Quote:
Originally Posted by mick pinner
maybe Alex or Paul or anyone else can help me with this,
using the same mount, camera and processing style why would this scope be any better than a Meade ACF of the same aperature? l think this is a very interesting thread on this scope but going by images l have seen from not only your own scopes but also others posted on some US sites l'm not sure what you guys are chasing image wise compared to as l mentioned earlier say an ACF.
|
Good point Mick, been wondering this myself, should have done this direct comparison long ago damb it
. My 10" RCOS RC has an ST10XME, and my 12" LX200R (same as the ACF) also has an ST10XME, so even though there is an apature diff, its as near as were going to get it seems. Ill attempt now to get an image on the RCOS with the same object,exposure time, and processing as the LX and post results.
Ive already, some time ago, found the RC to give definitely give tighter stars, thats all I remember (while I had it at home for a short time), but also found back then that some deconvolute (on megadata) gave comparable end results. I suspected at the time that extra exposure time and carefull processing rendered the diff mute. Not to say that makes them the same (given the LX required more exposure time, to produce less noise with deconvolute), but there are many factors that influence the final image quality, not just the optics.
Another factor is offaxis performance, oft quoted as a definitive difference between optical designs. A smallish sensor uses a far smaller portion of the illumination circle than a 16meg monster, so maybe for narrow field, off axis performance is less important.