Tom:
>If you want you're really looking for high magnification, it's tough to
>beat a catadioptric scope...they're more compact mirror types scopes that
>fold the image back and forth and gain amazing power. Celestron makes a
>C-5 and there are other good short, fat scopes in that category..
>disadvantage of a cat scope is they're not as durable as refractor scopes
>like Swarovski

I think durability (actually, fragility) is a big issue for scopes,
particularly if you're ever going to lead trips or teach classes
using one. As someone noted, the Swarovski is rubber-armored as
well and, if capped, would do just fine tossed in the trunk mounted
on it's tripod.

I've not seen a cat scope that I'd feel comfortable tossing in the
trunk in that manner. They really want to be cased.

Also, of course, the image is reversed so what's left is really
right. For individual use this isn't a problem, you'll get
used to it (and learn to read band #s backwards) but if you
plan to share, as in a group or class situation, this can
be a real annoyance.

Celestrons are really pretty mediocre and seem especially frail,
though I've never made any attempt to bust one!

On the other hand, looking at an immy gos from about thirty
feet with an 8" Celestron is pretty cool, as I got to do up
on Steens once!

Questars are most certainly the best, and the little 3" job
is very, very sharp. And I suspect they're more rugged than
the Celestron.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>