elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on May 25, 2017 10:54:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on May 25, 2017 12:10:13 GMT
Wow, the difference is amazing!
The 8" Newtonian and Infinity is far FAR better.
The stars are cleaner, sharper, rounder, and the contrast looks better. The Newt/Infinity combo also shows LOTS more fainter stars and even all the tiny stars inside the Globular Cluster.
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on May 25, 2017 13:51:21 GMT
Yes. in my opinion the diameter of the tube is essential. The resolution of the 8 "is higher than the resolution of 4".
The cameras do their job very well but I've made enough series of photos comparing objects and the result is always in favor of the diameter of the 8". The focal relations are fairy equal in the two. I am sure that if the cameras were interchanged, the results would be the same. The 8" pick up more detail.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on May 25, 2017 15:57:37 GMT
Try it. I'd be interested in seeing the results if the cameras were swapped. The Infinity in the Bresser, and the AG in the 8".
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on May 25, 2017 22:45:55 GMT
Ken, M12 with Newton 200 mm + Mallincam AG1.2c M 12/ EXPO= 10x5"/ G50 /ALTIT=34º/ MOON=0 /SW GIMP
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on May 26, 2017 14:31:33 GMT
Interesting. The AG seems to have slightly bloated stars even in the 8". Strange for a 224 sensor.
Nowhere near as clean and sharp as the Infinity. So it's maybe not the telescopes making the difference, it could be the cameras. I haven't seen any other 224 sensors give stars like that. Are you binning the AG?
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on May 26, 2017 16:16:27 GMT
No, im not binning.
Keep in mind that the chip of the 224 is smaller than the one of the infiniti, so the visual field is bigger and the object is also greater. Perhaps this gives the impression that some stars are thicker. I see more detail and more stars in the AG than in the Infinity. The ones that seem a little thicker and tight are those of the Infinity, maybe the size of the pixel has something to do?
I am also pleasantly surprised by his performance. Tonight I will test with some planetary nebula if the sky is clear
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2017 10:11:15 GMT
If you are comparing a CMOS image from a refractor and a reflector, wouldn't you expect a difference in "star bloat" - because of the way light is refracted or reflected.
You could help the refractor out by using a UV/IR filter?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on May 27, 2017 13:53:39 GMT
Ahhh, yes Carlos, I didn't take into consideration about the FOV from each size sensor. If the AG was used with a Focal Reducer and an IR filter they would almost be the same. The 8" will give a better illumination of the fainter stars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2017 6:59:59 GMT
Great discussion and very informative Thanks Paul
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on May 28, 2017 20:30:45 GMT
My experience with focal reducers and refractors ED an achromatics like mine is that appears quite additional chromatic aberration.
I dont use it anymore. I prefer to increase or decrease the fov by changing the camera with a more or less large chip.
I dont use filters anymore because they remove light from stars and objects and I think they are not necessary in my observation conditions.
I took a lot of pictures with and without filters and I prefer without.
And yes, reflector 8" gives more light in faint objects in my point of wiew
|
|