Re: choosing between ETX-125PE or C130-MGT

I want to thank all of you for responding, especially Stephen, Rod,
Willie for taking the time to write at length. Thank you all for your
responses--you made me stop and think more carefully. I'm humbled by
all that you know, and I've realized that I've been rushing myself into
buying a telescope. Overexcitement I guess. After all, I've been into
this hobby for about 3 months only.

I'm going to continue using my binoculars for a couple more months
together with Terence Dickenson's Nightwatch book. I now agree with
Terence that taking a whole year to familiarize myself completely with
the night sky is the best thing for me to do in the meantime, i.e.,
that education and experience in finding my own way around the night
sky is what I need.

From all your responses and from reading other posts on SAA and
elsewhere I now think that something like a 6" or an 8" SCT on a fork
mount--Rod's posts on SAA have had a good deal of influence on
me--would be a good personal hobby telescope for me to save for next
summer. Well, that's what I think for now anyway. Who knows what I'll
be thinking in June next year.

Thanks again to everyone for enlightening this newbie.

Alex

P.S. I haven't read anyone ever saying this somewhere, but somehow my
light polluted backyard sky has had a silver lining for me--it has made
identifying the major constellations easy for me since most of the
"background" stars have been grayed out. I know though that after I'm
done learning the constellations the light pollution will start to feel
like a curse than a blessing. Well, already it is--I don't ever see the
Milky Way band like the way I see it in book pictures, and it makes me
envious of people who can with darker skies.

P.P.S. Willie, I've been reading your recent Sep posts in your blog,
and I have to say that it's been educational and entertaining. Btw,
Mighty Mouse does seem an apt name for your telescope. I'm going to
have to think hard of a nice name for my future telescope. 8-)


Willie R. Meghar wrote:
Stephen Paul <smarshallpaul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

High quality optics are a must for the absolute best any aperture has to
offer, but even more so at smaller apertures than larger. (i.e. The
average decent quality inexpensive 10" F5 or F6 reflector is gonna SMOKE
any 5" out there for visual use, regardless of design,

I agree on the high quality optics.

As for a 10" SMOKING a 5" -- read on:

I happen to own a good 10" f/5.6 Newtonian (in its own observatory) as
well as a high quality 5.1" f/6 apo refractor. At the current time,
my 10" scope is my least used telescope; and the 5" is my most used
telescope.

It's true that a good 10" will show more than any 5" telescope; but
there's more to the story. A good 5" will show a great deal when it
comes to double stars, the moon, and planets (what the original poster
wanted the scope for).

While my 10" is capable of showing more planetary detail than my 5",
the difference is not as great as one might expect. In the past few
*years* I've been pleased enough with the 5" views that I've had
little desire to break out the 'big gun'. The 5" can show Jupiter's
(four brightest) moons well enough to identify each one by their
apparent sizes. The 5" can show fine structure in Jupiter's belts and
zones. The 5" can show Saturn's "C" ring. The 5" can show structure
in Saturn's "A" ring. The 5" can show plenty of Martian detail when
the planet is near opposition . . . etc.

Part of this is a simple, personal preference issue. There was a time
when the 10" was my most used telescope. Now I'm more interested in
pushing the 5" to its limits.

Even for deep sky (the kind of observing I do most often) I currently
prefer to use the 5" rather than the 10". Yes, the 10" will show more
and will provide brighter, more detailed views; but once again, the 5"
shows *enough* to keep me happy. I've seen the Horsehead Nebula with
the 5" refractor without the help of a filter. The 5" has shown me
Pluto. Of course, the 10" will show both objects with greater ease.

A big reason for all the small telescope bashing that goes on is the
poor skies that so many observers have to observe under. I think it's
fair to say that most (certainly not all) of today's amateurs would be
unable to see the Horsehead nebula (without using a filter) with a 10"
telescope. Few of those observers can imagine the kind of views a 5"
is capable of under a *good* sky!

My sky (when free of smoke, etc.) tends to be reasonably close to
'pristine'. Under such conditions a 5" makes an *excellent* deep sky
telescope!

The other side of this is: Under a light polluted sky one *needs*
more aperture in order to see what a smaller telescope can show under
a *darker* sky; but even so, there are some objects for which even the
added aperture is no substitute for the darker sky.

In closing: A 5" will show *plenty* of lunar and planetary detail. A
5" can split enough double stars to keep many observers happy. Under
a *dark* sky a 5" can show a huge number of deep sky objects, with a
fair amount of detail visible in many of them. (I guess I didn't like
the use of the term "SMOKE" as it was used above ;-)

Willie R. Meghar
Recent Observations at:
http://meghar.blogspot.com/

.

Quantcast