11.01
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I'm just wondering what scope people moved to after their 8" Newt? It's a great low-cost entry into astrophotography and I'm still having fun with mine, but just wondered what other people moved on to. or maybe you just stuck with it? |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| i have a 10 inch Newtonian and a Stellarvue Refractor Carbon fiber edition both are amazing |
7.75
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I can't comment on what to go for after mastering an 8" Newt. What I can offer are my own considerations on progressing step-by-step. I recently set up my bucket list of objects I intend to image in the upcoming months and I continuously scan the astrobin images for worthwhile targets, so the list keeps growing. This process tells me that I will be busy for at least another year with my current widefield scope and there is no need to shop for another one. So my recommendation would be to reconsider whether you really need something else. Your 8" Newt should provide you with way more options than my widefield scope. Having said so, looking at your images you seem to like galaxies. In a current parallel threat the recommendation was to go for a high quality 10" Newt. I leave the verdict on whether this is a worthwhile upgrade to the more experienced users here. Good luck and clear skies Wolfgang |
|
11.01
#...
·
|
|---|
I can't comment on what to go for after mastering an 8" Newt. What I can offer are my own considerations on progressing step-by-step. I recently set up my bucket list of objects I intend to image in the upcoming months and I continuously scan the astrobin images for worthwhile targets, so the list keeps growing. This process tells me that I will be busy for at least another year with my current widefield scope and there is no need to shop for another one. So my recommendation would be to reconsider whether you really need something else. Your 8" Newt should provide you with way more options than my widefield scope. Thanks Wolfgang! I would actually like to do more nebula stuff. The 8" Newt is a general workhorse that is neither great at galaxies or nebulas, but not bad at either. I guess I need to think about how I will do wide field AND deep sky. I was just throwing the question out there as my OTA only cost about $400, so not too painful financially to add something else to give me more target options. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Love my 200pds but I could really do with some help on fine tuning my collimation. |
|
7.75
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Andy Wray:I can't comment on what to go for after mastering an 8" Newt. What I can offer are my own considerations on progressing step-by-step. I recently set up my bucket list of objects I intend to image in the upcoming months and I continuously scan the astrobin images for worthwhile targets, so the list keeps growing. This process tells me that I will be busy for at least another year with my current widefield scope and there is no need to shop for another one. So my recommendation would be to reconsider whether you really need something else. Your 8" Newt should provide you with way more options than my widefield scope. There are quite a number of nice small nebula and even for the large nebulae you can go for details or mosaics, so I wonder a bit why you believe your Newt isn't well suited for them. Did you ever consider dark nebulae? I find them increasingly interesting and they come along in all sizes. Of course something more widefield like a Takahashi ED 160 or 130 would be a logical addition to your gear too. I always thought people develop from smaller to larger focal lengths but why not go the other route. Clear skies Wolfgang |
|
11.01
#...
·
|
|---|
I always thought people develop from smaller to larger focal lengths but why not go the other route. That was what I was thinking .... it may seem odd, but sounds like a lot of fun. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I got myself a 8" f/4.5 high-quality ONTC Newt from TS. It has much better mechanical quality and thermal stability than the 200 PDS and lands me at 1 arcsec pr pixel, which is a reasonable starting point for DSO imaging with my seeing. Depending on your interests, seeing, patience etc a larger and/or faster Newt could be relevant. I have considered a 10"-12" f/4 or f/5. But this requires a solid mount, is vulnerable to wind and, in case of the f/4 scopes, very precise work. If you are interested in planets and have good seeing, 10 or 12" instruments could be relevant, preferably slower ones as you get less secondary mirror obstruction. These are also good for smaller targets like planetary nebula or galaxies. Preferably try such an instrument a couple of times with your seeing to know that to expect and where the diminishing returns kick in. A 10" f/4 will have the same field of view as your 200 PDS, but don't go there before you know very well what you are doing, particularly if you work with larger sensors. Don't buy junk quality if you want to go below f/5 in speed. In this case thick-walled carbon tubes, good mirror cells and screw-threaded coma correctors are very helpful. You could also try reducers like the ASA 0.73 corrector or Starizona Nexus or similar on a high-quality 8" Newt for widefield, but this is very advanced and only the best imagers seem to get acceptable results. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| I BTW see that you are imaging with a 0.9x Skywatcher corrector which I also used for a while - it is IMO a piece of junk and lands the thin-walled aluminium 200 PDS at f/4.5, which is too fast for the given mechanical and thermal quality. There are better alternatives that will improve star shapes, I can give some suggestions if this is of interest. |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| After the Newton I have bought a Skywatcher 100 ED Apo. It has a shorter f of 550 and so I can do wider fields and larger nebulas without doing mosaics. And there is no trouble with imperfect collimation. Cs, Christoph |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I think it really depends on your preferences and what you want to achieve, I like good star shape but I dont need perfection; I dont mind sacrificing a little in top end performance if it saves a lot of money and time. So for me a fast(ish) netownian has been a great fit for the 900 mm focal length range. My processing skills have improved a lot now and where previously I felt I needed different scopes to get a great image I realise now a lot of the gap was in my aquisition and processing skill (and I still have a lot to learn there!) So I have the 200PDS, it is fairly "tricked out" with autofocuser, mirror fan, internal floc etc - I felt I had out grown it a bit and was struggling to find targets that I wanted to spend time on, so I went with a fast widefield lens Samyang F2 135mm but maybe the askar 200 would have been better - this also doubles as a travel rig. I also wanted an APO in the 400 mm realm and there are lots of options there. However after lots of chopping and changing I still find that the 200PDS is still my main set up and I really just needed to level up other areas of my knowldeged to take the next leap i.e. processing skills and knowldege of different catelogues to refresh my target list. In terms of optical quality I think you need to spend a lot if you want to see big gains at the same focal length (assuming you scope is well collimated). I am part of an astronomy group where we have created a database of various optical paramters and my 200PDS and a few others do incredibly well considering it is a fraction of the price of others - but you can also see that some people (I assume with poor collimation or other issues) have very low performance. I was tempted by something like the Stellavue SVX130T but in the end decided that right now I prefer to have more variety in focal length than higher end optics. Instead go widefield with a lens or small APO refractor. If you are going to focus on deep sky imaging I would say keep if fast i.e f 4.5 or faster - once you are used to this going for a slower scope is really fraustrating! You could look at the very fast newtonans like the sharpstar hyperbolic newtonians they look interesting but I havent researched them too much. Edit: Of course fast rigs present other challenges, but I would rather spend my time overcoming these, but that is a personal preference. On my personal list is an ultra widefield lens, and also a plannetary set up but the latter is a long term goal. |
15.85
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I had my 10” that was my work horse for a short while and moved to my 12” f5 DBA Certified Newt. This is a tricked out newt, not one you just buy. For now I plan to stick with this as my primary instrument until I am able to move to a 14” CDK. My seeing here isn’t great and I think I’m pushing it with a 12-14” scope. I do have a secondary setup with an 80mm triplet for wider fields of views which can be nice for a change at times when you get tired of the smaller stuff. Either way I’ve been enjoying them both. Good luck on your choice. Dale |
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
Andy Wray:I always thought people develop from smaller to larger focal lengths but why not go the other route. Hi Andy. After my beloved 8" f/5 Newtonian, I purchased a shorter focal refractor, in order to address larger field. Here it is, with his bigger brother. I am very happy of the choice, the larger field is perfect for the big nebular objects. I am also thinking to build an even shorter focal setup for ultra wide fields, not to mention portability. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Paul Wright: *** Hello, I struggled too with collimation in the beginning when I had to "slide it" in the whole (don't know yhe exact term in english). That's because you are never sure if the laser is exactly in the axis. But since I can screw my laser, I'm sure it is in the good position and collimation is super easy now. My laser is the Hotech SCA. I hope it will help you*** |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Hello, in my mind I should have a panel of different focal length. Considering that I began with:
--> The logical newt step is to have a very short focal scope. --> So I'm almost sure that next move will be an Askar FRA300  . Just waiting my bank account to be filled a, little bit...  Clear sky |
5.49
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I bought a TS Photoline 130 and two years later a TS CF APO 80. The 130 is not as good as the 80 (at least the copies I own). Both are great to me. The colors on the 80 made me fall i love with it. It is awesome. I keep the newton because that 8" are very nice! Guiem. |
2.71
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi, I did the inverse move ;-). I started by visual astronomy moving from 90mm to 125mm to 8 inches then an obsession 15 inches to stop at UC 22inches, the largest aperture I can physically move to a rural dark sky alone with a space wagon car. Views are fantastic, both for deep sky and planets, a very immersive experience each time, under the milky way. But this is a 1h drive +1h setup and reverse time investment and sometimes the clouds refuse to obey the weather forecast, when the moon is off. So I decided to go to astrophotography to connect more often with the night sky from my backyard in a light polluted area. A newtonian 200mm F4 to 5 (I choosed F5) seems to me the very good sweet spot to do both deep sky imaging with reasonably large field of view, planet imaging and small DSO with a powermate or equivalent and when you look at the RC astro MTF analyser (https://www.rc-astro.com/mtf-analyzer/) and look at the various combinations with barlow/powermate x2 and common pixel sizes from 2.4 to 3.7µ , and seeing from 0.5 to 2.5arcsec, you understand that you are at the sweet spot on earth. You're not really limited by the intrinsic limit of the aperture, even if you have a chance to capture planets with lucky imaging, nor chasing DSO at nominal focal length, and if you go for a focal reducer you can do down 3.5 and really touch very wide field. And you can manage this with a reasonably priced mount. My next choice will be to ask a reknowned mirror manufacturer to prepare a super mirror for my carbon tube once I will be convinced that my mirror is not as good as it could be and impair what I can get from my 8" ;-) And this is not true for visual observing where aperture is KING. Someday I will have a fixed observatory with a 1m diameter fixed dobsonian F3  |
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
|
was I supposed to start with an 8" newtonian?? no one told me! |
|
2.71
#...
·
|
|---|
| I didn't know either that starting with an 8 inches was a good start. Experience is a light you carry on your back😉 |
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
| I have been using a 130pds so far, but recently I bought a 200PDS second-hand from a more experienced amateur astronomer. He has now bought a Skywatcher Quattro (200/400mm) with a corrector that reduces the focal ratio to F/3 |
|
2.11
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I started with a 8” f5 newton, and I am very happy with it, and added a 80mm f4.8 and a Samyang 135 recently. It is exciting having these different field widths in the toolset! I have a question: in suburban skies do longer focals, I mean more than 2000 mm, work? I am afraid that disturbed seeing by nearby houses might be an insormontabile limit. Thanks and greetings to all the friends here! Mau |
3.94
#...
·
|
|---|
|
My Newtonian was more a in the middle purchase, but for me the step to going very fast and wide with a Samyang 135mm F2 was something very interesting as I love widefield overviews. Also the whole system is not very demanding, I usually set the Samyang up first on a cheap Skywatcher Star Adventurer GTI and then forget about it for the rest of the night and spent the time trying to tame my other more demanding scopes… I already do own fast Narrowband filters so Barnard´s loop is something on my list for this winter. Michael |
