I dunno.... compare the price to an Orion 80mm ED. Not much difference.
Given the choice, I'd go with the refractor.
Now once you get beyond 5 or 6 inches in aperture, the difference might be
considerable... but they don't offer them in this size.
Michelle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sf-bay-tac-bounces@No-Spam
> [mailto:sf-bay-tac-bounces@No-Spam] On Behalf Of Leonard Tramiel
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 12:55 PM
> To: The Astronomy Connection
> Subject: Re: [TAC] Scope of confusion
>
> Right,
>
> It will give better performance than a normal newt at much
> less cost then the CORRESPONDING apo. (my emphasis)
>
> So you get a 3" scope that performs better than a 3" newt and
> costs less than a 3" apo. But it cost more than a 6" newt, is
> no more portable and performs worse.
>
> -Leonard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Crilly" <jlc@No-Spam>
> To: "The Astronomy Connection" <sf-bay-tac@No-Spam>
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [TAC] Scope of confusion
>
>
> >
> > Without the diffraction spikes (and less bluriness) then possibly
> > performance on the moon/planets is better than the normal newt,
> > at substantially less cost than the corresponding apo?
> >
> >
> > --- Peter Santangeli <peter@No-Spam> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm confused. I just read the S&T article on Orion's 3" off axis
> >> reflector.
> >> I was actually interested in this, because it is clearly
> so unusual. From
> >> the article though, when compared to Orion's *cheaper* 6"
> newtonian, it
> >> has:
> >>
> >> - less light grasp (obviously)
> >> - the same size tube
> >> - (surprisingly!) less contrast
> >>
> >> What am I missing here? Apart from it being gimicky, what
> advantages does
> >> it
> >> offer the observer?
> >>
> >> Pete
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Received on Mon Mar 7 15:29:47 2005