
Anyway, I like the "clones" as they have performance comparable to the Naglers for a much lesser price. YMMV

cheers
cc
I said average seeing conditions because it was very windy with clouds flying about very quickly that night. I seriously doubt there is good seeing then but I could clearly see a 0.8" double star separation at 220x. What the astronomers are saying is mainly average as in over time (maybe the whole night average). The sky momentary can have very good seeing conditions for a few seconds and that is why big scopes have an advantage over small scope where faint details can be seen for that few seconds. Well these big observatories are not meant for visual.weixing wrote:Hi,Hmm... I don't think able to resolved 0.8 arcsec are call average seeing... unless you are on Mauna Kea observatoriesI was just saying that Singapore's sky condition is good enough to tell that 10 percent difference in performance. I gave an example of an average seeing condition that allows 0.8 arc second separation. In good conditions it probably can go till maybe 0.3 to 0.4 arc second which is the resolution of a 12.5" scope.. Also, base on W. M. Keck Observatory website: "Without any correcting technology, the best telescopes on Earth are limited to an average “seeing” ability, or resolving power, of about 0.5 arcseconds":
http://www.keckobservatory.org/article.php?id=74
There already a review on cloudynight: http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=1619Anyone get one please post a review!!
Have a nice day.