@@3dfxvoodoocards6 I don’t think so even though the contrast probably would be higher on an ED or a apo refractor it’s mainly for the bright stuff like the planets for deep sky stuff. The light output of deep sky, objects, is so dim that you wouldn’t be able to tell greyish galaxy to a micro millimetre more fraction of light of a greyier buff ball
@@Easybreazygaming I have used it in past videos. It’s great for M45 also called peiades star cluster and hyades cluster but on the planets, it’s kind of terrible as it has too much chromatic aberration It’s also good if you want to look at like a bird in a tree city landscape or anything daytime It also can be OK for solar observing. But that’s mainly it it was meant for low power viewing and in the city there’s just too much light pollution for low power except for these few things I mentioned.. It’s on the moon, but again you have that purple fringing Guess that’s why people like me that’s been the hobby or if you’re in the hobby for more than a couple years, you normally get at least a few different telescopes for different purposes But for all other deep sky objects, it would be too short and too small of a telescope Thanks for the video and your comment
Interesting video. I have found that Moon shine at my Bortle 3 site in Montana is not nearly as bothersome as light pollution from artificial light like a town or neighbor's spotlight and that I can still see quite a bit including deep sky objects when the moon is up in the Bortle 3, compared to viewing from say for example, the San Francisco Bay Area where everything looks bad all night. I think the reason is that the moon is moving across the sky and may even set while you are out there depending on how long you observe and what phase the moon is at, whereas the light pollution stays coming from a fixed area at a fixed amount and often pervades the entire sky. But thank you for this nice demonstration.
@@tsulasbigadventures well I thank you for watching the video and your comment In this video, I was trying to demonstrate from now as zone two is probably more like a zone four or maybe a zone 4.5 and put a small telescope like this be effective Next week will be the telescope that I brought to Mexico. The 6 inch heritage in Mexico was a zone four with no moon. How does it perform in zone two
Great video! I've used my Omni 102 at Bortle 3 location, no moon and the view of M31 was very good, you could see the dark lanes and the two smaller galaxies also pop out. I was also able to just glimpse M33 with it. At the time, I also had my C6 SCT and while the C6 was brighter, I'm not sure it'd be obvious to a beginner.
@@Sk240DC thanks for your comment on how your viewing went, sometimes different areas with different light pollution levels can change an outcome Even 2 days till last quarter moon puts out alot more light where it changes a bortle zone Thanks again
Hi Joe I’ve not been on in a while. I was so disappointed while looking at M13 with my 120 Tak. It was just a small feint smudge with no sparkling stars. I cannot remember the moon’s phase but it was very dark for here (SF Bay). Thanks for this video.
@@mvdeehan I hear you so even 120 mm tech. I also have the 102 TSA in a light polluted zone. It’s disappointing the deep sky stuff but on the planets and double stars it’s amazing. With this telescope, the Hercules cluster was also kind of disappointing. You could see it but nothing special next week I’m using the 6 inch heritage from the same zone 2 but this time without no moon so going 2 inches bigger with no moon and I wanted to see the difference then Thanks for watching and tell me what you think next week
Short achro on alt-az mount with fine motions is a pure joy to use. Yes, it doesn't show as much as a huge scope, but the ergonomics is just perfect. A 6 inch f5 newtonian on alt-az mount is also a very comfortable telescope to use, and yes, it shows considerably more no matter the light pollution. Especially M13 looks much better in 6 inch compared to 4 inch.
@@janomacko5764 I agree this size is very easy and lightweight to use although for my serious stuff I normally used to bring a 12 inch which then in this zone see stuff amazing but of course it’s a lot bigger and heavier Thanks for watching
@@matheusmartignago3824 I do think it can hold it. I just googled it and it sounds like with the rings and the vixen bar. It’s about 12 pounds. So this mount can hold it they do claim it can hold up to 20 pounds which I think is way too much. I think maximum should be like 14 or 15 pounds so you’re within that range. It might not be 100% solid but I think it’s definitely usable . If you can get a nice sturdy tripod and you don’t raise it super high, it might be decent Svbony gave me a link if people by the 102 ED refractor from my video if you Google it they get 10% off. I don’t know if you can use that code on the.az mount but you can try and see if it works if it works, you get 10% off
@@lornaz1975 yes you’re correct and it didn’t help that the two days before the last quarter moon was out but I wanted to just show you guys what it would relate to Next week is the 6 inch sky watcher heritage from the same zone 2 and what a difference will it be with no moon and going 2 inch higher than the final video will be a showdown of the 4 inch refractor against the 6 inch Newtonian in the same sky and what the difference would be there
I live in a Bortle 6, small city of about 9,000. I have strong sky glow up to about 30 degrees, except to the Northeast, where it is about 50 degrees due to the big oil refinery 12 blocks away. A bit jealous of the darkness, there.
@@AnotherAmateurAstronomer well this is just a place I get away from about 5 to 6 months a year and only every second weekend so really about 10 to 12 times a year Half of those times it could be cloudy or not clear and one or two of those times I could be so tired that I don’t feel like so. I only get a handful of times maybe average between 4 to 6 times. Yes, I picked that area how dark it is Although since I’m getting older, I’m looking maybe in the future to drive a little less than 2.5 hrs drive to maybe 1.45 to 2hrs from my home but then it gets me to a zone 4 maybe 3
@@ACAJUJU again the problem would be a 4 inch refractor in a light polluted city would collect the same light so would probably be too small for most deep sky objects I actually did a video comparing a short tube 80 mm and a long tube 80 mm. I’ll try to find a link and send it to you. But the long one would have a nicer image on the moon, moon, and planets, compared to the short one But the short one would have a wider view compared to the long one if daytime is something you like There are a few items like M4 five that cluster I said in the first post and hyades cluster where the long one might not fit it in the field of view The short one could probably fit the Andromeda galaxy in the view where the long one Kent, but I would say for galaxies you would need to be in the country anyway Hopefully this Helps your question, but I’ll try to add the link so you can watch that other video of mine I also put the cell phone to the telescope so you can see the difference part 1 then part 2 then paert 3 ua-cam.com/video/ZZsJhBsrslQ/v-deo.htmlsi=orgtxlXyD0e5XwWx ua-cam.com/video/2NMfv-JprsA/v-deo.htmlsi=LGvjpKMoCFDw9Hp_ ua-cam.com/video/ZZsJhBsrslQ/v-deo.html
Very interesting subject. I wonder if a 4 inch APO would have made DSO more easily visible than the F5 achromat, because of better contrast.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 I don’t think so even though the contrast probably would be higher on an ED or a apo refractor it’s mainly for the bright stuff like the planets for deep sky stuff. The light output of deep sky, objects, is so dim that you wouldn’t be able to tell greyish galaxy to a micro millimetre more fraction of light of a greyier buff ball
jjjjj#jjjjj###jj#*😊😅
I wonder how the 4 inch F5 short achromat would see the DSO from your bortle 8-9 city... or which one will it be able to see...
@@Easybreazygaming I have used it in past videos. It’s great for M45 also called peiades star cluster and hyades cluster but on the planets, it’s kind of terrible as it has too much chromatic aberration
It’s also good if you want to look at like a bird in a tree city landscape or anything daytime
It also can be OK for solar observing. But that’s mainly it it was meant for low power viewing and in the city there’s just too much light pollution for low power except for these few things I mentioned..
It’s on the moon, but again you have that purple fringing
Guess that’s why people like me that’s been the hobby or if you’re in the hobby for more than a couple years, you normally get at least a few different telescopes for different purposes
But for all other deep sky objects, it would be too short and too small of a telescope
Thanks for the video and your comment
Interesting video. I have found that Moon shine at my Bortle 3 site in Montana is not nearly as bothersome as light pollution from artificial light like a town or neighbor's spotlight and that I can still see quite a bit including deep sky objects when the moon is up in the Bortle 3, compared to viewing from say for example, the San Francisco Bay Area where everything looks bad all night. I think the reason is that the moon is moving across the sky and may even set while you are out there depending on how long you observe and what phase the moon is at, whereas the light pollution stays coming from a fixed area at a fixed amount and often pervades the entire sky. But thank you for this nice demonstration.
@@tsulasbigadventures well I thank you for watching the video and your comment
In this video, I was trying to demonstrate from now as zone two is probably more like a zone four or maybe a zone 4.5 and put a small telescope like this be effective
Next week will be the telescope that I brought to Mexico. The 6 inch heritage in Mexico was a zone four with no moon. How does it perform in zone two
Great video! I've used my Omni 102 at Bortle 3 location, no moon and the view of M31 was very good, you could see the dark lanes and the two smaller galaxies also pop out. I was also able to just glimpse M33 with it. At the time, I also had my C6 SCT and while the C6 was brighter, I'm not sure it'd be obvious to a beginner.
@@Sk240DC thanks for your comment on how your viewing went, sometimes different areas with different light pollution levels can change an outcome
Even 2 days till last quarter moon puts out alot more light where it changes a bortle zone
Thanks again
@@JoeJaguaragreed, the moon makes a big difference.
Interesting video
@@NametagNametag-gs9ss I appreciate you watching the video thanks
Hi Joe I’ve not been on in a while. I was so disappointed while looking at M13 with my 120 Tak. It was just a small feint smudge with no sparkling stars. I cannot remember the moon’s phase but it was very dark for here (SF Bay). Thanks for this video.
@@mvdeehan I hear you so even 120 mm tech. I also have the 102 TSA in a light polluted zone. It’s disappointing the deep sky stuff but on the planets and double stars it’s amazing.
With this telescope, the Hercules cluster was also kind of disappointing. You could see it but nothing special next week I’m using the 6 inch heritage from the same zone 2 but this time without no moon so going 2 inches bigger with no moon and I wanted to see the difference then
Thanks for watching and tell me what you think next week
Short achro on alt-az mount with fine motions is a pure joy to use. Yes, it doesn't show as much as a huge scope, but the ergonomics is just perfect. A 6 inch f5 newtonian on alt-az mount is also a very comfortable telescope to use, and yes, it shows considerably more no matter the light pollution. Especially M13 looks much better in 6 inch compared to 4 inch.
@@janomacko5764 I agree this size is very easy and lightweight to use although for my serious stuff I normally used to bring a 12 inch which then in this zone see stuff amazing but of course it’s a lot bigger and heavier
Thanks for watching
Thanks for your time. Do you think the SV225 mount could holds the Askar 103 triplet, for high Power magnification, using of course, a stable tripod ?
@@matheusmartignago3824 I do think it can hold it.
I just googled it and it sounds like with the rings and the vixen bar. It’s about 12 pounds.
So this mount can hold it they do claim it can hold up to 20 pounds which I think is way too much. I think maximum should be like 14 or 15 pounds so you’re within that range. It might not be 100% solid but I think it’s definitely usable .
If you can get a nice sturdy tripod and you don’t raise it super high, it might be decent
Svbony gave me a link if people by the 102 ED refractor from my video if you Google it they get 10% off. I don’t know if you can use that code on the.az mount but you can try and see if it works if it works, you get 10% off
I can see the ring nebula in an 80mm. It is quite faint. 6 inc h reflectors are nice!
@@lornaz1975 yes you’re correct and it didn’t help that the two days before the last quarter moon was out but I wanted to just show you guys what it would relate to
Next week is the 6 inch sky watcher heritage from the same zone 2 and what a difference will it be with no moon and going 2 inch higher than the final video will be a showdown of the 4 inch refractor against the 6 inch Newtonian in the same sky and what the difference would be there
@@JoeJaguar That sounds cool!
I live in a Bortle 6, small city of about 9,000. I have strong sky glow up to about 30 degrees, except to the Northeast, where it is about 50 degrees due to the big oil refinery 12 blocks away. A bit jealous of the darkness, there.
@@AnotherAmateurAstronomer well this is just a place I get away from about 5 to 6 months a year and only every second weekend so really about 10 to 12 times a year
Half of those times it could be cloudy or not clear and one or two of those times I could be so tired that I don’t feel like so.
I only get a handful of times maybe average between 4 to 6 times.
Yes, I picked that area how dark it is
Although since I’m getting older, I’m looking maybe in the future to drive a little less than 2.5 hrs drive to maybe 1.45 to 2hrs from my home but then it gets me to a zone 4 maybe 3
Will there be any difference on deep sky objects between a 4 inch f5 and a 4 inch f10 achromat? The price is practically the same for both.
@@ACAJUJU again the problem would be a 4 inch refractor in a light polluted city would collect the same light so would probably be too small for most deep sky objects
I actually did a video comparing a short tube 80 mm and a long tube 80 mm. I’ll try to find a link and send it to you.
But the long one would have a nicer image on the moon, moon, and planets, compared to the short one
But the short one would have a wider view compared to the long one if daytime is something you like
There are a few items like M4 five that cluster I said in the first post and hyades cluster where the long one might not fit it in the field of view
The short one could probably fit the Andromeda galaxy in the view where the long one Kent, but I would say for galaxies you would need to be in the country anyway
Hopefully this Helps your question, but I’ll try to add the link so you can watch that other video of mine
I also put the cell phone to the telescope so you can see the difference
part 1 then part 2 then paert 3
ua-cam.com/video/ZZsJhBsrslQ/v-deo.htmlsi=orgtxlXyD0e5XwWx
ua-cam.com/video/2NMfv-JprsA/v-deo.htmlsi=LGvjpKMoCFDw9Hp_
ua-cam.com/video/ZZsJhBsrslQ/v-deo.html
Helo ♥️♥️♥️🖐
@@minhnhan89 hi thanks for watching the video
Like
@@supermario8416 thanks