It depends on what you want. If you want wide field photography then
refractors are usually better because there is more uniformity
between the edges and the center of the image. Reflectors have coma
unless you also get a correction lens for photography. They also
usually have an obstruction in the middle to support the secondary
mirror that results in the effect of rays coming out from a bright
object like artistic depictions of the star of Bethlehem. They are
usually bigger and heavier than refractors in modest sizes. They have
to have a long cool down period before they can make clear images
undistorted by convection currents inside the tube. They frequently
have to be realigned. They really are awkward if you also want to use
them for bird watching. :-)
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Dec 24, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Allan Mee wrote:
>
> Hmmm I would think that a reflector (preferably with a motorised
> equatorial
> mount) would be better than a refractor for astrophotography.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|