Big & Long VS Small & Short - Are big telescopes worth it?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- I think it's worth the extra trouble and cost, but do you? let me know in the comments!!
Equipment -
Askar 120 APO
Player One Uranus-C Pro
UV/IR cut filter (Baader)
Celestron EdgeHD 11
Player One ZEUS-C Pro
UV/IR cut filter (Astronomik)
Affiliate links - If you want to use these then it'd really help me out at no extra cost to yourself! :-) Thank you!!
These tools have changed the processing game for me, no joke.
BlurXTerminator -
www.rc-astro.com/software/bxt...
StarXTerminator -
www.rc-astro.com/software/sxt...
NoiseXTerminator -
www.rc-astro.com/software/nxt...
GradientXTerminator -
www.rc-astro.com/software/gxt...
StarShrink -
www.rc-astro.com/software/ss/...
Buy from FLO! - (affiliate link)
www.firstlightoptics.com/tele...
365Astronomy - (affiliate link)
www.365astronomy.com/zwo-am5-...
My Ebay store - www.ebay.co.uk/usr/bargain_bu...
My Etsy store - www.etsy.com/shop/lukomatico?...
/ lukomatico
Gaming channel : / @lukomaticogames (will be reborn soon!)
Topaz Labs Affiliate Link! - topazlabs.com/ref/1133/
HighPointScientific! :
www.highpointscientific.com/?...
or
bit.ly/3uzB4FJ
/ lukomatico
Amazon Affiliate Links! - Anything you buy through one of these links will give me a small commission at no extra cost to yourself!
Amazon UK - amzn.to/3EOCgpV
Amazon US - amzn.to/3quGPlD
#astrophotography #space #stars #nebula #pixinsight #seestar #zwo #asiair - Věda a technologie
Nice video Luke 🙂.
I think what's really interesting on me, is a comparison about how much the aperture improve the resolution with the SAME focal length and the SAME Sensorsize. There is a huge difference in noise between the big and the small sensor in my opinion.
Very good comparison, Luke.
In my case I use an EdgeHD 9.25” both at f2.3 with hyperstar or at prime focus at f10.
I completely agree conceptually with what you presented in this video. Bigger aperture, will catch more signal. That’s just physics. And that’s the reason why at any given focal length, more aperture will give you more SNR than a smaller aperture.
That’s why professional observatories always choose bigger telescopes.
Regards,
Alfredo
Absolutely agreed my friend! :-) clear skies!
excellent work, it's very good to understand the theory through practice! I'm a fan of your work! Stephane
Hey there Stephane! :-)
It makes me very happy to read that!! I'm a huge fan of your work too my friend, you're an inspiration to me 👍👍
Clear skies to you!
Perfectly timed while I'm trying to convince myself I don't 'need' an Edge HD 11" and get the 9.25" instead. Although portability is the bigger concern given my (very) local "planning officer" says theres no room in the garden for an observatory.
Will sit back and watch the video.
I assume your local planning officer is the same as mine ,(wife) lol😂😂
We’re in the same predicament 😂
Thanks mate!! - the 11 is wonderful, but the 9.25 are supposed to be beautiful scopes too so I don't think there's a bad choice here, only winners! :-D Good luck!
When I got my C11 I thought: what a beast! I will never move that around…then came the C14…lets put it this way: wherever i go i just take the small one with me - easy to move, easy to setup, awesome results…so, as always: its all about experience…(wonder if i ever would consider the C14 “small”…so far: still pretty beefy - even though i did move it several times back and forth…also: no need to get a full observatory one of these covers (forgot the name) works for me all year around…
@@philipps3988 I think I've been watching too many PlaneWave installation videos. The C14 feels like a finder scope in comparison :). I have access to a Edge 14 at my local society but it's a few miles away and not fully automated and has to cater to all members of course, visual and imaging. We did move it last year during dome maintenace and it is a little "cumbersome".
Good comparison, Luke. The C11 continues to shine. I am going to try the Ring Nebula tonight with it and hope to resolve that triple star and that galaxy far, far away. I've been getting great guiding with the StarSense Autoguider on the EdgeHD.
Clear skies on your short summer nights.
That's wonderful to hear Pat!! I hope your session went well my friend, it's also great news that your starsense has been working perfectly, superb! :-)
Be well mate!! Thank you as always for your support 👍👍
Excellent stuff Luke, I've been looking forward to a comparison like this. The old adage of 'aperture wins' still applies. Although the drizzled Askar 120 image is fantastic, physics still wins at the end of the day. I'm glad you touched on F-Ratios as well as this isn't as clear cut as it would first appear. Changing F-Ratio on a camera lens alters the aperture whereas changing F-Ratio on a telescope changes the focal length and therefore field of view, the aperture remains the same.
Hey Pete mate!! So glad you liked this one, it's lots of fun putting together these comparisons! This kind of thing has always interested me, there's definitely no escaping physics!! 👍👍 Being able to see the expected differences side-by-side was useful for me :-)
Clear skies my friend!!
P.s - excellent note on f-ratios and the disparity between terrestrial lenses and astronomy telescopes!
Nice comparison Luke. I have noticed the same at smaller apertures, comparing my 8" Edge to my 115mm refractor. CS!
Really interesting to hear we've noticed the same things independently my friend!! That's good news indeed 👍👍
Clear skies bud!
Excellent video and comparisons…👍🏻
Thanks mate! 👍
Beautiful job!😍
Thank you! Cheers! 👍👍
Wow Luke, I think this video is going to cause Edge HD 11s to sell out now 🤣 Excellent comparison! Amazing just those few inches of aperture add so much detail especially from your skies!
Haha!! :-D it really got some pretty high resolution I think!! Thanks so much for catching up on my videos Dave mate, I appreciate your friendship, time and support
Hi Luke great video as always
Thanks buddy!! I appreciate your support 👍👍
Thanks Luke really enjoyed this one. I have a 5 inch apo and really wanting a 9.25 now I really want the 11 😂
Thanks Simon!! It never ends does it haha, now I want a 14 as well 😂😂😂 oh well, I can dream!
Clear skies mate! :-D
Take it one step further and drizzle that Edge 11” and really pull out those fine details! Great stuff! I love these type of videos
That could be a fun one mate!!
I don't have a big telescope, an EdgeHD8 and and ASKAR FRA400, I use my EdgeHD8 way more often then the 400mm fl scope. I love the edgehd8, so versatile, so capable, such a beautiful beast
I have the FRA600. Good to know you lean towards the Edge HD.
Isn't that 8" considered as a big telescope? I do have that Askar FRA400 too only for collection for now util i am back to imaging, and the biggest scope i have is RC10, i bought it for two reasons, 1. I got a good price for it from online store so i didn't miss the opportunity, 2. For smaller targets that my 8" Newt can't resolve much enough compared to bigger one, i believe the RC10 as quality will outperform the 8" Newt i have.
I really missed my old EdgeHD8!! as you said perfectly mate, such a capable and versatile scope! Clear skies!
The EdgeHD8 is a big scope in my book! :)
I am having a lot of fun with my edge HD too. And yeah, I consider it a big scope, considering I am terrified of dropping it when hauling it to my backyard. I lack an observatory, so I need to setup and tear down each of my shooting nights.
Love these comparison videos Luke. Took me a while to get into drizzling but astro pixel processor makes it really simple. Even through CZcams compression you can really see where the edge 11 shines 👍
Excellent to hear that Paul my friend!! I have a lot of fun making these comparisons, certainly more to come! 👍👍
Hope you're keeping well buddy!
Hey Luke!, Great vid. Have you tried pushing the optics on the 11 by doing the same target but with the smaller sensor camera? , not sure if that one has smaller pixels?
Hey Dave mate!! That could be a lot of fun aye! 👍 Probably be one heck of a planetary combo with that sensor on the edge too, as it does indeed have smaller pixels!
Clear skies my friend!
Nice video Luke, which filter is better, Baader UV/IR cut or Astronomik UV/IR cut
They're both extremely comparable I feel! :-) Cheers!!
@@lukomatico Ok, thank you
As with all things in life, it depends on the compromises you wish to make. If resolution and detail are the priority, and you have the option of a fixed installation, no question what to do. I'm willing to accept less resolution and detail for portability and the option to store and deploy my rig easily. Thanks for all these comparisons, Luke - really helpful.
Thanks so much!! I think that's a very level headed take on things 👍👍
Clear skies!! :-)
Another good comparison Luke. I think it is pretty obvious that size does matter, but for some people, my self included, a larger scope like the HD11 would be sadly either physically or financially impractical. To me the best thing to do is to enjoy using the gear that you have, if you can upgrade to something better great but if you can't you can still capture great images and have fun doing so, but some targets will always look better when imaged with larger scopes and in some cases might be better left alone unless you have one.
I would love to use Blur Exterminator but it only works with PixInsight which I don't have. I do use Star Exterminator and the other RC plugins and find them excellent tools.
Thanks so much for that thoughtful comment mate, I think that's a very reasonable take on things!! :-)
Clear skies to you!
My purchase of an 18 inch Starmaster recently was more than worth it!
Nice video Luke. Size does matter. Though all images are great the sampling resolution in the edge is way better. I got 7 hrs worth on m57 just to get the outer nebula. I wonder what 7 hrs with the 11in edge would produce. Clear skies my friend.
Thanks ever so much Rob mate!! as you quite rightly say, size matters with these things hey! :-) Clear skies buddy!
Nice comparison, the Edge 11 is an amazing scope. I did a similar comparison between my Edge HD8 and WO FLT132. I couldn’t see a massive difference, perhaps the WO having the slight advantage. I find refractors less troublesome overall.
Hey mate! - I'll bet the WO FLT132 is a pleasure to own, such a nice scope :-) when it comes to just getting a job done with no hassle, refractors are king for sure!
GA Luke. Neat test and TU for performing the comparison. The C11 looks like it is going to be a killer scope esp when the planets come around ! I was thinking of running a similar test between my TEC140 (f/7) and 8" edge (f/10). I suspect it will be hard to tell the difference between the two. TU again & clear skies from Indiana. BTW, the pronunciation of my name (phonetically) is like "Ted-us" but instead of a T put in a G 🙂........I know, a weird name but I am 1st generation Lithuanian.
Hey there Gedus! Hope you're well my friend 👍👍
Thanks for your feedback on this, I really agree that it'll be a lot of fun when the planets come into view, - also it'd be interesting to hear how your edge Vs Tec test goes if you do it!
Clear skies :-)
@@lukomatico Tnx Luke. Yeah the 8" HD is slower but bigger than the TEC which will make it a neat test but I suspect the TEC will be sharper. Hard to beat a well made refractor. Hey, so I hope I don't muddy the water too much but we are 99% there with the name . The spelling is Gedas but the pronunciation is like "Ged-us". Weird name but hey, I'm a weird guy too LOL. Don't forget to watch Fire Fly then Serenity.....Clear skies to you, have a great day.
Got you!! Sorry for getting your name wrong again haha :-D at least my pronunciation was okay tonight though!!
Clear skies my friend 👍👍
Great video, clear and loud results!! It's impressive the level of detail recovered using the 2X drizzle.
Having said that, I'm interested in another comparison: what about drizzling non-dithered images? Using a "stock" StarAdventurer with nothing else than a battery pack and fully manually operated, I can't dither. So far, I followed recommendations about using at least 1X drizzle but I haven't tried yet to 2X drizzle. Mostly because I have big files (24MP APS-C) and hundreds of subs (840 subs for my last project, being that my exposure times were limited to 30"... while an intervalometer was getting home from AliExpress), making the WBPP stacking to take several hours and a few hundred gigs of storage.
I'll definitely run the test myself, once I get new data with at least half the # of subs... and I pay for the PixInsight license, the trial ended right when new gear (and clouds, of course) arrived.
Hey there my friend!! That's a good question, I think that because you're running unguided you'll have a degree of natural dither happening which will make drizzle remain effective 👍 I totally hear you about doing such tasks with a lot of files though, it can require a lot of processing power!!
Good luck and clear skies!
Oh my god!!! Another top notch lab video! That was sharp my friend, thank you for this super nice comparison. I laugh at “little 120 askar” hahahaha
Glad you enjoyed it my friend!! :-D I agree that does sound a little crazy haha
Very interesting comparison Luke, not really expected that huge difference in overall details and sharpness between the two.
That EdgeHD is splitting stars better is pure logic, but normally a refractor should be just a bit sharper, but not in this case though.
Hey Siegfried!! I found it an interesting one also, certainly bigger differences than expected given the very average seeing conditions on the night! Hoping to do more of these videos in the future! :-)
Clear skies!
Great timely video, I enjoyed watching. Good news for me as I have purchased the C11 as a complement to my William Optics FLT132. I was hoping to see a difference in detail.
How did you get the exposure values to show in NINA when you moused over the image? How did you know that "4700" meant it wasn't over exposed? What are these units?
Hey there mate!! :-) huge congrats on the new scope!!
The exposure values show what's under your mouse pointer, when you hold down right click over your images, as to the actual values displayed they range from 0 which would be total black, to 65535, which would be total white so it gives you a quick indication of what you're looking at 👍
Hope that helps!
Your evidence, once again, shows that the traditional 1 arc sec/pixel sampling is a myth! If you have a really good mount, excellent optics and good seeing, I can recommend 0.4-0.5 arcsec/p sampling. If you get good seeing, this combination will really shine.
If the seeing is 1", Nyquist says that you should aim to sample 0.5"/pixel or finer.
Thanks so much mate! - the 0.28"/pix of the Edge really does the business on small targets!! :-D I appreciate your support!
@@FrancoGrimoldi 1 arc sec seeing would be extremely good and not often seen. Around 20 years ago, I measured seeing with an ST4 and the DIMM method, this gives a true measure of seeing and not the FWHM measured on an image. Nyquist is very complicated because the theorem was described for audio signals, there is much debate as to how this translates to an astronomical image. Is a stellar profile 2D or 3D and dont forget a stellar profile is circular and camera pixels are square or rectangular.
Nyquist-Shannon sampling is provably true, and it applies in 1D, 2D, or N dimensions for that matter. It also only depends on sampling rate - doesn't matter at all if that's temporal or spatial sampling. Audio, images, doesn't matter. Totally agree that square pixels aren't necessarily the optimal sampling for objects with circular symmetry, though! If anything, to compensate you'd want even finer sampling! Also fair point that FWHM is only a proxy statistic for the impulse response of the OTA's optics. But an imaged star is exactly what that is - how the telescope responds to a point source. BlurXterminator is using that fact to deconvolve the image, and allows for different optical responses across the image by deconvolving over many separate tiles based on how the star shapes change.
The "little" ASKAR 120?
I needed a title, haha!! it's all relative though I guess :-D
Given the respective sensor sizes vs image circle, I'm not sure I call this a fair apples to apples comparison even though the FoV that resulted made both OTA's "appear" to provide similar results. I suppose it is a way to get a wide fast APO OTA (let's say the Esprit 100ED) to a FoV similar to an SCT. Might be a good work around for galaxy season (vs. having two OTAs), but not a solution for optimal image quality. Comparing the pros/cons using a short fast OTA with a 'normal' APS-C sensor size for imaging normal DSOs and then a switch to the 585 sensor as a viable workaround for galaxy season (vs a longer OTA) would be a better situation to explore/test. IMO.
The low as/px resolution number (in the .7as/px range for both) is going to require a VERY good mount/stable set up to get guiding that will support long exposures (5 minutes at least). I suspect that may have been a factor in the selection of 2 minute exposures used in this test.
I have to admit I'm not a fan of SCT's for imaging - that whole mirror flop thing makes long exposure imaging more difficult than it needs to be. If going that route, a RC or iDK/CDK would be a superior solution. IMO - YMMV.
The ASKAR APOs are OK (ish); I'm a bit put off by testing images posted by reviewers that have some pretty strong indications of astigmatism at the image edges that are ignored by the reviewers. I suppose that could be a rationale for a smaller sensor size, to keep the region where astigmatism become prominent out of the image circle visible to the camera sensor. IMO.
Over all an interesting test comparison because it indicates a less expensive option for galaxy season imaging vs. investing in a long focal length OTA, even if it represents a less than optimal sensor size vs. image circle match up. IMO - YMMV.
Hey mate! - I definitely agree that this isn't a fair comparison, but that's OK I reckon as I do state such in the video, it's just some fun to test and demonstrate! :-)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!! All the best & clear skies,
Luke
Excellent comparison Luke as well as a good observation WRT drizzle. I currently have the W.O. FLT120 and have been considering the Edge 8, but I'm not sure if it will give me the reach I'm looking for. Based on the comparison, I can see some benefit with the Edge8, but would it be enough? Sadly the Edge 11 would be too much load for the ZWO AM5.
Hey there Rob!! I think the edge would offer a great complement to the flt120, and I hear you regards to size too! That said, I intend on trying out the edge 11 on the AM5 myself, I really hope it works out!
Clear skies my friend!
Interesting video Luke , as most just stick the reducer straight on f10 always seems really not an option and a bit intimidating if like me you’ve not tried it , in fact exactly the opposite with a rasa 8 ! , but I’ve just got an older c9.25 xlt & currently using a 2600 MC pro and a 533MM pro in cameras , and after watching this I may just give it a go at F10 👍, after all it always surprised me that we buy telescopes for focal length and the first thing we do is reduce the focal length 😂.. Really interesting to see that yes it may be slightly slower but the detail was much better !
Hey mate!! :-)
Ah I couldn't have said it better, it really does go against the goal to immediately reduce these things! I think the edge scopes perform exceedingly well at their native F10! 👍👍 I'd absolutely say give it a go!
I'd be curious to see how a similarly sized mono sensor camera would look on the Askar. I've heard the bayer matrix does affect things. It'd be interesting to see if without you could get more details out of those close stars etc.
I think the image quality ceiling would be a tiny bit higher with mono on these yeah! not by very much though, at least from previous tests on this kind of subject :-) Cheers!!
Nice comparison..
I wanted to ask you, what droplet size you choose when 2X drizzling? Is there a reference I can use?
Thanks
Thanks mate! I went with 0.5 scale 2.0 drop if I recall correctly 👍
Last night I imaged M27 with c11 edge/hyperstar asi2600mcpro and M27 with another c11 edge with .7 reducer abs asi2600mcpro.. have yet to edit but looking forward to it. Nice vid..
That's awesome!! They'll be very interesting to compare, please let me know how it goes!! 👍👍
No substitute for size then eh mate lol, I wonder how a 10" Newt at 1200mm would fair on this target? Hopefully I'll find out soon enough clear skies & great video as always.
I'm sure it'll be absolutely brilliant mate!! Can't wait to see your results :-D
This comparison vid has given me much to think about. I have the Askar 120 with the full flattener as well as the 0.8 reducer. My current cameras are an ASI2600MM Pro and ASI2600MC Duo. Do you see any advantages to a smaller Pixel camera like the Uranus, with either setup? This comparison tells me to keep my current cams and save my $$$ for a larger scope like your Edge.
Hey mate! I love the Askar 120 myself and feel it's got some advantages over the edge HD, being far easier to guide and it's overall user friendliness go a long way for me actually enjoying a night - that said, if you're totally fixed on wanting maximum detail from small targets, the edge is near impossible to beat, but full of extra challenges to use.
Regarding smaller pixel cameras, I think the Askar 120 benefits from the 2.9um pixels of the 585 sensor quite nicely, there's definitely more detail than when I shoot with the 2600 through it (but a little less signal, that's the trade off) - I think smaller pixels on the edge would be not very useful for deep sky work, but great for planetary.
Cheers!
@@lukomatico Thanks for your thoughts. You mentor skills match your astroimaging prowess.
Could the increased noise on the Askar120 pictures be due to the sensor? 585 is obviously not as good as 533/2600/6200 right?
Good question mate! I think the noise profile of the sensors is very similar, a lot of what we're seeking with noise is down to the displayed pixel scale and thus zoom level required to achieve the same size on the screen 👍 Cheers!
Wow, great comparison. How would Askar 120 compare with 8 inch F4? The focal lengths are very close but the prices are not :)
Good question mate! I think on planetary detail etc, the newt would be best, but on a wide field deep sky shot with a big camera sensor, the refractor would perform better! :-)
@@lukomatico Good! So which one is better in terms of sharpness and detail in the center? Also, doesn't f4 collect more details in a short time than f7?
I’ve been using the Edge HD11 with ASI2600 for the last year, so,it has the same 0.28”/pixel! Although it works, I always end up resampling the image to 0.56”/pixel or sometimes more. So I’ve decided to use the 0.7x reducer as this should get the extra signal without the read noise hit. Be interested in your thoughts on this idea. Cheers, Ian
Hey Ian! - That's a tough one! I think the reducer is a good bit of glass, but the scope without the reducer seems even sharper still - I'd personally worry that the trade off between signal and sharpness would be too great, but that could be a nice test video in the future perhaps :-) Clear skies mate!!
Hello Luke, the extra sharpness is definitely there when you are doing “lucky image” type captures. Unfortunately most of my targets are too dim for that (and I’m using 3nm filters to boot!) so my exposures are usually in the 5 to 10 minute range. That means my resolution is going to be limited by the atmosphere which is why I think ~0.5”/pixel would best for me. With the way the weather is going I’ll probably know one way or the other by Christmas! (Unless you’re able to do another one of excellent videos (hint,hint 😀)). Cheers and clear skies.
La astronomia es fascinante tengo 4 teléscopios dos refractores un sct meade y un dobsoniano de 16 pulgadas
Thank you for sharing my friend! 👍👍
Very interesting topic and an excellent video as always, Luke. I have been considering an Edge 9.25 as a future (maybe next year) scope for smaller galaxies and planetary nebula, but I'm in doubt if that is to big and heavy for my SkyWatcher EQ6-R Pro to handle - and not even considering all the challenges from getting three times longer focal length than my current scope. 🤔☺
Thanks for all the great videos and livestreams you produce. Much appreciated.
Wkr, Henning
Thanks ever so much for watching mate! It's very reasonable that you're concerned about the extra challenges of guiding at that focal length, I do feel that with off axis guiding your eq6 will handle the 925 just fine though! :-)
Thank you for watching and clear skies my friend!
Excellent video Luke! A video of how you take your flats unless you have one would be good ! I find when I do mine the image looks better without them ? Thanks steve
Thanks Stephen!! I'll have to do a video on that sometime, cheers for the suggestion! 👍👍
Another great video Luke - thank you sir! Can you share your guiding stats? I've a C9.25 and a CGX mount and not had great opportunities for working with this rig - either it's cloudy or I'm away from home for weeks at a time! My intent is to go from x0.63 with the C9.25 to native at around 2350mm f/10 and my 294MC pro and/or ASI1600mm pro and Antila SHO 3nm filters... (and how good is your polar alignment/drift?)
Hey there my friend!! :-)
My guiding settles around 0.5 arcsec on most nights, as to settings, I maintain a high gain on my guide camera to ensure I can use the shortest viable exposures for my guiding, I find that guiding with more frequent but smaller corrections leads to overall smoother results :-)
Re: polar alignment, I last did it about 6 months ago but regularly check - it's held solid! I did it to a high precision using three point polar align in Nina.
Cheers!!
@@lukomatico Interesting - thanks for sharing those details. I see I'm going to have to switch from ASI Air to NINA for my "Big Bertha" rig, if only to be able to make use of these additional tools including a full-blown version of PHD2. I suspect I'll need to play around with the settings over time too... best I do that while I'm still living in Arizona - I'm moving back to the UK towards the end of the year - I must be mad!!!
And I was thinking of getting rid of my Meade f 10 sct because it's unwieldy and hardly ever gets used visually, much less ap... Now I gotta think about that. 🤔
PS... Your wife was just being kind... 🤣 (just kidding! Sorta... 😜)
Haha!! Sorry if I've thrown a spanner in the works mate 😅 I reckon at the very least you'll enjoy the scope when the planets are in view! 👍👍
Clear skies!
Great video Luke just goes to show size really does matter, would really like the Celestron EdgeHD 11 but my pockets just aren't deep enough mate
Thanks ever so much Tony mate!! I'm so lucky I got a nice deal on it :-)
Something is bugging me: with 1 hour time the F10 scope shows much more details of a F7, and that's counterintuitive for me... Ok for the resolution, but F7 image should have been with a higher SNR compared to the F10 for just the higher photon collection, how is it possible that the F10 image shows much more details than the F7? I can't seem it's only resolution related! What would happen with an F4 scope? It should be 8 times better in SNR term than the F10, but is it really so? Would it be possible to make a similar comparison?
Hey mate! It's worth googling around and looking into 'the f ratio myth' or similar terms, - it's a lot to break down in a CZcams comment but try not to think of f-ratio in terrestrial photography terms when dealing with telescopes, - f-ratio by itself on a telescope doesn't mean very much, it's just a description of geometry really, it needs to be taken in context with aperture and pixel scale 👍
Cheers!
@@lukomatico thanks, but given a focal length, the larger aperture the better is it: is at least this true??? 😅
As long as the pixel scale is at least similar-ish between the two scopes then yeah generally the bigger the aperture the better! :-)
So, it seems unfair that the SCT got the much higher resolution camera.
I appreciate that mate, it may seem unfair however I think if I'd put the 585 on the EdgeHD and the 6200 on the Askar 120 the results would have been even more skewed - potentially a further test down the line there! :-) Clear skies buddy!
There is a difference, but wouldn't say is a very big difference, C11 image looks slightly better, or would say better resolution. Is the difference of price worthy??
Thanks for sharing your thoughts mate!! I think for many people it won't be worth the extra price and difficulty, for me personally it is but I have an obsy and big mount etc to support the scope 👍 cheers!
@@lukomatico Obviously is something very personal, if you follow perfeccionism is worth it, For me, I would pay the extra price looking for the best resolution if I had a fixed observatory. For sure, thanks for all your videos.
Nice video. Aperture is king. Doggone physics of light. Would like to see the 11 drizzled. It takes time but it always helps.
Thanks mate!! No arguing with that, physics always wins in the end! :-D
My wife told me that size doesn't matter.. Until I got a 16 inch dob. Now she won't even look at the lowly 5" I've been using for 40 years
Lmao 😂😂
Big new telescope also come with divorce papers. 🤑😢
Haha, not worth it in that case!! 😅
haven't watched yet, but yes a big scope is worth it.
Indeed, haha!!