Joan's refractor fixation (lol)
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.
but there is no cure for aperture fever and you need to regularly recoat mirrors and collimate.
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. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:32 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
but there is no cure for aperture fever and you need to regularly recoat mirrors and collimate.
Collimation is like riding a bicycle, really, and recoating one to three times during a lifetime isn't a deal-breaker. You are right about aperture fever, no known cure. The refractor is a fun type of scope, especially at star parties. But many folks who come down with "refractor envy" soon go back to the light-bucket after the disappointingly dim deep-sky views. Those who like doubles and planets more than the faint fuzzies can stick with it longer. Siegmund Freud once said "Sometimes, a refractor is just a refractor." ;-)
participants (2)
-
Chuck Hards -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net