<<snip>>

> >Some posts suggested reduced resolution and clarity as a problem with
> >the
> >f/3.3, I would imagine as a result of using 4 lenses. Is this a minor
> >or
> >major issue, and how does the clarity compare with the Meade f/6.3?
>
> I know Michael Hart said he had seen reduction of resolution with the .33
> Optec but with the one I have and the one that Johan has I would say the
> opposite. Field Flatness and resolution were the greatest benefit that I
> have seen with the reducer. Resolution was also noticeable improve over
> the f/6.3 reducer using the .33 Maxfield reducer. It was one of the
> better investments that I have made in a long time.

I measured the FWHM stellar with the Meade, Celestron & Optec focal
reducers under good seeing (2 arc seconds). The Optec's stars were
smaller in the image, but not in proportion to the amount of focal reduction.
So, I would expect Ric to visually see an apparent resolution improvement
further enhanced by the improved S/N ratios as a result of greater flux
densities produced by the Optec.

Certain small objects benefit from the image scale at f/6.3 or f/10, but the
seeing (and drive) must be adequate to support the desired focal length.
The best M-57 I have ever done was at 3000 mm with FWHM stars at
near 1.5 arc seconds. I don't believe



--
Michael Hart
Husen Observatory

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: Meade O-III filter, Michael Hart
Next message: RE: [M]: LX200 with "Optec" f/3.3 reducer, Michael Hart
Next message in thread: RE: [M]: LX200 with "Optec" f/3.3 reducer, Michael Hart
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: LX200 with "Optec" f/3.3 reducer, Chris Margaritis