Mars in September 2020 - Newton and Maksutov Comparison
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- In this video I show you the Mars images I took between the 19th and 20th of september. I used different telescopes, an 5 inch SkyWatcher Maksutov-Cassegrain with 1500mm focal length and an 8 inch GSO Newton telescope with 1000mm focal lenght. The camera was a QHY5-IIc.
Excellent comparison and great images from both scopes.
thanks a lot!
Very good results with both scopes and similar results. I think the stacked image from the Newtonian is slightly better, but it’s a bigger scope.
Hello Martyn, I absolutely agree. I think it's insteresting to how small the difference between the images is but of course the 8 inch shows a little more details.
@@Witscher I have an 8” scope (Celestron Evo 8 EdgeHD) and managed to get some decent images of Mars too by taking videos and stacking best of 2500 to 3000 frames, then using Registax to tweak the image. It’s surprising how much astronomy has improved since I was a teenager back in the 60’s, with the advent of digital cameras and computer software!
The 8” Newtonian is brighter but I wouldn’t say that it is showing much more detail. I happen to own both of these scopes and due to it’s physical size etc, I use my Maksutov much more than my Newtonian
Excellent comparison, that shows both telescopes are good for differents reasons. For planetary, that requires long focals, Cassegrains and Maksutovs have an advantage. On the other side, low focal telescopes are better suited for large objects (nebulae, etc). Congrats for the images, have to buy a barlow for my setup!!
5 inch maks are killing it in the comparison
The image on the right is sharper. But both images look good. Great job.
Thanks a lot! I prefer indeed the result of the GSO but taking that image was much harder work.
@@Witscher It was much harder work because Dobsonian mounts don't work. You cannot aim and cannot track. Just a way for vendors to dump the cost of stronger EQ mounts in trade for making the telescope fairly useless.
The Mak stack is showing more contrast and even a small amount of pixelation at the north pole edge. The Newt looks smoother around the edge and has less contrast. The 127 Skymax Mak is known to be slightly smaller than 127mm closer to 118mm in absolute aperture. Each scope has their advantages and disadvantages in the end. Thanks for making this comparison video.
I've got a 5" Mak too. Superb scopes. I managed 1 night with a double 2x Barlow last year, and 1 with just a single 2x. Mars is fun, but Jupiter is by far my favourite to image.
Yes, Jupiter is stilly my favorite planet to watch and to take photos of. Can't wait for the next Jupiter season :)
The resolving power of a 5-inch telescope is already better than average seeing. For that reason there is hardly any difference between the two telescopes.
Cierto
The whole point of lucky imaging is to grab the fleeting moments when the seeing had paused its wobbling. Hence not average seeing. That would be a long exposure like our vision
Very nice comparison! Thank you for the contribution.
As I suspected - using Lucky Imaging, a larger scope gives more resolution.
Good pics, btw.
Though, the Mak is a lot easier to carry around and set up.
If I was doing small-field DSO photography, I'd probably use the Mak and just do more photos.
❤ Lovely experiment!
Never understood the hustle with the Newts (eventhough I had one, when I was 13, in 1989 🤭).
The Mak is much more handy, easy to set up, and a closed system 👍
Thanks for the interesting comparison, For me it seems that the live view is better in the Newtonian.
Very good vidéo, very interesting, thanks for your job 👍
thank you! :)
Excellent images and video. Cool music!!!!
Thanks a lot
@@Witscher I am considering buying one of those scopes. I prefer the Mak so that I can travel with it. By the way, who is playing in the soundtrack?
@@igrieger yes, the Mak would be my first choice as well. It's easier to carry and faster to set up, it does'nt need a long time to cool down to the outside temperature and you don't need to check the collimation often. I recorded the soundtrack on my own.
@@Witscher wow, nice playing 👍🏼
@@Witscher and thanks for the help
The Newton seems to have crisper details, IMHO.
Crazy that seeing is amazing
Great Comparison of the 2 scopes... I have an 8" RC and a 150mm MakCas... I'm interested if the results will be similar.... I'm thinking the MakCas will win. Clear skies
Very good comparison, thanks for sharing. I've seen a lot of pics of Mars over the years, but this is the first time I've ever seen the planet as looking predominantly blue in color, esp. in the Newtonian pic on the right. It just doesn't look normal. Paradoxically, the Newtonian image is a bit sharper, bu, the Mak. shows finer/more detail, and more of the planet's typical color.
It's always the question in planetary photography what a "normal" color calibration is. Many photographers observe the planet visually with an eyepiece and try to use their impression as an example what the colors should look like. Of course Mars often appears very reddish in images.
@@Witscher Thank you, I appreciate it.
@@Witscher Thank you.
Epically awesome
Excellent video, I love Mars :)
me too, one of the most spectacular objects to observe
The newt showed better resolution but the mak showed better contrast.
Close on both accounts! Well done.
Great comparison
Thank you!
Nice video, very educative...👌🏻
thanks a lot!
Really useful video thanks. I'm looking at getting a 127 mac , I just can't decide between the skywatcher or the Bresser version. Any idea if there is any noticible difference in quality.
I can only say that I've never heard of someone being unhappy with the Skywatcher Mak, so it would be my first choice.
How big is the Maksutov central obstruction verses the Newtonian. I'm guessing the Newtonian has a bigger obstruction. The Maksutov image is decent . Also spider vanes on Newtonian cause diffraction spikes which can affect image quality
As for Maks- the best Maks are the Celestron brand!
but Skywatcher's look so good :D sparkle black, nice
Excellent
Thank you!
Reflector stacked image looked superior to me.
Helpful! Great results. cs.
Thank you! :)
The Mak was better. Full disclosure is that I have a 5 inch Mak.
Thanks a lot!!
What about Mars in Mak 127 vs Mak 150?
The next big Mars imaging session will be Mars in 12" SC. Can't wait for it.
8in GSO should be 1200mm focal length. This is the Zhumell Z8, you can look up its specs.
did you use an Atmospheric Dispersion Corrector?
No, this image has been taken without an ADC
The 8” inch won but they were definitely close.
What is the best way to connect a digital camera to a Mak-Cass?
Good job !
Thank you! :)
Maksutov is vastly superior. You are getting similar results in both scopes even though the Maksutov is only 63.5% the size of the Newtonian. Excellent images BTW.
Mind you price is not the same. Maksutov has a smaller diameter, is more expensive but has better optic.
@@WetaMantis The Mak has a steep full diameter corrector lens in the front. I believe this adds greatly to their cost. Not only do you have to get optically perfect glass free from striae but many may break during the manufacturing process. These are the same reasons why the cost of an apochromatic refractor goes up very steeply between 4" and 6". The Maksutov is the next best thing to an apo refractor because the central obstruction is usually very small.
@@WetaMantis I see that they are at the same price
Number of shot and exposure
Did you use any filter for this or not???
I didn't use a filter
The one on the left looked best to me. The Maksutov?
Your image of Mars is one of the best I've seen taken with a 5inch telescope. What were the seeing conditions?
Thank you for your feedback! The seeing seemed to be average or slightly good. This is still my best image with 5" but I've upgraded my gear since then and somehow it's sad that there is no quite possibility like in 2020 to take photos of Mars in the upcoming years. Would be really awesome to see what would have been possible in the same night with the Meade LX90 10" SC or C9 in combination with the ZWO ASI 290MC - the gear I use atm for planets and the moon. Can't wait for Jupiter.
@@Witscher great! I asked because i have a 10 inch dobsonian and was wondering if my pictures would look. I thought the seeing in your video were very good and got worried because i live in a city, let's hope for the best and congrats on your new scope!
Is it possible to get a similar quality image on the P130DS? There is a feeling that the P130DS will not give such a clear picture. What do you think?
I would definately give it a try. I had some nice planetary sessions with the 130PDS even if I never targeted Mars with that scope. The seeing is the most important factor. If you catch a phase of good seeing it should'nt look much different.
Great work a real insight! Are Maks any good for deep sky objects ,galaxies ,nebulae etc - say with a good quality low power eyepiece or is that a no,no?
Mine works great on Orion objects. Work, weather and health issues have sidelined me a lot lately though.
@@batquad8889 same here! Thanks for the tip off all the best
Your comparison is biased. You should use a planetary Newtonian telescope with focal ratio about F/9 and small secondary mirror, small spider and so on. The Newton F/5 has a big secondary mirror and therefore the picture (resolution, contrast) is noticeably degraded by the impact of diffraction from big secondary mirror and spider. Planetary Newtonian telescopes can easliy beat slightly smaller APO refractors and are several times cheaper. I invite You to Poland to take a look on Mars or other planet through my 8" ATM planetary Newtonian telescope with a focal lenght about 1900 mm and super high quality primary and secondary mirrors.
You're right but it's still a comparison between same priced telescopes that many people possess and use for different purposes.
I'm trying to imagine a 2m optical tube on my EQ-6 - that's insane. I salute your dedication.
@@yogimarkmac It is the Dobson!
Is it with tracked mount?
Yes it is
i prefer the image on the right hand side.
Yes, me too! 🤗 But taking the image on the right hand side was harder work in comparison.
Do you prefer the 5 inch mak over an 8inch dob for visual and some ap or a 120mm refractor f8.3 refractor?
I'd always choose the bigger aperture if I have the time to set up my equipment early in the evening. If it's already late, if I'm already tired and don't want to wait 1-2 hrs until the telescope has cooled down I'd prefer to use the Mak which is easy to set up and ready to go after a few minutes. Besides I have to admit that I never posessed a bigger refractor than an 80mm f/5 so I can't say wether I'd prefer it.
Hi! This was a very nice result! I’m actually considering the same malditos to use specially for lunar and planetary observations, would you say it’s worth buying if I already own a 6” Newtonian? Thank you and great video!
A well-built 6" (150/750mm) Newtoniana telescope, with a good quality 2x ir 3x Barlow device, is a good choice for planetary observation and astrophotography
@@joseramirezizquierdo5744 I’m only interested in visual at the moment!
@@alfredomuse1960 Ok. It os a verte good option for visual, whith Barlow 2x
Ok. It is a very good option for visual, with a 2x Barlow.
can someone plz tell how did he stacked those pictures from the video...
thanks in advance.
I used Autostakkert 2 for stacking the raw video data. Afterwards I processed the results with RegiStax 6 and made some final adjustments with Photoshop.
@@Witscher thankyou very much... this will help me alot....
if you really like Maks, there's a Mak 180 and Mak 200 too
Thank you but I'm quite happy with SCs at the moment due to their bigger apertures. The next scope will probably be an 12 inch SC.
@@Witscher i hope for the 12 inch mak will be in the market 😢! I wait for decade …
I guess the Newtonian would have a much wider field so depending on what you're doing, that could be a factor. Obviously not for planetary.
I mean they do have longer length newts to you could get like a f/8 and slap a 3x Barlow on.
I mean rather the opposite. It's easy enough to get zoom using Barlows or Focal Extenders. Zooming out is harder, so a Newtonian has the wide field advantage
Mak more power full zoom!!
In theory my 180mm mak should blow both out of the water but we'll see lol
That's possible but the comparison between these two telescopes shall show what two telescopes in the same price class can do, of course a telescope that is much more expensive should show more. That's why there is no comparison between my C9.25 and the Mak.
The winner. Is?
Different apertures means different resolutions...! I find it stupid! 180 Vs 203 is more equitative...
Theoretically you're right but this is not a theoretical comparison, this comparison is only about the real performance differences in comparable nights under comparable circumstances with comparable equipment.
It looks like exoplanet
Un telescopio Maksutud de 127mm no tiene nada que hacer con un Newton de 200mm f5, lo sabre yo que he tenido de todos los telescopios, yo diría con mi experiencia que ni siquiera un telescopio Maksutud de 180mm
Entonces, en tu opinión, es mejor el Newtoniano 200mm ?
@@vascondi para cielo profundo si, es mejor el Newton porque la apertura manda, en caso de planetaria se puede ver al menos en fotografia con este video que no hay tanta diferencia entre ambos, claro lo mas junto es que hubiese hecho la prueba el mismo dia con ambos equipos porque no sabremos si el seeing cambiaria de un dia al otro por mas que el autor indique que el seeing era el mismo.
El poder de resolución de un telescopio de 5 pulgadas ya supera el seeing medio. Para ver más detalles con un telescopio de 8 pulgadas o superior es necesario contar con seeing muy buenos que se consiguen muy pocas noches a lo largo del año. Otro asunto diferente son los objetos de cielo profundo. Para esos objetos cuanta mayor abertura mejor pero para ver más detalles en los planetas hace falta que la atmósfera colabore. Y por muy bien que esté el límite debe ser un telescopio de 250mm o 300mm en noches excepcionales en lugares excepcionales.
Gracias Manuel por tu explicación
Estoy de acuerdo con usted.
Según las leyes de la Física, un telescopio bien construído y en buenas condiciones de observación no puede ser igualado por otro de menor apertura
The mak is clearer better definition
Why does it look like it has water?
If you use planetary cameras - no matter wether it is a monochrome or color camera - you have to mix the color channels properly. It is really hard to figure out the natural color of the planet. For example you can observe it with an eypiece and try later to mix the channels in a way that relates to the visual observation.
Mars has an atmosphere which makes it much more interesting to observe because winds, sandstorms and so on makes it very dynamic. If there is for example a lot of dust in the air it can easier be seen if you make some color adjustments that focus on such things. So if Mars looks a little more blueish on an image that is not because of water on the planet, it is a result of the image processing.
This is just straight up dishonest
Why would you use a smaller sampling on the bigger scope ? I understand that you might not have a giant collection of barlow and/or cameras but doing a direct comparaison is not really possible here
If the seeing was perfectly identical both night, which I doubt, it can also explain why the maksutov footage looked so bad compared to that of the newtonian (taking into acount the difference in aperture)
The processing is nice though, good job
You're free to regard it that way but they are both very typical setups many people use. Compare these images with other 5" Mak and 8" Newtonian images on astrobin, these images are pretty average for what you can expect on planets with these scopes and cameras. This is of course no scientific comparison, it's a "what you can practically expect" comparison. Sure, you can't assume that the seeing was exactly the same but it was quite similar and the difference in detail of the both images matches to the different apertures.
Nice clouds, snow and water.The space agencies lie to us about Mars. Even with my telescope it's easy to see, it's not a dead planet.
Ummm no. Lol . The icecaps are frozen CO2 and no water. Just dark areas and it is a dead planet, that's why there's no atmosphere and breathable oxygen or plant life.
@@hypersphereengineering6015 Ummmm, yes, but hey you go on believing their lies if it makes you feel better.
@@theoriginaltroll4truth take your meds mate !!
@@hypersphereengineering6015 You keep swallowing those horse pills called NASA lies.
@@theoriginaltroll4truth let me guess, The Earth is flat too Hey !!