![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 3:43:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 06:02:28 UTC-4, StarDust wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 12:53:02 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote: On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 13:42:52 UTC-4, StarDust wrote: On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, JBI wrote: On 3/12/19 5:24 AM, StarDust wrote: On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: Seems, hew design? https://op2.0ps.us/978-550-ffffff-no...2s-00-main.jpg https://shop.opticsplanet.com/bresse...SABEgI5RPD_BwE This scope has been around for nearly two years. Reviews aren't great, but typical for the price and wide field. Google is your friend. That's what it says, rich-field! But is it flat field or what? Just a plain Fraunhofer achromat and a fast one. Will have a bit of colour, not great for planets. No rich-field scope is good for planets! Made for photo and wide fields! 1. No, low-power, high-aberration rich-field achromats are the worst for planets. 2. Low-power scopes are poor choices for imaging planets. 3. Colour error bloats star images in deepsky photos. This scope, I don't think can be used for photo either with that plastic focuser in the back? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 22:47:56 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 3:43:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote: On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 06:02:28 UTC-4, StarDust wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 12:53:02 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote: On Tuesday, 12 March 2019 13:42:52 UTC-4, StarDust wrote: On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, JBI wrote: On 3/12/19 5:24 AM, StarDust wrote: On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: Seems, hew design? https://op2.0ps.us/978-550-ffffff-no...2s-00-main.jpg https://shop.opticsplanet.com/bresse...SABEgI5RPD_BwE This scope has been around for nearly two years. Reviews aren't great, but typical for the price and wide field. Google is your friend. That's what it says, rich-field! But is it flat field or what? Just a plain Fraunhofer achromat and a fast one. Will have a bit of colour, not great for planets. No rich-field scope is good for planets! Made for photo and wide fields! 1. No, low-power, high-aberration rich-field achromats are the worst for planets. 2. Low-power scopes are poor choices for imaging planets. 3. Colour error bloats star images in deepsky photos. This scope, I don't think can be used for photo either with that plastic focuser in the back? Well, any scope can be used as a camera lens as long as it has a way to attach a camera, but it's an alt-azimuth mount so you'd be limited to terrestrial and moon/sun shots. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 5:24:16 AM UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 2:23:23 AM UTC-7, StarDust wrote: Seems, hew design? -cut- This isn't what I would choose or recommend for the price shown, but I wouldn't pan it either. The inclusion of the 7x50 binocular is problematic, because the FOV isn't specified. The eyepiece might be nice to have, at 70-deg AFOV. You get a case too. Maybe the tripod can be used with other equipment. I would rather a beginner get a larger-aperture Newtonian and a binocular of his/her own choosing. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An Incredibly Rich Star Field in Canis Major | Davoud[_1_] | Amateur Astronomy | 23 | December 21st 09 12:47 AM |
Urban Richest-Field Telescope? | Margo Schulter | Amateur Astronomy | 9 | October 2nd 07 12:27 PM |
Is 1/4 wave good enough for a rich field? | donutbandit | Amateur Astronomy | 18 | November 27th 03 02:13 AM |
Rich Field Refractor? | Alan Buttivant | Misc | 8 | November 17th 03 06:32 AM |
Building a simple rich field telescope? + laser printer | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | July 14th 03 06:16 PM |