Winsor Crosby wrote:
> The images look terrible to me, more like something from one of those
> ads in the back of a magazine except the price should be $39. I don't
> understand why, but astronomical telescopes seem to make lousy camera
> lenses.
I'm not so sure. Richard has certainly taken many really first class
shots with his Takahashi, and I've seen other excellent results.
> Televue telescopes are about as good as they come for small
> astronomical telescopes but here are a bunch of terrestrial shots
> that would cause a camera owner to change brands.
>
> http://www.televue.com/engine/page.asp?ID=297
>
Here, you can see the problems, and I think they have to do more with
technique than the inherent quality of the scope/lens. People who are
used to shooting up to say 200, even 300 mm get a really long lens,
whether camera tele or telescope, and don't learn and use the techniques
needed for sharp results.
Remember Gary's tests of the long Zuikos. Using techniques that were
good on shorter teles, he got mediocre results. In later posts, he
acknowledged that he had found that better technique revealed that these
lenses themselves were are sharp, but controlling vibration to get sharp
results was very difficult.
Another problem is with air movement at long distances. Whatever the
inherent sharpness of the lens, resolution in this shot (~1,000 mm eq.)
is limited by air movement
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Maine/Sigma600/pages/02_1631.htm>.
> I would rather spend the $1000 on a good sharp zoom, or a telescope
> better than this one.
>
Absent further information, I agree. I wouldn't pay that kind of money,
not even 1/4 of it, for the **TothTelescope Raptor without FAR more
information and independent tests to prove my suspicions about it wrong.
Moose**
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|