Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Altough those pictures are very close you can see the RC has rounder stars and better overall field off axis. In this particular case.  |
I guess people continue to read and see whatever they fancy.
Did you maybe miss these two crucial sentences from Stuart :
"I used a touch of sharpening on mine as it showed some seeing induced errors "
while mine is as raw as it can be, and :
"I have cropped the field showing part of the core and the best focussed bit of mine"
It didn't occur to anyone that this could well be the
worst part of my picture (I had issues with collimation too, see CCDinspector analysis) ? And didn't occur that this area could well be on axis for Stuart (e.g collimation error) ? Let's say we compare the upper left quadrant now ?
And no comment on how Newtonian image looks brighter, despite half the exposure (60 vs 120 second) and el-cheapo OSC (lowly QHY-8) vs SBIG flagship, QE king of the hill ST10-XME ?
No commenting either on adaptive optics used on RC (by SBIG's own admission increasing sharpness and peak brightness by up to 30%) while my guiding is done via separate guide scope, prone to flex and all sorts of problems ?
In any case I'm done with this, feel free to think and believe whatever you want. Bash the Newtonians, buy RCs and be merry.
That is the beauty of forums, I suppose. It takes just too long to get that through this thick skull.