Re: [APML]: Newtonian or Schmidt-Cassegrain for astrophotos?

["John Petrush" <jpetrush@flosc.net>]

If I had it all to do over again, I would get a CG-11 instead of the
Ultima-11 (German mount vs forks), and mind you, I like my Ultima a lot.
The C-11 OTA is as good a mass produced SCT as you're going to find.
Mounted on the German Equatorial mount, its a very solid photography
platform.  It will handle the added weight of the camera and its associated
widgits easily.

Meade seems to have the edge in clever electronics and that has a lure all
its own.  The idea of "GOTO" object locating certainly is appealing.  But I
was more interested in optical quality and Celestron was recommended as
stronger in that regard.  I must say I've never had the chance to compare,
but I do know I'm pleased with the image clarity and sharpness of my 'scope.
I'd encourage you to consider that offering from Celestron.

John P

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Isaacs <ToolsSmith@foothills.eznet.com>
To: astro-photo@nightsky.com <astro-photo@nightsky.com>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 1998 3:28 PM
Subject: [APML]: Newtonian or Schmidt-Cassegrain for astrophotos?


>
>Ever since my experiences at the eyepiece of a 3" scope when I was a teen
>I've wanted to get into astrophotography. Now, many years later, I've got
>the opportunity to do so. I live in a semi-rural location with some
>reasonably dark skies. But, I'm torn as to which direction to take and am
>in need of advice.
>
>My interest (for now) is in deep-sky with a little planetary mixed in. For
>now, color 35mm format is my choice but I see CCD in my future as well. My
>attention span is rather short (my work requires concentration and I like
>to take a break from that) so will have an autoguider as part of my setup.
>
>I have an impression that large aperture is the means to achieving fine
>detail. I might be wrong in this yet it is influencing my decision. Because
>of this I'm leaning toward purchase of a 16" f4.something newtonian
>(probably the Meade Starfinder) or building one of an even larger aperture.
>But, I'm concerned about the mount and the additional weight of the camera
>and an autoguider not to mention support for these at the viewing end of
>the tube.
>
>After looking at some really fine photos posted on the net I found that a
>10" Meade LX200 is very popular for this kind of work. Unless I can find a
>really sweet deal, the 12" Meade is beyond my budget. I would add the
>super-wedge for those long exposure times.
>
>The Celestron 11" may be a good scope but I'm having difficulty determining
>what I would need to add or modify to have a good setup.
>
>I've considered building a scope but most of the examples I've found are
>intended primarily for observational work, not photography so I don't have
>a good idea what would be required to build a solid and precise mount for
>deep sky work. Plus I want a little quicker gratification and am not
>equiped for a large construction project.
>
>Any advice would be helpful.
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
>