|
I know Martin, if it wasn’t for needing it customised, I probably wouldn’t still be debating, given I’m now committed to a coma corrector wither way. The 6” f5 would be nicer if it wasn’t for the focal length drop. Going from 900mm to 750mm seems a lot on paper, although when I put it into the FoV calculator at Astronomy Tools, it doesn’t look that much different. Plus the 900mm barely covers the main Orion Nebula cloud whereas the 750 surrounds it nicely, so that is a bonus.
The depressing part of the FoV calculator is looking at the planets with these specs, they’re just tiny points of light, so I guess there’s no escaping a 2nd scope for Planetary imaging. I haven’t been game to look into the requirements for that, as I know the $$$ signs will scare me away, but I know the temptation will keep gnawing in the back of my mind.
*edit* a thought. How badly does a barlow affect imaging quality? Maybe a 2x barlow on the f5 would satisfy me on some of the smaller NSO’s for now?
Last edited by RussellH; 10-07-2019 at 10:53 AM.
Reason: Barlow question
|