Refraction or Reflection?

Forget about everthing else you know about telescopes.

In your honest opinion.......................

Which method gives for better viewing................Refraction or Reflection?

If you had 2 telescopes with theoretically perfect optics, one a refractor and the other a reflector, then the refractor wins, as it doesn't have a central obstruction, this is ignoring alot of imperfections/non-ideal practical factors.

Yes Dave IGNORE everything else....................which basic metod is more sound. You say Refraction..................i tend to agree. Simply beacause the 1st ever telescope was a refractor.

It's tried and tested technology. Takes a bit of getting used to seeing certain celestial object turned the wrong way................

Simply beacause the 1st ever telescope was a refractor.

...and the first airplane used a propellor, that doesn't mean its better than a turbofan!!

A GOOD refractor is better than a reflector of the same aperture because it doesn't have a central obstruction and thus provides higher contrast. However for amateur use a reflector wins because you can get a large reflector for a tiny fraction of the cost of a a high quality refractor of the same aperture.

Reflectors are tried and tested too and provide sharper images than many refractors because reflecotrs focus all the visual parts of the spectrum at the same point, something only apochromatic refractors do.

something only apochromatic refractors do

and very well, but price per inch puts them beyond most newbies. Then again when I started I knew nothing about apos, achros, newts, maks, scts etc. It was all about what I could see and for me what I could take pictures of. If I could go back in time my set up would be a lot different.

Actually thinking further the one design I would go with hands down is a Richie-Chrètien cassegrain reflector. However the only way I'm ever going to afford a decent sized RC is if I learn to go and produce a hyperbolic surface myself.