Planetary Imaging Saturn - Two different setups head to head (ASI 224MC Vs ASI 482MC)

Couple of images taken here with slightly different setups using two different planetary cameras and barlows. These were both taken September 2023 with the Celestron C925 and Saturn at around 60 degrees.
Approx 40-50fps for 2 - 3 min of video. Both images had 20% of frames stacked in AutoStakkert and then processed in Registax and finally touched up in Photoshop.
AFFILIATE LINKS
Highpoint Scientific - bit.ly/45K3vRy
Celestron C9.25 - bit.ly/3Y3lCjV
ASI 482MC - bit.ly/3XFNbiX
Baader 2inch Click Lock - bit.ly/4eJU5tu
ASI 2600MM Pro - bit.ly/3zyNkuj
Celestron OAG - bit.ly/4eL9klP
ASI 174MM Mini - bit.ly/3VN5Kip
#astrophotography #saturn #celestron

[@GarnettLeary]

I slightly prefer the left. It’s more natural in my opinion. I’ve ran into the same wall of decisions across cameras. Ultimately I feel the camera that offers the higher fps is the best choice. The difference between a 65ms and an 30ms exposure is HUGE. As a general rule stay at or above 60fps Saturn is very telling. With its low surface brightness you quickly find your gain in the corner. Which camera maintains the fastest exposure time because that’s the key number. Beating the seeing is goal one. 4000 frames on a rubbish camera can be a lot better than 500 on a superb one and usually is. That being said I’ve been really lazy and haven’t tried my ZWO 174. I believe the 5.9 microns is what has deterred me. It has a global shutter tho and unbelievable speed. I need to do your experiment with this camera. I typically reserve my clear nights for dso lately because I actually shed a lot of planetary gear to acquire the deep sky stuff I needed. I often shot planets with a 5” aperture or less lol. Where aperture is king I refused the logic anyway. I personally felt like the bigger scopes gave me less opportunities. I’m magnifying bad seeing 80% of the time. At a point the longer focal lengths were unusable. That happens. I’d venture to say the general rule of x5 the microns is actually x3 for most. In that respect less of a magnification and a deeper ROI typically beat the alternative in my experience. Ultimately I feel like the seeing dictates 90% of quality. Maybe more. That’s my take on it. Watch the barometric pressure. 30 + and climbing is a good sign. So is fog strangely. Reading a book on meteorology is more beneficial than a planetary thesis in this game.

[@cristrigotti9933]

Thank you. Very informative!

[@nitrixfox]

Brilliant!

[@frackcenturion]

the 482mc is what i need for my rig cheerz ollie 👊👍

[@tullyfisher]

Very interesting comparison Ollie. Both are great results with the two setups... I prefer the right one as well. (less "soft", more details in the bands and higher contrast of the Cassini division.) Really cool! Clear skies pal

[@nikaxstrophotography]

Some nice resolution with the 482 and the celestron Barlow mate nice work

[@LogansAstro]

Both came out really well. The one on the right certainly has more colour band differentiation and does seem a bit sharper, however, from the videos, the seeing certainly seemed quite a bit better despite the wind so with that in mind, the left one came out extremely well considering.

[@dumpydalekobservatory]

Both very good images Ollie I preferred the one on the right but both turned out very good. The jetstream here in the Uk messes things up here but still good to have a go. Clear skies mate

[@Tony-Elliott]

Hi Ollie both images are really good mate , but I think the 482 plus 3 x Barlow just takes top prize

[@davehudson5589]

Nice video - thanks. Had never heard of the pixel x barlow = f/ratio formula. Will have to give that a go!

[@lainevince]

I have gone the other way regarding pixel size. I prefer the ZWO ASI676 with 2um pixels because it gives me the 5x ratio without the need for extra glass.

[@SimonsAstro]

Wow Ollie! They’re both awesome mate! I’ve just watched Dylan’s vid on Saturn, yours is as good as his mate, and he used an edge HD11 ! I think I preferred the image on the right as it looked like it had more detail (482) but liked the colour of the one on the left (244) both good Ollie 👍 Clear skies mate!

[@Harutjun]

very nice they both looks good, i only managed to make a good picture of jupiter still need to make a good capture / picture of saturn.

[@craiglowery4427]

Very good video Ollie. I definitely prefer the image on the right. The newest generation of cameras are higher higher resolution and lower noise. I was wondering: do you use an atmospheric dispersion corrector? Lastly how close is your polar alignment? Thank you.

[@IcemanAstro]

I agree with you on that both produce a respectful result. Do you use the Celestron specifically for planetary only ? I am hoping to get my 14 inch Dob and my 224 to do some planetary myself. Clear skies Ollie

[@andyrawlins]

Interesting thanks and great pictures. I do think that it is problematic comparing pictures from different nights with clearly different conditions as seeing is so important for planetary. Also, the 224 video looked underexposed to me, compared to the other one. This is surprising as a 3x Barlow (I have the Televue) results in a dimmer/zoomed image. I missed out on Saturn this year as it never stops raining in Sheffield.

[@tonyeasley3227]

Do you have a focal reducer on as well

[@anata5127]

482 is better. Sharper. Generally, picture for conventional 9.25 SCT is excellent!

[@SimonT65]

Do you always set up in your PJ's? 🤣