Posts Made By: Larry Citro

hi,

Mak-Newts can make great imaging scopes, I have a APM f6 deluxe vession I use occasionally and it produces great wide field images. Two problems to watch out for are the amount of available and vinetting (sp) of the field. A good vendor can help you with these issues.

A MI250 is a great mount ( I have one ) it will be ok for a 7", I don't know about a 10", call Larry Myers and talk to him.

It will be a different kind of imaging then with a 12" SCT using 42 or 60" of focal length instead of 120. A thought is to buy a 6" at a good price and see how you like it ... there will be little difference between 6 & 7" scopes. If it fits the bill move on to a 10".

Larry Citro

hi,

I don't think I have ever seen a lunar image with such resolution, incredible,

Larry Citro

hi,
The 125ext would be a quicker quicker look scope. The 100ed would be a better quick look scope.

Larry Citro

hi,

$ 2599 for a 11" computerized system, that's a great price. 7 years ago that's less then what a Meade LX200 8" cost ($2795).

clear skies,

Larry Citro

hi Jeff,

I have a Mewlon250 and several some other scopes, including a 4" apo and a 6" mak-newt with 1/11 wave optics, and a 18" dob.

The Mewlon has great optics and mechanicals. i really like the electric focusing. It holds collimation well. It is sensitive to miscollimation. For visual coma is a non-issue with this scope. It's relatively portable and can be transported to dark skies. Good mounts would include a EM200 and a Losmandy g11 Gemini.

As far as light polluted skies, aperture is still an advantage over smaller scopes, the Mewlon 250 gathers 4x times the amount of light as the 5" and will get you about 1.5 more mags deeper into the sky and that's a big diffence. Think of it this way ... if pristine mag 6 skies a 10" will reach mag 14.5 and a 5" mag 13.0. In light polluted skies with mag 3.5 as in LA the 10" will reach about 12 to 12.5 and the 5" will reach 10.5 to 11. The 10" will show more and will be much more useful with light pollution filters. I guess what I'm saying is the M250 is a much better deep sky scope. It will resolve many more clusters and reach more faint dso's.

On the planets it my scope runs circles around the mak-newt and the 4" apo. The contrast level is higher and the object is brighter. Yes the seeing does hurt the Mewlon more often then the smaller scopes, but when the seeing is good you will be gald you have it.

Poieple say it's not a good imaging scope, i disagree with this .. it's not a wide field imaging scope .. but does a fantastic job on smaller objects.

see here for some of my images

http://starryforge.com

Bottom line ... get the M250, it a more versitile scope and will last a lifetime.

hope this helps,

Larry Citro

hi,


the image is attached now.

Larry

hi,

One heck of a job on this very dim object. I think it's a great image.

Clear skies,

Larry Citro

hi Jose,

Nice, real nice image.

clear skies,

Larry Citro

hi,

Great image ... I love the nuances that gray scale Halpha imageing shows. LRGB is great but doesn't show this amount of detail.

clear skies,

Larry Citro

hi,

Real nice. Deep exposure and great colors. A m42 to be proud of.

clear skies,

Larry Citro