0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm tring to get into astro-photography and I have a usual dilemma, which one would be the best for the job. I'm more interested into shooting deep sky objects. I've been looking for "nice" telescope and I've read thousands of post all over the internet and I came down to these two:

  1. Skywatcher Telescope N 250/1200 PDS Explorer BD EQ-6 Pro SynScan GoTo http://www.astroshop.eu/skywatcher-telescope-n-250-1200-pds-explorer-bd-eq-6-pro-synscan-goto/p,19171#tab_bar_1_select

  2. Celestron SC 203/2032 advanced VX AS-VX 8" GoTo telescope http://www.astroshop.eu/celestron-sc-203-2032-advanced-vx-as-vx-8-goto-telescope/p,32997#tab_bar_1_select

I want to use it for astro-photography as well as visuals. As for astro-photography everyone says "the bigger, the better" so I'm leaning towards the Newtonian. However, I've read that Schmidt-Cassegrain are great for both activities.

Which one would you go for?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The Newtonian looks better w.r.t. aperture, but the F-ratio is less than half of the celestron, it's just 4.8. You then have to worry about image quality, the ability to use the eyepieces, the camera etc. to properly view the image. \$\endgroup\$
    – Count Iblis
    Nov 25, 2014 at 18:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ this question is likely to get a more authoritative answer in the astronomy forum, since it's about the telescope, not the camera gear. \$\endgroup\$
    – chuqui
    Nov 26, 2014 at 8:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ chuqui is absolutely correct. Also, I don't think this should be closed. It really isn't about product reccomendations, 10" f4.7 telescopes and 8" f10 telescopes have been around forever. There is nothing special about those two. \$\endgroup\$
    – Paul Cezanne
    Nov 26, 2014 at 13:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think it is kind of in the middle between Astronomy and Photography. It's like asking ...this lens vs that lens. \$\endgroup\$
    – Artur Kedzior
    Nov 26, 2014 at 13:39

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

Both are decent scopes by decent manufacturers. The 10" is a far better scope, not just because it has about 50% more light gathering capacity but far more importantly it is an f4 lens, not an f10 lens!

Now, an f10 isn't bad at all if you want to shoot smaller objects, such as the planets or parts of the moon.

I hope I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the fact that you even asking this question means you have a lot to learn about astrophotography before spending any money at all! Certainly ask over at cloudynights.com and absolutely join your local astronomy club.

Astrophotography can consume all your time and all your money but for many the rewards are worth it.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

An f/10 SCT works well photographically with an f/6.3 focal reducer/coma corrector.

An f/4.7 Newtonian is also a splendid choice. Use a Baader MPCC coma corrector and you will have a flat field that rivals anything else out there, at a fraction of the price. Contact lenses on telescopes are much more economical than full aperture solutions (it's good enough for Hubble).

The Newtonian has a larger field size.

The SCT is better for planets than the Newtonian, and is easier to collimate, and to keep collimated. The SCT is more sensitive to surrounding ambient light, and needs a flat black tube extension.

The SCT needs a guidescope because it's optical train, with a focal reducer, is not practically supported using an off-axis guider. The Newt works well with an OAG and coma corrector combo (see Orion TOAG and Baader MPCC).

Edge to the SCT.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.