$1750 Telescope & Camera vs $6350 Telescope & Camera

4 tests, each set taken with both telescopes shooting simultaneously, integration time equal between all tests.
no filters, bortle 7 skies.
test 1 & 2 - 0.75 arcsec/pix & 0.78 arcsec/pix
test 2 & 3 - 0.75 arcsec/pix & 0.39 arcsec/pix
First Light Optics -
www.firstlightoptics.com/tele...
365Astronomy -
www.365astronomy.com/askar-12...
HighPointScientific! :
www.highpointscientific.com/?...
or
bit.ly/3uzB4FJ
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/...
My 3d Print store -
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/
/ 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

[@NebulaPhotos]

Very nice set of tests and observations Luke! I liked how the tests built on one each other in terms of what you were looking for AS you were educating us on the different concepts: full spectrum vs. IR-Cut, SNR, sampling, contrast, etc. It all came to a very nice conclusion ending with the Crab where you could split the double stars due to the finer sampling and better seeing conditions that night and at zenith. I also know what you mean about finding systems that bring you a lot of enjoyment, lately I've been going back to very wide field because I love a different kind of challenge which that brings.

[@lukomatico]

Hey Nico! :-) Thank you so much mate, I'm genuinely chuffed to hear you enjoyed the video, that has put a smile on my face, haha! :-D I always have fun doing tests like this, it's quite a lot of work for a very un-flashy video end result, but hopefully people find it interesting! I love your work on these subjects mate, always inspirational! 👍 Hope you are doing well! Luke

[@cemoguz2786]

This is the type of content I would like to see the most.

[@lukomatico]

Glad to hear that my friend!! :-)

[@cemoguz2786]

@@lukomatico mirors for the win!

[@kerihazelton5785]

I’m just starting out in astrophotography, having just gotten a Seestar and a DSLR with the Rokinon 135mm lens, and it is so helpful to see comparisons like this one. It’s especially nice to see such a large difference in cost between the two rigs because it’s natural to assume the more expensive something is the better it will perform. As I’m doing a TON of research while I save money for a proper AP rig, it’s nice to see real world examples of concepts that I’ve mostly just read about. I sincerely appreciate the work you put into sharing your knowledge with us the way you do. It’s clear that you are passionate about astronomy, but it’s still a lot of work. Thank you so much for helping newbies like me make better decisions!

[@rtpman1953]

Luke, that is a very nice comparison and I was surprised at how well the lower-priced unit stood up to the more expensive telescope. On a different topic, I would love to see a video of your 2024 mono-processing workflow. 2023 was a busy year of upgraded/enhanced scripts and tools. I don't think I'd be alone in wanting to see this workflow and your method of applying it. You've had some fantastic ones on the OSC this past year. I always learn a lot from your videos. Thanks.

[@lukomatico]

That's something I'll certainly have to do mate, great shout 👍 Clear skies to you!

[@DingDong-fq2mo]

I love the experiments and comparisons you do like this, and with software also.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you so much, my friend! :-D glad to hear that!

[@alexandreastronomy8022]

Results are suprising, thanks for the review and clear skyes

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for watching! Clear skies my friend :-)

[@Jcorban08]

Hi Luke. Super good video, as always! Thank you for a fascinating, helpful, comparison review. I wonder if drizzling the under-sampled, Quattro data could improve it even further? That 585 sensor is amazing. Looking forward to your next video

[@lukomatico]

Thank you so much, mate!! I think you're right, drizzling would have helped recover some more detail for sure, I just didn't have enough data to really make it shine though, my dither interval and amount of subframes was unsuitable for a gainful drizzle when it would have counted! Thanks for the thoughtful comment my friend!

[@callumgreer9683]

Hey mate great to see the side by side comparison and that you don’t have to spend an absolute fortune to be getting great images of the night sky. With this hobby I just love sitting out side and looking into the dark night waiting on that 1st sub to come in 😊Great video as always my friend Clear skies

[@lukomatico]

Hey Callum mate! :-D Ah, that first sub feeling really is great ain't it - can't beat it! Hope you're getting some clear skies bud 👍👍

[@markmeridian3360]

Nice video. It's, of course, harder to see the differences with KZbin's compression. I tried to scale a photo I took of M51 with my 6" Petzval refractor to compare - it was better than either of your images. I then scaled it using KZbin's algorithm and it looked quite similar to your images.

[@MountainFisher]

I had my 150mm or 6 inch mirror refigured and it turned out 1/12th wave and .98 Strehl with a 96% reflectivity recoat (what I sent my mirrors in for). So I turned a $125 pawn shop C6-N into a scope worth a lot more and I had to put a decent focuser on it. One guy in my club loves to use it for photography and he says its clarity is second to none. I love it for visual at high power in dark skies outside town. Unfortunately the optical lab that did my mirror didn't make it out of the Pandemic and being in California didn't help either. If you want a really good reflector it is fairly inexpensive to refigure a 150mm mirror than buy a 102mm quad refractor. An eight inch mirror is almost double a six to refigure and not all mirrors are good candidates for a refigure. I just got lucky it came back so good. When I set it up and looked at Polaris and could see a _sharp_ B star next to the giant A star I knew I had a winner. I was all over the sky that night.

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

10:19 - the image on the right clearly shows more detail than the one on the left

[@mikeharden7904]

Great video with a very interesting comparison. Good job! While i was hoping for the 8" reflector, i think overall the truss scope beats it. No big suprise as it's hard to beat aperture. While the first nebula got my hopes up, the galaxy images shored up the truss scope win. I see the Kentucky Stargazers sponsor you. I'm originally from northern Kentucky so love to see that. Keep 'em coming! Mike

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for watching Mike!! 👍

[@combatwombat71]

Ah, but 'truss tubes'! I run the GSO RC group on FB, and there is a definite lust for truss tubes. One member even wanted to chop up his tubed RC to add trusses!

[@RumourHasitYT]

I was hoping to see the Askar 120 video next 😎👍🏻

[@lukomatico]

As soon as it's clear, you got it! :-D this is data I scraped together starting from before Christmas! 😅

[@astronome66]

Great comparison Luke. It's rare to see samples of images taken simultaneously and I'm often left wondering how the intervals, even if brief, between other comparisons might be influencing their results. Not so here, so well done sir 👏 For me, I'd be hard pressed to splash out the extra cash for the RC rig if I had a newtonian (and the skill) to get results like that. Cheers!

[@lukomatico]

That's really kind of you to say, mate!! I'm happy to hear you enjoyed the comparison, thank you ever so much for watching! :-)

[@andrevanzegveld]

Blurexterminator ruins any means to compare those two. I would like to see RAW data, not processed.

[@lukomatico]

I see what you're saying but from my perspective we'll just have to agree to disagree, BXT is a concrete part of my workflow so there's no point showing it without that applied, I need to know how the data will behave after it's ran. Cheers!

[@sevenskiesastro]

Interesting review Luke. Both telescopes gave fine images tho i think maybe the more sensitive 585 in the infrared is maybe giving a bit more excessive bloat. Clear skies mate.

[@lukomatico]

True that, Rob! Good observation mate 👍 Clear skies to you my friend!

[@thomaswade6896]

That’s been a great help Luke. I’ve been imaging for 3 years now using a SW Esprit 100 and and ASI 294MC Pro and it all works well. I would like a longer FL scope for the smaller galaxies etc and it has helped me to consider the options. I’ve never used a Newtonian but now think that would be the best way to start rather than a RC or maybe a Celestron Edge HD. I would also like to say I’ve learned such a lot from your video’s and am very grateful to you for putting the time and effort into them. Am now a subscriber, many thanks

[@lukomatico]

Thank you ever so much Thomas!! I'm really glad to hear you've enjoyed my videos mate 👍👍 Clear skies!

[@thomaswade6896]

What would you recommend for a first long focus length scope for Galaxies etc. Have only ever used refractors so have no experience of collimation etc. Thinking of either Newt or RC or Celestron. I can’t afford a 6 inch refractor @@lukomatico

[@lukomatico]

@@thomaswade6896 I'd say if your mount is okay with carrying it, an 8" F5 Newtonian would be a good shout - the f4 ones are more trouble than they are worth IMO, - be sure to budget for decent collimation tools and a coma corrector too 👍

[@thomaswade6896]

Thanks Luke, much appreciated @@lukomatico

[@TevisC]

Great comparison. A great comparison would be same scope with larger and smaller pixel size. 2.0um or even 1.45um. lower SNR, but discover what is possible given a set aperture and f ratio. I understand the frustration with the quattro. I have the 6" with comma corrector - reducer (518mm). Have to upgrade the spider and add a mask. Lots of light leak. Focuser is marginal.

[@rv3211]

Nice one Luke. I was curious as I own both the scopes you tested. The RC was always going to be slower, even worse when you use it at native f/ratio. 🤣 I'd say a mono camera is probably a better match for an RC because of it's speed, although your comparisons were interesting, can't say I was surprised with the resolving power of the RC though.

[@deep_space_dave]

Hey Luke! This was a good comparison with the only exception was the f -ratio which makes the RC10 need more integration time. I feel that you would enjoy the RC10 even more if you got a focal reducer for it. I absolutely love the APEX-L but the TS-Optics CCD47 reducer would do a great job as well. Something about that extra reach just is just so satisfying 🙂 Speeding up the RC10 would make it even more so. My RASA 8" has been collecting dust as I am finding my used RC8 more enjoyable so I know how you feel! Thanks for the video and clear skies mate!

[@lukomatico]

I hear what you're saying Dave mate!! I may look into some form of corrector/reducer to bring the RC focal ratio down a bit 👍

[@Nick-we7lf]

As we say. More money does not mean better quality.

[@lukomatico]

True mate! :-) there's a big difference in build quality I'd say, but in terms of performance - very little in most conditions 👍

[@SimonsAstro]

Hey Luke, great comparison video and really interesting mate! Clearly it shows that you don’t have to have the best gear that money can buy! Which is good news, as I have recently purchased a second hand Meade LXD55 for £400😀 At 2000mm I’m hoping for some good results with this scope! Your video has shown that it’s possible!! As you know, I’m a refractor guy, so this is my first reflector! So I’ve got to learn all about collimation now🤦‍♂️Haha! Good video mate, thanks and clear skies👍

[@lukomatico]

Oh nice one Simon mate!! That's going to be a ton of fun :-D congratulations on the scope! Can't wait for your first light 👍

[@seventhsun1]

Well done!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you mate!!

[@joedenisco6033]

Luke, initially, I was about to jump off a bridge. But in the end, the RC is good at exactly what I bought it for. Galaxies on great seeing nights. The .8 reducer on the RC is a great combo as well. Another great combo is the Quattro250 with the SW coma corrector. I am interested in trying a paracorr with the Q250. I feel the 1.15x magnification would pull it even closer to the RC. But, I just love the way the RC looks! Btw.. great job, as always. Joe D

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much Joe!! - I think that's the best way to look at it mate, the RC is the right tool for the job on those better nights - agreed! 👍 Clear skies!

[@rv3211]

I can confirm the Quattro 250P with 1x Apo CC works very well at f/4. You get a nicely corrected 1000mm fl. I also have a Quattro 150P w/ corrector/reducer and an iOptron RC10, 2032mm fl @ f/8. They're all so different and have different use cases. I prefer to use each scope at native focal length. If I had to pick a single scope out of everything I own though, I think I'd go for the Quattro 250P. 1000mm @ f/4 is good for pretty much everything (not M31, M42) and the scope just works.

[@edjones3390]

Really interesting! I have an RC but have never really got it working for me (On the few clear nights, I'm sticking with tried and tested refractor rigs rather than wanting to spend hours with testing and collimating in the cold) really interested in your comments about pixel scale - not something I've been giving much thought - would love it if you could dedicate an episode ?

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much mate! - I may do a vid about pixel scale sometime yeah! 👍👍

[@darkrangersinc]

Great video and overview of several topics rolled into one - looking forward to doing something similar on a 2k vs 4k refractor at the same focal length in the near future glad to see someone did it with reflectors first! These types of videos are always fun to watch and make because it’s always exciting to see the results on either end!

[@lukomatico]

That'll be awesome mate!! Interested to see how that comparison goes! 👍

[@darkrangersinc]

@@lukomatico how do you like the Player one cameras and their service?

[@petesastrophotography]

Great comparison Luke. The Quattro certainly delivers the goods for a 'reasonable' price and is a great option. As with many things in life increased quality generally comes with an exponential increase in price unfortunately. My RC is massive overkill for my skies for 99.9% of the time but I knew all too well that on those rare nights of great seeing/transparency it would shine and I would regret not having it if I had bought anything else (as crass as that sounds!). A 0.8x reducer/flattener would make a great addition to your RC and brings it down to F6.4, at the expense of some focal length of course.

[@lukomatico]

Hey Pete! I think your rationale is spot on really, if it's within budget and making the most of the conditions on a good night is high on your list then absolutely the RC is the way to go!! :-D anything else would be a needless compromise 👍 Hope you're having some fun with the 12" one, my friend! All the best, Luke

[@CosmuzzAstro]

Hey Luke Hope all is well. As you mentioned, the level of detail and quality between them, (which isn't much) doesn't justify that $6350 price tagat at all I think. I would go for the cheaper rig every time. Super video and well explained throughout. Take it easy mate!

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much Ben mate! I love making comparisons like this as it's always fun and usually surprises pop up too! Hope you're doing good buddy, congrats on the new scope btw! I need to catch your vid 👍

[@bbasiaga]

Quite an interesting comparison. After imaging for a while around 400mm, I'm looking to try my C11 with .7 reducer (2000mm) to get some small galaxies. This shows what a lot of people say - image scale is a benefit, but detail will depend on seeing. But both images look good in all cases.

[@lukomatico]

Very well put, mate! The experiment supported the theory for sure 👍 Clear skies!

[@MotesofDust]

The star shapes are better and spot size seem to be tighter on the RC. Is it worth the cost and the weight? Idk. BUT... if you quadruple the exposure time and go to BIN1 you could resolve some very fine details with the RC... I'm bothered by one thing... For signal to noise, given very similar sampling ratios, the result is not what i would expect. I wonder about the differences in sensors and quantum efficiencies? Assuming equally reflective mirrors, the 10 inch diameter 'photon flux' is greater than the 8 inch...The math for the 'etendue' of the system *should* favor the RC. (I.e. each square arc-second in your image field should be fed more light by the 10 inch. A simplified equation you might see for this is "Etendue = (aperature area)^2 * (image scale)^2 * QE"...) (Edit: with more thought, I suspect bin2 at 4 micron pixels is not equal to 8 micron pixels... there probably a loss to some sort of overhead, photons not captured at the borders of pixels...)

[@lukomatico]

Hey there! RE: etendue, the same thing bothered me too, I've always considered pixel scale and aperture to be the most important factors for speed, and felt that F-ratio for telescopes to be a bit of a 'myth', or at least not a complete indicator of the speed of a system on the whole. I suppose one problem is that for two of the four tests I binned the RC's camera to equalise pixel scale, but binning on CMOS isn't quite as effective as binning CCD, so perhaps that explains some of the lack of expected speed/snr gains. Another factor someone brought up is that because the 585 is hyper sensitive in IR it most likely gathered more photons from the galaxy targets especially, being rich in IR - a feature the 571 sensor couldn't benefit from, giving the 585 a lead in SNR. Lots to think about, thanks for the thought provoking comment mate! Cheers 👍

[@nikaxstrophotography]

It goes to show that processing skills go a lot further than the equipment used. Are the results $5000 better? nope Are your processing skills worth more than any scope? Well that answer is an easy one. Great video mate.

[@lukomatico]

Thank you mate!! Hope you're getting some clear skies 👍👍

[@nikaxstrophotography]

@@lukomatico it's on and off currently but can't complain my CG4 won zwo image if the week and I will feature on their website in an interview so not all bad :)

[@user-lt9py2pu6u]

Interesting comparison Luke. Personally given the skies we get in the UK, or at least where I live, I'm beginning to believe investing in a really expensive scope doesn't make sense unless you are going to install it at a remote location that has clearer skies and more of them. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that Instead of saving up to buy a larger scope I'd be better off using the money to travel to the Canary Islands or similar a couple of times a year with my Cat 51, Star Adventurer GTi and DSLR / cooled 533 OSC cameras, I'd probably capture more and better data in a fortnight than I am capturing in a year from my own backyard. Even when I get a clear night it always seems to be around full moon.

[@Rainy78]

Pretty darn impressive if you ask me! I was actually looking at getting the quattro 150p 6" as my first telescope haha! The price is right and the results are fantastic for what you pay! Im still not 100% sure yet though. So many options! Any recommendations on first telescope? Thanks Luke! Love seeing these comparison of vids 👌🔭🌌

[@lukomatico]

Hey there! Thanks so much for watching! Getting your first telescope is an exciting time, I'd honestly advise against going towards a quattro for your first scope though - they are frustrating scopes for astronomers of all levels really, - they can be tamed, but it requires a lot of time and learning! I'd perhaps advise a nice short focal length refractor, a quadruplet if it fits your budget would be best! :-) I seriously wish I started out that way, it would have saved me a lot of time and frustration.

[@icyxxxxx]

Cool bruh do u reccomend Celestron nexstar 8 se for beginners for planets and deep sky thank u!

[@lukomatico]

I think the 8se is a nice scope, yeah! I would say though that If you're going to be heavily focused on deep sky rather than planetary I'd recommend something with an equatorial mount and shorter focal length. Good luck!

[@DSOImager]

Cool comparison Luke. Those newts certainly show a lot of potential. I'm still put off by the prospects of constant tweaking many seem to need. Next up, a CDK :)

[@lukomatico]

Thank you ever so much mate!! I love what a newt can do, but hate making it do it! 😂 Btw, unrelated but I just read your community post about potentially making a full workflow, fwiw, I think go for it, you're a talented educator! 👍

[@DSOImager]

@@lukomatico Thank you for the nice comment Luke, that means a lot. 🙂

[@astrodojo1]

On M51 the dust underneath the galaxy is more visible on the right! Not fair not using a UR/IR cut filter on the Rosette. What an important video, thanks!

[@lukomatico]

Thank you mate! Interesting observations 👍👍

[@blr1522]

Thanks for the real world, fun comparison Luke. I think it is fair to use a cheaper camera on a cheaper Scope... that is how reality works. I would love to compare 2 hours of the F4 with say 8hours of the F10, because I imagine that the RC owner would spend more time on a target, knowing that they are slower. The Big RC owner would aslo likely have an observatory?

[@lukomatico]

Thanks so much mate!! I think what you're saying is spot-on, it'd be nice to run further comparisons like that 👍 (I'm just a bit out of willpower to keep running the quattro though 😅) Clear skies!

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

Nice comparison mate I always liked the idea of an RC scope but sadly never had the pennies to own one, I've had a couple of Newtonians which can be a bit fiddly but do perform pretty well so best bang for buck if you can put up with the fiddly nature of them.

[@lukomatico]

I'm losing the will to contend with fiddly stuff I think, I reckon I'm getting lazy 😂😂

[@Alan-vk6bk]

Great video mate. What kind of price did you have in mind for the Quattro??

[@lukomatico]

Thanks Alan mate!! Hope you're doing well btw 👍👍 Re: Quattro price, honestly unsure at the moment! If you're really interested though then do let me know if you'd like first dibs haha

[@Alan-vk6bk]

I'm seriously tempted!!!

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

8:37 - its like the difference between 480p and 720p

[@lukomatico]

Haha, brilliant! :-D Cheers for watching mate!

[@3xistenc3]

I like your videos but sorry I have to say, is using BXT helping to keep a fair comparison? Raw data may have been fairer.

[@lukomatico]

I appreciate that point of view mate! For me though I feel that since I always use BXT in my real processing jobs now, that including the use of BXT in this test gives both scopes the opportunity to be seen in their best light, at least that's my feeling anyway! Cheers 👍👍

[@3xistenc3]

Yes mate, that's fair enough. I just think BXT introduces an unknown edge to a review, being AI, but I understand why you kept to the same process. I enjoy all your content btw... I'm just a bit anti AI with imaging, even if I do secretly like the result. Haha. 😂

[@fenice319]

with the limited seeing that most amateurs astrophotographers have, the 585 is a good substitute to a longer fl scope because of it's small pixels. Not everyone can afford a 10" rc so yeah Imo its good to image smaller stuff with more manageable telescopes. A 10" rc is still my dream scopes tho

[@ross1972]

For me even with rosette nebula the rc produced a more pleasing photo but thats just my preference. The galaxies are where you get the big difference the stars looked great on the rc. The crab nebula came out great too. Definitely a great telescope for the money the f4 Quatro.

[@lukomatico]

Thanks for sharing mate!!

[@tubedude54]

To be fair you should have used the same camera on each rig.

[@lukomatico]

I feel like that would make it less fair though, as the pixel scales would not match for the first tests - I appreciate what you're saying though for sure, removing variables 👍

How do you get enough clear night this winter ? 😮. Here next to Paris, France I did not have enough clear night to finish one target. (RC8. The F/D ratio impose to get at least 8-12 hours integration for a good preprocess image with enough snr)

[@lukomatico]

Hey there David! :-) I worked on capturing this data since Christmas basically, just taking every chance I could, haha! It's been a really poor winter :-(

[@Astro_Shed]

Another great video Luke, but what happened to the cutting back a bit on content, you can’t help yourself can you…..😂😂

[@lukomatico]

Haha, mate you're absolutely right - I gotta chill 😂

[@anata5127]

Now, I used many telescope systems, except CDK. Nothing beats Newtonian with corrector in overall quality. ASA has 400mm Newtonian with F2.4. Sort of 50K price. That is real deal in my opinion! Combination of such scope, 10 um mount and remote observatory and we could be cooking! CS!

[@lukomatico]

That'd be a dream setup for sure! :-D thanks for watching!

[@MazzifLOL]

How about that 585 going up against the IMX571. Wow.

[@lukomatico]

It's a tremendous performer!! :-D

[@bbasiaga]

If the camera on the left is capturing IR, and the other one is not, that explains why its brighter, and why the galaxy detail is less on the left (the dark lanes of the galaxy emit IR, and get brighter relative to the visible light parts). Would be interesting to repeat the test with a UV/IR cut to match the camera on the right.

[@lukomatico]

That's a really great point and honestly one I'd not considered regarding the dark lanes in the galaxies! Thank you for that 👍 Clear skies!

[@mrgreenfull3897]

If left one, indeed, is capturing (more) IR spectrum, this is why stars are much bigger on the left. Many other factors are in this also.. Nice video, I like it.🎉

[@peterturner1919]

Interesting comparison luke, for me the 8 inch images overall were better, you mentioned the bad weather and for me that also is a factor, why spend 5 or 6 thousand and you hardly use it, weather definitely getting worse so value for money is just as important. Keep em coming.

[@lukomatico]

I absolutely hear the wisdom in that mate, it's a lot of cash to have tied up for 30-ish nights a year!

[@AshA-ww8hc]

Isnt the point of the RC to provide a corrected field over a full frame sensor? Can the newtonian do the same with a full frame sensor?

[@lukomatico]

Hey mate! :-) The RC would need a good field flattener to work properly with a full frame sensor, they have a fair bit of field curvature 👍 The newt would not work well with FF I feel, perhaps a paracorr would change that though but I can't say for certain. Cheers!

[@Tony-Elliott]

Really great comparison luke between the two scope, and excellent news for all of us on a very limited budget, its going to be some time yet before I can get enough funds together for a small Newtonian on a decent mount and accessories so the RC is well out of my reach ,thanks once again Luke for taking the time to make these video

[@lukomatico]

My pleasure Tony, so glad it was enjoyable for you to see, my friend! :-)

[@andrevanzegveld]

RC binned 2x2 and the other not? How on earth can you compare those two ??????

[@lukomatico]

Check later in the video mate, I make two comparisons with equal pixel scale achieved by binning the RC rig, then two at native pixel scales. Cs!

[@KalashKat]

I love my 585! Best value out there.

[@lukomatico]

Agreed, can't be beat for the money I think!

[@KingLoopie1]

I'm thinking you're going to need to spend more money! My reasoning is that you just don't know what you're going to catch on any particular night and you might not want to miss detail on an historic event by using an inferior instrument. Sometimes magic only happens once... Thanks Luke, for doing what most of us probably don't have the time or money /connections for! And thanks for getting my s50 parts to me quickly! 👍

[@lukomatico]

I totally hear you there mate, yeah!! Quality and reliability needed in that case for sure 👍 Glad you got the seestar parts quick!! :-D

[@Astroduck44]

Your the type of guy to get 3 am5’s to test 3 different 1000 dollar telescopes

[@lukomatico]

Haha! :-D now there's an idea.. hmm 🤔 :-D Clear skies!

[@jtepsr]

what bortel sky are these taken

[@lukomatico]

Bortle 7, none of these are above 2 hours of data really - it's been slim pickings this winter!

[@samuelandrew4500]

The 8" newt gets very close to the 10" RC, I think a 10" newt would close the gap entirely.

[@lukomatico]

It'd definitely be darned close, my friend - I agree!! Those 10" newts are extremely capable scopes 👍 Clear skies!

[@richardbamfield3922]

Exactly what I was thinking. I love my 8" Newt paired with an ASI2600mm, I think the 10" Newt is the way to go next.

[@CDigata]

Its good for what it is, but no good if you dont need it or use it ;)

[@davepastern]

Not a fair comparison - f4 vs f10. Really should be adjusting exposure to compensate for f ratio and then comparing imho.

[@lukomatico]

That's one way to look at it! - I guess on the other hand, people would say I'd been unfair in the other direction if I tried to equalise the test too much. Cheers!

[@davepastern]

@@lukomatico you can't really deem the potential though without them being on equal footing (equal exposure). It's like comparing my R3 with an image exposed correctly, to a R5 which is 2 stops underexposed...it'll skewer the results imho.

[@precisionastro-higgsfield]

Perhaps I missed it, but I did not hear you say what the focal ratio of the RC was that you were using. I assume F8. So to do a fair comparison, much more integration time is needed for the RC. From the images you showed, even in the Rosette Nebula, there in greater color detail in the RC image. Without making an adjustment for the difference in their focal ratios, the SNR of the RC will be worse. You could perhaps stack fewer subs for the Newtonian, and then compare. I would say I could do more with the RC images in terms of extracting color and contrast, and even detail. Moreover, binning the RC is unfair, because at bin1, the detail would have been much greater, as you started to show but dismissed (Don't do it you said). Well you are wrong here I think. The M63 galaxy core had way more detail. Yes lower SNR, because of insufficient integration time. It is also worth mentioning that oversampling allows BlurXterminator to do a better job. The RC paired with a focal reducer would have been a better combination to make it a faster scope, and less oversampled. Just my 2 cents worth!

[@lukomatico]

Hey mate! :-) thanks so much for the thoughtful comment! Re: binning, the last test (crab)was on a night with better seeing to act as a counterpoint to what I showed on m63, bin1 did the business with M1, I wanted to show that on a poor night bin1 isn't worth it, but on a better night it's absolutely worth it 👍 Cheers!!

[@TalGivoly]

I think that M63 and M1 were clearly better on the RC. I have and enjoy the Quattro a lot. Best value for money. But it cannot beat just any scope…

[@lukomatico]

That's totally fair mate!! Cheers 👍👍

[@christopherbaker8621]

Not a very good comparison. You are looking just at the center of the imaging circle of the inexpensive scope with a very small sensor and then not taking advantage of the large imaging circle on the RC by using a crop sensor. Put a full frame camera on both to see the real differences.

[@samuelandrew4500]

Lol some people will never be happy. Cheap newt + ASP-C will have twice the FoV and still be well corrected out to the corners, for a fraction of the price of the RC + full frame camera.

[@christopherbaker8621]

@@samuelandrew4500 I think you miss the point, who would spend that kind of money on an expensive scope to put a crop sensor on it. Maybe it is an expensive scope because it gives you a high resolution, flat field on a full frame sensor. It isn't a fair comparison if you take away the entire reason to pay for the more expensive scope (focal length, flat field, and imaging circle size) in doing the comparison (over a similar FOV). Isn't it like comparing the JWST image of Saturn vs. a ground based scope of the same and calling JWST a waste of money if the ground based scope produces similar or better images.

[@samuelandrew4500]

@@christopherbaker8621 The vast majority of pics on Astrobin are using ASP-C or smaller, you place the most interesting details of an image in the centre of the frame. This is a perfectly fair comparison, the conculsion is over this field of view the performance is very similar. If you want a comparison of an even more expensive setup, go do it yourself.

[@lukomatico]

-Christopher: I appreciate the video may not be for you, the point of this exercise was to just observe the results from these two scopes over a common field of view, not to say one is really better than the other - just to say 'here's what I've observed' and let people draw their own conclusions :-) Re: the RC field coverage, it would need a good field flattener to cover a full frame camera, there's a lot of field curvature (and astigmatism) on these RC scopes even evident over this aps/c frame - it's a myth that they are natively flat, they need corrective optics which I don't have access to at the moment anyway, so full frame would have been a major letdown for the RC even if it did fit for this experiment parameters. Cheers!

[@lukomatico]

I'm really glad you enjoyed the video and found it fairly done mate!! Thank you for that 👍👍

[@luboinchina3013]

VS RASA11 ?

[@lukomatico]

I wish I'd installed a third pier now, haha! :-D Clear skies my friend 👍👍

[@ronanhunt88]

Im getting fast newt fomo!!

[@lukomatico]

Haha!! I'm sorry about that mate 😅 the newt performance is great but there's a lot of headaches involved too I'd say 👍

[@cdz9400]

Telescope I can't afford verses Telescope I really can't afford

[@lukomatico]

Sorry mate! Astro gear really is crazy priced I agree

[@cdz9400]

@@lukomatico it's ok, I'm not giving up this hobby no matter what

[@TareqAstroPhoton]

@@cdz9400 Don't give up, i started in 2017 and i was just dream about having any cheap scope that is good enough, now i have so many telescopes not so expensive but pricey enough, including RC10 that was my dream back and i managed to afford one finally, but need another budget now to have a good mount for it.

[@gabewrsewell]

ah that’s why, my comment got deleted! i just finished an image i was proud of and mentioned the name of my instagram if you wanted to see it, but it looks like youtube automatically blocks it if it’s mentioned! anyways my original comment was also that i’d definitely take the $6350 rig, so that i could sell it and get three and a half of the cheaper rigs instead :))

[@lukomatico]

So sorry one of your comments got deleted mate, damn :-( as you suspect, it's an automatic filter on all links to try and protect folks who visit my videos, it works well but it inevitably does occasionally throw the baby out with the bath water! Sorry mate!! I like your strategy for the rig re-shuffle, haha!!

[@gabewrsewell]

@@lukomatico no worries! it was the first time i’d gotten out to dark skies in a long time, and the image i got was something i’m really happy with because it’s just what i hoped it would be, drawing back to that video of yours from 5 months ago when i first found your channel and your photo of a dark dusty brown nebula was what helped motivate me to get shooting again, so again i have you to thank for that! cheers again luke, have a great day :)

[@AmatureAstronomer]

I like the cheaper one better. Plus, it is cheaper.

[@lukomatico]

That's absolutely fair enough mate!! 👍👍 Clear skies!