2.11
...
·
 |
|---|
Well the minicat 51 has 2x super ED glass element so it has a premium glass but i feel they somewhere down the design of it pushed it too far at 3.5 focal ratio and defending it with BlurX was definitely a poor move to justify it. The askar SQA55 also has one SD glass and it looks like the sharpest even at full frame. Hope they soon release a revision version II of this minicat (maybe at f4 the stars at sharper)
|
12.25
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
I would personally not spend that sort of money on a scope that won't even accepably cover APS-C sensors without AI intervention. I look at the raw images from the Askar SQA-55, the Redcat 51, the SV555 etc, they are all far better, and around the same or lower price. Then look at the FRA300, better again. Look at the 65PHQ - even better again. Both at the same price point. There are hundreds of instances of scopes that are cheaper that will produce better or equally as good images for less… Even a Nikon 180mm f/2.8 lens or the Nikon 105mm f/1.8 lens. Canon 135 F/2L or Samyang/Rokinon 135/2… They should never have released a telescope that needed a disclaimer on their website to state that it would not produce a corrected image, and that you would need to fix the images with AI tools. Despite the fact that blurxterminator will correct the images (mostly), BlurXterminators purpose is not 'correcting crappy optics' its performing iteratively converged deconvolution in order to yield the most sharpness out of your data without introducing deconvolution artifacts like dark rings around stars… Yes, it will tidy up sloppy PSF's and eccentric stars from poor optics, poor focus or tracking errors - but it works best on GOOD data. Its the old 'You get out what you put in' idiom… If you dump garbage data in, the result will be slightly sharper garbage. |
5.21
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Alex Nicholas: Very well said, and my sentiments exactly..👍🏻 |
1.51
...
·
|
|---|
It has been a trend in the terrestrial camera world to make uncorrected and even heavily vignetted optics and correct the images in-camera. I’m afraid this trend will continue.
|
8.11
...
·
|
|---|
I think the important thing is that manufacturers be transparent about the performance of the systems they make. As far as I know, Redcat in this case has been. No optical design is perfect but as long as you know what the performance is, you can make your mind up based on that data and your requirements. In general, I'd look for a set of spot diagrams for the full field of the system. If that isn't available then I would really think twice about purchasing the system. Or at least make sure that I can return it for a full refund if it's found wanting.
|
