Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
Regarding the quality eyepieces, it's not just about the design and manufacturing tolerances that makes them better...it's the quality of glass used, the coatings on the surfaces, the baffling and blackening internally to reduce flares and other reflections... the example I gave of the TV before, it's just a plossl ultimately (and plossls can be great so this is not a negative!) but the TV is one of the better made, if not the best at reasonable cost. Quality eyepieces benefit every telescope, a slow telescope just makes them appear less awful, but the detriment to the image is still being effected.
|
Good point regarding baffling, blackening, and coating quality, the speed of the telescope makes little difference to how important those things are. I was thinking mainly about optical aberrations (number of elements, types of glass used, accuracy of surface figure, accuracy of alignment, etc.) where the speed of the telescope would indeed be a major factor in how much the image was effected. I guess I'm too used to thinking about electronic imaging where you can tolerate some levels of veiling glare and ghosting, I need to remember that for visual observing contrast is king!
Quote:
|
Have a look out for a Japanese made ortho...simple design, little glass, well made and generally inexpensive for decent brands (Baader, Astro Hutech/UO)...great value for money specifically for planets and lunar. Only downside is the narrow FOV
|
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll definitely look into those.
Meanwhile, sunspots and solar faculae: