66mm ED APO - Just way too small? (1 Viewer)

SeattleDan

Well-known member

• Feb 23, 2012

• #1

Saw a steal of a deal and had to ask. From all I've read (which isn't everything), folks always opt for "more light."

I'm just another low budget guy, trying to get up and running, so after perusing threads here, I thought I'd just top post this.

It's a fully multi-coated Astro-Tech

thanks for your patience, ya'all

Dan

 

P

Paul Corfield

Well-known member

• Feb 24, 2012

• #2

At 400mm focal length you will need to get close to the subject. For a small bird that would mean within 10m so you would need some sort if hide and try and get the birds to come to you. The AT66ED is only a 1.25" focuser from what I read and that could show slight signs of vignetting depending on the size of the camera sensor. The scope is FPL-51 glass which will show some sligh blue color fringing on certain subjects such as bright white brids or dark subjects against bright skies. Might be worth considering the AT72ED for the 2" focuser and slightly longer focal length, same FPL-51 glass though.

Paul.

 

SeattleDan

Well-known member

• Feb 24, 2012

• #3

thanx much, Paul - saved me from a bad investment I think

thanks even more, for explaining your reasoning... I'm shopping and had questions about the coating designations - found some chinese scopes with FPL 53, and all I really knew was to look for, "fully multi-coated," and "ED." Also, in the matter of astro-scopes, apochromatic, and refractor. I understand from one of your compatriots here, (I think), that focal length is important, "more than 500," I think they said.

I have to say it was tempting though. I'll keep my nickels, keep reading what you all write, and window shopping.

 

P

Paul Corfield

Well-known member

• Feb 25, 2012

• #4

FPL-53 is generally the glass to go for where possible as chromatic aberrations are usually kept to a minimum. In the Skywatcher/Orion 80ED it's almost undetectable even on a 100% view of the photo. A good FPL-53 scope can also be better than a poor apochromatic triplet and in that respect are good value for money.

My first scope was a 480mm non-ed scope and I was always having to remove aberrations from photos and quite often wishing I had more focal length. It all depends on what you want to photograph and at what distance.

Paul.

 

Aegea

Well-known member

• Feb 25, 2012

• #5

I've been wondering about a using 400mm scope with a Nikon V1 for a lightweight portable combination. That would be equivalent to a 720mm on a crop sensor (APS-C) camera. But from what I see, the good 60mm or 66mm APOs are almost as expensive as the 80mms. Or have I just not been looking in the right places?

 

alphan

Well-known member

• Feb 27, 2012

• #6

Aegea said:

I've been wondering about a using 400mm scope with a Nikon V1 for a lightweight portable combination. That would be equivalent to a 720mm on a crop sensor (APS-C) camera. But from what I see, the good 60mm or 66mm APOs are almost as expensive as the 80mms. Or have I just not been looking in the right places?

Click to expand...

Was thinking in the same line but alas, the good smaller scope doesn't come any cheaper but on the contrary cost even more and less choice. The good old C80ED, SW80ED are still the better choice.

Wonder how the V1 perform side by side the 1.5X crop camera as far as bird photography are concerned.

 

Aegea

Well-known member

• Feb 27, 2012

• #7

alphan said:

Wonder how the V1 perform side by side the 1.5X crop camera as far as bird photography are concerned.

Click to expand...

I've tried both - V1 and D90. The V1 has some advantages:
- 1.8x longer reach compared with APS-C sensor
- Easier manual focus (for me, at least)
- Much less camera shake (especially, I think, with the electronic shutter option)

And some disadvantages:
- Fewer pixels (but only slightly compared with D90)
- About 1 stop inferior high ISO performance
- Inferior dynamic range
- Generally worse ergonomics (e.g., changing ISO means going into menus)

On the whole, I like the V1 better. The longer reach is the killer advantage, and the IQ is more than good enough in good light.

 

alphan

Well-known member

• Feb 29, 2012

• #8

Aegea said:

- Generally worse ergonomics (e.g., changing ISO means going into menus)

Click to expand...

That's a PITA. Imagine you suddenly saw lifer in the shade and you need to really boost ISO to get it. I quite often have to switch ISO especially when switching to TN. Just have to wait for them to release the next generation V1 with higher ISO and pixel.

 

Aegea

Well-known member

• Mar 1, 2012

• #9

@alphan - yes, it is a pain. Most of the issues could be fixed in firmware - for instance there's a "F" button that might be used to give direct access to ISO - but somehow I doubt Nikon will do any major firmware changes. I'm sure they'd rather we all bought the V2 when it comes out.