What's in the name?

Another rookie conundrum... After doing much reading, I have decided that for my purposes either a Newtonian EQ mount or 4-5" Refractor would be best for my first "nice" 'scope. But this opens not one but two big cans of worms... wondering if people could offer some advice...

For Newts...
* How can a brand like Orion offer a new 10" Dob for $650 when I see similar apertures of other brands going for $1500+?
* What are the major advantages in quality for more expensive brands and/or which brands should I avoid b/c of chronic lesser quality instruments, optics, etc.???
* What about buying one used (like from this site)? What to watch out for... good questions to ask? (I'm still freaked out by collimation and "hard to get just right" flaws and adjustments)

For Refractors...
* I have heard Tak and TeleVue are the best out there... why?
* What is false color and color correction... and which brands/models should I avoid because of this?
* What is apochromatic vs. achromatic and which is better (not trying to start a fight, just really want to know b/c apos seem so much more expensive)

And hey - this is a lot to respond to so anything is appreciated. But if you wanted to spend no more than $1000 and get something that could possibly do astrophotography down the road, in what direction would you be going???

Thanks!

-Ken

Ken,

I just sold my Orion XT10 that I loved and bought a used 11" Starmaster truss dob. The reason why is outlined at the bottom of this web page:

http://www.tomhole.com/What%20will%20it%20Look%20Like.htm

I paid $650 for my XT10 1 year ago. I paid $2,000 for the used Starmaster. For me, the comfort of knowing that I have the best 11" optics money can buy is worth the added cost. It's that last 10% that I really wanted to get, both optically and mechanically. Actually, it's probably closer to 20%.

Would I have ever started out with a Starmaster? Nope, I just got into this hobby and knew nothing. I didn't want to spend $2,000 only to find out I hated it. Well, I don't hate it and now $2,000 is a bargain for this level of performance.

Don't know nuthin' 'bout refractors. Love to have one though.

Clear skies,

Tom

Ken,

Honestly, I don't think that you'll find something for <$1000 that will be adequate for astrophotography, no matter what anyone says. Heck, you'd have to spend more than that to obtain an adequate mount for doing astrophotography.

At the beginning of your post, you started to say:
---
After doing much reading, I have decided that for my purposes...
---

It may be obvious to you what your purposes are, but it's not obvious to me. That's why I can't give you any reasonable answers to your questions. By the way, any one of the other questions that you asked could easily lead to a flame war of Biblical proportions.

Instead of fanning the flames, let me make a gentle suggestion: seek out other amateur astronomers in your area who have interests that are similar to yours. It's been my experience that astronomers are an incredible decent bunch of folks, and they'll be happy to give you some practical pros and cons related to equipment.

If I were you, I'd forget about astrophotography for the present moment, settle on a decent instrument, and observe every night that you can for the next five years. By the time that you've gained the necessary experience, you'll take all of the 'advice' that's available on Astromart with a grain of salt, and you'll be able to come up with your own answers.

Sorry if this isn't what you expected.

Ken,

You are talking to people who do this for a hobby, not for real life. THerefore, you will have an inordinate number of people who fuss things a whole lot more than necessary if they were just getting along on a day-by bay basis. You can look to MAPUG and find hundreds of people complaining (and coming up with fixes for) the LX200--one of the most wonderful pieces of technology ever delivered to the masses. (And the same can be said for, the Obsession group, and virtually all other scopes.) After all, they have repair shops for Rolls Royces.

By the way, I am one of those fussy people sometimes.

My advice--quit reading, and go visit star parties. Lots of them. ANd use lots of scopes. And then think about what you want for your first scope. (And your second, and third, and whatever--because you will not find one that satisfies every need.)

Most of your questions are about value judgements. They will be answered one way by Ford drivers and another by Chevy, and a third by Mercedes owners, I won't get into them. What you value is up to you.

One question has gone unanswered (actually two, since your question about false color and achromatic/apochromatic have the same answer). A lens focuses light by bending it. However, different colors of light bend to different degrees. A simple lens (one element) focuses the different colors of light at different points. As a result, you will get something in focus, and every other color shifted left or right of that color that is in focus. SO, you see the object, and a colorful glow on either side. This glow is "false color." An achromat is usually made of two elements, one counteracting (or at least working with) the other to focus two colors at the same point. Obviously, you get something in focus, and two glows on either side of the object. An apochromat (specially designed with multiple elements and different types of (usually expensive) glass to work together) focuses all three colors of light at the same point, so you get the object in focus, but no glow on either side. You have to pay more for more glass, more expensive types of glass, and better engineering and execution of the design. Since you have already paid more, they throw in more expensive mechanics in the scope, better fit and finish, and really bump up the price of the scope......That is why you pay more. As you can see, apochromatics are better for what you see, but not as good for the budget---As I say, what do you value?

As for an astrophotography rig for less than $1000, nothing will do for long, but you can start with a small scope on a CG-5, and a short focal length camera lens. (But you will have to move on to something much more costly soon if you are at all serious.)

Alex