Quote:
Originally Posted by rat156
The relatively short exposures takes the mount out of the equation.
What I was interested in here was the intrinsic sharpness of each type of scope. Is one design intrinsically sharper than the other.
So short exposures of a star cluster will work quite well for an optical comparison, I think.
I don't know about Bratislav, but I was not using any FR or FF or CC, just a pair of mirrors and a camera.
I also don't think that the camera will make much of a difference, as long as the image is well sampled.
Hmm... the Rosette with a 1600mm scope, you won't see much of it unless you have a really big CCD (I tried it once), I just took a pic of this with my ED80 and the ST10, still couldn't fit it all in!
Cheers
Stuart
|
Why remove the mount? This is the reason why newts are difficult to use in astrophotography.
One would assume the newt had better mirrors as they are easier to make in respect to the two scopes on test here.
Agree
OK, just asking as both coma and field flattness must be assessed on both systems.
Agree but low well depth can make stars seem blotted and sensitivity of each camera should be taken into consideration.
If I remember correctly matching FOV and image scale is as easy as adding a high quality barlow to the newtonian so it should be possible 
. Perhaps a snap shot of the core would do it.
Stuart I don't see how this can be a even test to gauge the quality of both these scopes. Put them on the same mount at the same time with the same guiding at the same image scale with the same camera at the same place and then you might get a better idea of what is happening.
Mark