Probably not a big deal, but there is some distortion introduced by the
f/3.3 reducer which is not there with an f/6.3 reducer. With a small chip,
like the ST-7 or the Pictor 416, the wider FOV of f/3.3 is really useful,
and the lower exposure times help a great deal, also. 6.3 * 6.3 gets you
close enough without using the extreme reducer.

I got an f/10, figuring the same as you. Three years later, I am into CCD
much more that visual work, and I wish my scope were a native f/6.3.

--Mark de Regt

-----Original Message-----
Michael De Santis
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:02 PM
Subject: [M]: Thanks, and another question


I want to take a moment and thank the people who responded to my question
the other day about 8" vs 10" LX 200. You all gave me a lot to think about,
and I'm inclined towards the larger scope.

Choice is a good thing, but sometimes too many choices lead to
complications. My next decision is f/10 or f/6.3. My general intention and
inclination is to use the scope for mostly visual duty, with a general
interest in DSO. I would like to get into astrophotography, but then I'd
also like to learn to read hieroglyphics someday - my point being that I
don't know what will happen in the future. I'll certainly try my hand using
my OM-1, but the world of CCD's, as tempting as they may be, is probably
some distance away.

Given this, does the f/10 (with the possible addition of the focal reducer)
give me the flexibility of what I'm looking for, or will the native f/6.3 be
a better choice, given my general interest in fainter fuzzies?

As always, your guidance is appreciated.

Mike

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: [M]: Re: Thanks, and another question, Paul Luckas
Next message: [M]: DC Area Astronomy, RebelPPC
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: Thanks, and another question, Maarten Vanleenhove
Previous message in thread: [M]: Re: Thanks, and another question, Paul Luckas