Hello,
I've both read and heard from people who know a lot more than I do that certain scopes are optimized for visual use and others are designed for photography. I've especially heard that R-C scopes are great for imaging but just so-so for visual use.
Can someone explain how this is done? Is it the scope design, such as R-Cs, that is better for photos, or is it the figure on the mirror, etc. In other words, can a Newtonian or Cat be optimized for photography and not visual use or vice versa?
Last night I was using a 20" R-C on Mars and although I have heard repeatedly that it is better for imaging that visual photography the views of Mars were about the best I have seen, so this really got me thinking about this topic.
Thanks, any explanation will be an improvement on what I know now.
Good luck and clear skies.
Tom B.
I've both read and heard from people who know a lot more than I do that certain scopes are optimized for visual use and others are designed for photography. I've especially heard that R-C scopes are great for imaging but just so-so for visual use.
Can someone explain how this is done? Is it the scope design, such as R-Cs, that is better for photos, or is it the figure on the mirror, etc. In other words, can a Newtonian or Cat be optimized for photography and not visual use or vice versa?
Last night I was using a 20" R-C on Mars and although I have heard repeatedly that it is better for imaging that visual photography the views of Mars were about the best I have seen, so this really got me thinking about this topic.
Thanks, any explanation will be an improvement on what I know now.
Good luck and clear skies.
Tom B.