Dave: OOPS! Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, didn't mean to at all! Please accept my humble apology! I was writing about image quality re: resolution, not aesthetics. I want to differentiate what people claim as a "pleasing view" from a diffraction-limited, truly high-quality view. The fact is that people spend a lot of money for a wide-field, that really has nothing at all to do with image quality. Aesthetics are a consideration, but must be set-aside when talking about resolution, energy distribution, and all that other dry, boring optical bench stuff. In the end, the best telescope for anyone is the one that makes them the happiest, be it f/4 or f/15, home-made or mass-produced, same for eyepieces. I too have had over 34 years of consistently pleasing and sharp images, and, good gosh, none of those views had anything to do with f/4.5 scopes and three hundred-dollar eyepieces. In fact, the absolute best views in terms of resolution that I've ever had have all been with scopes of 10" aperture or less, and $9 eyepieces. Go figure! (I'm fully prostrate now, grovelling in my best supplicant pose...am I forgiven, or shall I reach for the hair shirt and head for the ash pile?) C. --- David L Bennett <dlbennett@mac.com> wrote:
Chuck,
I would never consider 17 years of consistently pleasing and sharp images 'vogue' or simply a 'wow' factor. Patient collimation and a great optician are paramount of course. The best planetary images I've ever had have been through Siegfried's Clark, Brent Watson's 10" f/10 newtonian, Dave Bernson's 12.5" f/5 dob and my Cave. I'll keep my amateur astronomer 'baseball cap' on thank you.
Dave Bennett
P.S. And you thought you'd get through a whole day without ruffling anyone's feathers?! ;-)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/