Відео

@@Hanejejrjxn thank you for allowing me to answer your question Since lately we’ve talked a lot about ED and acro refractors I’m thinking of doing a video called. Would I still choose an acro now? But in the meantime, let me answer your question I think if you get a 90 mm or 102 mm and as long as that’s at a focal ratio of a minimum of F8 to about F10 you should have some pretty good images of the moon and planets You should be able to do some decent deep sky objects as well However, maybe items like the Andromeda Galaxy and M 45 will be tricky and this long of a refractor but everything else should be decent As far as name brands, any of them will be fine meade orion Celestron sky, watcher, or even explore scientific All of these are made in the two same factories so they will all be roughly the same PS do not get a short tube refractor it will not be good on the planets Cheers thanks for watching

@ I also thought about the Svbony 70 ED which is very cheap but it’s kind of small. The Svbony 80 ED is 360 $ (420 $ with delivery) on thier site but I guess through a much cheaper 80/900 f11.2 achromat the planets would look practically the same.

@ yeah I think the 70 mm a bit small 80 would be much better You could order it through my video, which gives you a 10% discount if you look at my channel, you should be able to find it I think they’re going a little bigger like 102 mm version would be better if you could afford that I’ve tested a basic ED to an acro and F 11 was still not be comparable. It would probably have to be closer to an F 20 for it to be comparable. So if you can’t afford minimum, the ED or the 102 ED go for 102 mm acro but at F 10 I still give you a decent views slightly less sharp than an ED and with more colour but still should be OK Remember to the ED versions the front cap slides down so it compacts a bit more plus the focus is much better quality If you got an acro and later on you upgraded to a dual speed focus they start at minimum $150 and go up from there So take that into consideration if you were to upgrade the focus later, you might as well go for one that already comes with it And the focus that comes with a 80ED or the 102 ED isnot cheaper focus but a decent quality one

@@JoeJaguar Thank you. I thought a f7 ED is more like a f12 or maximum f13 achromat.

@ to tell you the truth it’s not very easy to say I have tested some ED scopes to like an F 11 and the ED version it was a little bit better than the acro Then, on some other models, it was a lot more better There’s different grades of ED from the lowest grade of like 51 and equivalent lenses which may perform like an F 12 or 13 I suppose If we’re talking about an ED with 53 lens, then it most definitely will be equivalent to an F 20 or longer Then, of course, you can have an ED with a triplet lens And then finally, you can have a triplet lens with two pieces of 53 lenses instead of just one I have a video that I talk about from the entry level ED telescopes to the most highest kind of ED for the people that don’t know the different levels of color, correction and image quality The svbony ed telescopes are made with the 51 lens so they are the entry ED but I noticed they’re much more better than the first generation type. ED that came about 15 years ago. It also depends as well which meeting element each manufacture makes and supplies with the ED lens That also makes a big difference and then finally how nicely the lenses figured and polished also makes a big difference So it’s hard to say exactly each scope will compare but if you can’t afford to go to the 102ED from svbony I would say go for it If you can’t, then any 102 mm F10 refractor will be OK if you’re on a tighter budget If you like, I will dig up the link where you get 10% off in case you want to use my coupon code on my video. I will reply as soon as I find it.

@@BurningFlame1999 I guess on the items I was observing the planets. I didn’t really notice too much brightness. It could’ve been very minor, but I didn’t really notice it much. The difference possibly could be easier maybe on deep sky objects There was a bit of a difference in the 140 compared to the 126 Also, the focus is much much better on the 140 compared to the 126

@@deanahorsman5040 I read it on cloudy nights, not just a few times but dozens and dozens of times on the SCT forums They clean as soon as you insulate you can start viewing extreme high powers right away. This is actually the third video that I did testing and I found it to be false and didn’t work. Thanks for confirming what I thought anyway I think the only real way to do it is to have three 8” scts one bear one with insulation and maybe one with a different kind of insulation and see if it actually helps any to what degree it is the only way to do it and I’ve never seen anybody do it this way Thanks for watching

@@amp2amp800 I agree I’m pretty impressed with 140 mm. It is a triplet, but to me it’s equally something like the William optics which most people would say it’s medium high-quality The focus on 140 mm is far far superior than the William optics which surprises me because the William optics has a huge focus, but it’s still not buttery smooth Thanks for watching

@@JoeJaguar Cuiv just did the Askar SQA85. Its a Petzval for AP but they're going up against Takahashi. Says something about where they want to be seen as a company. My little ZWO FF80 is amazing (its a clone of Askar's previous PHQ model line). The SQA's spot diagram has star images that are twice as tight. These guys mean business and are definitely going up market. Inevitable price hikes though.

@ I guess that’s a good thing gives more competition to the market However, I didn’t notice a little bit people who are trying to sell those high-end stuff they’re becoming a lot harder since most people can buy brand new stuff for even cheaper than the name brands now PS I have heardf cuviv and I believe I even watched a few of his videos. It’s a good channel as well. Pss if there was no askar i probably would have bought apm 140 doublet but being in germany its very far and shipping costs are high Plus marcus didn’t treat me well

@@JulioRad954 no sorry I did not start testing actually that’s something that I don’t normally do I know like ed ting he also does not start test. I like to look at the image at focus personally and let the image tell the story if it’s good or not. I guess if my images were very soft without contrast, then I could probably test and see why I’m not getting a good image But I was pretty happy with it. I’ve been using both Scopes the optics probably for about a year and a half and 140 mm probably for eight or nine months and I’m pretty impressed. Thanks for watching

@@janomacko5764 I think the William optics is a pretty good scope and good quality, but I’m just surprised how rough the focusses even though it’s a very large format focus The 140 mm focus is much much smoother. I like it better. I think to me this is my favourite refractor now kind of big not too heavy It’s only 2 pounds more than the William optics and the compressor totally down to about 29 inches which is amazing for the size And it seems to be comparable to equality of a William optics, so I give it a thumbs up Thanks for your comment and thanks for watching

@@Nametagnametag-x7s it was, but it wasn’t too much noticeable on the planets It could be possible on deep sky objects would be able to tell a little bit better Thanks for watching

@@nguoisat134 actually I do have a video coming out where I’m comparing a newer Celestron c8 versus an older meade 8” sct probably made I would say in the early to mid 90s coming up and maybe a month to about a month and a half

@@manolismavrelis5854 as you know, I’ve been using it probably for at least nine months or so I think it’s my favourite because of how compact it folds down to about 29 inches It’s about half inch diameter larger than the William optics but it’s only 2 pounds heavier Being a triplet does help and I believe they made it a pretty good quality for a very good price I probably wouldn’t say it would compare to a high-end like my Takahashi 150 TOA But I think for the price point, I think quality wise it compares easily to the William optics and it’s slightly bigger But yes, I could see definitely more detail on Jupiter Venus Mars and Saturn were pretty much almost equal I would say Mind you on some deep sky objects there could be a little bit of difference there too Thanks for watching

@@anthonybending2687 you’re welcome I really like it. The quality seems to be on par with something like the William optics. I’m not gonna say it’s as good as my Takahashi TOA 150 but I think it’s pretty good price for a pretty good quality I also like that it’s fairly large not too heavy. It’s only 2 pounds heavier than my William optics 126. And it compresses very short I believe like 28 or 29 inches

@@njdoughboy from my location in the city even with a 12 inch Dobson, most globular clusters. Don’t even look that well. I know when I get to my zone four location six months a year. I do look at some stuff and I’m pretty sure I have mentioned a couple globular clusters. But let me see what I can do to try to look at a few more and mention it to you guys and how I see it Unfortunately, here the last two months I’ve only had like three or four maximum clear nights Like a couple days ago, but it was like -20°C outside But thank you for your comment. I’m gonna try to do a couple more double stars are pretty easy and let me see what I could do as far as globular clusters. I appreciate your comment

@@kendalsmucker4899 good point this video is few years old and I don’t have this scope anymore Thx for watching

@@Nametagnametag-x7s thanks for asking a great question I know sometimes on the forms they say the short tube refractors are only good up to 50 or 80 power like you’re saying, but I disagree If you watch the video, I just did a few weeks ago the 102 F5 versus the Sky 90 Takahashi, which is also a short tube I was able to push the Celestron 102F5 to about 180 power I believe on Jupiter and even though it had lots of chromatic aberration, it was OK sharp It probably wouldn’t be as sharp as a telescope if it was F 10 or F 12, but I found it to be decent sharp for a brand new person Of course, my preference would be a longer refractor for the planets, but if somebody had a short tube, why not use it for a higher power on the planets I think on galaxies you could also push the power beyond 80 as well I also did do about four months ago using a one 02 mm F5 refractor at a zone two skies and then a 6 inch sky watcher heritage in the same skies Then the final one I compared both of them side-by-side and there was a huge difference from a 4 inch refractor to a 6 inch reflecting telescope That video is only on the members format, so the general public can’t watch that specific one unless you subscribe to the members But anyway, you can use higher than 80 power on the planets and on galaxies

@@JoeJaguar thank you for your reply but I was talking about achromats in general not specifically about a model. I was wondering if an achromatic can display a sharp image on the planets only up to a certain magnfication because of chromatic aberration, will it lose sharpness just as fast when looking at galaxies or will it be able to have a nice image quality even at higher magnifications (than on the planets) because the faint galaxies do not produce CA ? Sorry, my english is not the best :)

@ OK so if I understand you correctly, then yes using it on galaxies because it’s not bright, won’t produce any chromatic aberration So acro would be fine on galaxies On planets, acro are not the best if they’re short

@ I know that but if the maximum practical / useful magnification of an achromat on the planets is 100x, will it be the same on the galaxies ? Or on the galaxies it will have a nice image quality even over 100x ? (Because there will be no CA on galaxies). Thank you :)

@ well that’s where I kind of disagree with them saying it’s maximal useful power at 80 or 100 power which is too low from my experience and testing. It should easily be able to do 150 to 180 minimum of useful power or the image is going to be goodish And yes, I think the image on the galaxies might be a bit better

@@120FilmUser sorry but most of my subscribers and customers wanna know what I had and why I got a particular telescope so the backstory of it helps them realize what I had that was different and why this could be better

@@tommyozzy317 I got mine last year pretty much when it was new at least in Canada in the US. It gets released a bit earlier. I heard now that the waiting list is a little bit because it’s becoming a bit popular. I think it’s a good price for a good size. It should be less light than your 8 inch but I think it should be a bit sharper And you’ll never have to worry about alignment Thanks for watching. Cheers.

@@amp2amp800 great thanks for your input That video will come out soon

@@BurningFlame1999 great thanks for watching

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 no problem appreciate the prediction as it’s we’re just having fun right now and of course, depending on location could vary a little and objects. Of course that is seen. But that video will be coming out very shortly. Cheers.

@@janomacko5764 a lot of good information and exactly. It’s hard to guesstimate exactly. Also depends I think what objects one looks at as well as what location Different locations could have slightly different outcomes, but let’s see what happens I already finished the video that will be coming out very shortly I took a look at Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars

@@JoeJaguar jup will be the big test ! if the conditions allow it.

@ when I did some of the other testing of those other scopes, Jupiter wasn’t in a good position however it is this time so we’re gonna definitely see Jupiter, Saturn and Venus in the next video

@@manolismavrelis5854 what is your prediction?

@@JoeJaguar the question for me is which one is the sharpest ! if you got good samples then the Askar should come ahead .

@ OK thank you for your prediction and the next video is not too far off

@@slapastronomy8646 thanks I appreciate you watching the video and your comment

@@jimpoop thanks for giving me your experiences with your telescopes. I appreciate it. I’d like to hear what my subscribers use Cheers

its a doublet lens but it is using a fluorite lens which is even equal to the 53 lens or just a tad better. So even though color correction is near perfect the image quality still suffers being so small

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 well one thing I’d like to add is the alignment of the lens that I did on the Takahashi Sky 90 is not still perfect. It’s close but not perfect. I could still see a little flair as the previous video to this one says. However, I am very surprised. I thought there would be chromatic aberration, and his virtually none. However, I guess I do understand when I’ve read those articles of people suggesting why they can’t make a short ED refractor like this and the replies were that you can, but it won’t be any better So I guess the conclusion is that you can correct chromatic aberration or default colour but the image quality is gonna suffer I guess you can’t have everything I guess that’s why most ED refractors they never really go shorter than an F7 for two lenses and maybe F6 for three lenses Mars is very tricky The balcony could be hurting you a little as it’s probably getting heat from the building itself. Thanks for watching

@@lornaz1975 hey I appreciate you sticking with me all these years and liking my videos That’s great Cheers

@@JoeJaguar Well its the truth. So many channels do astrophotography which is not my cup of tea. I am sure I have said that before lol.

One more thing. Tomorrow night (1/13) around 8pm there will be an occultation of Mars by the Moon which will be visible in your location. If you have clear skies.Also, double check that time in case its different in your location.

@ appreciate it thank you

@ yeah unfortunately now it looks like I got cloudy skies for the next few days so I don’t think it’s gonna happen at least in my province Appreciate it

@@BurningFlame1999 yes it had basically zero colour visual but wasnt as sharp as the f10 but its very short so one cant expect everything from a short 2 lens

@@robertsonsid thanks for your experiences with your scopes This is why I like refractors for my planetary viewing as well Thanks for watching

@@janomacko5764 yep you pretty much said it all I agree I’m gonna be doing more thorough test with some of my better telescopes on Mars Maybe I’ll use the Takahashi TSA 102 or the Takashi 150 and maybe even the William optics 126 as Mars is now pretty much at its prime Thanks for watching

@@HugoMacadam dont know sorry

@@manolismavrelis5854 you’re welcome thanks for watching

@@amp2amp800 I appreciate you watching thanks

@@geordie123-f3n both this mount and the heq5 both have internal motors so as long as you pull a line and turn it on, it will track for you Done with the hand control you can move slowly in any direction You don’t have to have poor alignment perfectly as long as you roughly know where the north is is good enough However, the closer it is to the north star or Pearl or the better tracking it will have Hopefully this helps you out and thanks for watching one of my first older videos, which I think are not the greatest nor they have the greatest sound or image quality, but glad that people are still finding it handy

@@Najmun14 i’ve already had people like you that contacted me and I’ve paid them two different times to do as you’re asking. I didn’t really see any difference. Basically that person just got me more views and maybe 100 subscribers per video. It also cost me like $10 per video for three videos and that’s in US funds which I find actually more expensive than me just doing a promotional ad through Google and UA-cam I appreciate you reaching out, but I think I’m actually growing fairly good A lot of my other UA-cam friends are still about 5000 subscribers to about 10,000 subscribers where I’m just about gonna hit 40,000 now Maybe I could be higher on the list I agree with that but again I tried a couple times with somebody that approached me like you and I didn’t really see a benefit to the money that I paid which I thought was fairly expensive If you think you could do better than the other guy, you would have to prove it first meaning down your own cost you promote to get my channel and a higher ranking and if I see it works then maybe I would consider paying you for that time, but I will not pay just to get the same results. I did last time which was basically nothing and I find a Google ads or more of value and cheaper. I think that’s more than fair as you’re approaching me saying that I could be higher ranking I’m not sure that’s correct so if you can prove it first, then I would pay you, but I won’t pay you before because I’ve already tried this

@@JoeJaguar running paid Google ads. This is not so effective. View time will not be counted as your watch time.

@ like I said if you wanna prove it and do it on your own and then once I see the results, I’ve already talked to somebody and used it. Someone who said SEO like yourself and I found it not to be effective either. I thought they only put it under their Facebook or their social media. Got me 1000 views per three videos and 100 subscribers per three videos and that’s all I saw.

@@robocar-vf7hw most short tube refractors don’t give them most sharpest image, especially on high power reviews I believe the first generation tech has. She had no alignment of the lens where the second generation like this one does. It’s still not the most easiest thing to align, but at least it can be. I just need to give it more time and keep adjusting. The model I’m testing is the Skywalker version which should be identical to all the other versions anyway This video will come out Sunday and I do talk a little bit about what I see and what I think about it You’re probably correct. I never really done an in-depth review of a 90 mm f 10 acro. I do mention a little bit in the video. I think it’s a good size for a beginner. The views will be decent. Good not too big. You’re not too heavy. It will fit great on an EQ three The focus is a bit standard with these being almost all inch and a quarter format with no double speed I believe you can probably purchase a dual speed focus on the used market if you’re lucky to find one for about 150 that will improve it a lot However, by the time you spend that much on the telescope and the focus, you’re probably approaching or at the same cost as a SV Boney 102ED ED prices have come down a lot. You’re getting a little bit bigger telescope and the focus on these ones are a better grade even the cheap one I mentioned up above as a upgrade. Also, being an ED will be a bit shorter and have much better color. Correction maybe 70% better and it’ll be the same cost anyway I think these days that would be the best option and forget the actual altogether. Unless the acro is an amazing price and then upgrade a focus that could be OK too

@JoeJaguar The Skywatcher 90/900 achromat is actually better than most other 90/900 achromats because it has a metal focuser and metal tube. It will be an interesting video :)

@ I believe the older version that I borrowed, which I already gave back already so I won’t be able to do a more thorough detail Isn’t all plastic model however it’s a good plastic model not a cheap plastic model. There is a little bit of a difference, but I don’t think it’s a metal focus.

@JoeJaguar I thought Skywatcher only sold the 90/900 mm version with metal focuser and tube. I owned one until recently and it had a metal focuser and tube. At least the ones they sold in the last years do have a metal focuser and tube.

@ the one that I borrowed is probably at least 15 years old maybe even up to 20 years old again it’s a good strong focus but it’s not metal. I’m pretty sure.

@@BurningFlame1999 that’s the next video will be the Takahashi Sky 90 versus the sky watcher 90 mm F10 I think it’s a pretty good size refractor all around good scope not too heavy not too expensive not too big decent views The focus is normally always 1.25” and the entry one I don’t know if a nice 2 inch model would be able to fit. Maybe it would be even better with that. This video should come out on Sunday

@amarbirk8987 I appreciate you watching my video and making the comment And thanks for posting your experiences with your two telescopes it’s nice to read other people’s results from your testing My next video will be comparing the Takahashi Sky 90 now to a 90 mm F1 acro and see how the colour correction compares cheers

@@JoeJaguar thanks, that will be very cool

@@amp2amp800 yes exactly. Thanks for watching.

@@manolismavrelis5854 you’re welcome and thanks for watching

@@Hanejejrjxn this Takahashi is a fluorite double it which would be equivalent to the 53 lens not the 51 But I was real surprised, even at the high power. It has zero colour that I can detect. Although I didn’t correct the lens hundred percent for sharpness it’s still performed very well I will not be keeping this telescope as I can’t keep everything I test so will be up for sale very soon for somebody that can enjoy a beautiful Scope like this The next video we will compare to a 90 mm so the same size but at F 10 and that way we can judge the colour correction

@@lornaz1975 I have watched the video where he mentions it but it’s very basic He just mentions to loosen the screw turn it upside down like I did and just slowly tap it I tried that and it didn’t work and that’s why I had to go through this method of testing it on Jupiter and the same procedure as a push pool system do the bottom screws first then the top screws and then tighten it down. I found it was actually better than his version of just loosening the screws and tapping it with your hand and that’s it. I have it better than the way he mentioned Well, what’s funny is I have made comments before in his channel. Of course that’s when I was much younger with a few hundred subscribers or a few thousand subscribers back then and I’ve never got a reply like a comment or anything back from him. I’m not sure why. I guess I’ll just leave it like that I may try again on Jupiter and give it a second goal and maybe it’ll be a bit easier especially if I put it on my EQ six so that way tracks the planet and I can just keep trying. I think I might get slightly better result.

@@JoeJaguar Yeah I got the impression it is a tough scope to deal with. Good luck with the endeavor and let us know how it goes!

@@janomacko5764 I agree one of my first videos in 2019 why short tubes are not good for planetary views after reading lots of complaints people using this version telescope Although, from this test, the Takahashi has basically zero colour that I can detect. I was actually very surprised. My alignment of the lens was not perfect, but as far as the colour correction it was even more than I was expecting The next video comparing it to an F190 mm acro is probably will be Sunday mid afternoon and we’ll see when it compares now to the same size telescope but at a focal ratio of 10 if it’s still better worse or the same, we’ll get us a better idea See you then

@@JoeJaguar Short high quality refractors like that 90mm Takahashi are the ultimate grab and go all arround telescopes. No wonder they are so popular on the market these days. Looking forward to further testing of it from you.

@ once I’m done all the testing I will be putting the Scope up for sale I can’t keep everything that I buy to test so hopefully someone would love to own a beautiful refractor like this

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 the Takahashi Sky 90 is actually it’s a fluoride glass so which would be equivalent to a 53 lens not a 51 That video will be coming out probably Sunday morning However, based on this test, it was a huge difference from the two the Takahashi had zero color. I was really impressed.

Sometimes I use my 90mm f10 achro for planetary observing and find the views quite pleasing. It would be interesting to see how the tak90 performs in comparison.

@ thanks for watching and your comment. Yes, that video was coming out on Sunday.

@@kleedhamhobby I already returned the telescope after my testing was done. I believe you might need a 2 inch diagonal for it to have enough focus for In-N-Out. I’m pretty sure that’s what I used on my test it. A 2 inch diagonal is a bit more expensive than the inch and a quarter version but that will help you get low powers for that large stuff. hopefully that helps

@@JoeJaguar I primarily bought this scope with the idea of using it for imaging, and I just tried it (on a terrestrial target) with the camera I want to use, at least initially, and I was able to get a focus, so that's good. For visual work with 1.25" eyepieces focus may be a bit hard to get. Visually it appears you're always going to be working with that long focuser racked pretty much all the way out.

@ OK I understand imaging is gonna need different focus points. I can’t give you too much opinions on that as I am primarily visual observer I don’t do imaging anymore. I only do cell phone or smart phone imaging which is a bit different than real imaging where you put the camera into the telescope. Most likely you’re going to need an extension Most images I think have at least 3 to 5 extensions all at about 10 mm and that way you can find the perfect focus point

@@janomacko5764 you’re welcome thanks for watching

@@BurningFlame1999 actually I just used it in an upcoming video where I looked at Jupiter and I took it up to about 200 power. I think there was a lot of chromatic aberration, but I can still see Jupiter was pretty sharp and with his bands.

@ wow 200x with a 4 inch F5 achromat, now that’s a lot. I’m surprised it remained sharp at such a high magnification.

@ I’ve read on the forms that some people believe a short tube probably could only do 50 to 90 power, but that’s incorrect It looked actually fairly sharp to me for a short tube fracture. The banding was clearly seen however, there is a ton of chromatic aberration. But I do think a brand new person would still be OK with that

@@manolismavrelis5854 you’re welcome thanks for watching