView eyepieces. They are good, but not always the best. They have a lot of glass, however good, and that tends to cause problems. Also, the Naglers have such a wide field that they distort toward the edges, Parcorrs or not. I think something in the 65 degrees AFV is more than adequate, if you are already close to your target.<br /><br />I have directly compared my 6mm Orion Expanse with a 6mm Radian on the Trapezium in the Orion Nebula. The Radian was just a hair better, for an extra $200! The owner of the Radian was astonished at how close our two eyepieces are.<br /><br />As mentioned before, Gary Russell in the boonies of Arizona makes a few very affordable, and very excellent eyepieces without too much glass between your eye and the object. They have excellent fields of view, at least in the shorter focal lengths. He is a bit idiosyncratic when it comes to ordering, and his web page is minimalist. Nevertheless, I am extremely impressed with my 16.8mm, and he says his 15 and 19 are even better. Here's his web page: http://www.citlink.net/~optics/<br /><br />Clark

 

[bbrock]

Clark & Crazy<br /><br />Actually I was looking at buying TeleVue Radian 4mm and 5mm. This will give me magnifications of 300x and 240x without using a barlow. It will also give me 20mm eye relief. Basically I want this for planitary viewing. The TeleView will give me better optics and will help eliminate extra glass from the barlow. <br /><br />Then again I plan to purchase another scope in the spring. An Orion 120mm Astroview refractor. The same EP's will give me 200x and 250x without barlow. This scope will be exclusively for planitary imaging at f/8.3. At some time in the future I would like to take a crack at photography , or perhaps use the Meade Deep Sky Imager. I will use the 10" reflector f/4.7 for high power or deep sky Rich Field viewing and the 120mm f/8.3 for planitary and moon viewing/photography. I can mount either one on the Atlas EQ mount. <br /><br />I have given this a great deal of thought. The 120mm refractor has some excellent reviews. <br /><br />Is there anything you guys can think of I should be considering. For now, this is the direction I am going. <br />All of these purchases are in the next 6 month if no great disasters strike. I'm sure I'll be looking at other vendors besides TeleVue. The criteria is good image, eye relief , reasonable AFOV and focal length needed to meet my criteria. <br /><br />Bill

 

[wisefool]

Bill and Crazy, you guys are both onto some good stuff, of which I cannot disagree. Crazy, I must confess that there IS indeed a role for go-to in light polluted environments. Also, there is a role for go-to in trying to find some extremely faint objects in areas where star-hopping is hard to do. My beef is in using go-to too much, to where it becomes a crutch and the user is still lost. Go-to can be likened to getting on an airplane at night, and arriving to one's destination. You know that you are somewhere else, but don't know how you got there. In contrast, finding your own way on the ground gives a sense of continuity, a sense of place, that airplane travel cannot. Having said that, there is indeed a time when people should take the plane!<br /><br />I've been looking at that 120 for a wide-field finder scope, to amplify my 9x50 Orion finder scope. With a 36mm eyepiece and 73 degrees AFV, this 4.7" scope can give me a field of view almost equal to the 9x50, but with much more to see. Then again, I don't really need that either!<br /><br />The 3-6 TeleView zoom is excellent, but with little eye relief. I have eyepieces with eye relief ranging from tight to generous, and I wear glasses. My solution? I try to do as much viewing without glasses as possible, since glasses are another way to reduce the image quality. Racking in and out my focuser is the same as changing diopters in refraction.

 

[Grok]

Thanks everyone for your input. I will read these thoroughly and give what you're saying consideration. A lot of info to absorb. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />