[naskies (Dave)]

I call shenanigans on the two example images on the bottom of page:

* The OAG image has trailed stars (many people have imaged successfully at low altitude with an OAG and achieved round stars).

* The OAG image is brighter overall than the ONAG image - they're not identical exposures. (Looking at the faint non-saturated stars, you can see that the OAG stars are brighter than the ONAG despite being trailed.)

* The ONAG image appears ridiculously sharp - as if it were imaged very high in the sky. You'd also expect a bit of blurriness in an L exposure due to low altitude refraction varying between wavelengths. Upon looking closer, you can see sharpening/deconvolution artefacts in the bright stars (dark spots in the centre), but the OAG image looks like it has only been screen stretched.

It's a very dishonest comparison...