Disregarding such issues as color abberation and focus tube quality, should a TV 102 be expected to optically outperform an AR6 on planets?
Opinions, please.
Started by tomdisco, 09/18/2003 02:33PM
Posted 09/18/2003 02:33PM
Opening Post
Posted 09/18/2003 04:49PM
#1
>Disregarding such issues as color abberation and focus tube quality, should a TV 102 be expected to optically outperform an AR6 on planets?
Not quite sure how one can disregard color aberation since that one of the two important differences between the 102 and the AR6.
jon
Not quite sure how one can disregard color aberation since that one of the two important differences between the 102 and the AR6.
jon
Posted 09/23/2003 11:43PM
#2
Hi James,
I don't want people who own 6" f8 achros to take offense but the 4" APO is better in every way. I own 2 4" APO refractors and I recently had a brand new Konus 6". The achro was inferior in every way, from its size and weight to its soft images. I also own 8" and 10" newts and except for cooldown time they are both superior on planets to the APOs. A 6" f8 reflector, a Mak-Newt or Cass, IMHO, are vastly superior to the 6" achro. I've never used a Chromacor equipped scope but I would think that is the only way to make a 6" f8 achro a worthwhile planetary instrument.
My .02,
Steve
I don't want people who own 6" f8 achros to take offense but the 4" APO is better in every way. I own 2 4" APO refractors and I recently had a brand new Konus 6". The achro was inferior in every way, from its size and weight to its soft images. I also own 8" and 10" newts and except for cooldown time they are both superior on planets to the APOs. A 6" f8 reflector, a Mak-Newt or Cass, IMHO, are vastly superior to the 6" achro. I've never used a Chromacor equipped scope but I would think that is the only way to make a 6" f8 achro a worthwhile planetary instrument.
My .02,
Steve
