|
Stuart,
I'm sorry that you felt that my comments were against you, that was certainly not my intention. If I didn't think it was worth bothering I would not have sent you the raw image. I am too interested to see the result, even more so as you use state of the art equipment (which as you well know I tried very hard to get at the time).
I am well aware that you tried to be as far and impartial as possible, it is very hard to match the images of different exposures and scale.
I am just getting tired from armchair expert's comments who demand this and demand that and then switch to something completely different. And constantly try to pick whatever suits them to argue their preferences. I to try to ignore them, but it is getting frustrating for me too.
Clearly some people can't use Newtonians - my advice is stay well away from those then. But that can't be a general rule - there are sharp astrophotos coming from Newtonians.
You had the advantage of adaptive optics, same instrument guiding (off axis), longer focal length, smaller pixels/higher QE CCD and supposedly "sharper" instrument (RC) (not your claim, I know). Yet, Newtonian image is just as sharp, if not sharper (see Terry's enhanced crops) than those from RCs. But all of a sudden this is now not enough, we have now to spend months with another object, then another.
Sorry, I have better things to do.
|