Posts Made By: Chris Gorman

The largest scope I have looked through is a 10" dob, how big of a jump would a 13.1" dob be? What does that translate into, about a 75% increase in light gathering power? On paper that sounds like a lot. Compared with a 10" dob, is a 13.1" a totally different experience?

In about a year or so I plan to buy an 18" Obsession. In the meantime, I would like to purchase a smaller dob. I have narrowed my choice down to the Discovery 10" f/5.6 DHQ(about $670 including shipping) or Discovery 13.1" f/4.5 DHQ(about $1,200 including shipping). Taking into consideration that I will be upgrading to an 18" sometime down the road, which one would you get? BTW, the largest scope I have looked through is a 10" dob.

The 13.1" cost almost twice as much and weighs about twice as much, but gives a nice increase in aperture over the 10". The move up from the 13.1" to the 18" would be a nice increase, but nowhere near the "wow factor" move from 10" to 18"(or so I'm told).The 10" is a lot more portable, and cost a lot less.

I'm just wondering what everybody thinks the future holds for amateur astronomy. I don't mean what will things be like 50 years from now, rather what they will be like 10-15 years from now. It seems that this hobby evolves at a very slow pace, so maybe things won't be that different, or maybe they will.

Will we see even larger telescopes? It seems right now that 30" dobs are the limit for amateurs. Will the coatings be more reflective? Wouldn't it be great if 10 years from now they came out with some super reflective coating that makes a 20" dob gather as much light as a 30" dob currently can.

What do you think the future holds? Be specific. Is there some breakthrough on the horizon?

Realistically, the greatest breakthrough that could happen in the next 10-15 years would be reducing light polution. But the odds of that happening seems very remote.

Soon I will be purchasing an 18" dob. I would also like to have a nice low power/wide field scope for scanning the Milky Way. Any advice on what to get?

I really like the Tele Vue 76, but it will cost a little over $2,000(including the tripod). I don't mind spending the money but I want to know what my other options are. I was thinking maybe I should go the binocular route. Some Fujinon 10 x 70's cost about $570, a little under $1,000 by the time I add a tripod. They would give me similar wide field views as the Tele Vue 76, of course the magnification is only 10x.

So I need some advice here. Any other suggestions? I'm not into astro-photography yet, so that really shouldn't weigh in on my decision.

Personally, I think TeleVue is doing a hell of a job making high quality ep's. Having said that, I think we should all be thanking AP for not making ep's. Let me explain further. We already have tough enough choices when it comes to picking the right telescope, mount, etc. Most people drive themselves crazy trying to decide what to buy. Now, imagine a scenario in which AP started making ep's. Total mayhem I tell you. This would be a typical message on this board:

"Should I get the 17mm Type 4 Nagler or should I spend the extra $50 on the 16mm AP(85 degree FOV)? Is the 6 month wait worth it for the 16mm AP? What about the 21mm AP? Should I just get this one instead? It's only $150 more and the wait is only 3 months. What about the 16mm Type 5 Nagler? Somebody told me they like the 16mm Nagler better than the 16mm AP."

Now here would be the response:

"It's a tough call. Don't forget AP is coming out with a brand new 17mm ep in a few months. It is supposed to be better than their current 16mm. And Tele Vue is releasing a new 17mm in a few weeks. It's hard to believe Tele Vue can improve on the 17mm Type 4 Nagler, but apparently they have. This new TeleVue 17mm ep is getting rave reviews. The 16mm Type 5 Nagler is also a fantastic ep."

Response to that response:

"Oh crap. I give up. This is just too hard and I'm just too tired. I quit."

spherical aberration, and coma? Sorry if this is a dumb question. Can you give me an example of what each aberration will do to an image?

I'm still fairly new to this hobby and was wondering if somebody could give me their unbiased opinion on Maksutov-Newtonian type scopes? I was reading some reviews and it seems a lot of people feel these scopes(like the Intes MN56 and MN66) equal the performance of a 5"-6" APO refractor. In fact, one person said they performed just as well as his Astro-Physics 5" refractor. What is the real story here? If this design is just as good as an APO refractor then why is AP, Tak, etc. still in business?

It seems like one problem with these Mak-Newts is the quality(the finder scope sucks, focuser isn't that great, etc.). I would like to see a US company produce some high quality Mak-Newts that match the craftsmanship of Tele Vue or AP scopes. I mean, it would be great if I could buy a 5" Mak-Newt for $2,000 that is equal to the quality of Tele Vue's new $6,000 NP127. And at the same time be getting all the performance of that NP127, but not having to pay $4,000 extra.

I'm thinking about buying a nice wide field refractor to scan the sky with. I would like the scope to be 3" and around F/6. The one that I really would like to get would be the TV-76. The question is should I spend that much money just for a scope that will be used for that purpose? Maybe I should get an AT1010 instead. Anyway, I need some opinions/advice. One thing I really want to know is if you own a rich field refractor, how often do you use it?

Why are they being discounted so much, especially when you consider Tele Vue, AP, TMB, etc. haven't lowered their prices? And it seems these Tak's have been on sale for a long time now.

BTW, the FS-102 seems pretty tempting at the current price. Any opinions on this scope?

I'm looking for opinions on the MN-56 and MN-66 Intes Micro Mak-Newts. Do they really perform like an APO. I have read the reviews on the different websites but want some other opinions.

BTW, what is the difference between the Mak-Cassegrain and Mak-Newt? Is a Mak-Cassegrain mostly for photography?