thanks heaps for the info. With the FL reducers, do they cost you much in optical quality?
I'm just asking this as based in the photo world, you can use a teleconverter to increase a lens focal length (FL increaser I guess you could call it) but as a result of using the teleconverter you first of all lose a stop (or 2) of light and secondly it costs you a bit of image sharpness when using the lens at it's widest aperture - does the same sort of issues occur with a FL reducer?
cheers
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [1ponders]
Hi sejanus.
I use pretty much the same setup as you option 2, the only difference is I have the older 8" meade and have a Losmandy G11. This is an extremely versatile setup, especially if you include a 6.3 focal reducer into the system. It will drop the Orion from 7.5 down to 4.73 or the SCT to f6.3   . Throw in a barlow/powermate and a ToUcam and with your existing lenses you are set to image just about anything you can think of, from the moon and planets in high res detail out to the sprawling stellar vistas of the milky way. Throw in a Solar filter or PST and you even have the sun covered 
Yes there are better scopes around (though the Meade R series seem to be doing extremely well), but the Orion is probably the best value for money "semi-apo"  scope going atm. While the f4 SN might seem like a great idea, and photographically it probably is, as a first imaging scope, personally I think you will find it very challenging to get the most out of it. Particularly in relation to its demanding collimation and very small critical focus range.
JM2CW
Oh and  to the family  |