Quote:
Originally Posted by philiphart
I use the 1.4x occasionally with my 200mm f2.8L lens, but I've given up using the 2x converter at all. A really good quality lens can do ok but even a decent lens with that same higher native focal length will almost always perform better.
I have (on the moon) used the 1.4x with my 530mm f3.3 Tak Epsilon. It does yield greater resolution than without it, but you'd have to be desperate to use a TC with a fast Newt.. it's like the worst of both worlds. Your f4 scope would become f5.6. You'd be better off with a cheap 80mm refractor and reducer/flattener.
In short, I also really favour longer native focal length.
Phil
|
Appreciate this Phil, agree, didnt think i could justify the 2x.
And yes, a lens design at the needed F/l is better than adding further optics, but I think the versatility (in my case) out weighs obtaining more lenses and/or scopes, speshly an 'L' 300mm, $ $$ $ $$ $.
Also should be good on a scope, 8" F5.6 F/l near 1200, Coool enough ! F/L is my Objective (Pun) at the moment !
Rgrds
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
The literature advises against using PIC when using high ISOs as it can introduce noise. But, you can use a slightly more aggressive chrominance noise reduction than the default that is applied by DPP to overcome some of it.
For terrestrial use, you can imagine that this would fix vignetting just fine. Personally, I am a fan of vignetting in terrestrial images (landscape/portraiture) as it helps to draw the eye in towards the centre of the image. This is not so desirable with astrophotography -- the vignette is a detriment.
H
|
Hey cheers for this H, I do appreciate your effort & time mate, valluable info & good stuff on them image fields, look quite flat, just the moderate vignette issue, tho easily soughted with DPP, wow, Ive never really looked into DPP that far, only for converting Raws : )
Dang, Thats a nice comet for 10secs
Cheers again ! !