152mm reractor vs SDM 16" shootout

[OneCosmos]

OK, now that you have all stopped laughing at the silly notion that a puny 6" refractor could possibly provide any kind of competition against such a large mirror, let me explain. Yes, any 16" scope would leave a 6" refractor for dead on just about any celestial object, but the exception are those object bright enough to mitigate the obvious advantage of the big scope. Size not withstanding, I have always maintained that my views of Jupiter and Saturn have been better than any views I've ever had through even very large dobs.



Now I know many of you will put your faith in physics (and rightly so) and argue that 16" resolution must always win out and show more detail than a smaller scope and any other impression is subjective wishful thinking on the part of refractor owners, possibly fooled by the contrast such instruments are famous for.



Well last night I had the SDM 16" f4.5 set up side by side with the APM 152mm APO refractor both looking at Saturn which was about 30 degrees up in the east.



I was able to perform a very good test where as many of the parameters as possible were similar to not completely void the results. I should say though, right up, I don’t yet have a collimator tool but Jonathan Bradshaw bought his over the previous evening and it was collimated at that time and I haven’t moved it since so it should still be OK but I suspect a little tweaking wouldn’t go amiss.

In the SDM I had the dokters 12.5mm – probably one of the finest eyepieces ever made giving 144x whilst in the refractor I had the vastly inferior Meade 8.8 giving 136x. I was not using any planetary filters.

Both were beautiful views but there isn’t a person alive, (not even Jonathan) who could look through both one after the other and not award first prize to the refractor – no ambiguity no caveats at all; the refractor view was hands down many times better. To say it was pin sharp doesn’t do it justice, it looked etched on to the glass with the finest virtual chisel ever not made. Cassini’s division was more than obvious, it looked so sharp and contrasty that you could cut your fingers on its sharp edges – and that goes for the planet too. There was obvious detail on the surface and beautiful colours to boot. There is simply no finer view possible. The physics isn’t wrong it is just that there is more to it than the maths on the page imply - that must be true.


Yes, I do love refractors but am fully aware of their limitations due to size and I absolutely love large dobs and SDMs especially are the Mozart of the telescope world, simply magnificent. The DSO views are second to none and ease of use, pride of ownership etc all come in to play, but for viewing Jupiter and Saturn I defy anyone to come to Nundah and prove me wrong. By the way, the seeing conditions in Nundah - high up as we are with nothing to disturb the air flow is excellent. On thew refractor I can push magnification to its limits.


Whether a refractor is really worth the money for relatively few objects is another question - but since I already have it I can enjoy the views.


Has anyone done a similar test?



Chris

[JA]

That's exactly right... If by "The Physics" you mean, the resolution part of the picture that is. Yes the reflector should have 16/6 ~=2.7 times better resolution, BUT there are a number of factors that conspire to even the margin somewhat:

1. The atmospheric seeing.

2. Differences in the (contrast robbing) light scattering in the instruments

3. The presence of a secondary mirror (or camera in its place) and its effect on contrast, scattering and resolution.

4. The fact that we humans perceive sharpness in an image psycho-optically as a combination of BOTH


the fineness of graduation (resolution) in an image AND
the image contrast


I don't think it's possible to ever say unequivocally, out-of-hand, "X beats Y", without a real-world test, such as the one you've conducted, and even then, only for the items tested subject to one's own decision criteria. In this case it's image quality - so that'd be a biggie :D

Thanks for sharing your results.

Best
JA

[astro744]

I have used Astrophysics 6" f12 Super Planetary, Astrophysics 7" f9 a C14 and a 16" IK6 (Newt mode, I think f5) many times and the refractors won every time. I did notice a difference between the f9 and f12 and although contrast was better in the 6" the 7" simply showed more. I have used the 9" f15 Oddie many a time before the unfortunate fires too and it was THE telescope for planets.

I personally own a 2.4" and 4" APO and enjoy them on planets with almost instant cool down. I also have a 10.1" f6.4 Suchting mirror (one of mine refigured professionally) and first light through it was the 2003 opposition of Mars and I ran out of magnification with my 6mm Clave Plossl and 2x Clave Barlow; the image was simply that good (as was the seeing that night).

I then viewed Saturn one night a few years ago through a friends 16" f5 Suchting mirror with a relatively small secondary (2.6" I think) and it simply trumped everything previously seen through any of the refractors. The telescope was cooled and the seeing was so still that night and I could see more bands and colours on Saturn than ever before through any telescope. I just wish Mars had been around then.

I do enjoy my refractors and they provide excellent views more often but given excellent seeing (and of course collimation, cool down, quality of mirror both primary & secondary, obstruction etc.) a larger reflector will beat a smaller refractor. I do like the images I see through my refractors but I can no longer directly compare a 6 or 7" refractor against a 16" f5 Newtonian but the images I saw through the two Suchting mirrors have etched themselves deeply and the telescope of choice for this years Mars opposition will be my 10.1". I just hope I get a night of exceptional seeing to give me that memorable view once again.

[AstroJunk]

Yet on Saturday night, the SDM blew away the refractor, especially at higher magnifications. My guess is that Saturn was just too bright in the 16" and hence the perceived lack of contrast at such a low power. But I wasn't there...

[clive milne]

It's all about thermal management.

Refractors will consistently work straight out of the box..

A large Newtonian requires one to take care of convective plumes in the light path, both from the thermal mass of the optic and the ground upon which it sits. Once you get that right, there is only one thing that will beat a large Newtonian for planetary and that is a large binocular Newtonian.

And yes, I used to own a 7" AP so I have that as a reference point.

~c

[OneCosmos]

But on that Saturday the only thing we really compared was the moon and the refractor was none too shabby! What I'm more encouraged by is the fact that on the Friday night out at Samford the views of Jupiter then through the SDM were equisite. Such a shame I couldn't have had the refractor there for the direct comparison on that night.

[OneCosmos]

That would have been awesome to see. I'm hoping the Hughes' will be at Astrofest this year with their often talked about 14" Suchting mirror. I've seen through it before but this year I can properly compare it to the 16" - which has a modest GSO by comparison, but I think Jonathan would admit is no bad performer nevertheless.

[OneCosmos]

It sounds to me as though the consensus is that given perfect seeing, a very high quality mirror, a small secondary and good eyepiece the DOB should always win over the refractor. The fact that it doesn't is because the refractor just copes better with compromises on any or all of those constituent parts so is more likely to produce a good image more of the time.

[gregbradley]

I have a CDK17. I have only used it visually at home which is semi rural skies. It was hopeless. So affected by the seeing it was not sharp at all.
But I imagine at a dark site allowed to thermally equalise it could be very good as it can do some very sharp imaging.

I have also used:

AP140
FSQ106
FS102
FS152
TEC180
TEC110.

The FS152 gave the most astounding views. A nice doublet does not take long to cool off. Fluorite is great for visual.

A 4 inch APO is too dim really for my taste. The TEC180 was quite good as well but the FS152 is more memorable. Perhaps I just used it more often for visual. Coupled with a Nagler 24mm it was magic.


I have looked through some large dobs and they definitely can show the dimmer objects very well. I also liked my Celestron 11. But the FS152 was the best.

Greg.

[OneCosmos]

Thanks Greg. Interesting that the 152mm was better than the Tec180. I love the views through my APM 152 but at the end of the day, 6 inches is just 6 inches. It excells at the really bright objects though.


Chris

[gregbradley]

A fluorite doublet seems to be a good choice for visual.

Greg.

[Allan]

Chris, welcome to the SDM family, I look forward to seeing SDM#41 at our star party next year.

People like to debate the old refractor vs dob thing, and I find it interesting to hear peoples views. There's no right or wrong answers, as beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. The preference is always largely dependant on a persons situation as well. Someone who owns a dark site and enjoys deep sky won't see as much value in a large refractor. Another person in the city will probably feel the same about a big dob.

Personally, I am a dob fan, but I also see refractors having a place in my lineup. I will describe it like this. Many times over the years I have been incredibly impressed by the images I have seen through refractors, including some beautiful TEC 160's and 180's, and AP180's. But no refractor has given me goosebumps or made my hair stand on end or made me yell out in awe like the images I have seen through big dobs around the world. I have seen things that are so crazy amazing, that they invoke an involuntary physical reaction. Refractors have never done that for me.

As always though, everyone's opinion is their own based on their own experience and situation.

[OneCosmos]

Thanks Allan. I have to attend because it is imperative to see the universe through a 32” Lockwood-equipped SDM ;). I don’t think I’ll bother to bring the 6” refractor:lol:

No refractor anyone could afford anyway would induce such a physical response on DSO’s, well not a favourable one anyway. This thread, however was specifically about views of Saturn and the refractor is most certainly capable of inspuring at the deepest level in a way that the often slightly softer view through the dob would not. I really, really hope to be proved wrong next year when I look through the best large mirrors in the world although it would be terrible for my bank balance!

[astro744]

I totally agree that the views through a refractor particularly a 6" can be most memorable and whilst I know and have seen the level of detail that larger high quality reflectors can attain, the refractor does deliver a very impressive image more often than not and it takes a night of really bad seeing for a refractor image to be poor.

Last night at the star gazing event I used a TV-101 and a 4.8mm Nagler on Jupiter, Saturn, The Moon (very nicely framed), Antares, Sirius, Jewel Box (9mm Nagler for better framing), Alpha Centauri, Acrux and Zubenelgenubi. The views were simply stunning even through all that fog that was settling and those that had a look were impressed. I find refractors in general more often than not give THE BEST views of planets and only in the best seeing conditions will I reach for my Newtonian which I know will show more.

I would simply love to have a 6" refractor simply for the extra light that a 4" cannot give at the higher powers but I know that is what my Newtonian is for so I am contempt with what I have. In fact one of my most used telescopes is my little TV-60 which simply provides stunning views of planets at the drop of a hat. It has instant cool down and is extremely portable on the Tele Pod.

[Profiler]

Hello

I have just noticed this thread and ironically I have asked a similar but slightly different question on another thread.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=166938

On this thread the question, if I may be permitted to roughly summarise, is which offers the better view between a top quality big refractor and a top quality big Dob.

HOWEVER - my question on the other thread concerns my attempt to help some newbies decide between a very interesting budget refractor - a 4 inch f/13 achro versus a budget 8 inch Dob.

My friends want the telescope for one purpose only which is to get the best bang for their buck when looking at Mars during the pending opposition. I can lend them a tripod (for the refractor) and good eyepieces (for both OTAs) so the real question is which OTA (only) will they get the most from.

The comments on my original thread

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=166938

seem to largely favour the Dob. However, on this thread it seems most folks seem to think a good quality refractor beats a good quality Dob - so would the same hold true for the alternate situation I have just outlined.

Any comments would be gratefully appreciated.

[Tropo-Bob]

Hmm, not really the same question at all. This thread compares quality scopes.

The other thread asked about budget scopes, with the empathises on the costs being modest. The question stated in the other thread also changed and I had to read this thread to understand that the question was now only to be about OTAs. There is still incomplete information, for example, will the refractor be provided with a quality or standard star diagonal? Such things may change responses in that thread.

I took the mention of a 4inch F13 in the other thread to be wishful thinking, as, I will be surprised if a quality 4inch F13 achromatic can be found at a modest cost in time to follow the rapidly approaching opposition of Mars.

[Profiler]

Hi Bob

Sorry for the confusion as the thread evolved and indeed I originally thought of the skywatcher 102 achro F10 refractor. Subsequently, another post highlighted the existence of an even better 102 F13 refractor made by Bresser which I didn't previously knew existed.

You raise a good point about a diagonal which I could also supply if needed. You raise another good point which is I have no idea as to the quality of the Bresser telescope other than the spec's.

The majority of opinions on the other thread seem to support the Dob whereas here a refractor seems to be the preference. That is, the underlying principle that aperture wins in the other thread seems to be refuted here and the smaller refractor beats the big aperture dob

[RickS]

I'm struggling to understand this thread, Chris. Don't you have a camera? :lol:

[raymo]

The f/10, and to a lesser extent the f/13, being achromats, will exhibit some CA, especially on the moon, unlike the apochromats discussed in this thread.

[OneCosmos]

Haha I’m thinking giving a talk at Astrofest to explain that not having a camera on the end doesn’t mean the telescope is broken :rofl:

[OneCosmos]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone, it has been interesting to read people's experiences.


Here's my threepence worth. If you want to do predominantly imaging, whilst at the high end ($$$$) there are very good alternatives such as RC scopes, even on a modest budget it is possible today to acquire really high quality raw data (that of course nobody bothers to process :lol:) using relatively affordable, but necessarily 'small' refractors. Many have chosen this path with great success and I'm not knocking it. After all, we only do astronomy because we enjoy it and how you achieve that is up to you.


As mentioned in my initial post though yes my APM 152mm yielded what I think is a superior view of Saturn than the 16" SDM, if visual is your thing it is a great deal of money to spend for superior view of just 4 objects, the moon Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. Mind you, that makes it three times more useful than a solar scope :lol:.


My APM 152mm today would set up back just over AU $14k for the OTA and rings (and for half a million dollars APM will make you a 20" APO) but for that kind of money you could have a 20" skywatcher dob or a slightly smaller elite-maker dob, like Obsession or SDM. I reckon it would be worth sacrificing the views of the bright solar system objects to open the door to the entire Messier and NGC catalogues. In short, an APO refractor is worth it for imaging but is poor value for money when it comes to visual - and that's coming from someone who loves refractors!


I would therefore be recommending a beginner who wants to start with visual at least to buy a dob. A small refractor will prove disappointing and may fail to inspire.


Chris

[Atmos]

I love my 4" refractor for doing things that my Mewlon 250 won't do and that is short visual sessions and views of the planets/moon in bad seeing conditions.

The Mewlon will make it easier to see the detail than the 4" refractor under poor seeing conditions but it won't show anything new and it is a whole lot of extra scope to have to deal with :)

[OneCosmos]

Some of you may have spotted that I advertised my imaging setup looking for EOI (which I don't frankly expect to find given the price tag) but I did receive an interesting response from my astro good friend Greg bok - I'm sure many of you know him too. His comment basically was that it was an unusual change of direction from imaging to visual when typically it is the other way round.



I started writing a response that actually became more involved than I expected and thought it would be worth presenting here for comment, (slightly edited Greg only to make it read a little better). This is what I wrote:


Thanks. Yes, it is interesting isn't it? I can, however answer the question I think, but whether the answer will be satisfying for you or not I can't say but I think it would be a fascinating topic to debate on IIS as I reckon it would resonate with some. I have witnessed the balance between imaging and visual shift dramatically but do wonder if it might prove to be somewhat cyclical and we may yet see a return to more of a balance at the QLD Astrofest in due course. Let me explain my reasoning.


Firstly, context matters. I have been involved and interested in astronomy since I was 14 years old when I got my first telescope - a rubbish second-hand 60mm Tasco refractor. Whilst I enjoyed looking through it to see if I could find things it wasn't the reason to be interested. I can, however certainly remember the pleasure at finding M27 - my first nebula (no GoTo of course) and was very excited even though it looked pitiful - and even I thought so at the time. The telescope was simply secondary to my enjoyment which was all about observing and knowing the night sky. The first time I ever Saturn rise over the houses at what seemed to me like such a sacred hour, 01:00 I remember well (I was only 14 and it was unusual to be out on your own at that time of night) but I was mesmerised, not so much what it looked like (just a bright star), but because I knew what it was - another world we're still pre-voyager at this time. I was awestruck by its implications. A year later and Cosmos aired for the first time and who wasn't inspired by Carl Sagan's spaceship of the imagination?

The telescopes and mounts we use today were still far off in to the future although Celestron brought out their iconic orange tubes, so polished and exotic compared to what was available in the UK at the time and, but these at least did give a hint of what was to come.

I then had a long gap of not really doing any astronomy through my early 20s as I was busy with life and working overseas, music, traveling etc. It was many years later I returned to astronomy by which time real equipment was available to the amateur at prices normal people could afford. I was always drawn to refractors and thus bought the best available to me at the time an APM 130mm. I enjoyed it but started down the path of imaging and to cut a long story short ended up changing that for what I have now, the APM 152mm, a scope designed from the ground up with imaging in mind.

When I arrived in Australia in 2009 I didn't bring any gear with me at all as we expected to be 'back home' within 2 years. After 4 years, with permanent residence status secured I finally brought out the 152mm and the set upon the extremely expensive and not a little bit frustrating project to transform it in to the consummate imaging platform it is today, all housed in a splendid observatory.

Buying better and better equipment becomes a drug, imaging becomes an end in itself - and there is nothing wrong with that really. It can, however be fairly obsessive and really quite divorced from astronomy as we all sit freezing in our computer tents at Astrofest destroying our dark adaption (that never happened) by looking at computer screens. It becomes a technical exercise with so many obstacles to overcome and such issues become the reason to be there rather than enjoying the night sky, but we push on, determined to prove all the money was worth spending. Meanwhile the heavens majestically rotate with too few noticing.


I was acutely aware on many occasions at Astrofest (and I have never missed one) that by and large there was a separation between the imagers and the visual field. It wasn't that people were unfriendly at all rather that the imagers largely thought nothing of the visual field at all- it was totally irrelevant! Many people actually never once stepped foot on it to look through a single scope despite some really quite fantastic instruments being present. The visual guys for their part looked down to some degree on the imagers mostly as non-astronomers who would not bother to go and look at the stars if you took away their computers - and I think there is some truth to that - without being judgemental about it.

I always straddled both worlds, spending much of my time on the imaging field and enjoying the camaraderie there but also making regular trips to the visual field. It was not only to look through different telescopes but also to talk about astronomy rather than equipment. Not science necessarily but talking to people who knew and loved the sky and could talk with passion about views they'd had of different objects. BTW the visual guys have their own toys too - but it is mostly eyepieces - most of which are ridiculously expensive of course. In 2009 the ratio of imagers to visual was about 50/50 but over the years the visual field has dwindled, as you say as more and more people have migrated to imaging.

The reasons for that are, as you pointed out that the camera sees far more and perhaps too, as people get older their eyesight worsens reducing the enjoyment at the scope perhaps. There is of course something satisfying about producing an image that you can show other people but of course the image looks not only like everyone else's image of the same thing (yet another M17) but it looks the same the M17 you took yourself last year and the year before and the year before that too and that's assuing you even bother to process the raw data in the end.Then again, my wife would say the same about visual as well - "you're going to look at M17 again?"


So that expansive exposition is the context. Finally, I will address your question more explcitly. Of course the eye can see nothing compared to the camera - colour is notably absent in every single telescope I have ever looked through, irrespective of size. BUT, and here's thing looking through a telescope has an emotional and psychological impact too. I can remember incredible views through the telescope as individual events, there is just something different and special about seeing an object with your own eyes (and brains) through the eyepiece. Images are spectacular and can be inspiring but they look the same as any we can download from the Internet, thus they lack uniqueness. It is also worth noting that apart from the absence of colour something like Eta carina or the Veil nebule with say the 31mm Nagler and an Oiii filter is every bit as magnificent to the eye through as very large dob as an image.


I do think that people may eventually return to the enjoyment that can be gained from visual astronomy because Skywatcher are now doing for visual what they did for imaging, namely making telescopes worth looking through - i.e. big telescopes available at sensible prices. I would really like to see Astrofest inspire people to do some visual astronomy because ultimately it is an astronomy event and not a computer week where the sky happens to be the subject.

The other night I spent two hours in the observatory mucking around with the EQ8 because it was one of those nights when it didn't play ball and then did a bit of imaging. I walked out of the observatory and within 3 minutes the SDM 16" I now have (and I want a 28" f3.3) was fully aligned and tracking and objects appeared in the centre of a 200x eyepiece evey time - the simplicty and beauty of the instrument together with such wonderful presentation of the heavens is addictive for me.

I invite all attendees of the QLD Astrofest this year to join me on the visual field, away from the computer screens, become dark adapted and take advantage of some of the amazing large telescopes available. You might be pleasantly surprised. Don't compare the eyepiece view with what the camera sees but appreciate the eyepiece view on a more personal level.


Chris

[cometcatcher]

What's an eyepiece? :P

Oh yeah I remember now. ;) My best views of planets were from custom built long F/L Newtonians. Big long things where you needed a ladder even for an 8". Sadly I sold my 8" F8.8. :( I've always wanted to make an F10 10", but deep sky astrophotography got the better of me. My 16" F5.4 gave very good planet views also, but I don't have a 6" APO to compare.

[gaseous]

Thanks for that Chris, a very enjoyable read. As a purely visual chap myself you've given me the bug to attend astrofest and overcome my hatred of camping.

[Greg Bock]

Hi Chris...OK, so to extend your thoughts above, here's my response below...BTW, why stop at a 28" scope????:lol:
========
great answer, i know where you are coming from, i can identify very closely wih your comments about the frustrations of imaging.
Like you, i started with a 50mm refractor, a Tasco 6TE in 1971 and never looked back. Finding Saturn by myself at 11 years old from star charts and plotted positions set me up for life despite the light polluted Melbourne skies I grew up in.

I realised years ago that i had to do more than look thru a scope so i started taking colour images with film which produced tantalising images revealing more than i could optically see, but fraught with all sorts of issues. Then along comes digital imaging and all the issues became bigger and more complex, but the results were worth it. They still are, but i can't just image either, which i why i search for SNe..that's where i get the most satisfaction despite hundreds of hours between discoveries. This also give sme the opportunity to work with professionals around the world who appreciate the efforts of part-timers like me so i get to contribute to the broader astro-community.

The Leyburn weekends are a mixture of a social event with Peter and Pat in the observatory and imaging the sky in colour where we can step outside and let the dark sky remind us of the wonder of the universe surrounding us, accompanied of course with some cheese and Port! Bliss..

So, yes, i have straddled both worlds and still enjoy both although i dont actually look thru a scope much anymore. Enjoy your 16" and good luck obtaining the 28", I'm sure it will be worth for you.
Keep in touch.

[Atmos]

I’d like to think that I straddle that line quite well in that once my imaging rig is setup I don’t really touch it. I might check it periodically just to make sure that a program or driver hasn’t crashed somewhere along the line (happened a few nights ago at 4:46am, I found out at 7:30 when I woke up!) but the rest of it I don’t mind doing visual. Up at Coolah a few months ago I spent as much of those dark skies imaging as I could but I spent most of my physical time looking through my Mewlon 250 or the other telescopes in the field.

My only official Astro camp that I’ve attended was Snake Valley once and that was the year of the great flood, mostly imagers there that year. I spent most of my time chatting with others than watching my gear as it just did it’s own thing. I had to refocus periodically but other than that it just did it’s own thing.

I hear you about the imaging frustrations, there were nights with my EQ6 that it would have been best just not even going out. As much as I I’ve enjoyed my EQ6 and it has served me well, my DDM60 is hands down my best Astro investment. I’ve learned that if I find myself saying “it’s close enough” when setting up, it probably isn’t so I should go and refine the settings. My EQ6, along with all the other Sky Watcher/Celestron ect follow the “close enough” mantra to keep to a price point and that’s where the GREMLINS live ;)

Friday night I spent a few hours viewing with my Mewlon 250 riding the EQ6 (just tracking, no go-to) while my imaging setup was 3m away doing its own thing. Best of both worlds :)

[OneCosmos]

There are some dedicated planetary Newtonians - slower with tiny secondaries but most are fast rich field systems better at DSO’s

[OneCosmos]

I do certainly understand that imaging today can be so automated it leaves you with time for visual. My own system is totally automated actually -even down to 100% reliable re-focusing every x minutes/frames. It will auto meridian flip and I can actually go to bed whilst it does it’s thing. My real problem is that personally I enjoy the capture process mainly because it is just so damned impressive that is is so damned easy. My raw data is good but it rarely gets turned into good images for various reasons but even if they do they don’t look different to what I and others have already done. There are exceptions as Rick Stevenson and some others have shown us what is really possible. The point of the threD is because I think visual needs a champion to change mind sets because it answers a personal need to be connected. Learning about trees isn’t the same experience as going for a walk in the forest!

[OneCosmos]

[QUOTE=Greg Bock;1376204]Hi Chris...OK, so to extend your thoughts above, here's my response below...BTW, why stop at a 28" scope????:lol:
========

Simple, a 32” SDM equipped with Lockwood f3.3 mirror would probably cost $60k which is more than I have spent on astronomy in total and certainly a lot more than I could sell it for now. There are a few used 20” SDMs around
but you don’t see bigger ones for sale -I suppose people don’t buy those to sell them.

[SkyWatch]

Hi Chris and others!

An interesting thread, and one where everyone has an opinion, but not necessarily the same as anyone else...

I have a basic imaging setup, but have rarely used it- and one reason is the constant frustrations expressed by my imaging colleagues whenever I go to an astronomy camp! There seems to be a big learning curve; and I don't always feel I have the energy to tackle it!

Because my day job is teaching basic astronomy to school children (mainly with my planetarium dome) my observing time needs to be simple and enjoyable or I will be in danger of burning out from the hobby altogether: so I tend to be a visual astronomer only.

So, to get back to your initial comments, I get the most enjoyment from using my 4" APO (a Tak TSA 102), and I even return to it happily after viewing through a nearby 24" or 18" SDM scope (with very nice Zambuto mirrors). With planetary viewing the 4" is no slouch. It can't beat physics, and there is no doubt that on a good night the big scopes get better resolution of detail and colour; but the other night on Jupiter I could see detail and colour variation within the GRS, and at least 8 bands around the planet, as well as colour and size differences in the moons. Plus no spikes, just lovely sharp edges.

With DSO's, again you can't beat physics, but I have seen detail within the homunculus nebula and an enormous number of DSO's with the little 4".
My ideal is looking at an object through (preferably!) the 24" or my own 12" dob, and then seeing how much of the same detail I can see in the 4"- and I can usually see a surprising amount!

Because I have astigmatism, I have lived all my life with slightly fuzzy views of the world (without my glasses), so for me there is something magical about the sharp stars I can see in the refractor. For me this magic beats the spikes of a reflector: but there is certainly room for both... (and any time someone wants to give me a 6" APO... ;) )

Happy viewing (and imaging!) all,

Dean

[cometcatcher]

That's why I made my own. Cheaper than an APO, but cool down time is still a major drawback with these long newts. Perhaps even worse as the tubes are so long.