Comparing a Budget 8" Reflector to a Premium 4" Refractor
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 січ 2024
- An outrageous comparison but lets capture Jupiter with a relatively affordable Sky-Watcher 200p f/5 Newtonian plus a Premium Takahashi FC-100dc 4" f7/4 Refractor and compare the images. We can guess which will win but how close will it be?
First Light Optics (affiliate links)
Beginner Telescopes:
www.firstlightoptics.com/begi...
Complete Range of Telescopes:
www.firstlightoptics.com/tele...
Telescope Mounts:
www.firstlightoptics.com/moun...
Eyepieces:
www.firstlightoptics.com/eyep...
Filters:
www.firstlightoptics.com/filt...
ZWO Cameras:
www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-...
Mounts:
www.firstlightoptics.com/astr...
Accessories:
www.firstlightoptics.com/acce...
Binoculars:
www.firstlightoptics.com/bino...
My Patreon: www.patreon.com/user/membersh...
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/diyastro
*All music on my channel is licensed through Story Blocks and Movavi* - Наука та технологія
Please set quality to 4k for best results, cheers!👍
I'd be happy with either one. I have an Orion 8 inch DOB and a Explore Scientific 4 inch retractor, and which ever scope I'm using that night, I tell myself that "This one" is the best telescope for me. Then a few days later I'll pull out a MCT or a SCT and tell myself that "This one" is the best telescope. They are all good. Bottom line is, you can spend 90% of your money for a 10% improvement. But is it worth it? You bet it is. It's a fun hobby.
I own this TAK, as well as a C8, and have had a 8" and a 12" dobson (and other refractors). I think for planetary imaging, the resolution of a well collimated 8" newton is hard to beat by a 4" refractor, even a good fluorite. Visually, I most times prefer the refractor for planetary/ lunar. The seeing is most times too bad for 8", but the Tak is always sharp as hell.
Every scope has it's sky.
i kinda dont consider the skywatcher budget at least my opinion, SW has/ia been making quality scopes since 1998.
Well at least they came into Canada first several years before getting into USA. To my eye the difference is REALLY close maybe 5% better in the 8" compared to the 4" BUT the difference is not not only double the size but by area i belivie its 8x bigger. So i would say for a 4" to almost come within 5% of a 8" shows you how good a refractor can get. I think also alot people Cant/dont know how to collimate their reflectors good. it seems you know that but if someone cant collimate well then the reflector would be worse.
I have also tested these types of things on my channel as well it could be if a triplet was used even like mt tak TSA 102 then that even sharper and even bit more contrast it could have been even to the 8" which is amazing for a 4" scope to do.
I guess in the end i would say to use whatever scope you have and have fun. cheers great video
Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts Joe, much appreciated. Synta Sky-Watcher are amongst the most affordable brands here in the UK, especially their mounts. but I know things vary from country to country. My take is that they make good diffraction limited (or better!) optics for the price, but they can arrive a little scruffy some times with the odd little defect here and there. The main thing is that the optics are good for the price.
I was nervous buying the Tak with how much they cost. It took ten plus years to pluck up the courage and the funds but I'm glad I went for it. The first night I had it under the stars I stood back in disbelieve! It does cost about 7 or 8x the price of the 200p though!
@@AstroLaVista I hear you I agree I have owned the sky watcher Evo star, 80 to 100 the 120 and the 150 on the 100 the focuser was a piece of junk and fell apart after one use I did bump it, but I didn’t think that would break it
And the other three they were OK after a couple years using it, it slowly started to develop slop
But as far as optics usually are OK, but you can get a lemon once in a while or at least a lesson one
On my channel I have used an FS Takahashi, 102 the Takahashi, TSA 102 which I re-acquired again I’ve had almost a year, the S Takahashi 128 and I also have the TOA 150 Takahashi, which is a beast and it’s considered a dream telescope, but it is very heavy
Nice video and I think you got some good results to me it’s amazing how a small refractor can compete with such a large telescope difference. I’ve done a few myself.
I think a lot of people that I meet they hate the alignment procedure of the mirrors and I guess if you don’t get it good enough, your image will suffer
Anyway, nice talking to you bro. We’ll talk soon.
If interested, the pixel resolution works out as 0.24 arc seconds per pixel for the Sky-Watcher 200p and 0.32 arcseconds per pixel for the Takahashi DC100fc. (Using a ZWO ASI462mc camera plus 2.5x Barlow).
Wow great performance by the small 4 inch refractor, considering that it's aperture is 2x smaller / 4x less light. On the other hand the 8 inch newtonian has the best price/performance ratio.
Cool comparison. You've got to be pleased with the performance of your Tak. Very impressive. Thanks for putting this together 👍
It's an amazing scope mate :) The tube only weighs 2.8kg so it's crazy performance per Kilogram!
Nice video. These comparisons are great. Like with the previous video reflector's image has better detail ( althouth the lower saturation due to lower contrast). Given better seeing the difference would be even bigger.
Less resolution but higher contrast for refractor makes sense. Just yesterday, I was comparing side by side maksutov 127/1500 (100 and 167 magnification) and cheap achromatic refractor 70/400 (with good diagonal and eyepiece, 67 magnification) both on Jupiter. Despite strong color fringing the short refractor showed two main belts with high contrast. No other details though. Maksutov had a little less contrast but the red spot was easily visible most of the time, and there was sometimes more than just a hint of other finer details.
Another nice video Chris, I don’t know where you find the energy! 🤣 Nice demonstration - aperture clearly wins here. I’d love to own that Tak though!
Thanks Rob mate :) lol I seem to have transferred the time I used to spend hanging out on Stargazers Lounge into making videos now days. Shame I don't have time for both. I hope things are good with you and yours :)
Nice.
I also run an 8" from skywatcher and a 107mm super apo. Feels pretty close, close enough that i haven't felt the need to use the 8" in a while. Its an interesting comparison imo, shows how much value one can get from not so expensive stuff. I pretty much max out my refractor under my skies here so unless i go lucky imaging the difference is going to be extremely small. I mainly shoot Nebulae.
Excellent video. Well the 8 inch Dobson is better but not by much. Still a fantastic performance by the 4 inch Takahashi refractor. It looks like the 4 inch Takahashi has an image quality somewhere in between the 6 and 8 inch Dobson.
Only thing is the Takahashi is 5 times more expensive, granted it is much more compact
@@alinaqirizvi1441 yes but still the 8 inch Dobson gathers 4x more light than the 4 inch Takahashi but barely manages to beat it.
I think when first getting into the hobby a 6 or 8" Newtonian or Dobsonian is a no brainer (as long as they aren't phased by collimation). Most seem happy to leave things there, and some become hooked on optics and start day dreaming about owning the best quality per aperture they can or can't afford. If their bank balance is really unlucky they will stumble across names like Takahashi, APM, TEC and Astro Physics. I have no regrets though :)
@@AstroLaVista I started with a 70/700 mm achromat, a 102/1000 mm achromat afterwards and now I have a 102/700 mm ED FPL51 refractor which I intend keep for a very long time. I didn't want to bother with collimation.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 that's true
Great comparison Chris not much difference between the two, think the Newtonian is a really good all rounder for the price ,
It sure is Tony, highly recommended :)
I was also out a couple of nights ago capturing Jupiter through my telescope, but it was bloody cold and I kept losing collimation for some reason. Great comparison :)
What about doing a nebula?
The results were exactly what I expected. Resolution is determined by aperture. The little tak held up really well, but you can't beat the laws of physics. That is the reason that although I love refractors for my visual observing, when I get into planetary imaging I am buying a Celestron C14 Edge HD - specifically for that purpose. Great video and very nice images. Well done!
old rule of thumb is athmosphere wavefront issue start around 180cm aperture, so if you can afford 6" good triplet refractor your astrophoto carriere is finished, next stop is build satellite or atakama 12 meter device with adaptive optics. That is main reason 6" triplet refractor prices insanely high.
@AABB-px8lc Got that covered. APM LZOS 152. Using lucky imaging for planets the aperture will win though. Thus the C14. 🔭👍😁
I bought the budget C6-N 150 at a pawn shop for $125. Owner had it listed for $150, but he cleaned the primary with a paper towel and the micro-scratches were obvious and I told him without asking what he'd done wrong. He obviously didn't know much about optics as he threw in a 1.25" 2x TeleVue Barlow worth more than the whole $125.
6" mirrors are inexpensive to recoat so I sent it off with the secondary for a sale price of $88 with the second mirror free to 96% reflectivity. Then had it refigured to 1/12th wave. At f-5 it is fairly fast.
One guy in my astronomy club uses it for AP and says it is the best Newtonian he's ever seen and is easy to collimate, mostly just the secondary. We live in Southern New Mexico and get a fair amount of good seeing nights and he has made me some excellent prints of a few DSOs.
I use the C6 alongside my Celestron 127mm Maksutov on my iOptron AZ Pro with two double saddles. (ADM DUAL-CW20 saddle) Although technically the Celestron and Sky-Watcher 127 scopes should be the same (both made by Synta) I find I get better videos with the C-Mak than with the SW-Mak. I use the Celestron Luminos 2.5x apo Barlow in the C6 for Lunar and Planetary video and I'm amazed at the results I get.
Interestingly the 4 inch Takahashi seems to have more intense vibrant colors than the 8 inch newtonian.
Hi, I used Sky-watcher 130PDS and didn't find it suitable for galaxies and deep targets like globlular clusters. I currently use GSO 6 inch RC for the same but still not happy due to it's slow F9 imaging speed. Want to ask is it worth getting this Sky-watcher 200PDS or even 250PDS for better imaging or get Sky-watcher 8 inch Quattro for the same?
My mount payload supports upto 40 pounds capacity.
Like! The 100 mm Takahashi is almost as good as a 200 mm newtonian.
And cost effective?
That "almost" is quite noticeable.
@@A0111. the 8 inch newton dob gathers 4x more light than the 4 inch Takahashi refractor but its image quality is just slightly better...
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 limited by seeking conditions this time, I suppose.
@@A0111. I can see why you would think that, although Jupiter is close to zenith so we're looking through the least amount of atmosphere, and lucky imaging is designed to get around seeing conditions E.g. stacking only the sharpest 30% of 8000 9ms exposures. We are freezing the fleeting moments of stillness and ideally only using those frames. I'll be honest and say I expected the 8" to absolutely destroy the relatively small 4" refractor, but it was a little closer than I expected. I have paid a lot for the great image quality and portability of the Tak mind :)
Nice video! I also have 200pds and 2.5x barlows but I am not able to get it in-focus, would you mind sharing your configuration, any extension tube needed? Thanks.
In focus with what- Eyepiece, DSLR or a planetary camera?
@@A0111. I have Explore Scientific Focal Extender 2x 50.8mm/2" used with ZWO ASI120MC (color) Planetary camera
Happy to help, which camera do you have? If you are using a planetary camera you should reach focus by popping the camera into the Barlow, the Barlow into the eyepiece adapter, then the eyepiece adapter into the focuser. If you are using a DSLR you may struggle to reach focus because the sensor is set far back behind the mirror box so you will require more inwards focuser travel.
@@wcsfoo 200pds has a short focuser, so try to use an extension tube, I think it should come with this scope.
Thank you. 👍🏻🔭
Cheers Ron :)
Response would be appreciated, sir i would like to buy binoculars but confused between nikon 16x50 and pentax 16x50 so pentax comes with FMC where as Nokon comes with MC only so please sir tell me which is best in your perspective ❤thanks
I have seen comparison of C11 Edge with Tak TOA 130 (new version) on small galaxies. Nothing between them in terms of resolution. Colors and dynamic range are by far better for Tak.
I can see that happening. Long exposure deep sky imaging tends to be limited to around 0.8" arc seconds resolution at sea level so the extra aperture won't count so much. it seems to be more about matching pixel size to the telescopes focal length as well as integration time. Both the Tak and the Celestron Edge have great optics. I once had a C8 Edge and it was superbly sharp for an SCT.
I was wondering, is there any particular reason you've been using the fc-100dc vs the fc-100dz?
Mainly cost, I had to stretch to afford the Tak FC100DC, I was considering the 76mm but knew that the 100mm would make for a better all rounder.
@@AstroLaVista Oh my apologies, I thought you had both for some reason.
What’s a better coma corrector for the 8“ f4 StellaLyra? The Baader or the „SharpStar 2" 0.95x MPCC for f/3-f/6 Paraboloid Newtonian Reflector Telescopes“? I’m torn :/ Hope you can help!
After studying reviews of both; the edge correction is very similar between the two, only the Sharpstar 0.95x has a reducing effect and is a little better colour corrected/sharper. I use the Baader MPPC personally and it's great for the money but the image does appear very slightly softened compared to others I've tested.
@@AstroLaVista thank you! Will try the sharpstar
Remarkably close - that Tak is a piece of art!
Which one do you prefer for visual observation?
Unless I'm hunting for faint deep sky targets I prefer the Tak hands down. I love the contrast and sharpness on brighter objects :)
You should do a DSO comparison as well.
I would really like to see that too.
we'll need to wait for the moon to go away
I will get back to some deep sky imaging, I'm making the most of how well placed Jupiter is at the moment with it being close to zenith : )
@@AstroLaVista that would be great, to also see a DSO comparison :)
Am I right in thinking that the 200p is about £350 and the TAK £2000? In which case the 200p is v impressive. There must be areas where the TAK far surpasses the reflector for people to buy it? But then I am biased as I have a SW 200p dob.
Wider FOV on the Takahashi (shorter focal length, 740mm as opposed to 1200mm), no star spikes, higher contrast due to the lack of a central obstruction and a flatter field. Also a lot easier to mount. With that said, the 200P - if mounted correctly - does punch well above its price point, as do most reflectors. A good showing I think.
given reasonable or better quality in scopes, aperture wins again. I love my 4 inch....but gotta admit....really want a 8 to 10 inch dob as a side piece.
That's a best combo I reckon. I quick and easy portable grab and go scope, and the large scope that will probably be used a little less but will show you more when you do use it.
The 8" looked crisper to me.
You should only use 5-10%. The lower the number, the better quality input --> Better quality output.
I think the Sky-Watcher 200P has the sharper image.
Yes it does but just a little sharper while gathering 4x more light than the 4 inch Takahashi.
True when you enlarge the Tak image to match the image scale of the 200p.
Contrast was much better with the Tak.
👏👏👏
Aperture always rules.
When you don't have a dodgy back it does
Looks like the 8 inch edged out the 4 inch.
But not by much.
That's what she said
Wow … the newt is the better photo … yes I know it has the aperture but we are talking Takahashi here ! Great comparison, Chris .
The question is how many dog walkers stop by and interrupt your hobby 😂😂 joke aside it’s a great comparison and yes the reflector is a no brainer form cost/performance ratio but, most people struggle to get the best out of it due to collimation and find themselves disappointed with a blurry Jupiter. Frac is the way to go safe bet for any starter or seasoned astronomer.
I think the 8 inch won. It was close though.
Looks like the larger aperture won.
Not much in it INHO , apart from the obvious, price and aperture.
I don't like this kind of comparisons, to be honest, for the price of the Tak i can get at least minimum 12" reflector even not a high end, by then this 12" will outperforms 4"-6" Tak refectors, but i will not go up to or stop at 12" anyway, so if i go larger in aperture reflector i think in this case the comparison isn't any point, the aperture will win even under poor seeing, i never saw best planets images from refractors beat best planetary images done by reflectors be it SCT or Mak or Newt/Dob, in fact my 7" Mak slaps my 4" triplet APO, even my 6" Newt is kicking over my refractors, also what is the point comparing something like $2000 refractor to ~$300-400 Newt, for that $2000i can buy a much better scope for planetary over 8" Newt, if i will spend $2000-5000 for a scope to do DSO then it is very fair to spend that much also for a scope to do planetary, and i will never choose a refractor even a high end over a fine capable reflector for planetary even with central obstruction.
Hi Tareq, well I did write in the description that this was an outrageous comparison, but then again, why not compare things just for fun? I don't think many would expect the 4" refractor to beat the 8" Newtonian for planetary imaging, but several viewers requested this video after seeing the Tak beat my 6" reflector on a previous video. I didn't mind making it. it lets people know what to expect from each telescope on the planets. Yes the Tak FC100DC is more of a grab and go planetary and Lunar and bright deep sky object observers scope rather than a planetary imaging scope, but you have to admit that it wasn't a million miles behind the 200p. Not everyone has the fitness or the cool down time available to consider a 12" reflector in which case it lets them know they can capture reasonable images with a refractor weighing 2.8kg with very little cool down time required. You just need quite deep pockets for he Tak! My pockets are now empty lol
@@AstroLaVista If that is the case then yes, sorry i didn't read the description which is the way most of the time watching UA-cam lol, maybe next time the YTers should read the description loud in the vide they made.
Good for you to have the Tak for grab and go doing any astro imaging, no harm or wrong in that, it is just sometimes those kind of comparisons showing me how people are so lazy and impatient, same when comparing the iPhone to the best DSLR/ML out there for the task then people defending that iPhone is cheaper and very lightweight can be taken everywhere easy to operate, all that won't change the fact that for the task needed the DSLR for example is unmatched by iPhone, i came from photography background where i saw lots and lots of those kind of comparisons, only to justify small and quick operated devices over heavier more professional dedicated designed gear, nothing against small or cheap or quick simple devices, it is just i feel like i have to skip watching or reading those and keep asking myself "Why still people care about it, they can't afford or can't carry", thank you for your video and well said reply here 👍
Appreciate the video, but the background music for the first 75% is ridiculously over the top.
500€ versus 3000€..
4 vs 8 inch
Splitting hairs
interesting video but it completely misses the point of the refractor. You will get better results towing with a tractor than with a car, but if you want to go fast or far you need a car. In this case, the reflector will always win since it's pretty much *made* for planetary.