$2000 vs $200 Telescope: Which is better?

[@lanorothwolf2184]

People with really good dark skies have no money to spend on telescopes

[@ABaumstumpf]

Or have enough money/time to get to those places.

[@itsevilbert]

They could make a telescope kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZ_daH2AobiNrNk Getting it mirrored is probably the hardest part, if you have no money in the middle of nowhere.

[@ryantitsworth]

I don’t think there has been a more true statement than this comment right here

[@Inimbrium]

@@itsevilbert The mirror is 90% of the price, if you have a dobson. If you want one with an EQ mount, double the price lol

[@itsevilbert]

@@Inimbrium You obviously did not watch the video. You grind the glass for the mirror, reducing the cost of the mirror by a very large factor. And can have it mirrored by someone who built a mirroring machine (e.g. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lafOZ4abeJKqn7c ) or the places that professional observatories use to mirror their mirrors (e.g. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaWWm6eogtelpLM )

[@darksentinel9304]

I didn't see a single dehumidifier in this video I am very disappointed

[@nicogutholz9399]

Well, you can't know yet :D

[@BadBoyV1]

lol

[@Aki-to]

Didn't the expensive telescope have a built-in one?

[@my3dviews]

Plus, where are the solar panels? I need solar panels or I won't buy it.

[@tygrahof9268]

That is sold separately.

[@Patriotgal1]

Retired Astronomer (Professional and Amateur) here. For a beginner, the cheap achromat will be fine. I use that same scope as a finder on one of my main scopes. The APO is essential if you are planning on astrophotography. Seriously, it is essential for quality photos. Astrophotography is not a cheap hobby. I say that as an airplane owner... ;)

[@feroxcious]

Price and quality usually have an exponential relationship in my experience.

[@allancopland1768]

So ntrue.

[@tombackhouse9121]

I got a 6" dob for a hundred quid nearly 10 years ago, nearly new, and it's as much telescope as I've ever needed so far. I've spent significantly more on eyepieces and filters than I did on the scope. It needn't be an expensive hobby!

[@fliegendeschuhe5614]

Astrophotography makes it exponentially more expensive since you’d need an eq mount, mono cameras, filters, guiding

[@tombackhouse9121]

@@fliegendeschuhe5614 That is extremely true. Haven't got into the photography side of it yet partially for that reason- but I enjoy soaking up those photons with my retinas anyhow.

[@blackie75]

That's very true if you're only viewing, rather than taking photographs.

[@awatt]

IV got a cheap travelscope. I Chuck it in my rucksack along with it's wobbly tripod, tent and such and lug it up a hill in the middle of nowhere away from City lights and it's bloody amazing..... considering it only set me back about £70.

[@bluecollarcanuck]

Similar here; found a decent freebie photo tripod and a good Pentax waterproof spotting scope on sale. It's great turned up to 50x; you can see every single pockmark and crater on the Moon.

[@concernedcitizen780]

Astronomy should be fun not necessarily expensive.

[@allancopland1768]

The best telescope is the one you use the most.

[@BoserPSN]

>calling himself a scientist >not using eVscope >smh

[@Xgya2000]

Meh, I couldn't charge an eVscope on a solar frikkin' roadway, so I'll pass.

[@ryantitsworth]

intel shill I thought it made it funnier lol

[@RipperYou]

'Son I am dissapoint'

[@johngaltline9933]

I use $130 telescope, and honestly it is more than enough for my needs at this time. I'm looking much more at spending on a nice mount before upgrading the scope. For astrophotography the mount that came with it is not quite up to the task with the weight of my DSLR. After the mount I'll have to see if the insanely cheap Celestron 80EQ is up to the task. While I think it may do the business good enough for my low level, hobby, needs, the focuser is also a bit weak, and starts to sag under the weight of the camera. Still, I'm very happy with the $130 spent here, and get better images than that $3000 kickstarter scope.

[@ScoobyJoobyJew]

Look on the used market. You can get some surprisingly good deals on gently used scopes. I got my C8 with a CGEM mount, barely used with extras for less than half of retail.

[@paulcizdziel3769]

Thank you very much for showing this comparison! I have been pondering this for months as I decide how to get into astronomy economically. The low cost refractor scopes from reputable suppliers are attractive, but I have never seen (until now) a direct comparison with expensive apochromatic scopes. Nicely done!

[@Astronomater]

if going for deep sky only visual, get the less expensive achromat. If going for planetary visual, get an ED doublet or a long achromat(f/10 or longer). If going for full spectrum photography, get the triplet apochromatic refractor. If going for a scope that is dedicated to single wavelength photography, get the short achromat. If you want to save 1700 dollars, get a 6" f/5 reflector instead of an apochromat.

[@edwardallen6175]

that says it all period.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

If you record in RAW you can view the red, green and blue separately. Can software fix the blue blur or can a focused for blue image be merged with one focused for the other colours? _Hugin_ software allowed photo colour fringes to be perfectly aligned from RAW images. Perhaps three colour focused images could be taken? an alternative to monochrome imaging.

[@jimmurphy6095]

Easy, take a picture through the cheap one and you'll see the difference in under a second. Bright blue-purple rings from the focus not coming together at a single point. That's what you pay the big dollars for. The glass.

[@MyLittleMagneton]

The photos from the cheap telescope looks absolutely gorgeous, especially when passed through some noise reduction.

[@MrChalmers99]

I've gone up from an £85 Tasco luminova refractor 700mm focal length to a £185 Celestron Starsense 1000mm focal length Newtonian reflector, i think that's a good step for a beginner astronomer :)

[@Martial-Mat]

Isn't this the equivalent of saying "If I drive it on a suburban road, there's not that much difference between a Ferrarri and a Ford Focus"?

[@tarstarkusz]

Not just that. The MAJOR problem with this cheap telescope is build quality. Everything inexpensive coming out of China is just horribly made. You can see the thing is made of chineseum. Total shit.

[@johncalcott2089]

depends, is that a solar roadway you are driving on.

[@OssamabinKenny]

I like the Suburban more than Focus

[@ryantitsworth]

john calcott haven’t laughed at a comment all day, so I thank you for making me laugh

[@DoktrDub]

@@tarstarkusz actually the ED apochromatic skywatcher evostars look very similar to this in terms of finish and material and are some of the best apo’s you get can, skywatcher make serious shit, but even skywatchers entry level line is pretty decent as far as entry level stuff goes.

[@cbf63]

I've got a celestron 90mm f/11 frac that beats out my other bigger scopes for contrast and I doubt another expensive 90mm would be that much different so I'm happy with it...good video sir 👍

[@ericbarnett6771]

I had a late 90's AstroMaster 90EQ that had a fluorite lens. Stupid me sold it to buy a 127mm Mak Cass on a goto mount.

[@KonFess]

Fyi, no ads with this video.

[@Pet_Hedgehog]

@Ad Lockhorst youre special

[@allancopland1768]

I owned a Stellarvue Nighthawk. Pin sharp but loads of CA. Now replaced by an SvBONY SV503 ED 80mm plus field flattener.

[@Sunlight91]

When will we get a solar powered telescope?

[@faceplant950]

You just need a solar panel, and a *really* long power cable, to reach to the sunny side of the planet.

[@sunrayker2470]

Well, if it wasn't for solar power (nuclear fusion in the stars), you wouldn't see a thing!

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

You answered you question at 2:20. It's all in the optics, cheap gets cheap results.

[@alexgolitsyn]

Thank you, a really nicely done comparison!

[@PellegrinoPool]

thank you for giving me my answer. Only it's exactly opposite of what you're saying you made me realize I couldn't stand looking through a cheap telescope and I'm only doing this for a year

[@rontz]

To me, good telescopes seem rather expensive. If you think about what you’re getting for about $1500 in photographic lenses, there’s quite a difference. You’re getting about 7-15 lenses with several apochromatic parts, great build quality, weather sealing, special coatings and of course auto-focussing-motors - and sometimes an optical image stabilization system. And that is, even though everything for photography is extremely high priced. What am I missing here?

[@backgammonbacon]

Your lenses are not sharp wide open and they are not as apochromatic as you think they are.

[@astrodysseus]

My two cents on this: for someone that just start astrophotography and wants to be amazed by what's out there, a $200 telescope (or even a camera lens) is sufficient. The first time I got the Orion nebula on my camera, the first time I saw those colored shapes lost in the black sky, I was thrilled. It's a feeling really difficult to share but you will be both amazed and proud to have capture that by yourself. Over time however, you will want to evolve towards other much much more complicated targets and your eyes will become more expert at seeing things you would not notice otherwise (eg coma, CA, etc), that's where for refractors, doublet and triplet become necessary IMHO. They are much more expensive and they fix things that a beginner wouldn't probably even see/notice (like for your analogy with wine). As for the skywatcher AZ-GTI mount, in equatorial mode it's the best portable mount because of the wifi, go-to and ability to use battery (delay the cable management nightmare as much as you can :) ). However, wifi and goto for a mount are only useful if you connect it to a computer and starting diving into things like PHD2, APT, sharpcap etc and the periodic error (inherent tracking error) of the AZ GTI is very bad in comparison to a skyguider pro. For someone that just start and just want to see something, the skyguider pro would be a better choice. Only downside (but I think it's fun as it teaches you to learn the main stars) is you will have to manually find your target in the sky (see star hoping).

[@joeshmoe7899]

Starsense is adaptable to various 'scopes.

[@Jakelol1980]

Im thinking about buying the 120mm Startravel but what goto mount should i get for it?

[@Wub892]

4:30 why not drop the iso and go with the same 30 second or more exposure rather than less time?

[@griffith500tvr]

Just a correction, an ABO focuses 3 colours to a point, not all....

[@greg6162]

What’s better for planets like Jupiter, Venus and Saturn… refractor or reflector? Thank you

[@MichalKottman]

I wonder how much of the chromatic aberation could be removed digitally in post processing, any experience?

[@dedskin1]

Here the Signal to Noise ratio is so bad , that there is just no detail so the difference is hidden . The difference is MUCH MUCH bigger . Once you get Clean Sharp image stack , well processed , things become a lot more different , Literally stars are 10x smaller on APO, kid you not . The more detail you pull out from the photo , the more you stretch it stars bloat up , become bigger , to a point where you get 100x smaller stars on Apo. I kid you not , compare it by pixels on well stacked and processed image .Not on RAW image So , again if a USER is A beginner i would say lots to learn before Achromat becomes the bottleneck , but for more experienced user Apo , and then difference in price is about correct .

[@paulmurphy5489]

The Celestron Omni AZ 102 has the same aperture, but a 660 mm focal length, and 6.5 speed. I wonder, with the same eyepieces, how it would compare to the $2000 scope?

[@kingalexado4380]

What’s the name of the $200 telescope

[@georgenovtekov4351]

Rolf this is really bad comparison… So my two cents if you want to compare two scopes: 1. Use focusing mask as focus is critical when you want to test. Here you did nothing. 2. Use same f-stop and same aperture. No scope can overcome aperture. 3. Not only chromatic aberation counts there are many aberration types that can ruin your pics. 4. Every scope have its purpose and somewhere it shine. For 2k$ you need to fit it for best to get what you paid for. So I started with scope for 200$ and with many iterations I cam to scope for 6k. And every $ worth it. So lets start with the problems of 200$ scope and pictures. You start with Scope for 200$ and you start with observing everything is awesome you ignor purple halo but the you swing you scope to mars, saturn, jupiter and you start pushing magnifying and suddenly this purple halo i very prominent and annoying. Hmmm thats not good. Than you go to your astroclub. Ppl there should able to help but instead you are in situations where you are in family van to a supercar show. You thinking this guys are stupid they have this cos they don’t have what to do with their money. You get offered to look trough their scopes which are 3-6k$ scopes. First you look trough 12-14 innch Dobs and bam thise faint object that you tried with hour scopes look vastly different and some of them even show colors. Than you went to the guy with 12 inch SCT and you see Saturn and bam you see this little smeared object o boy you see gas belts on the planet you The ring with Cassini gap and everything is colored. Hmm you are start to think maybe I picked wrong 🔭. The you are approaching the guy with big refractor that drinking beers instead of watching the sky and see that his scope is wi camera on. You ask him can he show some pictures and bam you see hubble stile pictures with insain quality. And than you spending begging. In short where are the problems of this 200$ refractor and why its the worst scope you can bay. For first scope you want to see the sky as this refractor is unusable for photography. In seeing aperture is everything really everything and the best for your buck is Dobson. Its a complete package you don’t need mount and other stuf just open and watch. This is the cheapest telescope per inch. But you already got 200$ money grab refractor you want to push with it. So you need to get certain things in order to start taking pics. First you need to spend money for robotic mount so you can track the objects for longer exposure. Guys in the club advised you to spend at least 2k$ so you get something that can carry 16+kg. You don’t agreee because you scope is only 3 but you decide to listen. So you are ready you mount your camera on your scope point Orion and shoot and bam miracle. Than you go in internet and you see that you picture is fairly bad. You discover that others use photosho to push and clear the picture. You push yours and everything start to look really ugly purple halos are really big and annoying, half of the picture is out of focus and domehow the stars arround the corners look more like line than pinpoint object. And here you realize that 6k apo of Takahashi, TeleVue and more well spend. Because this refractor for 200$ just got a bad chromatic correction, no leveled field where corners are unusable, focuser is cheap crap and can’t carry your camera so its deflected over the weight. So you go spend 6k and use the 200$ as guiding scope. This is how everyone that decide to stick with the hobby ends.

[@georgenovtekov4351]

And just to mention there are 4 types of refractors: 1. Cheap 2. Semi-apo cheap but usable 3. Apochrimats somehow cheap but if you pick good sample very usable ( china Quality Control) not worth is as they are on 70% of good ones but you can get limon. 4. Premium Apo that comes with test card of this exact scope and its perfect instrument.

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

So you won't tell us the models?

[@AntPDC]

Thank you. Couldn't the CA be easily removed in post-processing?

[@mattb9343]

Instead of debunking the EVScope. You could buy a cheap $200 regular telescope put EV on the side in permanent marker and sell it to these fools for $2K.

[@DoktrDub]

I sure you’d want to thoroughly inspect it if you are throwing that much money at something lol

[@blahorgaslisk7763]

Before watching the video I'd say that how much better the $2000 telescope is depends on what metric you use. On one hand you can look at things like detail resolution or refraction of colored light, on the other hand you can look at what your needs are and how well the telescopes measure up to that. If both fulfil your absolute needs then both are serviceable for your use, but if only one of them deliver results that are usable for your need then that telescope is infinitely better than the other.

[@Ken_James_SV]

The main difference noticable between the two pics is the brightness level. This is due to the different FOV, Focal Ratios, and Focal lengths of both scopes. The cheaper Achromat has a shorter focal length (and faster F ratio) giving it a wider Field Of View making the image brighter, PLUS the fact that it is also a slightly wider aperture collecting more light, so the Achromat has 2 reasons to look brighter. To do this experiment correctly both scopes should be the same F ratio and F length, and Aperture. Otherwise you will always get a different result between the two.

[@edwardallen6175]

@@Ken_James_SV and do not forget one got a filter used on it.

[@veli-mattijamsen4819]

Newton is my choise. Yes difficult to start with but good images after some practise. Thanks Isaac :)

[@Guido_XL]

Best of both worlds: a Maksutov-Newtonian. Not a refractor, and not a standard Newtonian. It marries the best qualities of a Newtonian with the options that a lens can add to the equation. So, you get rid of the coma and the diffraction vanes, practically emulating an expensive apo-refractor, for a fraction of that price range. I have a Sky-Watcher 190/1000 Mak-Newt. This is all a beginner can desire. The almost perfect all-rounder. I hope I can postpone any wish for a successor for a very long time.

[@stormingbarney4498]

I started off with a Newton and didn’t enjoy collimating it all the time and then finding out I had to collimate my laser collimator. The diffraction on the stars also wasn’t to my taste.

[@Guido_XL]

@@stormingbarney4498 What I believe to have learned from others (but what I did not have to put into practice myself yet) is that a cheshire eyepiece should suffice to collimate your Newtonian. Others have mentioned that a laser-collimator can easily do more "damage" to the alignment of your Newtonian than leaving it as it is. I bought a cheshire eyepiece along with my Maksutov-Newtonian, but I believe I can wait, until I found the confidence that it is time to use it. I also bought the "Bob's Knobs" screws that will fit my scope, as they promise to make things easier. Like the cheshire, they are still wrapped. I think that for a beginner, a cheap refractor would be on the sweet spot of choices here. Something like a 120/600, equipped with a 2x Barlow and some 2" eyepieces. Very nice for the Moon and star clusters. Not so good for planets, they have to wait until the beginner can afford to buy a Mak-Cassegrain of a decent proportion. Or, what I did, until the beginner buys a Mak-Newtonian. also not that cheap as a Mak-Cassegrain, but it is the almost perfect all-rounder for a beginner and the more experienced amateur. The planets appear nicely on the 190/1000 Mak-Newtonian with the 5 mm Hyperion eyepiece from Baader Planetarium. The 2x Barlow also works according to expectation, combined with a 15 mm eyepiece. The Mak-Newt produces images without coma nor diffraction vanes on the stars, as the secondary mirror is attached at the Maksutov lens. The lens may produce a very slight hint of chromatic aberration, but I believe that is acceptable.

[@haydenwhitbread724]

@@stormingbarney4498 I like my big newtonian but the dobsonion mount is very dissapointing in my experience. Looking to get some sort of astrograph once I make a little money Collimation tip I wouldn't recommend laser collimation other than if you are way out of alignment and need to get close before using the simple collimation cap. It does make large adjustments faster but try collimating with the laser and then check with the collimation cap. I collimated my laser at about 40 ft and my scope is fl 1200. Even then, collimation with the laser was far too imprecise. There is too much uncertainty with how square the laser assembly is in the focuser of the OTA. You cat really mess up those cheapo reflective collimation caps. And ensuring that collimation is dead center (not just in the circle) is pretty critical in my experience.

[@stormingbarney4498]

@@haydenwhitbread724 I gave up on the laser and went back to the old method of pointing at an unfocused star which worked. I replaced the Newtonian in the end with a Reflector and got into astrophotography - have never looked back.

[@Petertronic]

I still use the 60D, excellent camera

[@l.4165]

The evscope clearly outpaces these two.

[@sleepy314]

LOL

[@God-CDXX]

i wouldn't buy The evscope if it was only $100

[@Aki-to]

Yeah, totally, man.

[@God-CDXX]

@@Aki-to i wonder if a P900 would be better than the camera in the evscope

[@beez1717]

The EV scope should have added in a much higher quality and more sensitive sensor and then had a built in way to track the stars. They then should have had at least some good extra features such as filters to see different light types, a measuring system for what you're seeing and even more. :/

[@phonotical]

Its not about how big it is, its about how you use it! 😂

[@VittorioSergi]

the moment you begin to use a monochome camera with RGB filters chromatic abberration becomes less of a problem, and achromats do work better than in a One-Shot-color scenario that is. fact still stands though that pricier APOs do get more attention from manufachturers and third party makers, so they usually come with better focusers and more importantly, they have dedicated correctors and flatteners which makes more of a difference. Having said that i mostly agree with you, I do think there is a certain swett spot in price to performance when you have decided on Focal lenght and speed of the scope

[@mduvigneaud]

Dr. Mr. thunderF00t, this video thumbnail and subject was, IMO, too similar to the debunking video of the eVscope. I almost didn't watch because I thought it was essentially the same just touching on different things but: I'm *VERY* glad I did watch! *VERY* good info to novices like me! :D

[@scottgauer7299]

There's a reason people pay the big bucks. It's harder to tell the difference with short exposures and lots of light pollution and zoomed out, but I guarantee you, if you sat for several minutes on that nebula, you'd immediately be able to see the difference (gross purple halos around the stars). Also field curvature without a field flattener.

[@DJRonnieG]

I just dropped $2500 on an Sky-Watcher Esprit 100ED because it promises a flat-field across a full-frame plane. My previous and first OTA was a Celestron C8 (similar to the Nexstar 8SE) and used it on a German Equatorial Mount. The C8's high focal length is great for planets but makes long exposure imaging quite challenging. So I decided that I wanted to do this on "easy mode" which is why I went from a 1200mm focal length (w/ focal reducer) to a scope with a 550mm focal length. Was tempted to buy an 11" SCT, but that would've been even more challenging to work with. At high focal lengths, your polar alignment must be beyond excellent. Although I've never combined planetary imaging with auto-guiding, which apparently some people are doing. You see, whether I'm doing Jupiter, Saturn or the Moon... if polar alignment is imperfect, the center of the frame will constantly drift. Add a barlow or powermate and this exasperate the matter. Bottom line, I'm really looking forward to clear weather tomorrow night now that I've spent the past week and half setting-up, troubleshooting issues as they came up and tweaking the electronic focuser and testing on less-than stellar night.

[@martynh5410]

Sounds like you’ve got some good gear there. I just got my Evolution 8 EdgeHD scope last week. Had it together and on the same day was looking at Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and Neptune as well as Andromeda galaxy and several other objects. This thing auto-aligned in about 10 minutes (with StarSense) and I used the SkyPortal app on my phone to select planets and galaxies. It aligned with them quite well. I was impressed! Hope you got some clear skies!

[@ronstewtsaw]

I inherited the same SkyWatcher - maybe a couple of years older, the colour scheme is different. I recently bought a camera for other reasons, and decided that if I have both, I should try to put them together. At this stage, having only two successful deep sky photos with the SkyWatcher, I am happy with it. I got a bigger finder scope and a better focuser. Mounted on a moderately priced tracker, 30-second exposures give me round stars. I was wondering why so many of the stars were blue, but of course, it's the typical achromat halo. As I say, I am happy, but I'll never be able to photograph volcanoes on Mars with it.

[@greg6162]

What’s better for planets like Jupiter, Venus and Saturn… refractor or reflector?

[@alcyoneaquila9670]

C90 maksutov good for planet

[@thePretendgineer]

"Professional wine tasters" are kinda not a thing. There's people that know a significant amount about different vintages, but oftentimes they can't even tell the difference between a red and a white when given a dyed white. The test has been done many times by many publications and the results are almost always the same.

[@Czenda24]

I seriously doubt anyone with taste buds couldn't tell a difference between red and white wine.

[@thewoode1050]

Yeah there are... It's called a sommelier, who go to school for this stuff and are employed to create wines, etc.

[@thulyblu5486]

"professional" just means you make a living doing it (it's their profession). So professional wine tasters are definitely a thing, that doesn't mean they must be good at what they claim to do. (Similar situation with professional fortune tellers, alternative healers, etc)

[@thePretendgineer]

@@thewoode1050 They're also a joke. I've seen piles of tests where they couldn't tell a white from a dyed red. The whole profession is a joke.

[@roberson644]

Are you still in the UK? Doing astronomy in England must be a nightmare lol.

[@clla3393]

hello friend!!, great video!!. Do you know maxvision telescopes? they have a fairly accessible price, but I have not found reviews of that brand

[@TheUrbanAstronomer]

Great comparison.. thank you!

[@thomasa5619]

Do you have any basic telescope videos? I’m really only knowledgeable on rifle scopes I’m thinking about buying a cheapie of some sort and going for a drive an hour from town

[@exploatores]

how much do a cheap mount vs a ten times as expencive mount.

[@excitedbox5705]

not much. You can build a mount for a few bucks using an esp32 if you know what you are doing. You just need to use a DC motor with a belt drive instead of stepper or you would have too much vibration.

[@jeffreylebowski4927]

Nice video, just some advice, when you overexposed your first image and then reduced the exposure time, what you really should have done is reduce the ISO which basicly just amplifies the signal from the sensor when the sensor is read out. - using ISO 100 is ideal, that way you can gather as much light and information as possible without overexposing anything, and when you use the RAW format you also dont lose any information in the underexposed regions - that information will be saved in the 12-14 bit raw and you can brighten it up once you edit your photo. ISO does not make your sensor more sensitive or any such thing, it just boosts the signal when reading out the sensor, but the information gathered is the same no matter the ISO if you use RAW. - If you use JPG you will lose data in the compression and 8bit color depth, especially in the underexposed parts.

[@rogervanbommel1086]

True, though some data may be lost in the obligatory raw to fits conversion, and with high light pollution it does not matter that much

[@ericklein3960]

is that a meteor or comet in the 2nd picture?

[@Ken_James_SV]

A Satellite, and there are more annoying streaks appearing every month as Elon Musk destroys ground-based Astrophotography for all! Satellite Streaks are appearing through all our images now and it is going to get far worse as he now has permission to orbit 30,000 of them!!!

[@Desterothx]

Why are there so many grains in the photo of the better telescope

[@AndyinMokum]

I bought my Sky-Watcher Startravel 102T OTA from *First Light Optics* in the UK. They ship worldwide too, which is really handy as I live in The Netherlands: www.firstlightoptics.com/startravel/skywatcher-startravel-102t-ota.html . It's a cracking good little air gapped dubblet. If you're handy, it's really easy to upgrade it with some modifications. For instance, swapping out the basic stock focuser, to a dual-speed Crayford focuser. You'll end up with a really fine "grab and go" telescope. For it's price, you really can't beat it.

[@marvins8420]

I was thinking about to start Astrophotogrphy. My main goal would be to take a pic from the Horsehead Nebula. But that seems kinda hard at the beginning and even for passionate people. Can you or someone eöse recommend a set (tracker, camera, teleskop /type) to get at least started for Astrophotogrphy, or even to take a pic from the horsehead?

[@idk-zo2cd]

Try finding a 114/500mm telescope (or a telescope with low focal length) refractors have the best quality... What's your budget?

[@fliegendeschuhe5614]

For a good imaging setup maybe look at HEQ5 and a 6” newt (skywatcher 150p-ds is good). Camera can be a DSLR but upgrade to a cooled cam after you can get guiding

[@zelodec]

From my experience the difference between an achromatic and apochromatic triplet (and doublet is some cases) telescope / lens is huge. A achromatic telescope for daytime use works just fine but at night where there are a lot of high contrast areas (stars) it produces hideous purple bloated stars and not only that but since not all colors come into focus at the same point you get slightly softer images. Single narrowband imaging with an achromat telescope can produce great sharp images with minor distorted images. Reflector telescopes come with other issues like the importance of collimation and the need for a good coma corrector especially at faster apertures and not only that but cheap steel tube reflectors have issues with tube and mirror flexture so guiding with a separate guide scope can be a problem. For 200-400$ you will be better off buying a 6inch reflector than a refractor. But if all that is not important to you than you should be happy with a cheap telescope that produces purple bloated, distorted stars and softer images.

[@Ken_James_SV]

I have been doing Astrophotography for about 15 years mainly using cheap Achromats successfully by using a #8 Yellow filter on CYMG sensors and a Minus Violet filter on RGB sensors. A UV/IR cut filter also sharpens all the stars to get rid of bloat. Many of us do it this way.

[@cbf63]

It also helps if you use a slower scope like a f/11...all these fast telescopes have too many problems to overcome right out of the gate but slower scopes are very comfortable on my eyes.

[@anthonyexmouth]

What was the expensive OTA? Looked like the old equinox.

[@4CardsMan]

Interesting presentation, but the moving camera was uncomfortable. Next time, a tripod or gimbal would improve it.

[@tarstarkusz]

That 200 dollar scope is probably useless for anything, primarily because of build quality. Within a very short period of time, the moving parts are going to have too much play. Trying to attach a camera to it will be problematic. The wheels will be falling off. It would not surprise me if the lenses started moving around inside the telescope!

[@Saxie81]

He mentioned that in the vid

[@coffeecuppepsi]

Whats the line on bottom right of the expensive image? Satellite?

[@Nusma]

shooting star

[@2Evil2Hope]

He said he thought it was an airplane.

[@coffeecuppepsi]

@@2Evil2Hope oh i probably went for coffee just then :(

[@melgigg]

It’s a geostationary satellite.

[@coffeecuppepsi]

@@melgigg yeah that makes sense... Cause it moved very little in 15 seconds, that's actually the tracking . It could have been a very short duration falling star but the brightness is too constant

[@binarysplit3178]

Noob question: Why are focus and focal distance needed for such distant objects? I'd expect telescopes to ship with a fixed infinite focal distance, with at most a tiny bit of adjustability to compensate for changes in telescope length due to temperature...

[@aleksandersuur9475]

Trust me, you'll want all the focus range you can get and ask for more. All the junk you mount after the telescope has different focal distances, various eyepieces, different cameras mounted differently, what kind of optics you have in between, field flatteners or none, prime focus or eyepiece projection you have million options on how to get a picture out of the telescope and they all focus differently.

[@tombackhouse9121]

You're always going to be focusing at infinity, but swapping eyepieces, adding filters, Barlow lenses and such means you need to tweak the focus to compensate for whatever is at the other end. I imagine the same is true for people who are into astrophotography, personally I like soaking up those photons with my retinas though.

[@erikjohansson1814]

I see a little difference, bit not 1800$ difference.

[@stevenwarner9156]

You can get a lot out of some cheaper scopes. The achromats only seem worth it if you are going into very involved astrophotography with DSOs. I've seen some astonishing images from people using an f/5 APO with a 60 mm aperture on a lower end tracking EQ mount. APOs no doubt save a lot of hassle in sensitive imaging and stacking many long exposures, but they are truly for deep enthusiasts. For visual use, or very basic imaging of brighter targets like M42, achromats do well enough. I love my f/5 120mm Sky-Watcher achromat paired with a semi-APO filter. Easy enough to hike with and gives stunning views on a crisp Norwegian Winter night.

[@Jamal_Tyrone]

TBH I'd be more interested in what your diet consisted of when you were doing your dieting, what did a weeks worth of food look like so I can go on The Thunderf00t Diet!?!

[@databang]

I see a streak in the lower-right on the more expensive telescope, would that be a satellite, perhaps?

[@Ken_James_SV]

Yes, and there are more annoying streaks appearing every month as Elon Musk destroys ground-based Astronomy for all! Satellite Streaks are appearing through all our images now and it is going to get far worse as he now has permission to orbit 30,000 of them!!!

[@PCEKNG]

​@@Ken_James_SV Give it time. Look at the benefits of his plans, he is planning on opening a worldwide internet service for countries who can't afford it. Meanwhile listening to astronomers, testing new designs for less light pollution. The ones he has already sent up will not stay up there. They have to come back down to earth at some point, new ones will replace them. Sooner or later they might find a way to make them almost invisible to telescopes.

[@databang]

@𝔅𝔞𝔩𝔩𝔞𝔯𝔞𝔱𝔇𝔯𝔞𝔤𝔬𝔫 (ન_੦ ) Well Okay, I wasn’t thinking about the visibility debate of Starlink, but it’s an interesting problem to think about. While I’m not a math magician and get lost in scaling sometimes, I cant help but think out loud thinking about your claim, trying to make a comparison with the several thousand airplanes in the sky, how they are visually larger, distributed stochastically rather than spaced on a periodic grid. So in other words, if there are several thousands of larger planes above and mostly above populated areas at any given time in the day, wouldn’t that be a bigger problem? If I stare and focus at the moon with my naked eye all night or day, what is the likelihood that Starlink or airplane would transit in front of it? Hmmm.... I wonder. Anybody, 𝔗𝔥𝔲𝔫𝔡𝔢𝔯𝔣𝔬𝔬𝔱?

[@jmcasler1512]

Could you show us a telescope at an equal price point of ~2k? It’ll be nice to know what that money could really do.

[@excitedbox5705]

It will do not much better than the $250 scope. Most of it is where you buy it from and marketing. The rest is what you are trying to look at.

[@abe-danger]

You should do this experiment again when on a trip

[@wesleydonnelly2141]

Hi. Are you the owner of the KZbin channel called "Thunderf00t" as well as this one ? I recognise the voice!?? Or am i mistaken sir ?

[@riklaunim]

Well in case of refractors you also will get field curvature on bigger frames. Plus that chromatic aberration on achromatic refractors. And ED/APO refractors are quire cheap right now $2000 is excessive unless you want something that supports full frame sensors or what not. RedCat 51 is around 730 EUR and no extra flattener needed. This test is limited by the user not by the sky ;) I live in Warszawa, Poland and still, barely, got to capture Simeis 147. For planets you need aperture. Focal length is meaningless without aperture and camera pixel size. Many modern planetary cameras have small or very small pixels and they reach optimal sampling at faster f/ratios so it may turn out it would be f/10 instead f/20 of f/25 as with popular long time ago Sony CCD cameras.

[@stevenf927]

Cost of a good mount >> cost of a cheap telescope.

[@quantavious8959]

did you use an eq mount or something theres no star trails

[@FisTheDucc]

sure he does

[@my3dviews]

Use a reflector instead. No achromatic distortion even with cheap ones.

[@Astronomater]

love my 6" f/5 reflector. got it for 150 bucks when it was on sale a few years ago. Already had a mount for it. Was a night and day difference in clarity compared to my older 4" f/10 achromat.

[@zelodec]

true but you have comatic aberration instead which to get rid off you need a coma corrector for 200-300$.

[@No_no83]

Is your canon camera modified or a stock camera?

[@southbronxny5727]

A comparison of fully processed pictures could've been more telling. Would you please?

[@PagsPayback]

It would already help if he did a better job of focusing and selecting a better exposure time / iso.

[@johnrobinson4445]

No Moon test.

[@excitedbox5705]

You can do some image processing on the computer and the quality will be almost the same. As long as you capture the same amount of data the rest can be fixed with the computer. I love that you didn´t mention the EVscope to trick the idiots.

[@pompeymonkey3271]

It's not just the amount of data, it's the quality. Yes, it's very niche. But if you want to do the best pictures or science, these small differences are incremental and significant.

[@knowbuddy6139]

[insert comment about portable solar powered coffee maker that uses water from the air]

[@Wordavee1]

So spend less money on the 'scope, more money on the mount?

[@GoldSrc_]

Yes, you don't want to fight a wobbly mount.

[@Wordavee1]

@@GoldSrc_ Diffecut to avoid at my age!!

[@OssamabinKenny]

which one makes a better rifle scope?

[@GRBtutorials]

If you want a rifle scope, buy a rifle or a terrestrial scope, not an astronomical scope. The image will be inverted and it’s big and heavy. Not sure about your requirements (I don’t do firearms), but if it needs to be mounted on top of the rifle, forget about it, too big and heavy.

[@godfree2canada]

Must stack photos

[@phonotical]

I've always found the sky to be much less orange when there is a full moon

[@johnnycanosoda]

It seems like they're comparable, I don't think there will be a huge difference after some jiggery-pokery in post-processing...I'm more astonished with Sean Connery making an incognito appearance every so often...lol

[@beez1717]

The EV scope should have added in a much higher quality and more sensitive sensor and then had a built in way to track the stars. They then should have perhaps bad memory on the telescope itself.

[@GalaxyArtMedia]

What question is that lol, very superficial video with a clickbait title

[@οδυσεαςοδυσεας]

So I do not understand the value of this with the 200???

[@CarbsLVR]

Here's something I was able to get with my used craigslist $300 setup (minus the camera): i.imgur.com/TmhtSe1.jpg

[@zerocalvin]

for some reason, i think of EVScope when I look at the title XD

[@someoneelse1904]

Very cool 👍🏼

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

for visual viewing..... save the money... for astrophotography... starter kit is ~2000. been there done that... but I want 15 000 dollar rig.

[@stormwatch5534]

It's nice to see an accent means nothing when it comes to brain power

[@andrewpattie358]

Hello I wonder if there would be even less of a difference if they were both the same size as if u have a lot of light pollution there the slightly bigger scope would pick up more of the unwanted light not sure that would be the case? But I have been told that big scopes in light polluted places r not as good as smaller ones for photography. Could be a lot of crap 🤔 🤣 would love to know it it is true or not

[@cemoguz2786]

It does matter for cameras. It does not matter for your eye at least for me.

[@Dexter101x]

Canon 60d was released august 2010

[@nettyvoyager6336]

its a bird watcher scope !

[@excitedbox5705]

You can buy even the expensive telescopes on Aliexpress for much less. 50-70% of the price difference is just the difference in profit margin the importing brand is willing to accept. The material costs for these things are very cheap so the additional weight and extra lens make maybe $50 difference in manufacturing cost.

[@4n85bjr66hj5]

Are you Tony Iommi?

[@BrofNeeko]

Wine tasting is pretentious, the build quality and materials into a telescope is almost pretentious. The quality and the fact that super expensive shit is standard is the reason why it’s so expensive lol