King of planets

[TareqPhoto]

I totally agree with Yobbo about weather and sky conditions.

Thirty and forty years ago I used to be consumed by the need for "more aperture." I dabbled in film astrophotography but mainly engaged in visual astronomy when my eyes were much younger. Along the way, after a thirty year haitus from the entire hobby of astronomy, I discovered several sobering truths about "going big."

First truth is, unless you have a permanent pier and a great sky location, going big can be both physically and financially taxing. Second truth, in the real AP world, you will rarely have opportunity to take advantage of the full resolving power of bigger optics because of night sky conditions. The quality of the night sky is the great equalizer. In fact, I've found under "normal" sky conditions (Pickering 5, Bortle 4 with moderate transparency) that sometimes smaller scopes (80mm to 150mm) can perform almost as well or even better than some of the big guns (250mm to 400mm aperture), especially with DSOs. Yeah, resolving power comes into its own under near perfect skies when engaged in lunar or planetary imaging, but when the skies are such that you really can't resolve much under 2 or 3 arc seconds, I'll put my little six-inch f/4 fast Newtonian up against anything much bigger than a 10 inch diameter piece of glass. I say this as an AP single-frame grabber and not as a more advanced stacker, highly knowledgeable post-production astrophotographer. Bigger optics probably do produce better stacked images and the such, but the difference is probably marginal as compared to those who have smaller quality optics but are using the same stacking/post-production regimen.

Now if you're blessed with Pickering 8 or 9 skies and Bortle 2 skies with excellent+ transparency, it might make sense to have a 14-inch SCT or a 6 to 8 inch triplet APO refractor (ever priced one of those … whew!) as well as a very highest-end, cooled monochrome astro-camera. But most of the images I'm seeing here which blow me away (and you've posted two very nice images, too) are typically imaged by telescopes in the 80mm to 300mm range. A quality 10 or 12-inch SCT or Mak-Newt or a 180mm Mak are extremely powerful imaging telescopes but you really need fantastic seeing conditions to take full advantage of their aperture.

You can scan what I have in inventory and I'm completely confident that short of imaging from a desert mountain top, I'll never be lacking in aperture. In fact, I find the challenge of doing more with less far more satisfying than "going big" and being potentially disappointed when environmental factors or sky conditions limit the potential of my equipment. After all, I have to haul all the heavier stuff out to a darker site and then back again and at my age that can be exhausting and a joy killer.

Your comment is very nice, but something telling me that i should completely have faith in that.

First, doing DSO is different than doing planetary imaging.

Second, I don't look for so big apertures to do DSO, it will be nice to have for it, but i still love wide field or medium field of DSO, and for that i already have something for it, but i never asked or mentioned DSO for my hunger of BIG aperture, it was only about planets and maybe lunar, so the story in different.

3. Seeing condition is important, but it will never stop me or even others from buying big apertures, i have people in my area having smaller aperture and they dream about having same my scope even under poor seeing, and i dream to have 14" SCT for example in the past looking at "POOR" results out of it compared to my poor or even excellent seeing condition from 7", so for me seeing condition is not a factor for me, it is for you, and i like to use larger scope as pure joy, not as a must use under exceptional conditions, i don't like to always use smaller and cheaper gear, so seeing condition as you call it will never stop me from doing it, after all i will not buy every larger aperture scope in the markets, one or 2 and i am done completely, i already mentioned i will never use my 7" and 8" forever and never go larger, and if i o larger then i will never stop at the door of 10" or 11", and if i am able to afford it if i have the chance then i better go with larger than 10"-11".

4. I already went with larger scope, it is 20" Dobsonian, but i am still at the first or beginning of it as the person who is making the structure only is waiting more funds from me, i paid only one payment that is still not much, and this scope main goal was visual, so i already thought about visual in my journey, but as long i will provide this scope with the best mirrors in the world then i can try to use it for imaging one day if i will buy an EQ platform, i doubt with its quality it will be any less than 12" or 14" or even 16" scopes under nice seeing conditions, but from my results i can tell that i will always and forever will choose that largest i can afford aperture scope over smaller under average seeing condition, we don't have "Poor" seeing conditions for 200-300 nights, i watched every year and we have less of that, let's say 150 nights or even half year under poor seeing, so i still have year with conditions between average to very good/excellent, that is what matter for me, 2 excellent nights with perfect high level quality images is much better for me than 50 excellent nights with smaller affordable scopes, people already saw my images under average seeing from my 7" including you here and more is to come, imagine what i can do in this condition if i have 14" or 16" scope then? So don't base scope choices over 300 poor seeing which is not the case in my country, and again, even in poor seeing i would love to see my 20" or 18" to image, maybe my processing is bad that it didn't show the real condition of my sky so in this case i am sure we have some nice nights that i didn't give justice with my processing, this is even more reason i should go larger to have resolving power or details, aperture wins again.

5. I think that 20 "Dobsonian i will get later is very heavy for sure, and i am planning to get a thin thickness quartz mirror so that may cut something of the weight too, i understand that a Dob can be tore off not a problem or dissembled, so i can move it around if necessary, and there is Skywatcher 12" Flextube dob which is i think as a folding scope, i saw many did that and carried it cars so easy, for visual it is already very nice, and for imaging if only planetary then all what i need as an affordable EQ mount and it will be fine, so there is always options or ways, i don't like to give up to one idea or option that might be good and nice enough but not the greatest or the only best one, i can't depend on 20" dob to be for imaging always, but it will be nice if it can, and i don't shoot planetary like 24/7 for 365 nights anyway, even under ni e seeing i barely go out with small scopes, but i am planning to promote my scopes in future, and maybe it will give me more opportunity to go out and enjoy, i went to 2 places in my country that are related to Astronomy, one placed C9.25 for public and the other placed Meade 10" SCT for public too, both were identical, it was only for visual, i never get impressed by any for visual anyway, and even for imaging i saw others doing great but not that much to impress me as well, so if i more from this 7" to C9.25 or Meade 10" isn't a good idea, and C11 or Meade 12" can be a good jump, but now after in saw results from 14" SCT and 16" Dob i doubt that those C11/10" meade will stand any chance to stay in my collection without me thinking to upgrade again, what is the point to get them then, and i still remember this person in my area who bought C11 and C14 and decided to sell C11 and already ordered larger scope than 14" SCT for planetary, and he is in my country, and he very well knows about seeing condition, and he produced amazing results with his C14 in my country, this is not for you to understand it, but it gave me kind of jealousy and it is almost like me and him only now who are looking for largest scopes we can afford to do in my country, on one of those places i talked about for Astronomy have PlaneWave 17" CDK, they located in very light polluted area which is pointless, but they did it, a government ofcourse, so if they know about pointless of aperture under pointless skies they won't get that scope or size even if the fund is open and $$$$$$$, got the idea.

Read carefully my points, i know people will never bother about going larger than 6" or 8" even if they have budgets while others try to empty markets from all the scopes they can to convert their houses to a store itself, i am that kind of guy who just go and buy whenever it is possible i have the budget, and i pick things carefully, i will not buy 14" or 16" or even 40" if i know i will never have something under our skies, we have really promising skies, planets and the moon doesn't care about Bortle 1-3 skies, and for DSO i won't buy 10" for it as well, i bought my 8" Newt for that and if i am lucky enough in future i gonna buy a Tak FSQ for DSO, but for now i am using my Canon lenses and 8" Newt for it, i just want to finish my planetary setup first completely then i can focus only on DSO equipment as well.

Do you want to see more of my results about the moon and planetary or it won't change your ideas/opinions?