12/15/2023 0 Comments Ts optics photoline 60Mosaic is not in my mind at all to do, i will not do it or go for it, so he only option is wider scope. It is a bit more involved - but it is cheap and it let's you go even wider - at 217mm (3x3 panel and x3 bin) or 162mm (4x4 panel and x3 bin). This also preserves total pixel count of your final image bin 2x2 each of those panels to recover lost SNR because you imaged each panel for only 1/4 of the time. Well, you can then look at 60mm scopes with field flatteners / reducers, or you can do mosaics instead?įor example little RedCat has only 250mm of focal length:Įven simple 130PDS will act as 325mm FL scope if you: So, for example, will you choose this one It is proper imaging scope with no issues with CA. People that use it as visual instrument are very happy - no trace of CA, but for imaging purposes - it shows CA. By the specs it should be excellent scope - FPL53 and Lanthanum glass. I've seen couple of images made with this scope - and it has very pronounced blue halo around stars. TS even markets this as being part of their PhotoLine series of scopes. Take for example this scope (and line of similar scopes from Altair Astro or StellarVue): Optical quality is only important when doing planetary imaging, and there you want your telescope to be sharp, but for long exposure - atmosphere just dominates and if telescope is not sharp - no one will be able to tell at resolutions that we use for long exposure. There are a lot of imaging scopes that are not diffraction limited and would pass as rather poor optically. Often, for imaging purposes (not the same for visual) - triplet with "lower quality glass" will give better color correction than high quality ED doublet. Optical quality is really not that important when discussing imaging scopes.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |