Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.



Is a 1/10th wave f6 mirror better than a faster synta f5 mirror for DSO photograhy?

Recommended Posts

So I picked up a classic... a 1970's - 80's edmund optics f6 150mm newtonian...


... like this one but mine has a different mount. It was cheap. Very good condition. The focuser is pants. The mechanics of the secondary holder is (IMHO) brilliant and apparently the primary is 1/10th wave.

But its f6 and I trhink I'd rather swap it out for a faster synta f5 mirror. .  The thing is its a one shot job bc to make the f5 mirror work I will have to saw off a good few cm from the barrel of the scope.

So the question is: Is a high quality f6 mirror better than a faster synta f5 mirror for wide deep space astrophotograhy?


All comments gratefully received. 😉 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rorymultistorey said:

faster synta f5 mirror


Both mirrors would collect the same amount of light. To get faster optics I think you'd need a larger mirror,  so I don't think it would be worth it as you'd need a new tube/spider... Everything.

The main advantage of the f6 is that you -almost certainly-  wouldn't need a coma corrector, so no glass to introduce colour abberation:) The only  -not much of a- disadvantage is that you'd have a slightly narrower field of view when compared to the f5.

Just my €0.02 but HTH anyway.


Edited by alacant
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I'd be very, very skeptical of any old mirror that claims to be 1/10 wave.  Specious specmanship is the norm here ....1/10 wave on the mirror surface or in the focal plane? RMS or peak-to-peak? What wavelength was the measurement made at? ...It's a  complete minefield for the charlatan to exploit. If you really want 1/10 wave go to someone with the published means to test it,  or a very good personal reputation.  I've got a shed full of "1/10wave" mirrors, some from very respected names, which test out on a Zygo as more like 1/4 wave in reality. It's very hard to even test convincingly to that accuracy without very expensive test kit. 

Is it even relevant? I doubt it if your aim is prime focus photography with exposures in terms of long seconds or low minutes. Guiding errors, atmospheric distortion, poor mirror mounting, collimation errors, undersampling by the camera, will all add up making the use of a 1/10 wave mirror pretty much pointless. A GSO cheapie will do just fine.

A very good mirror might be relevant for planetery photography by lucky imaging but even here I have my doubts. 

This sort of high quality mirror does have its place for visual use.....once everything else in the optical chain is perfect. 

So what are my mirrors?....all 1/10 wave from OO, and the optical quality is indeed excellent on all of them. But Synta or GSO aren't far behind and on an average night it's hard to tell the difference. Total hypocrisy in a way after my previous comments, but just occasionally the difference is worth it visually. And you know that if the system is not working properly, it's not the mirror at fault. 

The faster speed of an f/5 mirror might well be an inprovement. But the collimation is more critical, not just the general scope collimation. The camera has to be exactly square to the focal plane which is harder to achieve.  The faster mirror has a wider convergence angle which makes the in-focus depth of focus smaller.

Is it really worth hacking the tube of an otherwise nice scope for the mirror swap?

Is the secondary large enough to illuminate your sensor without vignetting? This will get worse with a f/5 unless you change both mirrors together. 

I'd try it as is first. You might be quite happy with it as it is! The focuser will probably need a lot more attention than the mirror quality.

Just my 2p....from a guy who's trashed a few scopes "improving" them....


Edited by rl
additional info
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thx chaps... Most enlightening

BTW I used to go to a sailing club near Pershore when I was a kid.

So 1/10 wave is not necessarily going to help me for astrophotography. Squaring the camera is more important. I happen to have an orion optics OC1 (I think) 2 inch focuser which I'm going to fix onto the tube. I will be using a full frame canon 5d mark ii with a 0.9 x skywatcher coma corrector for imaging.


Having digested the above advice I think will use the brighter, newer, faster, synta f5 mirror AND controversially I will cut the end off the tube in order to reach focus. I mean how hard can it be 😉 (famous last words).

[Maybe I should see if someone is keen to buy it before getting the saw out. Does seem a shame to carve up such a well made scope.]

Also still curious to know whether high quality mirrors make any noticeable difference in  DSO astrophotograhy or whether the only real benefit is planetary.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen 6" f/5 OTAs change hands on ABS for £50....and they come with a 2" focuser. Worth the wait until one comes up? 

If you're going down this road I'd make sure the new mirror actually fits in the cell first, before cutting anything. Then, it might be possible just to drill a few extra holes in the tube 6" up and sit the mirror higher. Thus leaving you a way out withminimal damage if it turns out not to be a good idea.....

The sailing club is still there. But sadly the micro-brewery at the Brandy Cask pup is gone...

To your other point, the standard Airy criterion for "good enough" is 1/4 wavelength in the focal plane.  Here you see a double start as two slightly overlapping central discs with figure-of-eight diffraction rings around the outside. It's an arbitrary definition of resolving power but it's stood the test of time for a century or more. A better mirror tidies things up a bit..it's a bit clearer. 

From the AP point of view there is a couple of extra considerations going on:

 If the camera can't see all the details in the diffraction pattern because the whole pattern fits on a single pixel then there is not much point in worrying about the fine details of the  diffraction pattern ..the camera is the limitation on detail. This is the normal situation for prime focus AP where you might be struggling to keep exposures times down of fitting an object to the sensor size. . It's called undersampling. 

You can get round it by using smaller pixels..but then the other point comes in. The light is spread out over several pixels which means that the signal-to-noise ratio is degraded for each pixel. So the extra detail you hoped to see gets lost in increased noise....there is an optimum point for best detail which is what you aim for when doing planetery. 

Edited by rl
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestion above to avoid cutting the old scope up.

Do also consider the secondary size which may need to be increased to ensure good illumination due to the wider light cone of the faster scope.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rorymultistorey said:

The mechanics of the secondary holder is (IMHO) brilliant

Hi Rorymultistorey, got any pics? 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, markse68 said:

Hi Rorymultistorey, got any pics? 


Pics of the secondary assembly ( i hope) 

Doing this from my phone so bear with...

Please note how thin the spider vanes are. They are  made from ribbon,  maybe rubber ribbon whoose tension can be tightened. 

How the the secondary only has an up down adjustment. 

And How the secondary can be rotated around a central shaft. 

Far better than the 3 screws which easily lead to miscollimation if your only collimating with a laser. 





  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stu said:

Good suggestion above to avoid cutting the old scope up.

Do also consider the secondary size which may need to be increased to ensure good illumination due to the wider light cone of the faster scope.

Secondary is suprisingly big.  And the tube is made out of some kind of reinforced cardboard...  I think.  Looks eminently cuttable.  I think this lovely scope is getting the chop😈

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, rorymultistorey said:

Pics of the secondary assembly ( i hope) 

Thanks very much Rory- what a quirky and interesting design! Looks great! I wonder what kind of ribbon it is- you'd think it'd stretch and loosen over time? Guess not- looks pretty taught. Does it hold the secondary solidly?

Agree on it being a much nicer mechanism than the simple 3 screws

Edited by markse68
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Ryan Adams
      Hi there,
      I recently posted a thread getting ideas for what scope and mount I should get for beginner astrophotography.
      After researching on my own and getting thoughts from others on scopes and mounts here is what I have come up with.
      Mount - Skywatcher EQ5 GOTO
      Scope - Sky-Satcher Explorer 130P-DS
      Guide Scope - Skywatcher Evoguide ED50
      Guide Camera - ZWO ASI120MM Mini
      DSLR - Canon 350D
      I understand that the camera I am using is fairly old but it is an old DSLR that I have at home and it saves me money on buying a new camera. All in all this setup comes to just over £1000; I just wanted to people's get thoughts on this set up and if it can be improved in any way without stretching the budget by more than £100. Also I wanted to know whether any of the equipment I have chosen isn't great.
      Thanks in advance,
    • By Anthony RS
      Is anyone here using the TS Photon 6" F4 newtonian? I'm about to purchase it but I have some doubts and questions:
      1- Does it hold collimation well, at least in a single session?
      2- Is it impossible to balance in DEC due to its small dovetail or is it possible but harder?
      3- Is the focuser rigid enough or does it introduce tilt?
      4- Will collimating it be a nightmare?
      5- I'm really picky when it comes to coma, should I expect some coma on edges even while using the Skywatcher Aplanatic F4 CC?
      6- All in all, do you advice me to buy it or have some other option in the same price range.
    • By jamesj01
      Hi everyone,
      I am new to astrophotography and of course started by taking a photo of the moon (as attached) using my Canon EOS500D camera - 1/250 exposure time, 800ISO. I used my celestron 127EQ telescope with a adapter for the camera of course. I used no eyepiece. 
      However, i find that it is slightly blurred, and upon taking pictures of nearby stars, i also found them to be blurred, even with a high exposure time. am i doing anything wrong at all or is this simply because of my setup? 
      Many thanks
    • By Michele Scotti
      Hi everybody - I'm humbled that some of you are following the thread on the 800mm telescope. I thought it was worth starting a sub-topic specifically related to the mirror making.
      So as the works on the mount got halted by the lockdown we had some time to virtually meet-up and discuss the optics for this project.
      The onset was pretty straightforward with an 'if we are doing this we are making the mirror'. And that sorts out the make vs buy, I suppose.
      As of now, the only two things decided so far are the diameter -at 800mm- and the f/3.3 - of course we can accommodate some variance.
      Some aspects of the making are pretty unchartered territories for our club so I'd like to seek some good advice from anybody in terms of direct experience or rather point us at some resources/threads.
      Back-ground: to make it short, our senior member had three 500mm f/5 done years ago. He did of course faster optics up to f/3 among many other mirrors - I actually never asked him how many, uh! He has always worked with full tool and has no experience with slumped glass. Btw we do have some experience in slumping glass but -weirdly enough- not in machining.
      During our initial discussions we boiled the scenarios down to 3:
      float glass, 35/40mm thickness considering 15mm of sagitta. This is a thermal challenge with its big outward mass, it's going to make the machining more of a challenge and the stabilization time longer float glass, 25mm (which seems more of a commercially available), slumped. Trading the thermal challenge with the slumping borosilicate, 25mm, slumped. Tbh this is just a better version of the previous point at a cost that is not prohibitive  
      What are the sources of glass in Europe for thickness over the bog standard 25mm? 
      Disclaimer: this is surely an ambitious endeavor and by no means we are underestimating that. Not only the bigger diameter is a step-up; the fast optics is a challenge too. 
      To start with we have some questions about slumped glass. It looks like an attractive, modern approach to mirrors that exceed a given diameter. I think I saw already some threads specifically about the slumping itself - that's golden.
      However it's the grinding/finishing/parabolizing that is puzzling us. Are there specific techniques or is it the same as the flat back glass?
      Also, how do you support the mirror? Would a support that replicates the telescope mirror cage be appropriate - a 27-point in our case? Or is it a matter to build a concave support that holds the back of the mirror? How accurate/solid should that support be?
      Any experience out there??
      I reckon that's enough as a start - thanks everybody in advance for your contribution.
      Stay safe! Michele
    • By avodcap7
      So I had this problem where if I put my finder scope on my OTA, and the finder scope is around 135 degrees from the mounting part of the scope. This made my DEC axis always stay leveled but never stay in any position I put it in (if I turned my RA axis to the balancing position, then the DEC axis to balancing position and moved the DEC axis anywhere, it would go back to horizontal or balancing position).
      Any help would be nice
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.