Quote:

---

That wasn't the best picture to take with the 111 and publish. It does look like blue bloat, although processing could account for much of it. I think reprocessing or a new picture is in order to mend all doubts.

---

Here is the SAME image redone. If you look at the original post it's quite easy to see several mistakes made. As I said before Andy has come A LONG way in the past 2 months as far as processing goes. This was one of his first serious images. That is not a dig against Andy at all. The black point is severely clipped and the saturation has been turned up to bring out the colors and some detail. There has also been too much noise reduction applied to it. All of these factors contribute to the image he originally posted. Take a look at his M51 shot, the Homes shot which made it into Astronomy magazine last month or his M81/82 Image Here . I don't see any blue bloat visible. Notice the difference in his processing skills.

The TMB92SS is not over priced and is actually a very good deal considering what you will get when they arrive.

The 111 looks to be a phenomenal deal. I'm surprised that noone has commented on how flat the field is with the 111. There is VERY little curvature present. This is not easy to do with a triplet design.

I also don't see anybody "Dancing around the issues" as has been implied. It's funny, the TMB130SS went through the same ringer when it was first released and look now. IF you can find one for sale they command the same price as when bought new and have gotten nothing but rave reviews comparing them to any 130-140mm scope available.

CS's

--------------------
Bobby

StonyHill Observatory
Skywatcher EQ6 Pro (On it's way)
AT 130 F/6 Prototype
Royce 10" f/4 Astrograph (Under Construction)
Self Modded 40D
70-200 F2.8 L IS
SSAG

YAHOO TMB 130SS Group

Astronomy Technologies Yahoo Group

Post Extras