Maker DISSES their OWN Scope?! So let's learn and check SPOT DIAGRAMS :) Minicat 51

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My Patreon: www.patreon.com/cuivlazygeek My Merch Store: cuiv.myspreadshop.com/ Lukomatico's video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXSzp5V8hZZkq7M MiniCat51: bit.ly/3MFFP8s (Agena) or bit.ly/3XjPdDE (HPS) or tinyurl.com/yks4dx22 (FLO) Alternatives! RedCat51: bit.ly/48hyuVx (Agena) or bit.ly/48pTWXW (HPS) or tinyurl.com/ypcdzhsy (FLO) Rokinon 135mm f2 lens: amzn.to/4fob18w Astrophoto kit for Rokinon: bit.ly/48nvyaZ (Agena) or tinyurl.com/d2z68wh7 (FLO) EOS Adapter for Rokinon: bit.ly/4hkYF2H (Agena) or bit.ly/4e0IdBX (HPS) Askar FMA 180Pro: bit.ly/3AqoSvZ (Agena) or bit.ly/3UviwCC (HPS) or tinyurl.com/y7bzd6mp (FLO) Askar FMA 180Pro EAF adapter: bit.ly/48oRAdk (Agena) or bit.ly/3Uq7IW4 (HPS) or tinyurl.com/msynfa32 (FLO) Not mentioned in video, Askar SQA55, whose spot diagram looks insanely good! bit.ly/4hEfW7l (Agena) or bit.ly/48u4PJC (HPS) or tinyurl.com/24mek4vc (FLO) Focus kit for SQA55: bit.ly/4hmR5EN (Agena) or bit.ly/48qbZyG (HPS) or tinyurl.com/3n8svanv (FLO) 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

[@BryanVandrovec]

I recently bought a Mini SpaceCat 51 (the gray version) and have no regrets. I’m also a wildlife photographer who has been on safari in South Africa and own Sony flagship products for that application (Sony A1 camera, 300mm F2.8 G Master lens). From real world tests I can say that the ~$900 Mini SpaceCat 51 holds its own against $6000 camera lenses in terms of overall sharpness and image quality. In addition to being extremely portable, it’s built like a tank. The spot diagram performance isn’t a flaw so much as a tradeoff for the fast f3.5 optics.

[@judd_s5643]

This is an extremely informative video. I’m grateful for content creators like you.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I'm so glad this was helpful, and thank you for your kind words!

[@Megavoltamper]

I like that they are honest about their product, which is still a decent scope. I have owned a few scopes that were rubbish, I wish I had been advised of this on the product pages before ....

[@galengloetzel1441]

Thank you for all your informative videos, Cuiv!

[@JeffHorne]

Having used the Askar 180 for several years now, I love the 180mm focal length. When I saw that Minicat…I immediately wanted it. The same focal length, but faster, and with William Optics’ legendary quality. Then I saw Luke’s video, and I immediately didn’t want the Minicat anymore. Your video further solidifies that. Also, thank you for the spot diagram explanation…that was very insightful and helpful! I really enjoy learning about the more advanced, obscure, and overlooked aspects of astrophotography. 👍🙂

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

You're the reason I know of the 180, your images with it are nothing short of amazing :) glad the spot diagram explanation helped!

[@prius9253]

Excellent presentation of spot diagram. Fabulous!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad this was helpful!

[@blaircolliver5194]

An excellent tutorial on spot diagrams, Cuiv! Thank you very much.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thank you so much, glad this was helpful!

[@chridignan9178]

As an owner, I can confirm that the Askar FMA 180 Pro is fantastic! Thanks for your excellent video.

[@michaelkohl2250]

I bought this one and with apsc 2600mc I have zero issues, I LOVE this thing

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's great to hear!

[@michaeledmonds3027]

I bought the Astro-tech 60 mm, f/5 Petzval on sale for over $300 less than the WO 51 Mini. It appears to be very well corrected with a 533 sensor. I could see someone with an unlimited budget, and a need to have the coolest gear at a star party, with the Mini on an AM3 with a 2600MC PRO AIR.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Sounds like a good deal! I'm so curious about the Askar SQA55 and the Svbony SV555 now as well!

[@michaeledmonds3027]

Yes.... An amazing wave of new equipment has helped AP to grow. Exciting times!

[@boetschge]

Thank you for putting that much effort into this Video! Greetings from Germany, Marc

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Always a pleasure :)

[@wheetgeneration]

I have one on the way. I got it because I am looking for the best super wide field scopes and lenses I can find. I have been shooting at 180 (Askar FMA 180) and below (FMA135, Zeiss 100 makro, Rokinon 135, Nikon 85 (several), etc. for months and all of them need cleaning up with BXT, etc. I will let you and Luko know what I find in a direct comparison - same target, same time, different AM5s, similar filters as soon as I get the mini and have a clear-ish night.

[@seriousbassface]

Which one out of all of those do you think performs the best? I've been looking for a super wide field scope as well. Tried two copies of the Rokinon 135 and they were definitely lemons but I'm not opposed to using BXT to help if the lens is least decent.

[@wheetgeneration]

@@seriousbassface Accepting that some correction is always necessary, I would say the Zeiss and the Nikon 85PC, a tilt-shift lens. I happened to have those. I just shot with the MiniCat all night and I am posting about it on Cloudynights likely later today. So far, the data from the MiniCat looks pretty good.

[@seriousbassface]

@@wheetgeneration Yeah that's fair, for the price of some of those I don't expect a flawless lens by any means. And nice! I've been wanting to try a tilt-shift lens those seem fun. Also right on, I'll keep an eye out for that on CN.

[@wheetgeneration]

@@seriousbassface I am coming to think that making something super wide and super flat field at infinity must be difficult to design. I have messed with a lot of macro lenses, the Zeiss 100mm I have is easily the sharpest lens I've ever used and the current equivalent is about a $2K lens. I really wanted to be able to shoot at 50ish mm for mosaics but the distortion is pretty bad. I am tempted to try a $4K lens Zeiss suggested to me, renting one, but then I'd have to buy it. Same goes for microscope lenses. By the time I got to extraordinary, it was $8K for one magnification.

[@jreichle59]

Always a good educator! Thanks

[@AstroEssentials]

Thanks for the video Cuiv! I was going to buy the mini but I ended up buying the regular RedCat 51. Glad I went with the regular one after watching your video. Clear skies.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Awesome! The Redcat is a really good little scope :)

[@peterlaubscher3989]

I suppose it's a bit like buying a car - high end or not - where the manufacturer says, sure, it works, but if you want the best long-term performance, you need to use this type of [expensive] lubricant. I think most of us don't take this amiss when we buy a car. Same with dishwashers that recommend detergents for best performance. I have a manual only version of the Samyang and love it. The only disadvantge of camera lenses is that it is a fiddle to fit guide cameras etc - conventional scopes with their straight tubes are easier to modify. Thanks for all your detailed and insighful reviews. This weekend I will be taking a look at a used EQ6 mount. Expect loads of clouds :)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hope the used EQ6 turns out well!

[@deep_space_dave]

Cuiv great explanation on the spot diagrams, you were "spot" on 😉 Thanks for the video mate!

[@dawgmach1913]

Well you burst my bubble... My Mini Cat 51 arrives in a couple of days. I already have a RC71 and very pleased with it and didn't think WO would have skimped on the Mini. I didn't understand the diagrams before, but now I do thanks to your video. Lessons learned. Glad I already have BXT, otherwise I would be returning the Mini51.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It may still end up work great for you! There's a couple of people in the comments loving theirs, so hope is not lost!

[@Mockingbird57]

great video as always! I preordered a WO RCmini51 and it arrived a couple weeks ago and I immediately took it for a test spin! I had not seen the disclaimer on WO's site so I didn't know what to expect. I am using a zwo 6200mc pro full frame with it, so I saw the wonky stars in the corners and around the edges. I went ahead and processed my image as I usually do, no bxt or anything like that. In the finished image, posted to fb and other social media platforms, the wonky stars couldn't even be seen. You really have to go looking for them. So I pushed it up to full size on my 24 inch monitor and asked my wife to find the wonky stars. I could see them since I'd just processed the image, but she couldn't see them. What I learned was that, yes, there are some aberations going on but most people will never notice. Pixel peepers will certainly notice! For me, it's not an issue. Stars look good in the center. I am using a full frame, so yes, I get the full blast wonky on the edges but outside of making wall sized prints, it's really not noticeable. I do have bxt but haven't used it yet. If it does correct my edges then it'll be a non issue even for wall sized prints! I get that it's a strange thing to put a disclaimer on a new scope and I get that people are concerned about it. They are making valid points. For me and how I am using the RCmini51, it's fine. I'm happy with my little red spacecat! I wanted a wide field rig to add to my gear. I considered the lens route but didn't feel like messing with the adapters for the EAF and at 135mm and full frame, I was concerned it might be too wide, because of trees in my yard. When WO announced the 178mm mini51 I felt it would suit my needs perfectly! I also have 4 other WO telescopes and enjoy them so I figured I'd just stay in the WO house. I didn't mind the cost because I find WO makes solid builds and has a solid warranty. Overall I'm happy with my RC mini51 and it's performing as I'd hoped, giving me the images I was envisioning.

[@jacquesloveridge30]

I also bought a minicat for similar reasons, the stars aren’t horrible but not ideal of course, blurx fixes it completely though. I’m on a qhy268m so aps-c. I’m really curious what full frame looks like if you wouldn’t mind sharing

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I think WO was frontrunning the community, because we do tend to pixel peep - but if you are happy with your purchase and the images you get, that is all that matters and nothing else!

[@Poketronics]

I really liked this video, especially your explanation of spot diagrams!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad this was helpful!

[@captainfruitbatify]

Super-informative video - thanks for putting the time into doing this. I have the Askar FMA180 Pro which I guess is a competitor to the Minicat, albeit at half the price. An initial look at the spot diagrams for these two scopes made me think the FMA180 was worse, but I hadn't noticed that WO used a scale of 20um per square vs. 10um for the FMA180 diagram. Very sneaky! I will stick to the FMA180 - I've been very happy with it, and I don't have PI or BXT.

[@40Sec]

Absolutely love my FMA180 (non-pro)! I was considering the MiniCat for the faster optics, but thankfully the problems with it mean I'll be sticking with the Askar for the foreseeable future

[@sjpp71]

​@@40SecAnother happy owner of a FMA180 here! Nice tyni scope, I use with a 294MM to capture big nebula (Carina, Tarantula, whole veil neb, vela snr...). The old version that I have gives good star shape, I assume the Pro should be just as good. Recommendable.

[@aaronwilliams3949]

I’m glad to see companies are listening to their customers snd being honest about the performance of their products. High Point Scientific just sent me a new back end for my Carbonstar 150 due to pinched optics in the original design. There was no cost to me and I had already fixed the issue but they sent it anyway! That’s great customer service and really incredible considering how reasonably priced it is.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's awesome! Glad to hear HPS is standing behind the product!

[@jonkennett7774]

Love this kind of content...Could do a whole series on optimizing optics.....

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I'm thinking about it!

[@jPaulofe]

Really GREAT video Cuiv!!! Very instructive as always.

[@muayaddrdentist2313]

Thank you for the valuable information about optics and the challenge for manufacturing the perfect opics and you provided me the exact combination of astrophotography setup.thank you very much😊.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad this was helpful!

[@johnleach324]

Think I'll stick with my original RedCat 51. Great videos again from you and Luke. Keep looking up and clear skies

[@nikaxstrophotography]

I was asking Luke about making a video about spot diagrams and Here comes Cuiv to explain it!! Thanks mate :)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I've actually been asked multiple times, so this was a great opportunity!

[@lukomatico]

Simply excellent video mate, well done!! :-D

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks so much Luke!!!

[@thomasrider5852]

Thank you for explaining spot diagrams! I was trying to figure out how to compare Askars 200 scale vs WO 100 scale

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad this was helpful!

[@Spaced_Out_Bill]

Great video! I love my Redcat 51 but want something a little more portable. I've been wanting a Rokinon 135mm for a few years. I think it's time! Thanks!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Oh yeeeah, Rokinon 135mm will be a lot of fun!!

[@romaindechamps457]

One conclusion could be : put money in BlurX and forget about all the Takas in the world and super expensive and corrected telescopes 😂

[@jerryli3438]

I have a taka and I still use blurx

[@UrbanAstroLA]

Spending time on AstroBin and looking at some of the thousands of photos posted with Takahashi gear that has NOT been BlurX'd or has some significant acquisition error... one might say that is a very sound conclusion! I say this as a Tak owner that loves BlurX for how lazy I can be with post processing. I usually just buy used Taks, so I'm both cheap and lazy.

[@Masoch1st]

@@UrbanAstroLA you can't buy a tak and be cheap. if you were cheap, you wouldn't use a tak.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I'll just download JWST images from now on and still use BXT on them lol - now let me sell all my equipment hahaha

[@Astronurd]

Some of us actually look through our telescopes were quality optics actually mean something.

[@lensoffrey]

Recently got the FMA180 Pro with zwo auto focuser. Used it once without auto focus so far, and I’m impressed by the stars.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Awesome!

[@lensoffrey]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Basically the whole setup is inspired by your videos lol. Mele4C, FMA180Pro with auto focuser kit and ZWO EAF, svbony 705c, svbony 905c, svbony 165, svbony filter drawer, AZ-GTi in eq mode with GS. I appreciate you!

[@gsevere2073]

It does my heart good knowing my Redcat 51 with a helical focuser produces beautifully pinpoint stars throughout the image.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It's a good scope for sure :)

[@sjpp71]

You've got to give it that the thing is a beauty! On a coffee table or top of a bookshelf should look great! Leave it there and use your ST80 achro to do imaging with results just as great 😜

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Oh yeah it is beautiful for sure!

[@sjpp71]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Jokings aside, after I watch your video, I looked at the spot diagrams of the Askar fma180 and fma230, 40mm aperture the former, 50mm the latter. The fma180 diagram scale is 10micron per square whilst the fma230 diagram shown is 20 micron pr square. So they choose the scale depending on the scope, I guess depending on the strengths/weakness of the instrument?

[@astroguimo]

Interesting video. I was considering replacing my Samyang 135 for this MiniCat, but I think I may hold off on that for a second. The problem with the Samyang is its short backfocus distance so there's not a lot of room for accessories. The minicat does have that extra space, but at 900 USD I would expect it to have perfect correction. Maybe it's something that can be fixed in a V2, but meanwhile I think I'll just stick to my Samyang.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, exactly! The Askar SQA55 and the SV555 from SvBony look like potential alternatives!

[@setiv2]

Glad you made another video on this! I saw Lukes as well. I think it is a stiff pill to swallow asking a very high premium price for a tiny scope, then say you will need both PixInsight and BlurX. I wonder if Russ was in communications with WO too. There is probably a lot more to this story than we are told.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Was a great opportunity to explain spot diagrams :) But yeah that scope simply looks too expensive for its price. If it was $400 then there would be zero complaints! I'm not suspecting a conspiracy, otherwise we'd have a link to BXT with a tracking parameter in it, and I don't see that (or maybe that would just be too obvious :p)

[@setiv2]

@CuivTheLazyGeek ok maybe no conspiracies :) i think a lot of people will get a lot out of your spot diagram discussion!

[@BruceDAmbrosio]

Great video, thank you! I have a wo ZS81 wifd w 61AIII flattener. Without flattener it seems far from diffraction limited even at center. What impact do you think a flattener makes wrt spot diagram?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

This actually completely depends on the scope and flattener, you can't make any blanket statement! This is why most manufacturers will give the spot diagram with and without the reducer. No idea about what the spot diagram becomes when you use a third party flattener either, it really depends!

[@gregswank4912]

I'm actually mostly interested in the adapters to connect my dedicated astro camera and filter wheel to a Canon EF or RF lens. I've been wanting to get a wider angle shot of Rho Ophiuchi than the Redcat 51 is capable without stitching. The problem with stitching is that it would take four nights in a row of capturing subs from a dark sky location, and it is only up high enough from the horizon for such a short time, I've never managed to pull it off. With the adaptors, I could use a Rokinon 135 and do it in a single night. I could also use my Rokinon 14 for Milky Way shots with way more HII than the stock EOS-R chip can capture.

[@ntaylorblanchard]

Great Video! I have a somewhat unrelated question. I'm trying to decide between the Askar FRA400 and the Redcat 61. The price is about the same if I get the reducer to give myself the option of going from 400mm to 280mm on the Askar. The size and weight are about the same. Have you ever used the FRA 400? If so what are your thoughts?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I have used neither, so I really can't say!

[@Scdouglas]

The thing I think people will miss about all this drama is that it's really more of a price issue than anything. If this scope was $299 with everything else being exactly the same I bet the reception is a total 180 and becomes extremely positive. Value was never a selling point of WO though lol

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, agree!

[@djraffness]

hayy from la creuse tis is a amazing video thanks

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

You must have such amazing skies!

[@bekanav]

It doesn't help to post correct optical errors of telescope like fixing bright star shapes for dim stars. When their light scatters on larger area sensor won't register it at all. So better telescope sees more stars than less good one. Diffraction pics of perfect telescopes are not same, the bigger the objective diameter is the smaller is the diffraction disk. This means larger telescope has higher resolution

[@kooi1970]

Does the Rokinon and other fast lenses have the same effect on bandpass shifts as a 'normal' telescope? I'm shooting mono and dont think my filters can handle below f/4

[@woody5109]

Very detailed video, thank you.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My pleasure!

[@DeepSkyChronicles-m8b]

Thank you so much for helping me understanding optical diagrams. I'm curious about another telescope in the same range that you did not mention, the SV555. How good or bad will be compared to the mini cat ? Thanks !

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I didn't know about this scope! The spot diagram actually looks slightly better than the Redcat!

[@DeepSkyChronicles-m8b]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Is a very new scope, hopefully SVbony will send you a copy somewhere in the futre for testing. Thanks for you answer.

[@actudoran]

nope ... my 135 f2 rocks! so does my canon 70-200 f 2.8 wanna know what I'll consider ? HAC 125 .... Sky watcher just released a Ricardi honders design scope that's 250 focal length and F2 ... at cca 600$ ... works with imx 585 .... what I would really like to see is it working with the imx 715 .... 😅

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I need to check the camera body dimensions it accepts!

[@actudoran]

@CuivTheLazyGeek small :)) think of planetary cameras ... 585 is the limit

[@grandmasteryoda9893]

i dont think the HAC 125 will be that great. it is very litle you can use. forget motor focuser and 2 inch filter. its one trick poney only.

[@KevinRudd-w8s]

Good comparison with the standard Red Cat 51 Cuiv. My SY f2 135mm lens works OK so I won't be buying anything else in this range. I also have one of the original Red Cat 51 scopes ( actually it's the White Cat but the optics are the same ), which works really well. I don't see the point of the mini, But..... If stunning images start appearing on line taken with it, it will undoubtedly sell, the need for BlurX or not ,( as Luke and yourself have said many serious astro imagers are using PI and BlurX anyway and now that free deconvolution software is starting to appear more people are going to be able correct the star shapes ) The Mini Cat is too expensive for what it is imo, but like most WO scopes it scores really high on bling factor. The engineering looks really good too.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep I think you've hit the nail on the head there! Enjoy the white cat and the SY :)

[@blayzer8871]

I think the Redcat 91 is the more interisting new scope from WO. Good spots, up to medium format (even then the spots look simular / better then the Minicat) For the Minicat there are too many better (cheaper) options on the market. Several lenses, FMA180 Pro, Vixen 55ss...

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, I tend to agree! Although once it gets into this range of prices, I'd start looking for a used Vixen VSD100F3.8!

[@blayzer8871]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek The VSD100 is still in production? Here in Germany but also in the US you cant get them since one year+. Also the scope was listed for about 6k€. I know some users with the VSD100. Non of them is happy with the scope. All of the fast Apos I know and used arent that great. 60mm Tak, 55FL by Borg, VSD90, some Pentax. The new FCT65 from Tak looks good with the reducer. But will it be good? I personally would only buy a fast mirror scope when it comes to faster then f4 or a lens like the 135mm Samyang/Rokinon. The lens has a good perfomance for the money and a mirror scopes like the Epsilon is good at that speed. Not like the Apos...

[@kittersky12]

Hey Cuiv, thanks for the video. I have just received my Minicat last week and tried it for the first time yesterday night. I have tried it with my Full Frame 6200MM with Ha, Oiii and Sii filters (haven't tried LRGB yet) as well as my old 294MC Pro with the L-Ultimate filter. I have some data I would be happy to share with you if you want, just not sure what the best way to do so would be. I took a few exposures of NGC7000 + Sadr with the 6200 and Heart + Soul with the 294. It seems like I may have some tilt as the aberration inspector shows REALLY distorted stars in the bottom right compared to the rest. I also had pretty poor guiding for some reason so that didn't help. In my experience, this scope is amazing for travel and quick setup but it's not really made for full frame narrowband imaging, it's just too small. Just fitting the large EFW 7 on it is difficult and it just bonks my AM5 constantly. I still need to figure out a few things but I think this scope would be a perfect match for the 2600 Air to be honest. I'm still gonna try with the 6200 as the FOV is just too good to miss out on and BlurX is just magic but yeah, you have to know what you're getting into...

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

In the end it's the final images that matter, but yeah as a travel scope it is difficult to beat - it does feel too expensive though....! Hope you figure out the collision issues with the EFW7

[@johnkulczycki3021]

We could all use a video discussing how to judge optical quality for refractors, especially with all these multiple optical element designs.

[@40Sec]

The product itself isn't inherently an issue, but the price definitely is. If the MiniCat was at half the price, it would be something I'd consider, but feels like they're just pricing it based on brand rather than quality. It also doesn't mean a thing to me if they're using Fpl-53 if the results are like this.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, I agree!

[@raphaelcoelho1557]

The statement of WO is correct. The aperture defines the amount of light ONLY for a homogeneous fixed boundary condition. With same aperture but different area of the sky observed the one seeing larger area of the sky will capture more light! There is, the flux across that aperture would increase. A single way to see that is with same aperture the larger the area of the sky observed the larger the number of light sources! The extreme example is considering an aperture fixed but one telescope looking to an empty part of the sky and a second one centered at the same of the first telescope but now due to smaller focal distance it is including a very bright element on the sky. The second capture much more light simple because the bright element was sending zero photons to the first telescope. Although, there are two problems with using small focal distances. The light will be concentrated to smaller number of pixels saturating it and resolution since a smaller number of pixels will represent larger areas of the sky (considering same sensor). And resolution is a mathematical capability of representing gradients. (No gradient need for no resolution, ie. number of pixels doesn't matter). The point is you capture more light but it doesn't necessarily is better!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

hahaha I know exactly what you mean since I made entire videos on the topic (basically with the same camera sensor you capture more light simply by virtue of having a larger FOV - heck my statement here I even say "more light per surface area", which also implies that if you keep the same sensor... More light on the sensor, which is exactly what your argument is), but the way WO's statement is worded still makes the statement incorrect imo (especially the verb "lets in", which in my book strongly implies that more light enters the system, which simply isn't true)!!

[@Riedbach]

Hi I have the Rokinon 135 and the (Askar 180PRO from Ali Express even cheaper) and think exactly the same, they are great, but not as s..y as the Red Cat 51

[@Luftbubblan]

Want: Yes. Buy: No As a gift or for product testing i would use it. I do want a small widefield in my arsenal

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, good summary :)

[@shaunsprogress]

The FOV is the light, so it does let more in.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I've already explained on another comment so I won't go into the details again :)

[@mykol68]

I still love my Askar ASL200.

[@mykol68]

ACL200

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Mine had some issues, but it was likely the lottery!

[@sianikolaou5440]

I'm a pixel peeper so this telescope is a "no" for me. It's good that William Optics owned up to the short comings of the Minicat 51, but I expected better from them as a brand so I will now be scrutinising their products more in future.

[@adampap6872]

I maybe totally wrong, but if I increase the f ratio, then light rays with an incidence angle other than 0 degree can also 'focus' to an acceptable level. As shown in the video, these light rays, which do not have an incidence angle of 0 degrees but are focused to an acceptable extent, will create a star shape resembling a comet. The closer I bring the f ratio to 1, the more light rays will focus that have incidence angles significantly different from 0, thereby causing stronger coma. The question for me is, at such a high f value, a properly corrected Petzval optics would be very, very expensive? Is this the cause that the company provides this quality for this amount of money?

[@Hilmi12]

The question is, does the price provide improvements in terms of mechanical components? Or is it just the red anodized aluminum

[@billmurphypenguins3774]

This seems to perform similar to my z61 with field flattener. I would have expected better from WO

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Or at least cheaper...!

[@woody5109]

It’s only a matter of time before camera lens manufacturers start building telescopes now.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

If the niche keeps growing, I think they will - Pentax did in the good old days

[@Youtuber-ku4nk]

Help please… I have searched but could not find help other places. I thought I had collimated my newt perfectly (and I still do), but the stars look like a little flame or smoke is coming off of them. Only in one direction. My laser collimator and Cheshire collimator and concenter collimator all agree.

[@simonpepper5053]

I think it’s really bad from WO especially the spot diagram. They absolutely changed the size of the graphs vs the Redcat 51 in a hope no one would notice I certainly wouldn’t have. It’s such a shame because my Redcat 51 was my first ever scope and I have loved that thing through think and thin I still hold on to it even though I have bigger and faster scopes just cause it’s special to me. I agree with some other comments I think WO need to pull this from the market and fix it

[@marcomancilla6232]

Hello Cuiv, I am planning to travel to Tokyo and purchase the Takahashi FCT-65D and would love to get your thoughts on this new telescope. Thank you

[@Astronurd]

Spot diagrams are all calculated by a computer and not by testing the actual telescope.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Correct - as I explain in the video.

[@luboinchina3013]

Please test SKYWATCHER HAC125

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Wow, they actually released it?! Will take me time to get to it :)

[@luboinchina3013]

@CuivTheLazyGeek It's on special offer right now in China. 11.11 is like American Black Friday date just in China

[@luboinchina3013]

I would like to know which ZWO camera would work best with so small aperture.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@luboinchina3013 seems to be only mini guide cam type of cameras according to this www.syumitto.jp/pic-labo/hac125_cam.jpg

[@jesuschrist2284]

Available in red and also in white lie

[@jameshcox]

Interesting video, thanks. I'll stick with my Samyang 135mm for now..

[@awolf8013]

A great alternative is the Sharpstar 50edph. Using its reducer it becomes an f/4.4 230mm scope. And it’s a “real” telescope complete with a 2-speed R&P, EAF-ready focuser. I have one and love it.

[@quadibloc2]

If it is a Petzval design, that means it has astigmatism, used to compensate for curvature of field. So at the sensor, only half the light is in focus. So, yes, it will have limitations. But it will still be better-corrected than most refractors.

[@chrzanik666]

Off topic but need to vent my frustration, it's impossible to image in Uk for so long it's borderline hobby killing clouds clouds and more clouds sorry for a rant but I need a fix man 😂😢😢

[@zorg1396]

CZ too 😅

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I had my first clear nights in weeks yesterday... And now it's back to clouds for the foreseeable future... super depressing!

[@zorg1396]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I just came back from the field here in our Dark Skies area, clear skies all day long, so I set it all up for the comet + Aquila MW region, astronomical night was supposed to hit at 18:31, all seemed perfect. Guess at which exact time came the thick clouds 😅

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@zorg1396 ugh, typical... :-(

[@SvenHild]

If possible at some point, can you review the svbony sv555? It seems like a cheaper redcat-style lens.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I didn't even know about it until today - will have a look :)

[@EugeneRu777]

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@frankwostradowski1676]

Thank you for the video. I was very interessed at the Mini Cat, but now I think I don´t want it. For this price I want perfect stars. I think the Askar 40/180 is know more interesting for me, or the new Svbony SV555. This looks althouth very interesting.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I didn't know about the SVBony! But it looks great!

[@Nick-we7lf]

Conclusion. WO screwed up. WO should withdraw the product and fix the issue. There is no other discussion here. Trying to give WO credit here for coming forward with this issue is no good thing. WO should stand up to their reputation and withdraw the product.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Not so sure - I think it's more of a pricing issue, it would be fine if the price was lower

[@Nick-we7lf]

I disagree. Any product with a flaw like this especially in the optics should be withdrawn once you realized that you have a problem. At any price even free I love my William optic telescopes and their quality is exceptional so I’m especially perturbed that they’re leaving this product with this kind of law in the market. I think they should pull it out and fix the issue. Remember, reputation. Years to make seconds to lose. I’m sure William optics does not want to have a reputation like this.

[@Mamen_75]

The future looks bright, soon enough brands will be selling us low quality achros at fluorite glass prices and telling the costumers just to use BXT Same with newts with bathroom mirrors...just use BXT to get a fine image LOL :D Now seriously, I'm not sure if I like all the new "voodoo" magic with software nowadays, I mean what's the point on fine tunning your rig or using an extra expensive corrector with fine optics to get that perfect field? Heck, I've seen average images of the Dwarf telescopes with 30mm apperture rivaling bigger apo's just by using crazy ammounts of BXT and AI based corrections...what's the point...? Do we really want to go that route? One of the big pleasures of our hooby and a big part of the reward is to fine tune your rig with all sorts of technical sollutions to squeeze all the juice from that "lemon", and what a lovely feeling that is when your image is really nice and sharp with no "voodoo" wichtcraft :) I think we will no longer see very high quality optics on the long run if this goes the way it's going...I guess it's all part of the FAKE world we are living in, a lot of "bling bling" but ZERO substance.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Agree to some extent, last part of the comment kind of becomes gatekeep-y? It's whatever people are happy with - BXT is just deconvolution (unlike Topaz which invents details) so I'm fine with it in general :)

[@Rfhuir343]

I purchased a William Optics GT-71 scope, only to discover it has pinched optics-a flaw that, unfortunately, has no remedy, as even adjustments to the lens cells are ineffective. This experience has left me disappointed in William Optics; despite the stylish design, it feels like there’s a lack of substance and quality. I won’t ever buy from William Optics again.

[@RaisinEnjoyer]

Yeah they are only known for that, I also try and warn others so they don’t waste their time and money

[@larrycable984]

how can you diagnose this issue, wondering if my WOs are pinched also?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That's a shame... were you getting effectively triangular stars?

[@Rfhuir343]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek The star shapes look like millennium falcons. It seems to be common with the GT-71 (mine purchased around 2021) and Zenith Star .

[@Rfhuir343]

@@larrycable984 The star shapes tend to look like millennium falcons or iron crosses.

[@JonnyBravo0311]

As I posted in Luke's video, WO should be ashamed of themselves. Not because they've created a slightly faster 51, but because of the price tag they've given it. $900 is absurd. For that price, I would have expected FAR better corrected optics. Telling me you're charging more than double the cost of a Rokinon lens while providing virtually the same star shapes doesn't cut it. If I'm going to use BXT, I'm going to use it with either. The difference? I can pick up the Rokinon, an autofocus setup for it, PixInsight and BXT and be about the same cost as the Mini 51. If WO had put this scope out for about $500, I would be far more accepting of its shortcomings.

[@tommyozzy317]

Definitely wouldnt buy this. I, along with everyone else, utilize these fancy PI tooks to spif up our images. However, you should always try to start with the best data possible. At this price point, you should be getting much better results than this.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yep, exactly!

[@tomabxl4374]

What? This is really bad. Nobody will buy this. Thanks Ciuv, for this info.