Re: Reflector or Refractor?
From: William Foley (bill1401a_at_verizon.net)
Date: 03/29/05
- Next message: james: "Re: Q for south central Fla. observers..."
- Previous message: Dennis Allen: "Re: Newtonian parts"
- In reply to: FiremanE42000: "Reflector or Refractor?"
- Next in thread: Starlord: "Re: Reflector or Refractor?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:36:22 GMT
The effect of light pollution would be about the same for either design.
You do not mention what you would be spending for a scope for a wide variety
of purposes. A 127mm or larger Mak, or a 8" or larger SCT, would handle a
wide variety of purposes, including photography. A Newtonian design would
cost much less but would require special attachments or modifications to be
used for photography. A refractor would be good for a wide variety of
purposes but would probably be expensive.
If you don't need to take photographs (or could set up your scope with an
afocal photo attachment), a 6' or larger Newtonian would be a very good
investment, the larger the better.
If you need to do photography then you need either an equitorial mount for
the scope (expensive), an equitorial platform (for a Dob, somewhat
expensive), or, for an SCT, a "derotator" (also expensive).
Lots of luck.
"FiremanE42000" <Seth_Kolasinski@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Bu02e.80194$SF.58186@lakeread08...
> I'm looking to buy my first scope. I live in an area with light to
> moderate light pollution. Does this affect the performance of either a
> reflector or refractor scope?
>
> I'm looking to observe a broad range of objects. What would someone
> recommend for a first scope?
>
> Thanks for your help
>
- Next message: james: "Re: Q for south central Fla. observers..."
- Previous message: Dennis Allen: "Re: Newtonian parts"
- In reply to: FiremanE42000: "Reflector or Refractor?"
- Next in thread: Starlord: "Re: Reflector or Refractor?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|