Quote:
Originally Posted by rat156
Hi Mark,
The reason to remove the mount from the equation is because I was interested in a previous statement that the RC was intrinsically sharper the Newt. This statement seemed to create a bit of a stir amongst the Newt community here, and an image was posted to show how sharp Newts can be.
Now, I'm a scientist, I could see that this could be measured, if we had two scopes, same target, same night, same camera, any differences would be in the optics as long as the exposures were short enough to exclude tracking errors (as the Newt mount and the RC mount might not be the same). This is our best approximation, same target, different night, but from close to the same location, different camera and different image scale.
It's not a perfect comparison, but I think it clearly shows that as long as the optics are good, then the pictures produced will be good. Many other influences (mount, collimation, focus etc.) will have far bigger effects on your photographs than the design of your optics.
Cheers
Stuart
|
Hi Stuart
Yes I know what you mean about the ruckus. When I said the same mount I mean't the same mount i.e something big enough to carry both the newt and Rc whilst being guided by the same system. If you got two cameras the of the same type (i.e. SBIG ST10) then the only difference would be between the optics themselves and the minor differences between the cameras.
I have never doubted the quality of the newtonian mirrors but do recognise the difficulty and expense of mounting them properly. Seems to me everytime this argument comes up the newt boys avoid this issue preffering to concentrate on the cheap optics and comma correcter aspect.
Mark