Posts Made By: Ron Scarboro

It really depends on what you're using them for. For general purposes the IS10X30 are great but dim IMHO for night work (only 3mm exit pupil). The IS15X50 are the best I've ever seen but way expensive.

Todd Gross has an excellent review of binoculars on his site.

I got the Celeston Ultima 9X63 and a tripod to stabilize them. I would suggest buying them local and trying out a couple of pairs in the store paying close attention to distortion at the field edge.

I think that sample error is high on mass produced stuff stuff, so I mail order high end equipment and local buy Celestron/Meade, etc.

My .02 priced for value.

I'd definitely look through the one I purchased before I purchased. 2 of the 3 samples I've looked through were worse than my Nexstar 8.

The false color was very noticable as well, though I'm particularly sensitive to it.

Check www.scopereviews.com Ed Ting has a review of one.

You should be fine. I have an ST80 piggybacked and the mount is still very stable @ 300X with a JMI focuser and a 10mm Pentax XL.

I counter weighted mine with a home made aluminum angle and 5lbs home gym equipment as I am too cheap to spend the $100 on a Losmandy counter weight system.

Clear Skies,

Ron

Specifically in terms of light grasp against and specifically against a C-8XLT a 6" TMB APO will gather 70% as much light. I've factored (published) light loss in the optical train for both scopes at the eye's most sensitive wavelength.

A 6in APO refractor from one of the usual suspects will outperform a well corrected well colimated 8" SCT for the discriminating observer. You must realize though, (IMHO) it takes that discriminating observer and good conditions to see the difference (discriminating observers litter this forum). For some discriminating observers increased contrast and sharp clarity on those great nights makes the $4,000+ premium worth it. You can't see more detail than a larger scope, but often you can discern more detail due to the increased contrast (less light scatter) and slightly sharper image.

Assuming weight, ease of operation and mobility are not issues the real question is...Are you one of those discriminating observers where $4,000+ is worth it?

I've found the following link to essentially reflect my experiences through the eyepiece.

http://www.apm-telescopes.de/englisch/index.htm and click on "Effects of Central Obstruction" in menu on left.

In addition it is often a bad diagonal and cheap eyepieces that let down mass produced SCTs more than the optics in the telescope itself. To realize the differences between a 6" APO and a 8" SCT you'll need high quaility diagonals and eyepieces.

PS: Regarding the plethora of discriminating observers, please also note you've asked your question on a forum where they'll hotly debate the discernable differences between 6" APO telescopes. ;-)

I used to own a Takahashi FS152. Fabulous views, but the weight and set-up meant I used it 1/3 as often. I now own a 9.25 SCT and a wide field refractor which I use much more often.

I can't find the link, but I once saw an analysis on the effects of a central obstruction that stated the first defraction ring in an 8in SCT was actually inside the airy disk of any refractor under 5in.

With a crayford, you have to watch the fork clearance at zenith. I have a JMI purchased because it was the shortest. Still will not come to zenith. With a JMI and a 2" Diagonal you'll need about 6" of clearance from the back of the SCT OTA not not have to worry about it and 5.25" if the JMI is fully racked in (kinda defeats the point).

A LX90 has 5", N8GPS 5.5", 8"LX200 don't know.

Not still made.

I haven't seen one used here in a while. You can find the 100/800s used here and possibly new from Markus Ludes. They were very highly regarded. I have the FLT 110 and the optics and color correction are first rate. Each of those scopes weighs about 14lbs OTA only.

Smaller Taks are more grab and go than the my scope. However, they're doublets and the color correction isn't as good.

Dark sky.

I've found that it isn't so much the density of the air but the turbulence that affects seeing. I live in CO at about 5,600 ft. Upper level turbulance is a big problem here which more than offsets the effects of less pressure.

The less density the better, but that effect is much less than the effect of good dark skies.

Actually some of the best visual nights I've had were partly cloudy. Often those cloudless nights are the result of atmospheric turbulance that has sheered away all the clouds.

The sad part is only #2 was about equipment. Weird that the title of this forum is "Equipment Talk".

I'm going to be selling mine because I moved up to a 4" APO.

The AT1010's are great small scopes though.

I have never seen much difference (if any) between the two on similar scopes, however, many others attest differently. I think the best reason to buy the UHTC is for resale.

There was a great post of the results of testing on an EMC vs UHTC scope by Dr Clay titled "RESULTS OF UHTC TESTS, Detailed Remarks: Enhanced Coatings" that was posted on "The Arkansas Sky Observatory Forums" site on March 31, 2002. I tried to clip it into the message, but it is too long.

You should be able to do a short search there and find it.