Jump to content

orion optics vx6

chrish10

Recommended Posts

Ags

Ags

Posted
Posted
Is the quality of a given mirror / optics more likely to show up when used for imaging as apposed to visual use?

i'm about to renew my f4.5 200mm mirrors and had considered a pro grade mirror!

i dont really want to go to 250mm

Ray

My guess is that DSO AP is not affected by mirror quality - it is too low resolution. Stick an actual sized Jupiter disc in front of the average nebula to see the difference in resolution between solar system and DSO imaging.

I suppose excellent optics must make some difference for planetary imaging, but I get the sense that image processing trumps the optics here too. Consider how good SCTs are for imaging planets, despite their strikingly large CO which introduces a large error.

So I think premium optics only make a difference for visual planetary observations at high powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply
umadog

umadog

Posted
Posted

Actually, a lot of people claim that premium optics do make a difference for DSO observing. A while back Zambuto lent out a 10" mirror for punters to swap out with their Synta or GSO jobby to see what the difference was. The improvement in DSO viewing was commonly mentioned, as was the darkness of the sky background. Some tests were done with two 10" scopes side by side and the difference appears to have been obvious. I don't claim to have done such a test myself, just reporting what several others have said.

Those results do make some sense: there are low contrast details in DSOs and a smocited mirror helps to bring out these details since it reduces veiling glare. Seeing the central star in M57 is an example of this. There are plenty of DSOs which tolerate high power very well: planetary nebulae, globulars, and even some galaxies. There are sub-arcsecond details in these objects...

My hunch is that a good mirror would help for DSO photography. If you can see a difference visually then it will be visible photographically. Whether it makes a significant difference... I don't know. It depends how good the "good" mirror is and how bad the "bad" mirror is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
LeeB

LeeB

Posted
Posted

Its a bit of a minefield, I own a europa 250mm f4.8 OO its mirror is a good one and recoated with hilux, however the f number also plays a part if you are into observing planets, as faster f 's makes getting and holding perfect collimation harder, moonshane said go for the longer f and i agree if planets are your thing and don't enjoy fidling/fettling with you scope. My f7.5 david hind 8.5inch is better than my 10 oo for planets, whereas the oo is better for the deep sky wider field stuff . The orions also have lovelly light tubes and my 10 is rock solid on its eq6, (it only weighs 11.2kg with an aftermarket two speed focuser) also everyones fasination for fast newts is ok but they do show up poorer eyepieces while the slower ones are far more forgiving. The OO have also improved greatly with their fittings over the last few years. As to whether the extra is worth it.. as standard i would go with the skywatcher if willing to go 1/8 or 1/10 mirror then the oo with the longer focal length. ( the skywatcher 150(long f7.8) is a great tube you will not be disappointed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.