On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:40 AM, <jcarman6@q.com> wrote:
Hmm Everybody seems to really want a refractor - could it be that views through refractors are best? Hmm that may be off topic - at least for this thread.
No problem, new thread. ;-) And define "everybody", lol. Most people start with either a small refractor or small reflector, then aperture fever sets in. Face it: Aperture is King, and a 12" portable refractor is impractical (and horribly expensive). Everyone has owned multiple reflectors so once you have that light-bucket, naturally you begin to look to other designs. Later in life, many of us can afford to get that really nice refractor- as a secondary instrument. They have their advantages. Smaller aperture so not as susceptible to poor atmospherics (subject to debate). Lack of a central obstruction means lower over-all diffraction. For the planets and doubles, a nice refractor is hard to beat. But for the faint fuzzies, refractors lose out to light-bucket Newts every time. Aperture trumps the refractor advantages, assuming the optical quality being top-notch in both instruments. I'd much prefer to observe the planets through a 10" or 12" Newt than a nice 6" refractor, solely because the resolution will be much better and the image brighter. But, to each, his or her own. I prefer to own both reflectors and refractors. It's telescopes that get my juices flowing. Telescopes.