Quote:
|
Originally Posted by janoskiss
Mike, HDs are on par with XWs for on-axis performance IMO. I think the Burgess is just a tad behind these two. But the short eye relief and pinhole lens would be the deal breaker for me with a 5mm ortho. The Burgess fixes all that. I think the comfort level of the Burgess would mean you'd see more with that EP. All the planetaries are $US99. I'd try ordering it directly from Burgess Optical.
|
Steve,
I tend to disagree here, or wouldn't quite go that far. I own several of each
of the HD's and XW's and use them both quite regularly they both perform
diferently optical. Firstly the coatings are completely different. The light
transmission of the Ortho I would say is slightly greater, and due the it's
coatings (or lack of) and less optical elements the image appears slightly
overexposed (IMHO) compared with the XW, especially on planetary surface
detail. Which in turn makes on axis sharpness NOT on par with the XW.
I've have using U/O HD's & XW's now for 2+ years
And to hear this statement "HDs are on par with XWs for on-axis performance"
very dogdy, I'd say this statement is about 80% correct.
Interesting to note these days the XW seems to be the ep everyone wants
to benchmark ep against.
regards,CS sunny days
Rob