Quote:
|
Originally Posted by drmorbius
If I were imaging and therefore the photon collection capability of the scope was not a major factor... would the image typically be better from a refractor? Is it a case of optics quality? In other words, if I wanted the same image quality from a reflector I would end up spending the same amount of money to get similar quality optics (mirrors)?
I know there's no such thing as a dumb question, but I must really be pushing the envelope here... 
thanks everyone -- randall |
Lets get it straight: Mirrors are NOT inferior.
They are cheaper because there is only one surface to be figured, polished and aluminized.
For lens there are at least 4, or 6, depends on the design.
For imaging, if you are into wide field, the design to go for is Catadioptric, the combination of mirrors and lenses, to correct for various problems simple optical systems normally have.
And the reduction in contrast is very small, really.
But, the size does matter.. because with bigger aperture your exposure time is shorter.
And. the size is important for resolution as well. Bigger aperture, better resolution (of course, there is a limitation here, atmospheric turbulence will limit the resolution, but the stacking of number of frames will sort this problem to the certain degree).
So, there is no issue here: go for the biggest mirror you can afford, money wise and transportability wise
