Thank you, Paul. I hear you about the photography. I look at the work Philip
Perkins has done at f9 and f10, and see that photography certainly is
achievable at the longer f/ratios.


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:04 AM
Subject: [M]: Re: Thanks, and another question


> Mike,
>
> Most of us have struggled with this at one stage or another. You'll never
be
> able to argue completely for one or the other (they both have their
> particular benefits). Yes, if you're going to do primarily photographic
work
> then the shorter focal length will be of value - however, most (if not
all)
> of the best SCT shots have been done through f10 systems (using focal
> reducers where quoted). Similarly, many will argue that f10 is an absolute
> necessity for planetary work - but many of us have enjoyed planetary
> observations through f6 Newtonians for years - sometimes using a barlow to
> get the extra magnification.
>
> I suggest you go with f10 - simply because it is the safest way out of not
> ever being able to know for sure. If you're feeling creative - and want to
> be a little different - then go for the f6.3. Either choice will result in
> an excellent telescope with years of satisfying views ad photographs
ahead.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: RE: Thanks, and another question, Maarten Vanleenhove
Next message: [M]: Re: RE: Thanks, and another question, Michael De Santis
Next message in thread: [M]: Re: RE: Thanks, and another question, Michael De Santis
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: RE: Thanks, and another question, Maarten Vanleenhove