Sorry, but that's being disingenuous. They don't make extremely high performance (and expensive) wide-field scopes for nothing. There is a huge group of imagers who use them (and professionals as well) and dismissing them by saying they're the same thing as a Samsung cell phone is simply showing a bias. From the TEC 300VT-7Degree, to the Tak FSQ and Epsilon lines, to OS' RH line, AP RH scope, etc., etc. If you don't match camera and scope to object, larger aperture is NOT better and no amount of dismissing that face is going to make it correct. It depends on the object.
On the contrary, I completely agree with those fast scopes.
They are in fact VERY large aperture scopes for those focal lengths. If I were to do widefield I would love those very scopes myself.
9 times of of 10 those focal lengths are achieved with 3 to 4 inch apos with much smaller apertures at the typical f6 / f7 ratio.
I was rereferring to those examples where people try to compare a typical APO to a fast large scope.
So for almost all situations you want more aperture as you demonstrated with these telescopes:
"TEC 300VT-7Degree, to the Tak FSQ and Epsilon lines, to OS' RH line, AP RH scope"
Obviously aperture with the correct f/ratio. A 16" classical cassegrain at f/20 is almost useless for deep sky imaging.
There are other things like pixel scale, image circle, etc to work out too.
Edited by Rouzbeh, 18 September 2021 - 03:45 PM.