SCT vs NEWT - In-Depth Comparison, ALL you need to know!!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Support me on Patreon!: www.patreon.com/cuivlazygeek If you're planning on buying equipment (or anything from Amazon), it will help me if you first click the affiliate links in the description! Celestron C6: bit.ly/3ocePVs Hyperstar C6: starizona.com/products/hyperstar-6 Celestron Dew Shield: amzn.to/452wS01 Antlia ALP-T highspeed filter: bit.ly/42RBR2e SW Quattro 150P Budget Newt: bit.ly/3BABCxl Backyard Universe upgrade kit: tinyurl.com/3juwm5sz OCAL Collimator: s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_DmuBKXB or s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_Dc6JT5B Filter: www.altairastro.com/altair-dualband-ultra-4nm-certified-cmos-filter-2x22-w-test-report-11468-p.asp Flocking paper/Felt paper: amzn.to/3zASgvu or amzn.to/3m94zwa Musou Black Paint: amzn.to/3OzRxDq

[@sreeshab4093]

Great video, thank you. btw, for AM5 and Quattro, how was AM5 performance? did u have to use CWs? or weight in the tipod-hammock?

[@davidbover7734]

I like to see what I'm shooting so prefer a longer focal length couldn't you have just shot it at 1500mm on the C6? It fits nicely on my sensor with a mead 10" ACF. probably around thrice the size of it on your newt.

[@tommydstudios2094]

Hello, just started following your channel. I also just bought the 150p. I got the upgraded from Backyard Universe already. I am also looking to get a better focuser. I use a big 2" 7 filter wheel. When you find a good focuser that fits will you please let me know what one you get? I am having trouble finding one myself. Definitely following closely!!!!

[@jakomiske217]

Another great video Cuiv! Definitely surprising to see how similar they are in the end, but it's really cool to see the potential a cheap Newtonian can have for astrophotography!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much! It was also very interesting for me to do this comparison!!

[@mikeisss79]

I really enjoy these comparisons between OTA's. Very informative and entertaining as always. As an owner of the 8" Orion variant, I find this to be very interesting. I use mine with the Baader MPCC Mk.3 and an ASI174MC-Cool, which isn't great, but not terrible. I got lucky with the focuser and am really considering that spider vein upgrade if nothing else. Though I will say that mine appears to hold collimation pretty well, at least in regards to the secondary. I don't own an auto-collimator, but my friend does, so I just call him when I do need to make adjustments to the secondary. Which was only once 2 years ago when I first bought it. I do however need to collimate the primary mirror often, and it can be quite annoying. Still I think the fast newts represent a good value for someone looking to image the heavens. The C6 with it's capability of having at least 5 different focal lengths is definitely more versatile though.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Completely agree with this, and glad your newt is working well for you! :-)

[@PagyBio]

Once again, nicely done review! What upcoming focal reducer is It? Got really curious about it

[@DanWipper]

Hyperstar vs Newt Hyperstar creates an f2ish reflector scope out of a SCT that unlike the Newt can't be used for direct viewing nor with a filter wheel. Hyperstar does not increase speed as many think rather speed comes from removing the f5 mirror/corrector and reducing the focal length. Hyperstar is actually a serious light straitening coma correcting complex pair of glasses for a difficult f2 mirror. An f4 reflecting scope with coma corrector isn't normally too far off the cost of hyperstar. One could keep their SCT and buy a Newtonian scope which will allow for direct viewing and filter wheels. With astrophotography's popularity we should see new Newts designed for it, more accessories like focal reducing options and less modifications needed. NOTE; RASA or Hyperstar conversions are f2ish reflecting scopes. An f2 mirror is deep cut which has a short focus point making for a short low power fast scope, GREAT HOWEVER, the light around the perimeter is now hitting the camera/sensor/filter at a steep angle and that is hard to correct, this is what hyperstar does. But some angled light around the edges is lost creating center brightness, that star bloating and deformities are all artifacts from trying to correct an f2 mirror. Reflecting scopes normally don't go below f4 because of these distortions. One can build an f2 Newt same as the RASA however finding a way to correct the coma and the costs might be an issue until or if f3 Newts with reducers that create an f2 go into mass production. In reality both are reflecting scopes and you're seeing the difference between a f4 mirror and the more difficult f2 mirror. With tracking and sensors being as good as they are now the f4 will win. In this case the Newtonian's f4 won by quite a bit.

[@michaelbibby8636]

In terms of the versatility of the Newtonian, if you add the Starizona Nexus 0.75x reducer that will change the focal ratio to F3, which is significantly faster, and reduce the focal length from 600mm to 450mm.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, I showed the Nexus on the channel before! But I prefer F3.5 for now, easier on narrowband filters

[@michaelbibby8636]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek What CC are you using?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@michaelbibby8636 the default one that comes with the scope :)

[@michaelbibby8636]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I can't find any information about it, do you know what its called?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@michaelbibby8636 it's unique to the Quattro 150P, I don't think it's sold separately not even has a name...

[@Wombatzone31]

I love my 8inch Newt..... only reason for me to get an SCT is for the focal length for planetry, but ideally I would want a C8 or bigger in a SCT for that

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

For planets SCTs and truly amazing

[@haggish7100]

Hope that you get the new Askar 103 APO for review soon, I’m planning to order that if’s as good as it looks. Cheers from Norway ✨🔭🙏🙏

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I didn't know of it, it does look delicious :-)

[@fotoenvrossi3104]

I'm a beginner in astrophotography but I really like playing with my newton quattro 150p + asi 533mc. I think later I will change the secondary support, it seems too delicate and makes collimation difficult. nice comparison

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I think the 533 is a great camera for it, good field of view, easy to deal with, have fun replacing the spider!

[@joederbyshire_]

I really like that newt result! I think the bloated stars, however minor, do make quite a difference to the final image!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thank you! I do like that image quite a bit as well!

[@iAmJawrge]

Loved the series so much that I got my hands on a Quattro 150 myself! Where could I get a dew/light shield like the one on your scope? I live in a pretty humid and light polluted area myself, so I need all the help in that department!

[@TiagoRamos79]

The best sensor for the SCT6 is the 533MC Pro. You get the best of both worlds with this setup.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

The 533MC Pro is a good match indeed! The IMX571 is also a good match (and cropped to 533MC Pro FOV performs exactly the same!)

[@zhouzun]

amazing work! I prefer NEWT😀

[@patolucas3146]

Great very helpfull video again thant's a lot ! Cuiv after several months of use are you still happy with your AM5? How does it perform ?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Very happy with it, it's performing very well!

[@gpaunescu]

The only negative aspect of hyperstar, in my oppinion, is make the OTA + hyperstar+ camera assemble too fragile, specially if have to travel often to dark sky. I have only 0.63x from Celestron, but I would prefer Night owl 0.4x instead of hyperstar.

[@thierrymartin8715]

this configuration with hyperstar requires a special case for transport. You have to think about the problem of dilation because of the very low tolerance for focusing at F/D 2. The Night owl 0.4 is less expensive but very limited in field.

[@GrundleStiltSkin]

you unscrew the hyperstar and camera and put it in supplied case, its no different then putting camera on rear.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

True, it's better to remove the Hyperstar unit with the camera for transport, and screw them back together later

[@thierrymartin8715]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek The true SC was setting up the film support with invar bars. Now we have the Carbon tube doing the same job. But Celestron doesn't provide this solution . The dilatation of aluminium is 0.027 mm per deg C/ meter lenght, the Carbon is 0.001mm per Deg/meter. Therefore how to reach a top result when the tolereance of focus is few microns during the exposure. ? This reality obliges to move the primary mirror to keep the focus with the risk of loosing the optical axel of the hyperstar. In fact some guys with the hyperstar solution bought a carbon tube to cancel the problem . Of couse the stars were sharps . Celestron should provide a carbon option to reduce the weight and to keep the focus . Because I m pretty sure Hyperstar is a very good option when the dilation is not anymore a problem...

[@gpaunescu]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek True, I know have to be separated for transportation. Only my point was that I'm afraid to not broken the (thin) corrector and the risk is higher with hyperstar. I think the hyperstar is more suitable for the telescopes in fixed observatories.

[@phfreddie6242]

Fantastic video.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thank you very much!

[@meropealcyone]

I prefer the newt’s image.

[@astroshooter1960]

I think I may repurchase another fast Newtonian....... maybe....? 😂 😂

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha I contaminated you!

[@ahmedwaddah9391]

I thought the IDAS NBZ had was 10 nm

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I believe it's 10nm (off the top of my head)

[@gianlucabelgrado3624]

Do you know if the Newton corrector can correct up to 35 mm full frame? Or just for apsc?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

With that corrector, just APS-C

[@Luftbubblan]

🥳

[@andrewweller5119]

The SCT all the way. buy a cheap scope and then have to spend time and money on making it an average scope?! it's a no brainer for me

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha it's all depending on each person!

[@andrewweller5119]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek agreed but the hobby is hard enough as it is and you are a skilled, very un-lazy geeky astrophotgrapher who knows his onions. i would rather save for as long as it took to get the system out of a box. That's not to say the C6 and hyperstar are a breeze to use. I have an Edge HD 11 and that can be not fun when all is not working. Where as the Newt looks to be a project of love and frustration for someone who likes getting their hands dirty. I think the sweet spot for the SCT's is the 9.25" though

[@thierrymartin8715]

this SC6 is more a Schmidt Camera than a Schmidt Cassegrain.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

In the end, yes!

[@bullshitvendor]

Would you consider making any astro 3d printing content?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I've done a bit in the tri-bahtinov mask video, but I'm not as good as someone like Luke from lukomatico!

[@adventuresoflittlejohnny]

How can it be soooo quiet in Tokyo? No background noise at all....is it deserted?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

AI noise reduction in the editing software, and stopping filming when trucks, ambulance, etc pass through

[@BennyKleykens]

The Hyperstar certainly has a hard to measure 'kewl' factor 😊 And it can be changed back to a longer FL so it's really 2 telescopes in one.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha that's true! The cool factor is important!

[@riddler2kone]

Or to three telescopes with the reducer!

[@gsparrow321]

I'd love to see this comparison with the 0.4 focal reducer on the SCT that roughly makes them both the same speed.

[@KevinRudd-w8s]

I would be more than happy with either of those two images Cuiv. Glad to see the work you put in on the Newt has paid off. Excellent

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much, and thanks for your support!!

[@AstroCloudGenerator]

As always. You have given a super fair and informative comparison. And of course great fun too 😄

[@Rotceh-r4g]

Love the video. A big challenge to those of us starting this hobby is making educated decisions on what equipment to purchase .... Comparing these two scopes, and these two setups is a monumental task (like climbing Everest!) and you do it well, clearly and fairly. Well done. I own a C6, with a focal reducer and love it. But I realize Newtonians are very much loved by the Astro community, and with your video I can see why. I've also been curious of the hyperstar system for a CTS, and this video cleary states its advantages and cons. Thanks for making this. And thanks for promoting this great hobby with such enthusiasm and depth of info. Well done. Astronomy is the most exciting field of knowledge and discovery today, and your videos are inspiring the great young minds of the future. The future is bright! Kind regards.

[@heslopneil]

Good morning Cuiv, Thanks for the video; very informative. I have seen your other collimation video on the Quattro 150P. More data for your focuser observations: I am in NZ and have the "lower quality" one - shipped from Australia originally I imagine. I've come across a KZbinr from the Pac NorthWest with the same. But ... I've seen a young guy from the Netherlands with the "better" focuser. You roll the dice I guess ! 🤷‍♂Anyway, your imaging looks great so I will try and emulate that.

[@terrymaurice6285]

I really like your hands-on approach and the depth of your explanations. I learn a lot by watching your videos. Keep up the great work!

[@kleanthiserotokritou]

Hey Cuiv thanks a lot for this fruitful analysis. I am curious though you leave all your setup on the balcony. How do you make sure they are protected against rain and sun? Do you use any cover you can share the details of it ? :) Thanks a lot

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yes indeed: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZycemmvm79jgbc

[@davidrousseau8066]

I'm planning on buying a set of 2 filters for my OSC. The Altair looks indeed very attractive but I also heard about the Askar Color Magic 3nm Duo-Narrowband filters (Ha / OIII and OIII/SII). Did you hear anything (good or bad) about the Askar magic filters for OSC? Thank you!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I don't know much about the Askar Color Magic filters so can't say for sure!

[@Astrokhels]

I love my Hyperstar. It got to me to where my images are today cutting a lot time imaging. Having said that I’m looking at a NEWT that is also fast like sharpstar 2.8HNT. Like you’ve said HS are a bit on blur side of images every time and I had to extract every detail as it possible can. Most Newt images I’ve seen are actually sharp. Pretty sure collimation wont be as easy on the HS. Bright stars on a newt are spectacular with the spikes. The smaller ones are a bit wonky combination of tiny spikes and star glow/halo/diffraction combo. Although I’ve seen small stars that are processed perfectly showing the round star shape in the middle and spike.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I've drooled over the HNT scopes a lot, but everyone i know who's had one really struggled with collimation and never could get things fully right with an APS-C sensor. But then if you were to use a 585 or 533 sensor, I think it would be awesome!

[@georgealincostea5640]

Got a Quattro 250 recently and it also came with the crappy focuser but it will do for now. The mirror mask really does make a difference. I use my Quattro with the SW CC for 1000mm @ f4 and the APM 1.5x CC for 1500mm @ f6. Also planning to get the Nexus for 750mm @ f3, so really three telesopes in one for the newt as well.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Good luck!!

[@PNN_ParodyNewsNetwork]

Ty

[@luiscastro1134]

Very in depth analisys, great video; any chance of doing a similar video with a Newt. vs a popular refractor, on the same ball park figure, for DSO?

[@TL1000S97]

You should change your "nick" to "The Eager Geek", because of all the effort you put in setting up your gear! 🤪

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Ha! Long term laziness ;)

[@epielanonimo]

I really like the versatility of the C6 and using it with the Starizona Reducers (x.4 and x.63) for small nebulae and medium size galaxies and tt can even do planetary with a 2x barlow.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely, that's a huge advantage!

[@Wilfredos_Astrophotography]

Awesome comparison. Thank you for all you do for our hobby. I love your videos.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thank you and my pleasure!

[@markmeridian3360]

I discovered essentially the same thing 30 years ago. I had an older 10" Newtonian (Cave-Astrola) that I sold to buy a 12" SCT (Meade, pre ACF). I set them up side-by-side with the new owner of the Newt and took a few long exposure hand guided (piggyback guide scope) photos (film) of nebula. Looking at only the central part of the images, the Newt was far sharper with much more contrast even though both scopes were well collimated. I ascribed this to the larger secondary obstruction of the SCT along with the SCT's corrector plate likely not completely correcting for spherical aberration. The difference was huge - there wasn't anything you could do to a film image to correct for optical imperfections and I was very sorry that I sold the Cave-Astrola.

[@lavers_1]

Excellent content on this channel! Thanks for all the effort you put into this!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@Apagadorable]

Is that the edge of WR 134 in the right side of the hyperstar image?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I believe so yes, well spotted!

[@PeterWillmann-l2s]

I have the “junior” version of your sky watcher Newtonian, the 130 pds. It was a horror show attempting to collimate. I used the TRSCKOLLI collimator (used successfully on my 8” CC) and spent several hours trying to reach collimation. If the secondary was spot on, the primary was off and vice versa. Next used collimation cap and then cheshire. No luck. As a last resort I used my laser collimator for secondary and primary for collimation. I then checked it with the other three instruments that had previously failed and they now showed excellent collimation. Not sure why? This is a hobby that is equal parts frustration and bliss. Always great videos Cuiv.

[@melvyndavis2745]

Brilliant comparison - thank you!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad you liked it!

[@sophiexx1270]

Truly fantastic video as always. You have a very individual style that is very personable. Well done on this video. I do wish you had tried the SCT without the Hyper-star so you had three comparisons. Nit picking I know but still hugely enjoyable. Thanks again for the information and let’s face it entertainment as well.

[@aradani3]

Thank you Cuiv for this video!!! You are pure gold! Because you bring all these little details that need to be dealt with that nobody talks about. I really like the versatility of the C6, even without the Hyperstar: 600mm F4 with Starizona's Night Owl .4x - for deep sky (BTW one thing you didn't mention is that it is only suitable for small sensors, but fine for me..) 945mm F6.3 with a 0.63x reducer corrector - for galaxies (?) 1500mm F10 to for the moon 3000mm F20 with a 2x Barlow for the planets However the results with the Q150P are FANTASTIC! I have a 150 F5 Newtonian (Bresser Pollux) at home I will start working on it and see if I can get some results!

[@DanWipper]

Does a few hundred bucks make a difference when you spent over 5k for your mount, camera and accessories? I have a problem with size, didn't know they made hyperstar for the 6'' SCT nor could I find it and worse, if flocking the scope is mandatory I don't think I'll be able to get anything over 50mm, bummer. While the price on the 6'' scopes and accessories are great if one has a worthy mount I'd jump to at least the 8'' in either style, Newts should cost comparatively less as the size increases. I wonder about obstruction on a small 6'' SCT/hperstar when using a large camera?

[@krystlih]

This is a fantastic video Cuiv! I have the Quattro 150p, having said that, it was my first newtonian I have used for imaging (prior I had a dob for visual). I've run across the same challenges you have with it and I really appreciate you sharing your fixes. One thing I will say that perhaps wasn't covered in your comparison, is the fact that I've learned way more about optics and how it all works using the Newtonian. Sure there is a learning curve, and sure it can be frustrating at times, but I feel way better equipped now to deal with optical issues in any telescope not just Newtonians. I think for someone just starting out, it's easy to select the easiest scope to use for the best results, but there is something to be said for pushing through optical challenges and learning a lot in the process. But I love this kind of content, keep up the great work!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's true, there is so much to learn by just tinkering with the Newt!

[@MikeLikesChannel]

HyperStar'd SCT is always the answer, and yea at f/1.9... 290-390mm, quite forgiving :)

[@donlindgren109]

Why would the difference in focal length (500 newt vs 300 c6+hyperstar) NOT account for the difference in sharpness)?

[@zmija812]

Hey. what camera do you recommend most for SW 150/750 PDS, I'm wondering between 294 mc pro and 533 mc pro, can you advise? Regards

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Please make a similar comparison video with refractors vs reflectors, that would be extremely interesting.

[@AdailAntonio]

THANKS!!! I been wating for this!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My pleasure!

[@Chorge1972]

I want a „smaller“ Hyperstar, bringing the C6 to 800mmish with f5ish PLEASE

[@AstroDenny]

Very cool video! I'm very glad to see you back making more content!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks Dennis!

[@TimK-1971]

Star halos vs diffraction spikes ... Hmmm For as much as I like the wider field of the hyperstar, I prefer the detail and contrast of the newt. I think that all the mods you made to it have won the war - even if it's only in my opinion. Great results! Thanks for the video

[@Fatal_Inertia]

Only real benefit to the newt is those killer diffraction spikes. Gives a Hubble look to the image.

[@neilhankey2514]

I think we can trace all of this back to your Leo Triplet image made with the Hyper-star early this year. You ended up reprocessing old data from a Vixen Newt which I think you sold? Then you brought back into a cheaper Newton from sky watcher, right. So the Newt clearly wins. No one needs the headache of an F2 system that places all of this extra glass in the path of the signal. Not to mention the expense of the filters @ F2 and the loss of contrast due to the larger central obstruction.

[@jsn7123]

I recently bought a used Skywatcher Quattro 8C (that is the same they currently sell as 200P but mine has the carbon tube, no longer available). I thought it was a bargain just to learn that the focuser is totally hopeless 😡 Had to replace it with a decent one which cost almost as much as the telescope.

[@ritacastil]

Hi! Great comparison. I own a 200/1000 skywatcher newtonian since May 2022. It is my first and only OTA. I really love it. Contrary to you, collimation holds quite well, even when I displace it by car to a field location. No lights leaks whatsoever. The Achilles' heel is indeed the focuser! I am also looking for a new one. I came across the Lacerta OCTO60 2" focuser for Newton, which has three advantages: no need to drill new holes, the similar height to the original focuser, acceptable price. However, I haven't tried it, maybe you want to consider it in your search for a new focuser. Clear skyes from Portugal!

[@mishkobre8147]

Such a great and detailed video Cuiv. Thank you, it was quite enjoyable to watch and learn, as it always is. I own Quattro 150P myself and i am looking forward to producing good images. Also, thanks for clarifying the diference between a "good" amd a "bad" focuser. It seems like ive got better one.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad you enjoyed, and happy you got one of the good focusers!

[@jurgenterpe4121]

Cuiv, I have the Quattro 8" with the exactly same focuser like your telescope. But meanwhile I really did what you suggested - using bubble levels to correct the focuser draw tube and it worked really well - thanks so much for this tip!! By the way, you also mentioned to increase the pressure on the draw tube and this also worked for me. In fact, despite having the same focuser, I do not have the same issue of focuser slippage anymore. But I also replaced all adjustment screws on the focuser and tightened these screws very much. Now, everything stays in place for me. Before doing this I also considered replacing the focuser - but no good focuser is currently available in Europe. Maybe, you should retry increasing the pressure on the draw tube again - so strong that the EAF can just move the draw tube. Perhaps, this helps at least until you can replace the focuser.... Regards, Jürgen

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks Jürgen! I've done that before the video, but after the video noticed those screws are loose again. I guess I need to change the screws!

[@jurgenterpe4121]

​@@CuivTheLazyGeek In this case you will also need longer screws like I did. The screws must be long enough so there are enough "grooves" to hold and tighten the focuser strong enough. After I replaced the screws it now works perfect.

[@brandon079]

Hyperstar is rotated 180°. Newtonion is flipped.

[@fazergazer]

Do you, dither with every exposure in order to do drizzling, or do you do dithering after every other, for example, and do a whole lot of exposures?

[@klokskap_]

Just the issue of "rebuilding" the Newtonian is a total dealbreaker to me.

[@melvyndavis2745]

Refractors rule!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I like reflectors too :)

[@paths1111]

Very interesting comparison, thanks for the video! I think the results are consistent with expectations. Hyperstar is known not to be diffraction limited, and at 150mm it is possible that the Newtonian was performing close to the diffraction limit of 0.77" resolution for a 150mm aperture if your seeing was around 1.5"; so I would expect more detail out of the Newt even aside from Hyperstar collimation issues. The Hyperstar also has a much larger central obstruction than the Newtonian, so one would expect the lower contrast as well. Still, some really good results from Tokyo, narrowband for the win!

[@saerin5991]

I particularly like the star spikes from newts, it makes the stars less boring to look at.

[@trickies]

Where did you get the files for the skywatcher 3d printed dew shield

[@maxullberg1133]

I enjoyed this video, it is interesting to see the diffrences and what to expect between different systems. Not just a "buy this" message. I just got my hyperstar C6 and have yet to try it out (bad weather and northern latitudes bright summer nights). For me the speed and availability, since I allready had the c6, was the deciding factor. I hope to be able to finish projects in one or two nights. Great job on the video, and a thank you for the detailed explanations and open minded approach to astro reviews 👍

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks for this feedback! I always try to be balanced when using scopes :)

[@Planetreefastro]

Oh oh the butt plug is back! Great video Cuiv. I am partial to the Hyperstar as I own a 9.25 with Hyperstar as well as a RASA 8. I like the versatility of the system. Newtonian can be great but I hate Gabri v to fiddle around to make it great out of the box. Best regards from NY Luis

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Completely understand Luis!

[@shubinternet]

The newt has the advantage that you can attach more equipment into the optical train, and not impact the light being gathered. Yes, it will be more weight and mass on that focal tube, which you will have to deal with, but you should be able to do that. So, you could get an automatic filter wheel. You could get a camera rotator. You can get an off-axis guider. And so on. You can’t really get any of those three pieces of extra equipment on a RASA-style telescope, because then they would be blocking more light coming into the OTA. And they would move the camera much further away from the location of the secondary mirror. I’m still leaning towards an SCT myself, simply because you can use the Starizona Hyperstar conversion as one option for getting a faster telescope, albeit at the cost of focal length. But I haven’t actually bought either yet, so I don’t have any first hand experience to speak from. That’s why I’m watching this video, to get Cuiv’s take on this.

[@shubinternet]

Yeah, the focal reducers on the SCT do make a difference in my mind. And if I wanted to make up for the light lost due to the secondary mirror arrangement of the SCT versus the newt, I could go with the 8”. And the SCTs are also available in “Edge” models, which don’t have the same problems with the clips at the primary mirror, which require masking in the newt.

[@leftoff3rd]

Hello! In my conclusion, I believe it would be fantastic if Starizona released both SCT and NT versions of their OTA with their respective Correctors. I have that much confidence in their Corrector.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Would be super cool if Starizona made their own scopes!

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

Well that surprised me Cuiv I were thinking the faster system would win hands down but how wrong was I thinking that, I image with a RASA 11 V1 & that has tested my patience at times but when its works it works great, I've also imaged with a Newtonian at F4.8 which isn't that slow but I've never managed anything like the detail I've got with the RASA. Great video as always clear skies!!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I was surprised as well! I need to try out with broadband!

[@WilliFromEarth]

When looking at all the changes you had to make on the F/4 Newtonian, have you looked at other brands, who might have all or most of these modifications already built in, i.e. out-of-the-box? Like e.g. the TS Photon series?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Not at this stage!

[@jeff5163]

I checked around and found the C6 on High Point's web site for $600. It appears to be the same scope Agena has for $840. Do you know if they are the same scope?

[@donlindgren109]

I sprung for highpoint’s $600 c6 thinking I had pounced on a really good deal; I returned it. I could tell by the packaging it had been thru someone else’s hands before me. The corrector plate had a 5/8” lightning bolt scratch and for Hyperstar, the corrector plate was not well centered to the primary at all. Went to my local Astro store and put my $839 down on a “replacement” c6, it was properly packaged “as from the factory”, the collector plate was well centered to the primary and the glass was pristine. It is a very good copy… got what I paid for. They appeared to be the very same scope, but, ah, “different.”

[@jasonpatterson8091]

I think a newtonian is really no big deal if you're a tinkerer. If you want it to give perfect images out of the box, maybe not, but I'm the kind of person who would have taken the SCT apart and reassembled it anyway, just to see what its guts look like. I also just don't find my collimation wandering at all. Dunno if I'm lucky or what, but I'm using a 20 year old cheap Orion scope and perfectly happy with it. I also use my telescope for visual astronomy, so a hyperstar is completely out of the question.

[@darkrangersinc]

Yeah, I think the key is what you said for people that want to just put a camera on and have it work every time a Newtonian especially a less expensive one is probably not the best route If you get a more expensive imaging Newtonian in the two to $3000 range, then it will typically work pretty well as long as it’s collimated

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely, in the end it's up to what each wants to do!

[@anata5127]

I thought long time about “what should I select for wide field, Hyperstar, RASA, newton?” I think I made right choice - Tak Epsilon.

[@darkrangersinc]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I had the 200 Quattro similar to your other videos was actually the first customer to get the Starizona .75 Newtonian reducer so it was 600mm F2.9 but had focus tilt and was newer at the time so I gave it up but I would take it to bortle 2 skies and with that speed you could get great images in 2-3 hours under dark skies!

[@jasonpatterson8091]

@@darkrangersinc After getting my cheap telescope sorted out (involving most of the modifications that Cuiv has done, as well as a different focuser) I've been really happy with the performance. The thing about Newtonians is that mirrors are super cheap, so the optics of even a low cost telescope are going to be perfectly fine for imaging (for f/5 and beyond and intro-level diameters, anyway). It's getting the housing for those mirrors in a condition that they can be used properly that takes some work. I'm an astronomy teacher and wind up taking my telescopes out for observation sessions with my students periodically, so being able to switch back and forth between visual and photographic purposes easily is really valuable to me as well. It's as simple as swapping a coma corrector and camera for eyepieces.

[@randysmith7010]

Cuiv, Thanks for your thorough comparison of the C6 HyperStar and 6" Skywatcher Newt. Until recently, I used a C11 HyperStar very successfully for the last two years but wanted a filter wheel capability. I bought a Skywatcher 200P 8" newt for that purpose and fortunately, my Skywatcher 200P came with flocking and the better focuser for $850 but without the mirror mask and the spider upgrade I had all the reflection issues you noted making the results unacceptable. After making the mask and spider upgrades, adding a Starizona Nexus .75 reducer/corrector and getting a good laser collimator and lots of help from Starizona, I am pleased with the results. The C11 HyperStar shot at 540 mm F1.9 compared with the 600 mm F3 newt (with reducer) so I am at a similar focal length and image size. I can now use a filter wheel and get the tighter stars and sharper detail but the results are very close. I'm not ready to part with the C11 but that day may come. I have to say getting the newtonian upgraded and adjusted has been a struggle compared with the ease of use of the C11 HyperStar. If I had not wanted the flexibility of the filter wheel for narrowband imaging, it would probably not have been worth all the work but at this point, I'm glad I did it. Randy S

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Well done on that Newt Randy! It's exactly my feeling - the Newt is a lot of work (and learning) to get up to speed, but once done there are many advantages!

[@PatrikHolmberg]

I think the choice is highly individual. I who likes to tinker and optimize would go for the newtonian ota. Others that want a simpler life would probably go for the C6 Hyperstar

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Exactly Patrik!!!

[@woody5109]

I have the Orion 8” with the cooling fan, the gap around the bottom is for air circulation. I see you have it blocked off, I live in a hot climate and need the cooling, I just make sure it’s dark.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It's getting 38C these days in Tokyo, but there's no fan on my 6", I just let the heat radiate away in the early evening

[@jodyschultz5870]

Wow! What the hell. So if I just want to buy a Newtonian that is ready to go with no flocking and changing out parts. What would you recommend? Is this the same for the 10 inch quarto?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I don't know about the other Quattros unfortunately... The Vixen R200SS+Corrector PH is amazing as well

[@jonkjon]

It is interesting that the Starizona site has a sample image for the C6 V4 Hyperstar on the North America nebula using a filter that is not "high speed" and there seems to be an abundance of Ha. While I am sure the high speed variants will gather even more data, it seems that the other filters are quite adequate for many emission targets. I suppose for targets with limited Ha/OIII, there would be a larger difference. Regardless, I am quite impressed with the sharpness of the newt image vs. the C6 w/Hyperstar. Thanks for the comparison.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Both the IDAS NBZ (standard) and some good samples of the L-eXtreme can provide good results at F2, so I assume that's what they did! The IDAS NBZ though is a safe bet. I was also quite impressed by the Newt, and surprised too!

[@oocoder]

Can you add a barlow/Powermate to the Quattro 150p for small galaxies and planets?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Physically I guess so, but I haven't tried :)

[@AmatureAstronomer]

You're right. It is easier to use a refractor.

[@ssrattus]

Thanks Cuiv for all the work you put into your videos!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My pleasure! Glad you like them!

[@Fat-totoro-cat]

Hot take - calibration frames are a PITA and may not be needed with cameras that dont have amp glow. I am lazy and think they are more trouble than they are worth. The few times I have used them I end up with artifacts that are harder to fix than just using DBE.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It's true that these days, especially with smaller sensors like the 533, and even more in narrowband with a good NB filter, flats can be eschewed. But on the Hyperstar for instance they're a must!

[@fabriziocanale9768]

Hello, I’d like to have your opinion. I have a Newton 200/800 f4 with a total weight of 11.4 kg. I see you use a ZWO AM5; I’m thinking of switching to this kind of mount ZWO or an iOptron. Do you think they can handle it smoothly or at least with one counterweight as I have been suggested? Thanks, Fabrizio

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I honestly can't provide much feedback on this - it's best to check how others have done with the AM5! Although in theory it should be fine

[@fabriziocanale9768]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek ok, thanks all the same for replying.

[@earthling-fh2mg]

I just have the feeling the C6 would give you more clarity and just as much detail as the newt if you were using the .63x or upcoming .4x reducer. When is the .4x going to be available since I have an 8 inch LX10 and might buy a 5 inch Celestron evolution. Not interested in the hyperstar however.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I agree! I'm looking forward to the upcoming 0.4x reducer!

[@earthling-fh2mg]

If you buy a fast camera lens (like the Samyang 85mm F1.4 which I have, for example), you’re going to notice the difference between a shot you take at F2 and one at F4 and that’s with exactly the same lens. So it goes wthout saying your F4 newt image will be sharper than the F2 C6. I’ve never been keen on the hyperstar. F2 just doesn’t seem to be a reasonable ratio for an SCT and the cost of what I consider a “overhyped” product is prohibitive.

[@qx3V45p]

Cuiv? Do you collimate your Newtonian with the corrector in place and screw the OCAL onto the corrector? Then when done replace the OCAL with the OSC without disturbing the corrector? I have a new build, an older 10in newt. astrograph and was sorta hoping I wouldn't have to disconnect the corrector from my NB image train each time I use the OCAL. Then again I'd still need some adapter to fit the OCAL to my 2in. focuser. Headaches.. Been working on this scope over a month now with all your suggested mods. First light will be early August. Thanks for the years of great vids my friend. Glad you're back and doing OK.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I personally remove the corrector!

[@qx3V45p]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek That works for me!!! Thank you so much! :)

[@gregerianne3880]

Not sure if all the modifications you had to make to the Newt are part of the 'lazy' philosophy, Cuiv! 🤪 In spite of that, nice job getting it to the point where you're (almost) happy with your images. That was a very comprehensive review of the differences between these systems! Nice job.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Long term lazy as always ;) hard work at the start to enjoy long term laziness!

[@gregerianne3880]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Ah, I sort of suspected that was the case, but I couldn't resist.

[@stevemacdonald2303]

I am getting dopson 8 in

[@Neanderthal75]

I use a 6" Newt quite often. I bought an "upgraded focuser" from GSO, but I have to say it's still not as good as I hoped for. I use/used mono camera on it with a filter wheel and yes, even that will cause a sag on the "upgraded" focuser no matter what. So the Newt is really camera weight limited, because of focuser sag or tilt issues. I really just don't understand how these companies making these "astrographs" don't understand, that putting on a focuser meant for an eyepiece will not work and the "astrograph" is no longer an astrograph. Offer it with $300 more but with a good focuser that doesn't need to be replaced. Also remember, Cuiv listed his parts he bought, but don't forget the autofocuser, the collimation tools and all the extra time needed to be put in to make the Newtonian an "astrograph" it supposed to be from out of factory, and let's also mention that you might end up buying a coma corrector/focal reducer which can be $400-500, depending on the model. So a "cheap" Newtonian quickly becomes an expensive adventure and beyond $1500, where we were starting out at $500 for the scope originally. Just my 2 cents. In my opinion, buying an "astrograph" Newtonian is equivalent of buying furniture from Ikea, but with missing parts and tools to assemble it.

[@lachezarkrastev7123]

Sure - larger obstruction equals less sharpness...

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

True, but I don't think that fully explains it - the 150P is known for having a very large CO as well!

[@lachezarkrastev7123]

​@@CuivTheLazyGeek ... to much glass too - it brings aberrations of all kind. Newtonians has the most essential so less things could go wrong.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@lachezarkrastev7123 expensive refractors with amazing stars across a full frame FOV may disagree :) I think it mostly has to do with design and limitations of Hyperstar itself!

[@lachezarkrastev7123]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek agree - Hyperstar is a compromise as a concept.

[@ritacastil]

Have you already chosen a focuser ro replace the one on your beloved newtonian?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Still searching for the right soulmate ;)

[@mycarolinaskies]

Nice basic comparison of differences in setups and costs. Since you're using essentially identical cameras some of your image difference can be traced to the pixel scale based on the 300 vs 517mm. There's a limitation with cameras for C6 and C8 Hyperstars due to their very short focal lengths where pixel size in common cameras can't get near the 2um mark with enough sensor size or bit depth to make the most of the fast focal ratio. The 9.25, 11, and 14" Hyperstar combos can take better advantage to get pixel scales with sweet spot of CMOS cameras on the current market and can take advantage of the maximum resolving power of the aperture at the focal length.

[@guyjordan8201]

My first thought with your comment about the reduced detail in the hyper star is that the central obstruction size is much larger in the C6 with hyper star. Therefore, contrast will be lower. Is that affecting resolution? I do not know.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

In theory it affects the diffraction rings and thus maybe resolution? But the Newt secondary is also quite large so I don't think that would be such a huge factor

[@guyjordan8201]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek - understood. I guess you could do a star test to get some kind of a standardize quality measure, but you have your functional answer.

[@tubedude54]

You said that the Newt had better 'resolution' than the SCT but with them both being identical in diameter that really is not the case from a pure definition of resolution. What probably makes the Newt image 'better' looking is the filters you are using passing different wavelengths of light to the camera sensors since the Rayleigh angular resolution limit uses wavelength as a term to calculate it ... θ=1.22 λ/a where 'a' is the aperture of the telescope... thus the only factor where 'a' is the same that can cause a difference is the wavelength of light being collected. Which you did mention but some people may not understand why this could happen.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I made several in depth videos on this already. Both the Newt and the SCT were on the same wavelength - I referred here to resolution as pixel scale (e.g. arc angle per pixel, with identical cameras/sensors on both telescopes). Obviously with atmospheric seeing we can't get fully to either Dawes or Rayleigh criterion (with the more hopeful Dawes usually being what I like to use). The filters both pass the same wavelengths (just one has an additional 1nm in the bandpass width), so that doesn't explain the sharper image in the Newt.

[@tubedude54]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Well that stumps me then if aperture and wavelength of light was basically the same... the only thing left could possibly be image size differential for each system due to their focal ratios. Blowing the hyperstar image size to match the Newt would obviously cause a graininess to be introduced because you can't enlarge pixels and see more detail that was never there.

[@reglogge]

Thank you Cuiv for this fantastic and thorough comparison! One minor gripe: couldn’t you use the Newtonian also with just a plain 1x coma corrector or even one with slight magnification? That way the Newtonian isn‘t limited to just one focal length as you say in the video, just like the C6 with added focal reducers (which also don‘t come for free 😬)

[@georgealincostea5640]

I use my Quattro 250 with the SW CC for 1000mm @ f4 and with the APM 1.5x CC for 1500mm @ f6. I also plan to buy the Nexus to also have 750mn @ f3. So yes, three telescopes in one for the newt as well :)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, in the video I said "the same range of focal length" :-) for me it would be 517mm vs 600mm which isn't that different, so wouldn't make sense to get something like an MPCC to achieve that! George has a great idea with the 1.5x CC though, I didn't know that existed!