Back to Home

Meade Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Meade Equipment Discussion | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Meade Etx Continued

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by John Schumacher on April 22, 2003 02:19:05 UTC


I realized shortly after I sent that message, that I should have said focal ratio rather than focal length, but thank you for clarifying the focal ratio/focal length issue, and for your advice on the best telescope to buy.

I was wondering about the mount issue though. I was under the impression that an equatorial mount was the best kind for astrophotography. Per the S&T review of the LXD55s (Schmidt-Newts in Dec 2002 issue), the mount with an 8" was good, but the extra weight of the 10" on the same mount was too much for long exposure astrophotography. So are you saying that the alt-azimuth mount (with an equatorial wedge I presume) is superior to an equatorial mount for astrophotography, or just superior to the LXD55 mount?

Can you recommend a good digital camera to use for astrophotography? I was going to buy one for terrestrial work anyway (3-4 megapixels), so I thought I'd get one that does both. The problem however is finding one that takes a long enough exposure (>8-16 sec), although I've seen many photos published that are combinations of many relatively short exposures.

Also, would a Barlow work with a camera as well as the original eyepiece holder?

The Schmidt-Newts have a 2" dia. capacity eyepiece focuser. I imagine there are 2" barlows. Would there be any advantage to buying a 2" barlow vs. a 1.25"?

Also, would an 8" LXD55 Schmidt-Newt with UHTC coatings and a good quality barlow or the TeleView be as good as or better than an 8" SCT?

Finally, (and I'm sorry to pick your brain so much, but you seem to be so knowledgeable and very into the field that it's too good of an opportunity to pass up)a neighbor has maintained that the R naught (R0) of the atmosphere is such that the largest diameter of telescope that can be used with theoretically perfect (atmospheric distortion free) seeing is 8". However, there are many large telescopes out there (Mt. Wilson, Palomar, Mauna Kea, etc)that this doesn't seen to be that much of a problem, although with the advent of adaptive optics, even that is being minimized. Any thoughts on the R0 as a limiting factor for scopes in the 8-14" range?

Many thanks for all of your helpful advice.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins