How much of a difference does a Newt Resolution advantage make!? Let's Find Out!

My Patreon: / cuivlazygeek
My Merch Store: cuiv.myspreadshop.com/
Lukomatico large SCT vs Large Refractor: • Big & Long VS Small & ...
Some notes:
- In this video I look specifically at resolution and details, wanting to see the impact that seemingly small 1"/pixel difference makes on actual image
- Since I'm looking specifically at resolution, I am completely ignoring the obvious refractor advantages (portability, ease of use, large FOV, perfect for extended targets) - just to be clear, refractors are excellent telescopes, and the RedCat is no exception!
- It is both a very unfair comparison (much larger aperture! much more FL! Why are you even bothering??) and a very fair comparison (same optics price and same night) depending on what criteria we look at :)
- There is a possibility that the RedCat is slightly out of focus (paired with the Newt slightly out of collimation), although this could be simply because we have small pixels and drizzling. However, I blindly trusted the ASIAir AF routine, although I'm not sure if it works as well as the NINA routine (which I trust and know intimately, having rewritten it back in the day)
Equipment used in Comparison
RedCat51: bit.ly/48hyuVx (Agena) or bit.ly/48pTWXW (HPS)
Cable Organizers: www.etsy.com/shop/SmartCompon...
CarbonStar 6" Newtonian: bit.ly/3W7ZFiA
ZWO ASI2600MC Duo: bit.ly/3M8IkPS (Agena) or bit.ly/3Jti7KQ (HPS)
ZWO ASI585 MC Pro Camera: bit.ly/3Iwo6y8 (Agena) or bit.ly/4cp1Ofn (High Point Scientific)
Amazon affiliate: amzn.to/49XTx01
Agena affiliate: bit.ly/3Om0hNG
High Point Scientific affiliate: bit.ly/3lReu8R
First Light Optics affiliate: tinyurl.com/yxd2jkr2
All-Star Telescope affiliate: bit.ly/3SCgVbV
Astroshop.eu Affiliate: tinyurl.com/2vafkax8
-----------------------
My equipment
-----------------------
Dwarf 2 Smart Telescope: bit.ly/3SyChXua
Seestar S50: tinyurl.com/3n62hpzx
ZWO ASI2600MC Duo: bit.ly/3M8IkPS (Agena) or bit.ly/3Jti7KQ (HPS)
ZWO ASI585 MC Pro Camera: bit.ly/3Iwo6y8 (Agena) or bit.ly/4cp1Ofn (High Point Scientific)
TOUPTEK IMX571 APS-C Cooled camera: tinyurl.com/mr2yhvcw
TOUPTEK IMX585 Cooled camera: tinyurl.com/4y9dz774
OGMA versions (use code CUIV on checkout for a small discount!): getogma.com/
CarbonStar 6" Newtonian: bit.ly/3W7ZFiA
Mirror Mask for CarbonStar (designed by me :) ): www.thingiverse.com/thing:661...
SW Quattro 150P Budget Newt: bit.ly/3BABCxl
Backyard Universe upgrade kit: tinyurl.com/3juwm5sz
OCAL Collimator: s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_Dmu... or s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_Dc6...
Askar V Modular Telescope: bit.ly/3Imoq2M
or bit.ly/3GLuyR8 or tinyurl.com/2h758bvt
RedCat51: bit.ly/48hyuVx (Agena) or bit.ly/48pTWXW (HPS)
WarpAstron WD-20 Mount: bit.ly/3wxNbGI
ZWO AM5 Mount: bit.ly/3Qb5xVf or bit.ly/3JeVUkn
ZWO EAF Focuser: bit.ly/45agP0Z (Agena) or bit.ly/4avCIcE (HPS)
Antlia ALP-T highspeed filter: bit.ly/42RBR2e
SVBony Filters: amzn.to/3yBuQZX
Mini Computer (newer version): amzn.to/49XTx01
Flocking paper/Felt paper: amzn.to/3zASgvu or amzn.to/3m94zwa
Follow me!
My Instagram: / cuivlazygeek
My Facebook page: / cuivlazygeek

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My Patreon: www.patreon.com/cuivlazygeek Some notes: - In this video I look specifically at resolution and details, wanting to see the impact that seemingly small 1"/pixel difference makes on actual image - Since I'm looking specifically at resolution, I am completely ignoring the obvious refractor advantages (portability, ease of use, large FOV, perfect for extended targets) - just to be clear, refractors are excellent telescopes, and the RedCat is no exception! - It is both a very unfair comparison (much larger aperture! much more FL! Why are you even bothering??) and a very fair comparison (same optics price and same night) depending on what criteria we look at :) - There is a possibility that the RedCat is slightly out of focus (paired with the Newt slightly out of collimation), although this could be simply because we have small pixels and the drizzling. However, I blindly trusted the ASIAir AF routine, although I'm not sure if it works as well as the NINA routine (which I trust and know intimately, having rewritten it back in the day) Lukomatico large SCT vs Large Refractor: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kJXcpIapadtlj7c *Equipment used in Comparison* RedCat51: bit.ly/48hyuVx (Agena) or bit.ly/48pTWXW (HPS) CarbonStar 6" Newtonian: bit.ly/3W7ZFiA ZWO ASI2600MC Duo: bit.ly/3M8IkPS (Agena) or bit.ly/3Jti7KQ (HPS) ZWO ASI585 MC Pro Camera: bit.ly/3Iwo6y8 (Agena) or bit.ly/4cp1Ofn (High Point Scientific) Amazon affiliate: amzn.to/49XTx01 Agena affiliate: bit.ly/3Om0hNG High Point Scientific affiliate: bit.ly/3lReu8R First Light Optics affiliate: tinyurl.com/yxd2jkr2 All-Star Telescope affiliate: bit.ly/3SCgVbV Astroshop.eu Affiliate: tinyurl.com/2vafkax8

[@lukomatico]

Really interesting video mate!! I always enjoy seeing comparisons, awesome work! Thanks for the shout out by the way! :-D

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much Luke! You are awesome :D

[@tomatomaeg]

One of you should do a OSC hyperstar/rasa vs Mono newtonian HOO narrowband battle ;)

[@nicklawson7050]

Fantastic video as usual thanks very much. I was really surprised as I expected the refractor to be better and on the right. I really appreciate your consideration of newts as I've been battling with my own 16" f4.5. I've just bought a new secondary after many other mods and it's finally starting to image nicely and reliably guiding at 0.8arcsec. It started producing good results last year. But I think this year it will finally blow socks off with its images rather than just its size. Thanks and keep up your amazing work.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

So much in this hobby depends on what you want to take images of. If you're into big nebulas and the like, those little refractors can be great. If you like details or galaxies, a reflector of some sort is the sensible choice.

[@neilhankey2514]

Exactly, this is where everyone gets it wrong. You need to buy the telescope that supports what you like in the hobby. If you don't know then a short to medium focal length refractor will do until you decide what you really want to image. My passion is galaxies.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely! A lot of people seem very unhappy with what they say is an unfair comparison - and yes it's true that I'm comparing a criteria that the frac is NOT good at. But then that's the point! How much of a difference will that single arcsecond per pixel of difference make in terms of details when zoomed in? With that in mind it's a very fair comparison as it's taken on the same night at the same time! Small fracs shine with large sensors and large FOVs, they are excellent with nebulae and large targets, but not at small details... And I looked at by how much in this video!

[@JoeBob79569]

Yea, but eventually, no matter what scope you have, you will probably want to buy a bigger or smaller scope so that you can get those other targets that you're missing!

[@neilhankey2514]

@@JoeBob79569 Well, I have 5 telescopes. All with there benefits and disadvantages. However, each one was chosen for a purpose.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

@@JoeBob79569 And that's when the madness truly begins to spread... 🙂

[@heyjaypray]

I pulled the trigger on the CarbonStar 150 yesterday. This video just reinforces it was a good decision! Especially cuz my other scope is a RedCat51! This video was perfect for my situation 😄

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I think this is great to have both! The RedCat for Fov and portability, the Newt for the rest :p

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

never mind the differences every video lately & I keep seeing different strainwave mounts lol, great video as always Cuiv

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yes! I'm getting asked to test stuff by both audience and manufacturers lol

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I look forward to seeing how they perform against others, I think you've mentioned some being much cheaper than other brands to so be an interesting comparison.

[@gregorykeating4195]

Thanks for the reminder - and the great videos!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad you like them!

[@kayogetay]

That's quite an interesting comparison Cuiv, thanks! I always wondered how same priced refractor vs reflector compare. Even though it results in lots of different parameters, I think this is a fair comparison. Of course, when I heard you are gonna image that galaxy with RedCat, I knew the result :) I'd also like to see a comparison case where you switch the cameras and shoot a broader target. I use RC51 with 2600MM and the results are fairly different than other smaller sensor cameras. Thanks again, nice work! Kay,

[@RenaudVL]

Belle démonstration Cuiv, Une chose a considérer et c’est ce qui m’est arrivé, mon Red Cat première génération était très décollimaté out of the box. Ce résultat me rappelle ce que je voyais avec le mien!

[@vastrop345]

Breaking news: resolution depends on aperture! ;) (up to the atmospheric limit which is surprisingly low)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Exactly haha, but it's interesting to see just how much of an impact there is!

[@synbiotik4577]

La différence est vraiment spectaculaire! Quand j'ai commencé l'astrophotographie, je m'étais imaginé travailler essentiellement avec un Newton. Et je me suis laissé convaincre d'utiliser un réfracteur pour sa simplicité.... Du coup, à la vue de tes vidéos, je songe de plus en plus à passer à du réflecteur! 😅 Merci pour tes vidéos Cuiv! (Bonjour de France)

[@JohnDoe-tm1rv]

RedCat you can put on small and cheap Az-GTi mount for $250, But for refractor you need at least $1500 mount. So budget is totally different.

[@chuckshc376]

Hi Cuiv great video thank you and I was quite shocked by the results

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

You and me both!

[@SamStars8811]

Great video as usual. What have you got the Red Cat mounted on?

[@bobbymccourt6794]

I would have preferred to see a comparison using the same camera with the cats image cropped. Most don’t have the money for 2 scopes and 2 different cameras. Most of us will have 2 scopes and 1 camera. An honestly a lot has to do with local seeing conditions. I know where I live most nights don’t give me less than 2 arcs/pixel seeing 😅

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

The seeing in Tokyo is also pretty terrible... fortunately Nyquist comes to the rescue with drizzling, to some extent!

[@johnellsphoto]

I agree with your take: "I would have preferred to see a comparison using the same camera with the cats image cropped."

[@astrostufftomtrubridge7915]

Hi, I have recently imaged same target using an Evolux 62ED with dedicated field flatner on well tuned and balanced AZgti mount, using 585mc planetry camera, 30 3min subs 20 flats in Nina, have to say my final image is small but very sharp after processing especially as we live near city of Portsmouth UK a very light polluted area, using just a standard Altair CLS filter, cropped in even nebula are visible in the spiral arms, probably down to this amazing 585 sensor (saving for the pro version), I kinda thought your image using the cat looked a little out of focus, but maybe thats just utube resolution.,as always love your content it really makes the hobby interesting and are one of my goto channels for information, Regards ATB Tom.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Congrats on that image! Plus your seeing in Portsmouth is probably not great either! I'd love to see the image if you have a link! On the focus, it's possible, I added this to the description and pinned comment: "There is a possibility that the RedCat is slightly out of focus (paired with the Newt slightly out of collimation), although this could be simply because we have small pixels and the drizzling. However, I blindly trusted the ASIAir AF routine, although I'm not sure if it works as well as the NINA routine (which I trust and know intimately, having rewritten it back in the day)"

[@alfredobeltran611]

Very good comparison, Cuiv. This exercise clearly shows the advantage of having more aperture. Simple physics: the greater the aperture, the more light gathered by the telescope. That’s why I chose an EdgeHD 9.25”, that I use with Hyperstar or at f10, depending on the target. And that’s also why professional observatories choose always big telescopes: more light gathering capability. Regards, Alfredo

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Exactly Alfredo! Cheers, and enjoy your beast of a scope!

[@CleggersAstro]

A very interesting comparison for me as I captured M51 a month ago using my Evostar 72ED & old Canon 1000d 50 x 2 min subs with a cheap CLS filter no dither. Acknowledging KZbin image restrictions I think my image is as good as the Redcat and very close to the Newt.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Congrats on your image! And it's awesome to be able to get such results with comparatively cheap and old equipment :D

[@MrMaunotube]

another good video. thanks.

[@qwertymonsta]

Wow! I was not expecting that. Good video Cuiv!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yeah I was expecting a difference (since we're really not playing to the redcat strengths) but not that much!

[@MrMrduke1975]

Was going to buy the Apertura but it’s been sold out on High point and they are only getting a limited supply in, in July. Bought the SkyWatcher Quattro 150p. Also ordered the support veins from Backyard Universe. Those guys are awesome to deal with! They sent out my order immediately. I think it’s fun completely redoing a scope. It’s fun to learn how they work.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's going to be a lot of fun! Make sure to buy some Musou Black Paint or equivalent for flocking, and build yourself a light hood for the telescope butt (aka the telescope butt plug)

[@MrMrduke1975]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek 😂😂😂 I’d rather paint than flock. I was actually wondering about the flocking part. I ordered a fan for the back to help move air through to avoid the mirror fogging up. Also what is your eyepiece adapter with the compression ring?

[@MrMrduke1975]

Wow! I made absolutely no sense lol. I’d rather paint than add a material, but I found a place that makes flocking with the same stuff that NASA does or so said this KZbin person. Also, what is a good dew shield that I can order.

[@davidpowers9023]

Light buckets win again. Thank you for this video and sharing your experience, knowledge and gear skills. More than once have I thought, emphasis on thought, about astrophotography and this video seals the deal - no way do I have the money, time or brain capacity to attempt that. I'll just stick with my grab-n-go Bushnell 4.5" newt with its flimsy tripod and my eyeballs. Wishing you clear sky's

[@RobertRidgley]

Based on aperture I expected a significant difference but actually seeing it was dramatic. Thanks for the detailed demonstration. All things being equal nothing beats aperture.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

In this case aperture AND focal length I would assume :)

[@tomatomaeg]

If you have a imaging system near its limits, you can test this live with lunar imaging using aperture masks. Its pretty fun seeing it live.

[@michaeledmonds3027]

The Redcat/585 with BlurX image demonstrates how limited the SeeStar S50's camera sensor is. Of course their's a huge difference in price. Thanks for the video, Cuiv. Clear Skies, Michael

[@santiagomadruga4298]

For my taste, simplicity of use of S50 trumps over more expensive and resolving setups. I don't think there is in the market something with better ratio performance/price than the S50.

[@michaeledmonds3027]

@santiagomadruga4298 Agreed... The SeeStar is an amazing piece of gear... I got mine for pre-order $400 and added accessories. But field rotation limits exposure time, and the tiny sensor yields snapshot images that don't tolerate enlargement. I'm sure ZWO had all this in mind... Make AP simple with a sharp 50mm APO. Then you're hooked, wanting more capabilities. This led me to the AM5, refractors, and cooled cameras $$$.

[@skye7690]

Such a great video, please make more like this. I’ve owned some redcats and they are great (and expensive), but this Newtonian has my eye, what’s the brand/ specs? As I a kid I had newtonians and dobs off and on and loved them, but have never used one for astrophotography, esp. due flat field issues.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Redcats are awesome for sure! I'm not trying to knock on it :) this is the Carbonstar 150, there's the links in the video description if you're interested, and I have a recent review on it. Overall the scope is very good, but I have a remaining flare issue on stars I will detail soon

[@Neanderthal75]

This has happened to me, when I switched to a 150mm reflector from my 80mm refractor. Both are roughly same focal length (610 vs 560), but the refractor is F7. When I used them both with a reducer (Starizona 0.75X CCorrector and a 0.8x reducer for the refractor) , the 80mm refractor is F5.6 at around 448mm focal length, while the Newtonian is 457mm focal length with F3. So roughly the same FOV, regardless which sensor. Despite having the same focal length, obviously the speed of the Newtonian is already a hands down winner, but it's not really just about the speed though. There is just a better clarity and more details as well. Anyone who doesn't have a lot of clear skies and already "battle-hardened" by refractors - I would recommend to upgrade to a Newtonian. And please do people, we need manufacturers start taking these scopes seriously and make better ones, but they won't do it, unless there is a demand for them!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Oh wow that is a very interesting data point! Even at same focal length and thus resolution, I'm actually a bit surprised while being not really surprised! Thanks for sharing! And agree, we need more manufacturers taking newts seriously...

[@washy934]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek isn't it a function of demand - as far as I know all the small refactors have objectives sourced from camera manufacturer's spares (canon/nikon). In contrast, relatively shunned newts are specifically ground mirrors for telescopes. I think the exception is takahashi but then why buy one of their refactors given what else you could buy at the same price point

[@astroberg4774]

Great videos as always dude. The newt is almost 2x faster than the refractor. Maybe stacking half the subs of the newt would compare better?

[@calimark7448]

Hey Cuiv! Yes I was surprised by the newt. Also was wondering where all the diffraction spikes went? That is my only reason for not using a newt for AP is that Im not a fan of the spikes. Great vid!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

The spikes are very visible on bright stars still - and you're right it's always better not to have a central obstruction and spikes :)

[@40Sec]

The arc seconds per pixel is definitely a useful comparison, but I'd also love to see what differences the aperture itself makes on the final image resolution (such as if you used the same cameras at the same focal lengths but had significantly different apertures). I know that test would likely be much harder to setup though.

[@archivemanager2734]

where are the Newtonian diffraction spikes on the stars from the secondary mirror holder?, did the software remove them

[@no_mercy4183]

Seriously man you deserve much more views

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much man!

[@ciskje71]

*** I had already realized this, with your various previous videos, and thanks to this and the fact that just following you is enough to see the wallet vanish I went from an Evostar 72ED+SA GTi to a Quattro 200, with AM5. But I still haven't been able to get the first light. Thanks again Yannick, but I didn't know you also play Tennis! :)

[@ciskje71]

but testing also 2600 with redcat?

[@ciskje71]

and also 585 on the newt!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I hope the skies clear and you have enough time for a first light!

[@user-lt9py2pu6u]

I Started with a cheap Newt and almost gave up the hobby. The Red Cat51 saved it for me. How so?, well due to various factors, I just didn't have the time to set up my Newtonian on the rare spells of clear sky I get. If I could have set up my newt in an observatory it may have been different. Enter the Cat, set up on Star Adventurer tracking mount ready for use, If there was a clear spell in the middle of the night I could be outside imagining within five or ten minutes. During the winter I would sometimes manage an hour or two before going to work in the morning. The point of this? A beginner needs to take a number of factors into consideration, not the least whether or not the chosen scope will be practical or whether it will spend most of its time in storage. I'm not against reflectors, as I said if I could set one up in a permanent position or I had a reasonable amount of clear skies throughout the year I would definitely buy an 8" or bigger Reflector, but I live in an area where if you get three nights a month where you are able to image you are lucky and that might only be for a couple of hours per night, a Newtonian would not be practical. Oh yes, the mount, A red cat51 can be used with a cheap tracking mount such as those made by Sky Watcher or Ioptron, but you need at least an EQ5 to use a 6" reflector for astro photography which is a lot more expensive so the overall price comparison is not so close, we are talking beginers rigs here the more experienced will have aquired at decent GEM or SWG mount already. Then there are the cameras to consider, many begginers actually start with a dslr or a mirrorless. How do these two scopes compare when used with a DSLR? Another popular camera for beginners is the 533 OSC because of the price though I could see the 585 also appealing to begginers due to its low price point. Obviously these cameras are never going to match the results of the more expensive cameras with bigger sensors.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I'm glad the RedCat51 saved you! Note that this isn't meant to be a knock on the RedCat - I just wanted to see what that seemingly small 1"/pixel difference would make in practice, looking ONLY at resolution! So completely ignoring the strenghts of the frac (FOV, portability, ease of use) :) That said, you say that a 533 would never matched a 571... that's true only for FOV. The 533 is basically just a cropped 571 (with minor differences). If you take an image with a 533, and compare it to a 571 (cropped to the same FOV), you should be seeing sensibly the same thing! Overall the only thing the additional cost of higher end cameras buy you is FOV/sensor size!

[@KingLoopie1]

No surprise here. Aperture trumps in almost all cases... (Or we would not have that gas disease which often comes along with aperture fever.) I'm glad you carried on with the test even though the collimation wasn't perfect. It still gave good data to compare. 👍👍

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks KingLoopie1! Also others pointed out that the Redcat may not have been in focus, so now I'm wondering about the ASIAir focus routine... mmmh

[@Sacredn]

This is also what I see with my vespera (original) vs my skywatcher 150p + 2600mc pro . Nice video. The skywatcher rig blows it out of the water.

[@mikelt2344]

Somehow a strange comparison - 50mm to 150mm. I would rather compare a refractor with a similar speed and opening to the Newton - of course based on the same price meaning rather an ED-Lens. Or just take an 3 inch Newton and we will see. 😉

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I was trying to see the impact of just the resolution advantage of the newt (same price scope on the same night) and see in practice what the difference is in the final image. While it is a strange (and unfair) comparison, it is also a very fair comparison at the same time :) We KNOW the Newt will win in resolution, I was wondering about what this means concretely

[@AABB-px8lc]

This. And we all aware that he is very experienced in technical nuances even more deeper than basic aperture difference. (150/50)^2 = 9 times bigger area, even with typical 0.3x second mirror shade it still insanely better. Just WTF.

[@user-sh8mg2bm8g]

Great video thank you! The outcome was likely based on the equipment difference, and youconfirmed it! Does that mean one should always opt for the Newt and bigger OTAs? NO! 🙂 Almost anyone starting out -or folks just not into doing the extra work necessary to to get big OTAs /the newt/ a large SCT to perform in top form - would enjoy using the RedCat or any refractor more! It makes a difference -like the saying " the best telescope is the one you use the most." That hold for astrophotography as well! 👍

[@allenbaylus3378]

thoughts on a large refractor like an Askar 140 APO vs your newtonian - similar reach...

[@marcelisler8145]

Very informative as usual... I'm currently in Japan and I don't know how you can handle the heat and humidity 🤣🤣🤣

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Oh my gosh, the heat and humidity is insane these days...!! Get yourself to the Japanese Alps or to the sea! ;)

[@marcelisler8145]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I have one more day in Kyoto, then a couple of days in Osaka and then back for a couple of days in Tokyo

[@latin01720]

How would this test have compared if you had used a Schmitt Casegrain, like a Celestron 8 HG or Evolution?

[@Jason_82]

In keeping with the comparisons, I'd love to see a comparison between the CarbonStar and the SharpStar OTAs. What's the difference between the two?

[@SSIGreenHeron]

How did you do synchronized dithering? Were you able do sync with dual ASIs?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

In this case the Newt and the Frac were on different mounts!

[@josephdwolfe]

Why do you have the cameras facing the ground versus the sky?

[@Roland-Lewis]

How about RedCat vs. Seestar S50? Optical specs of both very similar, so could be a good comparison!

[@realmcerono]

Only if you use the same imx462 sensor on the cat with no guiding and a wedge on the S50. Otherwise the S50 can't hold a candle against the redcat.

[@Roland-Lewis]

@@realmcerono Agreed. So that's exactly what I am suggesting. Using that sensor and EQ mounting it. That would be very apples to apples, the only difference being the OTA.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yeah as @realmcerono I expect another large difference, I'll have to check!

[@julese7790]

Yeah, I'll buy the R200SS you convinced me :) (I'm a Vixen fanboy and I was pondering to buy the R200SS...)

[@michaelbibby8636]

Another interesting comparison could be between two telescopes of the same focal length-- one big aperture Newtonian and one smaller aperture refractor-- to see what kind of difference the aperture makes in terms of resolution under normal seeing conditions.

[@christo666yt]

Emcan EM31Pro?? Will it be soon reviewed?

[@siegfriedberger7009]

Impressive comparison, thanx! I'm looking for a little bigger Newtonian, e. g. a 8" quattro. What would you suggest?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I can't really suggest anything in particular since I don't have an 8 inch Newt - if you're ok with doing changes to the scope, the Quattro 200P should be very similar to the 150P I got (but with a better focuser I believe). Otherwise there's the Vixen R200SS, but I would recommend it if you're in Japan!

[@tostativerdk]

Thanks for a VERY interesting video. I have just added a Newt to my arsenal, so very timely video for me :) One thing I have not seen explored a lot, is the efficiency of BXT as a function of SNR. According to RC himself, BXT works better the less noise you have. That has led me to ask the question, is it possible to get more resolution from some telescope setup by using a reducer, relative to a 1 x flattener? Simply by the fact that BXT works better, even compensation for the shorter focal length.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I hope you enjoy your Newt! So that's a really good question you ask! It would need to be tested, but I personally would doubt the shorter FL faster FR would eke out more details... Assuming we're not oversampled for both of course. While less noise is better, more details in the first place is probably far more of a factor!

[@vk3dgn]

I compared my Esprit 100 (100mm refractor) with C9.25 (235mm) SCT + 0.63 reducer on M83 with the same camera (533MC). The resolution difference had the SCT way ahead. The Esprit is much brighter but mush on this target. The Esprit is beautiful on larger objects and a joy to use. A camera with much smaller pixels would help resolution for both telescopes.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, that's actually really close to the comparison Lukomatico did on his channel, which is also eye opening!

[@BartekStasinski]

Team Newt for life! Have SW200P - takes time to setup, cool down but I love it!

[@secretstill]

Interesting! Have you thought of doing the same experiment on something bigger with more signal that would be a more normal target for smaller scopes (like the Cygnus wall) to see if the differences are still as obvious?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That would become more of a test of FOV and SNR, which also makes sense, but very different criteria, I can definitely think on it :)

[@ctortolini]

Hey Cuiv!... What is that white mount behind you? EMEI? Haven't seen it before...

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep! Review coming soon!

[@socialwebwiki]

Awesome!

[@danbartlett7923]

Ouch! Unfair advantage of course. The 16bit ADC of the asi2600mcP was a give away at the start. Now compare C6 hyperstar vs your CarbonStar6...that would be interesting. I enjoyed the effort Cuiv!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks for getting it Dan! I think a lot of people felt the comparison was unfair and uncalled for :) The ADC+Gain determines full well depth, add read noise and you get Dynamic range, but the 585 exposures were easily within the DR so no problem there. As The only issue with the 12 bit ADC would be quantization error, which could indeed play a role with the feature contrast - that should be more than offset by the smaller pixels, but that's a good point!

[@wdavis6814]

This CarbonStar line is gonna kick off a wave of low cost CF high quality astrographs. I already bought my CarbonStar, but I'm still looking forward to the scopes to come.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That would be good! I hope Skywatcher gets serious about the mechanics of their Newts, they'vr already gotten the optics down

[@Neanderthal75]

I'm really hoping they aren't gonna discontinue it. We don't have good Newtonians on the market, unless we order it from Germany and they cost an arm and leg.

[@JonathanSias]

To echo other comments, this comparison feels off. As you stated around 4 minutes and have added in the comments, a comparison of arc seconds per pixel is a valid one. But the video title and thumbnail give an appearance of beginner telescope recommendations or a comparison of refractors and reflectors. It takes 4 minutes to get to the premise of the real comparison, and I think that is the key problem here. A saavy astrophotographer will recognize a different gear path is necessary to pursue different targets, but a beginner won't understand the subtle differences that go into an optimal path for one target or another. The video is titled and thumbnailed towards beginners, but it isn't a breakdown of the scopes strengths and weaknesses, but instead is a technical comparison well suited to your current audience. Thanks for the content, I hope this was helpful. ~a beginner astrophotographer with an unguided star tracker and an 80mm doublet refractor. (Budget and beginner is quite relative, isn't it?)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Good points - the title has already been changed to refer to just resolution, I'm looking at the thumbnail and what I could change. Recommendation is usually that the thumbnail is the hook, while the title clarifies the intent/adds info (which I think it does right now with resolution). The audience targeting is the most difficult and frustrating part of making videos especially now that the channel has grown... I just have to assume that people (beginner or not) will actually watch the entire video as trying to cater to all audiences (beginners will watch regardless of thumbnail) is extremely difficult in a video, and having proper disclaimers about what the video is comparing exactly as well would require far more scripting than I currently do, and it would completely change my video style... It's actually been really exhausting recently to have so much reach because I've also been blamed for instance for just featuring my dual scope without enough warnings for beginners to not imitate me. I also get blamed when a sample of a product that I really liked on the channel doesn't work well for someone else. Or for not spending enough time on the negatives of one scope or another. Or being too enthusiastic about something which misleads beginners... Or... There is always something. Sorry I know this is turning into a simple rant and you are not the target. I really, really appreciate you writing this down so positively and constructively. You make very good points, they are valid. It's just so freaking hard to think of everything in advance and make sure I shield everyone and myself. Like how to not give the wrong impression. How to not mislead beginners. How to present piece X or Y of information in a way understandable for most but that may not be 100% accurate for the pros, but good and practical for most (that happened on the USB cable video). I make videos for fun, I document my journey and my experiments, I try to be precise about what I'm doing while still keeping the videos understandable and light-hearted... These days it feels like it's never, ever good enough. Which it actually is! Nothing is ever perfect... Oh well sorry this is turning into a pure brain and heart dump. I understand the feedback, appreciate it, will reflect on it. Thank you.

[@AstroQuest1]

Well done Cuiv. I love comparisons like this. Just can't touch the the larger aperture although I would have liked to have seen it done using the same camera. Of course two 2600s would would be quite pricey and using the same camera at different times will have different sky conditions. I know it is a pain but just to be on the safe side, maybe doing another test with the same camera would be useful. Cheers Kurt

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Sounds good in terms of methodology Kurt! Thanks!

[@AstroQuest1]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yeah the reason I pointed this out is are you sure you are not comparing the cameras rather than the telescopes (the 2600 has 6248x4176 pixel array or 82MP and the 585 has a 3840x2160 array 8.29MP). I would expect to have a better image just based on the cameras since there are more pixels for the same FOV - I guess that is the point because if you used the 2600 with the Redcat you would have a larger FOV. At any rate, great video. Side Note for another video: If you still have the Hyperstar or even with your low F-ratio frankenscope. How well do the time saving estimates match up in real terms. That is, is using an F1.9 setup really 25 times better than a F10 as the calculation predicts.

[@Bernd_Finke]

Not surprised, but nice to see a test like this. BTW you can compare how "fast" a imagetrain is by multiplying 'Aperture' with 'Res. per Pixel' (Newt: 150x1.34 and RedCat: 51x2.39) unlike F. Ratio bigger value is faster, 2x bigger is four times as fast.

[@Seanjones1990]

is time constraint so i skipped(sry) but is one the 585 and the other the 2600mc pro? (to achieve the same fov i imagine) but thats a harsh comparison the 585 is not even close to the 2600 aha

[@gregorykeating4195]

I’m shocked - now rethinking what future scope I may purchase - great info!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Don't forget that we ONLY looked at the details when zooming in here with a small galaxy target! Small fracs however shine on extended targets like nebulae with their large FOV! So it's a matter of use case!

[@heywardhall1489]

I've been considering their Apertura CarbonStar 6" Ritchey-Chretien Telescope. It has me intrigued. I thought i wanted a Celestron 6" OTA as my next tube. Then i saw the Apertura CarbonStar 6" RC... Have you used it? I've watched your Celestron 6" OTA Hyperstar video. And based on that video, it made me realize if i get a 6" SCT style OTA, it should probably be Hyperstar capable. But dang i wanted that sexy Apertura CarbonStar 6" Ritchey-Chretien Telescope. Your thougts? I value you opinion more than most KZbinrs. Thanks.

[@seemantadutta]

I am looking to buy the carbonstar 150 for getting up close to nebulas in the summer. And May also get into mono. I have a redcat51 but it is severely undersampled with my 533MC pro. I also have an edge HD and that it my primary galaxy rig. It is somewhat over sampled though. This carbonstar 150 600mm scope (570 after the .95 reducer) will be ideal for my 533MC pro (or the 2600 when I upgrade). Should I get the Carbonstar 150?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's a tough one - overall I think you already have all you need for both wide field and narrow field - the Carbonstar would be nice, sure, but is it really necessary? Maybe not?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

In a way it is both a very unfair comparison (we're looking at a Newt vs a Frac and then looking at resolution - of course the Newt has the advantage) and a very fair one (same price, same night) - I really wanted to see in practice what impact that seemingly small 1"/pixel difference has on the final image!

[@DSOImager]

Nope. not surprised at all :) I have done a similar video comparing a refractor to a SCT last year (both with a similar price).

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Ooh I hadn't seen it (or if I have, which is entirely possible, I don't remember... Sorry about that!), but that is also very interesting!

[@DSOImager]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Mines a bit long, but I give a lot of examples.

[@BobJohnsonSince1970]

Ok, um, this was interesting, Cuiv, but what's with the new, white strain wave mount under the franken-scope??

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's a mount I'm reviewing, the EMCAN EM31Pro - it's on loan and we'll be back with the WarpAstron soon :)

[@lee-van-cleef]

A comparison of the 585 sensor paired with a very fast lens and the 571 sensor on the Newt would be interesting. Also, the comparison should really be on a large nebula rather than a small galaxy.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

More fun stuff to try! I do think though that to compare resolution, a galaxy is the perfect target :) Nebulae would be good for a more general comparison!

[@astrodysseus]

13:10 I was indeed expecting the newtonian to be much better... larger aperture (so dawes limit etc) and faster.. so... yep. In a nutshell, if you have the room for a (well collimated) newton, definitely take the newtonian

[@commandosolo193]

great video and thanks. also, I had to look really really hard to make sure you had the cover on the newt. I kept seeing you touch the front and cringed... Also, I will still take my redcat simply because it's so much more portable.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thank you! Fortunately I didn't destroy my newt for the video :p Sorry for the cringe! And yes this video looked ONLY at resolution and how much of an impact the difference has - the redcat has so many strong points like its FOV and portability!

[@commandosolo193]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek thank you for the reply!

[@nikaxstrophotography]

would love to know more about the UMI light will you be doing a proper review?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Coming soon!

[@nikaxstrophotography]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek So looking forward to it.

[@robertmcgrory3464]

Bonjour Cuiv! Thanks for a great comparison. I am assuming the difference in S/N is due to the light gathering capability of the Newt being superior for a giving integration time? Given the difference in focal ratio between your RedCat and your Newt, would longer overall exposure time on the small refractor permit equivalent S/N? If so how much longer overall exposure would be required to achieve comparable results?? I think that would be an interesting comparison. It would speak to the efficiency of acquiring a certain level of S/N and resolution - bang for the buck and time spent???

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

You are right! If we had the same sensor on both scopes, the Newt would be gathering light (4.9/3.8)^2=1.6 times faster than the frac (ignoring central obstruction), so you'd need to expose for that much longer to achieve equivalent SNR. It's a good point though, but comparison is a bit harder though.. I'll have to think about this!

[@robertmcgrory3464]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Thanks for considering the idea..

[@enriqueboeneker]

Hola, Cuiv! I’m a Newt guy, definitely.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Cheers Enrique! Fracs are great too, but always fun to play with both :)

[@enriqueboeneker]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek agree!

[@andyermolli3226]

No surprises there. I made the e-180 my default imaging scope for the same reason. The being said a large refractor may still be preferable due to less scatter and no central obstruction. I have a 130GTX that I should probably put to work and see what I get.

[@MisterM950]

I would have swapped the cameras. Then both telescopes could have delivered their strengths. The newt should perform very well with the smallish high res sensor. The cat with apsc gives wonderful widefields.

[@MichaelLevAstro]

Would be interesting comparing the newt to a 80mm f7.5 Same focal length, different speed and resolution

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Or maybe one of those tiny mak cass lenses, I think there was one with FL 600mm, that could be fun!

[@larryfine4719]

It all depends on your target. Generally nebula require less focal length than galaxies. And so refractors are generally good for nebula and reflectors for galaxies. The solution? Own both!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely! The Frac shines with FOV, portability, versatility, ease of use! Here I really just wanted to see what the resolution advantage would be in real life!

[@icyxxxxx]

Woah cool!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It was fun!

[@crm114.]

Nice comparison. The Redcat/585 combination does lead to some undersampling so may benefit from drizzling. Also, I think the excellent 16bit sensor of 2600 may also be a contributing factor to the quality difference.

[@tomatomaeg]

How is it undersampled? It has 51mm aperture and the 2.9um pixels sample it to its optical limit of resolving power. With planetary stacking atleast, drizzling over the limit just looks like a upsample and no extra detail :(. 1x Drizzle with OSC cameras is really popular now with larger datasets though, really noticeable detail gains.

[@textandtelescope8199]

I was thinking the same thing. How about the 51 with the 2600?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I'll check the undrizzled image as well to see what it looks like! Although I have seen an advantage to going past the Dawes limit with drizzling in the past, probably due to Nyquist, so I would think the Redcat is indeed undersampled from that standpoint :) For the 2600, it would be unarguably undersampled, yes, so drizzle definitely has more of an effect!

[@soupdragon2397]

I agree, the 585 is not really a fair comparison, due to under-sampling and competing with the 2600. The 183 would have been a fairer comparison, sampling wise, but still unfair being up against the superior sensor of the 2600. Nevertheless, an interesting experiment, but the result was never really in doubt.

[@scottfairbairn6305]

I’m sure this has been mentioned, but the stars look bad on the redcat. I don’t own that scope, but I would expect smaller and rounder stars from a refractor than what is presented. Aperture is king, but something isn’t right with the redcat. Btw, kudos for the comparison video, but I would recommend, hands down, the refractor for a new astrophotographer despite the poor showing. It is sooo much easier to work with and nevermind the similarities in price.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I've commented on this in the description and pinned comment!

[@Fossbear]

Really a big difference, after a while of astrofotography you know things, but it is always nice to see "direct" comparisons. Thx for doing this. Makes me happy that i started with an 6" newtonian - although i had to learn all that newotnian stuff that can be pretty frustating :D

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yeah the Newtonian adds a lot to the learning curve... and you miss out on portability and FOV... but you do get the sharpness!

[@getawaydance]

Isn't the point of small refractors the huge FOV which a newtonian doesn't deliver? My point being that if you would to capture a large nebula you'd have to spend several nights creating a mosaic while the refractor can capture it all in one night. Unfair comparison. Aperature always wins but other times you want FOV and / or portability.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It's a very fair comparison on a very specific criteria though - how much resolution difference do we actually see? It doesn't invalide anything about the convenience of refractors and their potential large FOV

[@desmcmorrow2978]

Thanks for the video. Not sure it is really surprising that the Newt is much better than the redcat for imaging a galaxy. Unless I have done something wrong - oops and apologies if I have - the ratio of the etendues for the two systems is roughly 2.6 (proportional to aperture ^2 * plate scale ^2). So the Newt will collect data 2.6 times faster than the redcat and in principle has three times the intrinsic resolution, even if some of this advantage is not realised because of seeing. Not being critical, just trying to understand. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Des

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Oh it's not surprising at all, I was just trying to show how much difference there is - numbers are good and all, but sometimes it's good to look at the results: how much of a difference can we expect experimentally? I personally didn't expect the difference to be so stark... By the way I computed 2.8 ratio of étendue, but we're in the same ballpark - even with the SNR difference I don't think that affects the visible resolution, but it's still interesting to look at!

[@desmcmorrow2978]

ps Dare I suggest a video on etendue - essential but not widely appreciated concept for comparing different optical systems. Allows comparison to be made on an apples-to-apples basis, rather than apples-to-bananas .......

[@jafftiti1476]

OTA might be the same price, but I would not dare put that Newt on a Star Adventurer :)

[@siberx4]

Fast newtonians get an (IMO undeserved) bad rap for astrophotography for some reason compared to refractors, and I really don't understand it. When paired with a coma corrector, they're roughly on par with a decent apochromat in terms of aberrations but you get way more telescope for the money (and weight). Collimation is not a big deal, and cleaning anything is very rarely required. Reflectors lose only a small amount of light compared to the same aperture refractor (due to central obstruction and losses in the reflective coatings) but the differences are negligible.

[@ttp_007]

Outstanding comparison! CarbonStar on top of my shopping list now! Cheers from Colorado!

[@GediAstro]

That's weird. My RedCat51 performs admirably. I have compared it with my 630mm refractor at f/5.6 and my RedCat at 250mm cropped is almost as detailed as my 630mm refractor. I'm thinking it's because of my seeing at Bortle 9 where I photograph.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Very interesting! Makes me want to try again - and other comments have made me wonder if the ASIAir focus routine worked well enough with the RedCat. My seeing in Tokyo is constantly terrible... Thank you for this data point!

[@celiaxel3448]

Thanks for the great video Cuiv! It could give the impression the Redcat is inferior, but it is more about the combination with the 585MC sensor. Combine the Redcat51 with an ASI2600MC and suddenly you have a scope with a field of view so well adapted to the large nebulae!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely! I should have been clearer that here I'm just trying to see exactly what impact the resolution difference has - and for that the 585 actually helps the RedCat by increasing its per pixel res! Obviously where a small refractor shines is at wide FOV for large nebulae, but that wasn't what I was testing for here :)

[@derekbaker3279]

Ok...let's repeat that with a 36mmx24mm full-frame sensor on both scopes, e.g. ZWO6200MM or MC.🤔--> Oh! Oh!😮What happened to the newt's images? 😉

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha of course Derek! As mentioned in video, pinned comment, description, and community post, this is only a resolution comparison (which the Newt would still win with the 6200MM :p)! Obviously for FOV, portability, ease of use, etc. the refractor wins, but here I was looking at resolution!

[@flappah]

This is quite shocking actually. By sheer coincidence I also imaged M51 last weekend. Shot 300, 30 second frames with my unguided D780 and Sigma 600mm lens and my results are more in the direction of the Newtonian you showed. Not equal I can say. For some reason there was a nasty coma present in each star (which there wasn't there when I imaged M81. Guess I'll have to do another imaging run and stop the lens a bit down to see if that makes a difference). I'm not sure though why the refractor its performance was so different.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Interesting, maybe I should test this again!

[@georgesinanis6056]

When new in astrophotography, someone would naturally consider these 2 options and this video does help to offer a pov. So, I do consider this video helpful and it does provide an insight for this price-point. Now, I’m very interested to find out about your new mounts…..especially the one that you have for your dual setup ;-)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Review coming soon :D

[@lupixus]

is it me or the redcat is slightly out of focus?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It doesn't look like it to me, maybe linked to the drizzling with small pixels, BUT I was relying on the ASIAir focus routine vs NINA for the Newt. And I do trust the NINA vanilla focus quite a lot, since I originally rewrote it :p It's possible that part of the result is due to the ASIAir autofocus, now you make me want to try again with NINA!

[@chuckshc376]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I would be here for that more Cuiv yay

[@ciskje71]

Image of M51 is a crop of the entire image.

[@siegfriednoet]

Didn't expect such a huge difference Quiv, very interesting, it even looks like the image of the refractor isn't even sharp in comparison wit the image of the newt. But of course there is also a huge difference in camera quality in my opinion.

[@deep_space_dave]

Cuiv this is the perfect example of how to get the best bang for the buck in this expensive hobby!!! The only thing that could add expense would be that you may need a beefer mount. But you already have that and you want to spend just $1000 budget, the newtonian is the best choice for the same FOV at a better resolution for the same price!!!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much Dave! Although of course I'm ignoring all of the RedCat strengths like portability, FOV, and ease of use :p

[@Wombatzone31]

I did this test on the weekend with a public viewing session with friends.... was night and day going from the ED72 on the Wishing Well to my SW150p reflector. For sharpness you just can't beat a well collimated reflector. My 150p has had sharper views of Jupiter than a 14inch that wasn't collimated. Had the public commenting the view thru my 150p was better than the 14in reflector the club has.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That is very interesting! It does make me wonder if the 14in reflector was very poorly collimated :p

[@Wombatzone31]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek it is a truss reflector on a dobinson mount, I suspect collimation goes when it is touched... or looked at with intent for use lol

[@CriticalThinker-42]

Not really a fair comparison, Cuiv. Apparently bad numbers/math = bad comparison. According to Astronomy dot Tools: The Redcat has 2.32 as/p and the Newt has 0.77 as/p (138 /Telescope Aperture) a 3X resolution advantage for the Newt (therefore the Newt’s camera’s sensors should be 8.7μm (3X 2.9μm of the 585) not 3.76μm, another 2.3X advantage, Newt; Then there’s the Light Grasp Ratio (Larger Telescope Aperture ^ 2 / Smaller Telescope Aperture ^ 2) of 9X. So 3x(resolution) 2.3x(camera resolution advantage) 9x(Light Grasp ) = ~62.1X advantage Newt. Yes the f/Ratio factors in but to a Much Smaller Degree, (Wikipedia) f/3.8 (Newt w/corrector) vs f/4.9(Redcat) = ~ ¾ stop (square root of 2 per f Stop X ~0.75 = ~1.2) advantage Newt. ~62.1 x ~1.2 = ~74.5X advantage for the Newt. There may be other factors that change this that I’m unaware of, or I could be off. Please correct anything as needed. Geek On, Cuiv!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hello there! I'm only, and only comparing the difference that we can see in resolution - the Newt is as shown in the second part of the video with astronomy.tools at 1.34" per pixel (0.7 is the Dawes limit), the frac at 2.39" per pixel. Of course it's unfair! That's exactly the point - trying to visualize how much impact on the actual image that one " per pixel makes on the image, imaging the same target at the same time on the same night and looking at the details captured. It's both an unfair and a very fair comparison imo!

[@icyxxxxx]

Why use different sensors tho

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Trying to close the gap of the resolutions!

[@icyxxxxx]

@@CuivTheLazyGeekah ok

[@gregerianne3880]

Very surprising, Cuiv! And a bit depressing since I just bought at WO RedCat61 WIFD and have an ASI585 coming. I haven't gotten to use either yet. Did you have a UV/IR cut filter in your Lum slot for the ASI585 (since it only has an AR protect window). I ask because I was surprised how bloated the stars look to me. Ugh. Hope I didn't make a mistake trying to replace my AT60ED with the RedCat61. Thanks for the comparison and the information!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Don't worry about your RedCat61, it's still a great scope for large targets, and the ASI585 will definitely still give you good details for nebulae, etc! Just because the resolution isn't as good as a much larger Newt doesn't mean it's a bad scope! On the L filter, yes I had one in place, but now I'm wondering if the ASIAir autofocus performed less well than the NINA autofocus on the Newt? It could be a factor I guess...

[@gregerianne3880]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek You're right, of course! I took an image the other night with a 2600MC attached (slightly undersampled given the seeing) and the image was fabulous! This RedCat is the very, very first imaging telescope that worked perfectly for me right out of the box and that I didn't have to send for repair or replacement! It's a beauty -- and a keeper -- for sure! Maybe the RedCat has broken my first-telescope curse. 😃

[@d33dub]

that left image is weirdly worse than ]what i got of the whirlpool with my Seestar (but smaller )

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Remember that I'm in Tokyo, so it's easy to get a better picture overall even with the Seestar from darker areas :)

[@petesastrophotography]

Excellent comparison Cuiv. I expected quite a big difference but seeing it visually is still surprising. The additional 4" of aperture on the CarbonStar represents an increase of 200% over the RedCat. Going from an 8" to a 12" telescope, for example, wouldn't show the same improvement as even though it's 4" more aperture it's 'only' a 50% increase.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much Pete! It was a lot of fun either way :) And it's interesting to see indeed that an 8" gets you so far, and a 12" only a bit farther (relatively speaking) for a very large price difference! And it explains (to some extent) why my results have such a stark difference, more than what Luke found out in his large Newt vs Large SCT video!

[@ssbhide123]

Wait, when did you get a clear sky here? 😮 Btw, why don't we consider effective surface area while considering the f ratio? The Newtonian scope has a significant central obstruction, no?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It cleared up around 10PM last Friday!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

And that's the T ratio (transmittance ratio), that would consider central obstruction, mirror/lens transmission, etc.

[@ssbhide123]

​@@CuivTheLazyGeek aah, I see. Didn't know about the transmittance ratio. I think while comparing refractors and reflectors, T ratio makes more sense to me when we talk about how "fast" the telescope is. If you consider an extreme case for example, 90% central obstruction, would you still consider a reflector as a faster telescope?

[@satoshimuny31]

Aperture is definitely power! Especially with AI tools, (relatively) poor collimation can be fixed it seems

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yeah those AI tools are crazy!