Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- From: hairy.biker@xxxxxxxxx (Andy Hewitt)
- Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 12:21:19 +0100
ts <exbn-ppin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[Snipped Text]
Yes, they were my choices really, although there are one or two highly
rated 'budget' 5" reflectors too.
If you have ambitions of getting more serious with your observing, I
would seriously consider a larger scope than a 5" reflector. A short
focus one that allows general starfield viewing (clusters, nebulae etc)
will often have too short a focal length for comfortable planetary
views. Add long focus ones would really perform better with an extra
inch or two. That said, there are quite a few useful catadioptric 5"
scopes around - Maksutovs rather than Schmidt-Cassegrains.
Regarding upping a telescope budget - remember the running costs are
negligible. As opposed to MC's - no fuel, tax, insurance, expensive
servicing requirements etc - what you invest is what you get to enjoy.
Or otherwise.
Aye, I might just do that. I'll keep an eye out for the bargains. I have
my eye on the Meade ETX range at the moment.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/Home.html>
.
- References:
- Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- From: ts
- Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- From: Andy Hewitt
- Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- From: ts
- Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- Prev by Date: Re: [OT] FOAK: Treadmills
- Next by Date: Re: Kids and swearing
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- Next by thread: Re: OT: (very) Q. for the telescopisti
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|