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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By lalou
      Hi! I've recently acquired a new Astromodified Canon rebel XT and I've tried to take pictures of nebulas using it but I've noticed that there are these weird black artifacts that keep appearing in my images. Would like to know if anyone has experienced this before? Or are these dirt/dust specs on the camera, filter, and telescope glass? I've attached some of my edited and raw pictures for your reference. The black artifacts can already be seen in the raw image of the horsehead nebula and after stacking I think it got amplified. Anyway, advance thanks and I hope everyone's doing well.

    • By StarFiveSky
      Need a bit of help to narrow down what I see, I've wanted to buy a telescope a year ago but a couple of things stopped that decision.
      Saw a strong bright glowing star in the cloudless sky so I picked up my old binoculars laying around. I appended three images, one what my phone saw, secondly the raw image, thirdly a star map pointing towards the object (center-ish).
      I know it feels pretty laughable for s.o with an 8" GOTO + 5 yrs of experience, but maybe we can attempt to locate the object anyway ;)

    • By onefistinthestars
      To celebrate the 25th anniversary of Sir Patrick's DSO catalogue, I've added the available Caldwells to my basic Marathon search sequence. 
      Those interested may be pleasantly surprised by how many of the additional treasures are only a short hop from a given (or en route to the next) Messier.
      The sequence for 40°N can be found at the SEDS Messier Marathon homepage or at my blog.
      Peace, Stephen
    • By Lancebloke
      So, although I had some issues with my auto guiding (which I found out afterwards) I did manage to get 9x180s exposures and 5 darks of Andromeda and give both stacking (using DSS) and processing (using GIMP).
      My first attempted DSO....
      I am pretty sure that people could get far more information out of the TIFF file from the stack.
      Hopefully I will get another clear night soon. I am in a heavily light polluted area so I do have a clip in filter on my DSLR which I think took a lot away.
      More practise needed!
    • By AntHart
      Hi Guys! My first post :)
      I’ve decided to take the plunge and begin the hobby..or addiction of Astrophotography! 
      About 8 years ago I purchased a 2nd hand EQ6-pro, I’ve only ever really used it for visual through a 6 inch Newtonian. All I could see was grey fuzz or the moon!lol so I got bored and put it away in a cupboard!
      For a few years now I’ve been taking wide field Astro photos using my DSLR and 14/24mm prime lenses which has given me the bug again!
      I want to start taking images of galaxies and nebulae and all that good stuff which I simply can’t get with with my wide lenses.
      My plan was to get a small refractor like a WO Z61 or Z73, field flattener and mount my 6D DSLR to it, Plus use a small auto guiding package.
      Run everything off a laptop 
      My question really is...is my mount up to imaging?
      Things have come on a long way in mount technology I guess since I last looked at buying one so I’m wondering, imaging wise if I’m best selling on the old EQ6 pro and buying something more up to date?
      If my old mount is able to work and work well is there anything I can do to it to improve it?..Strip and Regrease ...Belt Mod...??
      ive never had it apart before, nor do I really know how it was used before I bought it so it might need a good going over it might not...is there any way to tell for potential issues?
      Im happy to do any work myself I’m pretty handy with mechanics 
      looking for advice really wether to stick with this mount or look for something new.
      if new, max budget is around £800
      any advice greatly appreciated :)
  • Create New...

Important Information

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