7 replies to this topic

[dale wilson]

I am imaging with an older Williams Optics Megrez 90.  This is my "getting my feet wet" imaging scope.

There are a couple of Explore Scientific ED102 f/7 APO Triplet Refractors for sale right now.

The question is, would there be a significant enough difference in the imaging to make it worth the switch?

 

Thanks

[RichA]

Maybe better colour correction which is a benefit, but I once sold a WO Megrez and got another apo, and the Megrez had better optics, the scope was sharper.

[dnrmilspec]

My opinion is that it is not enough of a difference.  You may or may not get better optics but the aperture difference is negligible.  If I had the Megarz I would keep what I had.  Maybe look at the AT130 triplet as a reasonable upgrade. 

[jlinsobe]

If you are talking about the FCD100 then skip the next opinion.

 

I don’t have a Megrez 90 but own a 103Z William Optics fpl-53 (close to the FcD 100).  I like it a lot.  Crystal clear views, besides it’s just beautifully crafted.  It’s a doublet.

 

I researched some of the scopes in that size and the cheaper version of ES didn’t get many great reviews, even though it’s a triplet.  The more expensive FCD100 is a different story.  It’s a top of the line glass construction. 

Astronomics sells a nice 102EDL similar to my WO 103Z same glass   for a very reasonable price.  That scope has great reviews, much better than the plain ES102.

I almost bought it but got the WO instead (a second hand deal)

Edited by jlinsobe, 26 May 2023 - 12:03 AM.

[dale wilson]

While it still needs a bit of star work, this is not too bad of a shot.  Megrez 90, ASI294 MCPro.  

I know I can do some decent images with my current setup.  We all suffer from aperture (apo) envy, to a fault.

Thanks for saving me some bacon.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Sacred Heart]

I am imaging with an older Williams Optics Megrez 90.  This is my "getting my feet wet" imaging scope.

There are a couple of Explore Scientific ED102 f/7 APO Triplet Refractors for sale right now.

The question is, would there be a significant enough difference in the imaging to make it worth the switch?

 

Thanks

Dale,

 

We all want what we do not have, it is human nature.   Aperture fever can be a crippling disease, in more than one way.  You gain more in coming light, maybe some focal length, with that you find out what kind of mount you have and how good of seeing conditions you are in.

 

I have a 7" Maksutov and a 3.5" Maksutov, a 92MM and a 76MM refractor with a 130MM refractor on the way, maybe it gets here next summer.  I had a C14.   My mount is a Paramount ME, and I am portable - I roll it out any time I use it. I also have an APS-C and a 533 chip sized cameras, OSC.

 

What I found out is, this is in imaging, the percentage split is 80% mount,  120% processing.   There are people here and on Astrobin, other places too, that take AMAZING photos with little scopes on little mounts and big scopes on big mounts and everything in between.

 

Equipment wise, I'm no slouch,  processing wise I'm a bum.  I am getting better.

 

Point of the story,   get the scope you want.   The mount lets you capture the image, you process it to make it look good. Granted, software cannot make up for bad optics or seeing conditions.

 

As for me, my Maks are for visual, refractors for visual and imaging.   I'm going to youtube school to get better at processing.

 

 

Advice for your statements above:

 

Go up in aperture as much as you like, make sure you have the seeing conditions, mount, and muscle to support using the scope.  Not to mention camera for FOV and a computer to do all those MB's that turn to GB's quick.

 

Joe

[Oort Cloud]

While it still needs a bit of star work, this is not too bad of a shot. Megrez 90, ASI294 MCPro.
I know I can do some decent images with my current setup. We all suffer from aperture (apo) envy, to a fault.
Thanks for saving me some bacon.

I don't have aperture envy; I'd be perfectly happy sending an 80mm triplet to orbit so I'd no longer have to worry about light pollution, smoke, or seeing.

[Notdarkenough]

I don't have aperture envy; I'd be perfectly happy sending an 80mm triplet to orbit so I'd no longer have to worry about light pollution, smoke, or seeing.

Just don't use a ballon! You'd be surprised at how fast we can spend $2 million in missiles shooting down $500 hobby ballons!