6/14/2023 0 Comments Refractor vs reflector telescopeThere is either an air gap or an oil gap. Refractors are constructed in such a manner that the doublet on the front of the scope has "set" spacing. The refractor is better than a reflector beginning with the issue of collimation. Reflector versus Refractor has been tossed back and forth for a very long time. Most amateur astronomers I've talked to recommend switching to a reflector at that point, because the primary use of larger scopes at that point becomes astronomy, and it is here that reflectors have a great bang-for-buck. Beyond that size, many of these tasks become much more difficult and require increasingly sophisticated mounting setups - this is especially true of photography. On the other hand, a high-quality small to midsize (and thus more transportable) refractor can more-easily perform many other useful duties such as daytime photography, easier viewing of land-based targets, and serving as an all-around travel (or spontaneous use) scope.Īpochromats, which feature some of the best lenses among refractors, have fallen in price considerably in recent years, so it's now possible to obtain a very versatile, top-quality refractor in the 60 to 110mm range. Reflecting telescopes are very useful for astronomy, and it's easy to spend a small amount of money and end up with a hefty tube that can gather a ton of light with very few drawbacks. These solutions each have their own disadvantage: telescopes with long focal ratios are difficult to mount solidly, so require large expensive mounts telescopes with ED or fluorite lenses are often very expensive.įor most amateur astronomers, a high quality reflector offers the best compromise in terms of cost and aperture.įirst of all, Carson is correct in that refractor lenses climb exponentially in price as the size of the lens grows. It can be reduced in two ways: going to a long focal ratio (f/15 or longer) or using special low dispersion glass (ED or Extra-low Dispersion or fluorite). All refractors suffer from this to some extent, leading to colour fringing around bright objects. Part of the advantage of refractors is countered by their chromatic aberration. Catadioptrics using a Maksutov corrector tend to perform better than those using a Schmidt corrector because their central obstructions are smaller and their correctors use simple spherical curves. In return, they provide extremely compact designs which are easier to transport and mount. Catadioptric telescopes offer the poorest sharpness and contrast because of their more complex optical systems, which also almost always include a large central obstruction. This can be minimized by reducing the size of the obstruction to under 20% of the aperture (by diameter). Reflectors offer less sharpness and contrast because of the presence of a diagonal mirror and its supports in the middle of the main optical path. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, which is why all three are manufactured currently.įrom a practical standpoint, refractors offer the sharpest and most contrasty images in a given size, because of their unobstructed apertures. There are actually three main telescope types, refractor, reflector, and catadioptric (which uses both lenses and mirrors to form its image).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |