Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin B
OK, One thing is Imaging and the other is visual. I donīt do Imaging and I will not do that with this scope, maybe on the moon and sun, but manly visual. So, if we forget imaging, how much of difference are we talking about here? I will not use this telescope in super dark places, only close to my home.
I have seen images taken with a WO telescope, like the WO 66mm and with a FSQ, and I personaly could not see any difference. So, for me I donīt like to pay saveral times more for a scope that is on the paper better but with the human eye one can hardly see any fifference. For me I donīt see the point. I want to enyo the night sky with a telescope.  |
The Meade 5000 ED 80 had a quite curved field. With a very low power eyepiece the view was no good as it was too curved. At higher powers it was OK. It was a better imaging scope than a viewing scope. The TV85 is flat across the entire field with even a 35 mm panoptic.
The Meade ED80 is the baby brother of the 127. It may be better as it has a longer FL than the 80mm, i am not sure as i dont own one.
The Skywatcher ED 80's also suffer from this problem.
I would go for the Mewlon, but i wont suggest that to you because the scopes are not in the same leugue price wise, so not a fair comparison. Also the Mewlon is not a rich field scope by any stretch of the imagination, its what F9 or more? So again not possible to compare.
Cheers
Paul