Comparing a 5 inch Cassegrain Telescope to a 12 Inch Dobsonian Telescope
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Doing a comparison of an Orion Apex Cassegrain 127mm to an Apertura 12 Dobsonian
Sharpness wise not a ton of difference but you really need to crank the ISO up on the Orion to be bright enough compare to the Dobsonian
@5:13 moisture isn't the cause of the scintillation or "bad seeing" you're experiencing. Turbulence in the lower atmosphere and temperature gradients cause air density variations that are the cause. It is exactly what happens when looking through the heated air above a BBQ to see a distorted background. The telescope magnifies this effect greatly, so small variations become visible.
Not a cassegrain... That’s a Maksutov-Cassegrain, which are notable for their coma-free sharpness of image and excellent color fidelity. ( Jupiter looks its true color thru the mak- and looks yellow thru your dob ). I have a 10” schmidt-cassegrain and the planets look actually better thru my 5” mak- partly because the Mak is f-15 and so the planets do not come in overbright. My only beef with the Maksutov is the crappy focuser that shakes the living heck out of the image and so makes getting it dialed in just right a real pain. The advantage of the 12 dob will be more obvious when looking at deep sky objects like nebulae. Thru the 5” mak you can barely make out the Orion Nebula... and most dimmer objects are just hinted at. Andromeda is just a weakly glowing patch in the sky. With a proper camera and a tracking equatorial mount, you can get very good long exposure images thru the mak because of its exceptional sharpness. But for naked eye viewing of deep sky objects the large objective and much lower focal ratio of a 10 or 12” scope will make much fainter objects more readily visible.
Got myself that Apex, think I'm going to be watching the moon A LOT, just love those views ... !
On certain months I always saw a bright star like object infront of the house when I go to work at nights. Little did I know it was Jupiter and just to its right is a small orange dot Saturn. You can make it out with the naked eyes even.
And people I told never believed me lol.
Only found out after I got a 102mm refractor, celestron 102dx with the app that knows which target to check out.
Very nice comparison video you have, which people should really do.
On mine at almost max possible magnification with 2x barlow and a 6mm plossyl eye piece.
Jupiter is very crisp clear with her Moons. Can also see the brown lines on her too.
As for Saturn which was significantly farther away. With a 6mm eyepiece that has a tiny eye relief it was so hard to track as she moves so fast.
But again the view is also very crisp. Her Ring was very visible but yes she does look smaller. But on the naked eyes, through the eyepiece she was crisp.
This was on a very light polluted suburbs. On the light pollution website, my area was on the red.
Double star visible, 7 sisters etc. Although Andromeda was just a blob of fuzzy white dust.
I guess thats the hard bit. How to take a photo or video as clear as your eyes can see through an eye piece. Cause really it is drastically different. In person through an eyepiece, what you is is crystal clear.
Now thinking of getting a 10 inch dob. 😅 which boast 500x mag. My 102 refract was maxing out at 240x if I remember correct.
I have a ten-inch dob, works great just carrying it is a problem because of where it is in my house with turns and lots of doors. So I am going to make like a wheelbase which I would recommend if you get one.
Why didn't people beleive you when you told them it was jupiter😭
I love the comparison. Your area looks amazing. Looking forward to future posts.
I was about to say that too. That place looks calm and quiet. Beautiful as well.
@@WRAND2208 yea i agree! Looks like a nice place to stay in ! Quiet and away from the hectic city lives
Fantastic video. I'm so glad you filmed and posted it.
Astronomy forums are often very confusing places to determine the inherent pros and cons of telescopes: everyone seem to prefer their type of scope, while bigger and more expensive is generally regarded as better or best.
The worse bunch seems to be the astrophotographers, with their reflectors, guide scopes, plating and computer tech, expensive mounts and such ....
Yet you managed to capture great images with modest mounts, affordable telescopes, and compared this very different types of scopes without fuzz or bias, visually and concisely .... Thank you!!!
Again, very nice video. I'm sure it will be of benefit to many folk like me interested in the hobby and looking to buy a first or maybe an upgrade scope. 😊
Dude please keep posting- your videos are awesome and soothing
Right on! I agree, keep posting!😊
At highpointscientific the dob is $780 and it seems too good to be true... If you want a 12" dobsonian from Orion you'll need at least $1150
I don't know if there are any good or not but I found an Explore Scientific/Bresser Aluminum 208mm F/3.9 Newtonian on special for 550$ Canadain bucks which is around 450$USD mind you, it does not come with a mount or an eyepiece, So im not sure how good od a deal it is.
IMHO, The 12” DOB did better on Jupiter and Moon and the 127 Mak did better on Saturn... Not exactly good seeing conditions you were having either but interesting comparison.
its only the light level that is different on the Saturn image. The Dob produces more detail than the Mak. Screenshot them, crop them and lighten up the Dob shot and it shows more detail. A 5" Mak will never produce as detailed an image as the 12" dob.
Yes no shit cuz the focal length is longer on the dobsonian
@@hanniballecter3727 . No the focal length of both the 12 inch dobsonian and the 5 inch Mak are around 1500mm.
@@lightbridge1695 really? ok
Amazing how your channel coincides with my interest, seems every time I start getting interested in something lol you magically pull a video out of your hat! haha
Me too! As soon as I heard that Jesse Ventura voice I new it was same guy, different toy.
It seems like it would be really important for viewing the planets to have a 11-1 fine focus knob.
You should have done a deep sky comparison. That's where you would have seen the biggest difference.
12 inch would've won because of the light gathering
Good stuff, many newbies wants a rough ballpark on what you can expect, with what model variant.
It looks like those Schm. Cassegrain's lands in a pretty ideal ballpark.. stil can be small and manageable while being quite decent for both photos and live views.
Both look Great !!
Great review. I have a 10” Meade Star finder reflector with f/4.5 focal length on a Equatorial mount and get the same views with it. Found your site and really enjoy it. That little Orion is impressive tho.
Nice worth getting an equatorial mount , it’s such a thrill seeing it for yourself
Makes me want a Dob. Nice!
yeah, definitely it is best buck for your money
Be carefully: Apex is Maksutov-Cassegrain and not simply Cassegrain. The distinction is very important.
Hi
Love the comparison. Didn’t hear how your setup can zoom. Was that the digital zoom of the camera or an eyepiece?
Cheers
It sounds to me like he's switching between prime focus, where the camera is directly on the telescope, and eyepiece projection, where there is an eyepiece between the scope and camera "projecting" the image on the sensor. With the latter you can also "zoom" by changing the eyepiece or having a zoom eyepiece.
Please do a comparison of these two for deep sky please
Really surprised by how little difference there was. I was expecting a lot more magnification and detail from the 12. Don’t think I’ll bother upgrading now
Dob 12" good for planetary and DSO the other one only good for moon and planetary 😅
Yeah the 12” Dob is going to shine when you want to see color in DSO’s. Nebulas with the naked eye are pointless with the 5” cassgrain.
@@jpscharged I don't think aperture increases magnification.
I'm impressed with that Orion. Images looks nice and clean. They almost looks identical, but the Orion look a little better.
Hello uncle, how are you? We thank you for the videos and space photography
What happens if you increase the magnification on the 12 inch on the planets ?
Blur
the 12 inch can go up to 600 magnification.
Both of them look like they did very similar I proved that 12 in should be a much bigger magnification
Very nice. Straight forward, and you can see the difference. So, who wants an eight meter?
I have owned a 12" Dobsonian. I can see so much detail on jupiter you couldn't imagine, even hourly gas cloud changes the moons etc.. this video doesnt represent even slightly the power of the 12 dob.
I thought so , because come on its a 12” , that’s a very large telescope.
If you could buy another telescope, what would it be? I am just another check to check guy btw. But I am wanting to do this. I have owned a 4 5" cellestron.
I have an Orion Star Max 90mm, how can I zoom in to the Moon with a camera, and widen my view?
Great video. Thank you 🖖🏼
You need to drop that ISO way down and use your shutter speed to dial the light transmission in. Your adding artificial gain to the image post sensor. Most camera are ISO negligible. Meaning they all shoot the same and extra gain is added automatically in post. It's better to add this gain in editing where you can control it yourself to make sure you don't blow out the fine details.
That is all true. Different scenarios though call for high ISO and my Sony Vegas just doesn't adapt well brightening things up enough. if I shot in picture profile on my sony it would help but I haven't played with it enough to be comfortable wit hit.
Images were fine as is. As a matter of fact, I was very surprised how nice they were, compared to the stuff posted by Astronomy forums.
The video was very clear, the comparison of images very educating. Nice job!
Always having to spend so much more money for a larger scope with an end result of not much of a difference in viewing whatever object you pick out.
Not true if you are looking at deep space objects; galaxies, nebula, globular clusters. The extra aperture gathers more light to see much fainter objects smaller scopes could never do.
Shots of the moon were much better with the dob. Think a filter on the dob would bring out detail in Jupiter and Saturn while filters may only darken the image. Think the dob won but the cat would win for ease and mobility and gives great shots, especially of Jupiter.
How good is the view with your eye compared to the camera is the visual with your eye as good as some stacked images you see?
Pls answer this question
Considering the difference in size ans price, the orion did just as well. Ridiculous. Nice comparison
1:00 upgrade with magnets w00t? What do you mean? WHy is that required :S
That was an upgrade I did for being able to control smoothness of moving the scope. The way it is mounted you have spring tensioners that do not adjust. You could add more springs but then it move real hard and choppy that way. Especially when you have a huge camera on the end. The magnets simply counter the weight and it is butter smooth like it should be
Adding magnets allows you to counterbalance heavier eyepieces, solar filters, cameras, and heavier finder scopes.
Thank you.
can I ask you a Q? The 127 mak on the fluid head+tripod, is this stable if you point it near zenith? Ive had an Orion Tritech 2 that if you point the Mak (I have the exact same one as you) towards vertical, even if you crank the screw down it sags and moves. Is your Davis&Sanford FM18 any better? Thank you.
I had a 10 inch dob for a number of years and only once in that time was the seeing good enough to let it show the detail it could really show. I got a surprisingly stunning view of Jupiter. Not any bigger than usual but a lot more detailed.
Just my guess but I think the seeing might be the limiting factor for the 12”.
Weird they seem to have the same amount of zoom despite the big size difference. Though I'm thinking about getting an 8 inch dob and if I can see the planets like this through the eyepiece I'd be satisfied. My previous telescope was a very simplistic $100 scope from a grocery store and Jupiter was a pinpoint.
An 8 inch would do plenty good
Spotted a cat without a telescope. First 1 minute.
I want the 12 inch dobsonian
Great vid!
Yeah, these comparison videos are awesome.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 yes
We coudnt compare 12’’ against 5’’, nevertheless orion 5’’ is a good telescope.... but obviously i prefer 12’’ , more light..... thanks !
I am thinking about buying the Apertura AD12 Dobsonian 12" Telescope its 1,000.00 dollars in your opinon is it worth the money
Please show how you attached the equipment. photo or video anything.
I agree, also what about those magnets he was talking about :S??
I'm going to put a video up modding this and it shows that in there. maybe tomorrow
scannerguy1968 thank you.
12" mirror doesn't make any difference when watching bright objects. What would be interesting to see if you can see or capture Pluto with 12" and compare it with Orion. I wasn't able to see it with my 3", but I was able to see Saturn almost as good as you. Great comparison video !
Smaller scopes do a great job with Jupiter, Venus and Saturn to the eye. If they are your hobby, then a big scope (8 and above) is cost and weight you can ignore, unless you get all the camera gadgetry and computertracking integrated.
BTW, I had a 5" Celestron out this week for Jupiter/Saturn. Pluto is between them this month. I had centered on an object that resolved like a small planet. It wasn't Jupiter and definitely wasn't Saturn. It wasn't a star since it rounded out in a 9mm eyepiece. I didn't think I could see Pluto.
Is that what I saw?
Just a round spot, no details. Mars, Uranus, Neptune were not there in that part of the sky.
@@STho205 That's a good question I actually never saw it with my 3" while doing exactly the same and trying to find it somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn this summer 2020. I think if your direction matched the expected location and you saw something there, I would assume you saw Pluto.
@@Martinko_Pcik it wasn't a moon because I accounted for them a few minutes later, and except Titan, they are just bright points in that scope.
@@STho205if you mean Jupiter moons, those are too close to Jupiter. Pluto should be roughly in the middle of Saturn a Jupiter so far away from the field of view of Jupiter moons. But hey, I'm far away from being an expert here ;)
@@Martinko_Pcik Titan may be flung out near where Pluto appears tonight. The three planets are quite close today. Jupiter's mistresses are easily accounted for since they are often beautifully aligned from our POV.
I've actually been wondering about magnets in proximity to telescopes. I don't have any theories, just curiosity. What upgrade did the magnets accomplish? A simple means of attaching something to the tube? No effects on optics, I assume.
Its purpose is just extra weight for balancing the scope.
Yes, just for balancing. This scope has springs to keep it from dropping and the magnets help keepign the springs to a minimum when weight is added. Which helps it move smooth
Yeah the 12 inch prime focus image reminds me of the view from my 10inch with a low magnification eye piece. It's not as sharp as my oberwerk ED binoculars but the higher magnification and level of sharpness from a 10 - 12 inch telescope is really awesome in person. I say that it's definitely worth getting a Newtonian for a first timer because of the image quality and low price. The ultra bright image is a real shocker compared to looking at boring low dynamic range photos of the moon. Only big downsides for me are the bulk and flipped image.
If you want to make an informative comparison for such a difference in apertures and scopes, you need to have the atmosphere stable enough and for the planets to be high up enough to push magnification to 250-300x. The moon isn't a very good target for comparison because it is such a high contrast object unless you know exactly what to look for..like resolving craterlets in the crater Plato.
Your efforts are commendable, but comparing scopes is not always conclusive from just one or two tries.
I think the goal was not to make a comprehensive comparison but just to share the experience. We would all do the same thing if we had 2 scopes at home. It was a great video satisfying my curiosity of what the difference might be when looking at objects that beginers like me can relate to.
@@Martinko_Pcik That may well be, but inexperienced people will watch this and undoubtedly come to their own conclusions if contemplating buying a scope, regardless of the poster's narrative.
@@Martinko_Pcikvery well stated. Like you, I loved this video.
For nitpicking, anyone can visit the many astronomy forums. As stated on the video, this was for the creator's own interest. Others can post videos as they see fit.
Today John Goodman compares telescopes
You should compare them on the Horse Head Nebula. No, the California Nebula.
Dear, Which good telescope do you recommend for the skywatcher gti mount??
Good work!
Its Saturno is magnifico
I’ve been seeing so many RUclips videos of lights flashing from space they’re so many videos it’s insane WHAT IS FLASHING OUT THERE!
reflection from the solar panels on low earth orbit satellites
@David Brown, ok.. but they’re like coming from space like the stars just FLASH and then it will stop then FLASH
@David Brown, maybe you are right
Crazy Arnold The Iridium satellites are known to flash on/off
Definitely Aliens
I think the Orion is not a SCT, its a Maksutov isnt it?
yes it is a mak. the steep curve on the corrector lens should have told you that.
Looks like a Maksutov-Cassegrain rather then a Smith-Cassegrain
Im a bit perplexed honestly, i want to get a more expensive scope then my 120 dollar meade infinity 70mm but i can pretty much see saturn exactly like that with my 9mm eyepiece, although i cant take any pictures or zoom in and out like this.....im just curious what i would be investing in to spend another 600 bucks for one of these.
The seeing wasn't good, that takes away the advantage of more apperture. But for planets I don't think it's worth it to get a 12'' or even a 8'' telescope. On meteoblue you can see the weather forecast with max arcsec estimate, you'll be surprised how much it limits the large telescope potential on these brighter objects.
I've got a 250mm newtonian and got a 80m refractor after the "upgrade", I'm not sure what telescope is used more frequently. 250mm can be better, but I'm often not in the mood to carry a heavy telescope around, or tired from work and not willing to wait 1h for the telescope to aclimate.
@@Arimaquinador interesting, thanks for the reply. I may just get a slightly more powerful one then this one i have now then.
Was that a moon crossing over at 2:20??? Watch for the little black spec
That was just a dust spec on the eyepiece, the moon of Jupiter doesnt move that fast
In fact, you can see the dust specs clearer at 5:12
If "seeing" is poor resolution is independent of aperture.
I thought the 12" was overall better, except with Saturn.
Let’s see more of your cats
Want some cheese Grommit?
Dobsonian 12" good for both Planetary and Dso but the other one only good for planetary
Thx! 👍🏻
Nice cat
They don't call Maksutov telescopes "planet killers" for nothing.
The Orion 180mm (7") is "the planet killer" of them all. Very heavy too.
@@opponoastos I have it. What I don't like about it is 1) No handle on the tube. It is scary putting this and having it seat properly on the mount 2) No markings on the focuser to give you an idea of position. Otherwise stunning images I have taken of the planets with it. I am think of selling it as I have a Classical Cassegrain from Agena, I love it otherwise.
@@dankahraman354 How much you want for it?
@@opponoastos $800 Canadian+shipping costs+insurance (UPS)+ 3% Paypal fees. If you are in Ontario I would prefer that you pick it up. I am selling it because I have too many scopes and moving to fewer and larges scopes. I have taken images through it under less than ideal conditions and the results were impressive. You need very good conditions and a larger image scale (at least a 2x Barlow maybe a 5x Barlow. An illuminated reticle scope should also be part of your equipment. Like I said I don't like the fact that you have to seat this rather heavy OTA into the proper position so that you don't wind up with a disaster.
Sounds like Jesse Ventura
What do you think caused that distant flash of light?
Probably camera sensor noise. When you increase the iso, noise increases too. Keep in mind this guy shot video of Saturn at 40k iso.
Shooting star ? Satellite ?
I think a space rock hit the atmosphere and exploded
40k on the a7s is like 200 on my Nikon D750. I don't see any artifacts until around 160k on it. It was weird flashing like that. I've pointed this camera at the heavens enough to see it all and haven't caught a quick flash then nothing. Could of even been a tiny meteor hitting the atmosphere straight on for all I know. But I don't think it was hardware related.
12 in.
I actually thought the smaller scope did better in all aspects except for the zoomed out moon shot.
Water heater vs electric kettle
The dob wins.
🧡🖤
Пояс Ориона через рефрактор Apertura 12, будет виден хорошо, думаю и Плеяды тоже, галактика Андромеды. Можно сделать хорошие астрофотографии...
Poyas Oriona cherez refraktor Apertura 12, budet viden khorosho, dumayoo I pleydv tozhe, galaktika Andromed. Mozhno sdelat khoroshi astrophotographi.
The Orion 12 inch is good for video? Think Pleiades, also Andromeda galaxy? Maybe good for astrophotography?
That's my best guess at translating the comment.
Instead of giving us a camera settings, you could have just given us the equivalent magnifications. That would have been more useful.
Lol @ "light bucket."
12" dob kicked it's azz !!!!!
Holy wa
That was some awful seeing, neither scope was able to show anywhere near its best performance. With good seeing the dob will show tons more detail, but with seeing like that it doesn't matter much what scope you're using.
Really??? I thought the views were splendid. And conditions approximate average views for most folk ....
Perhaps you could post a video of what you, as a critic, are referring to for all of us to see?
@@user-yd1zl1tv8x You're right in that the average conditions for most probably look somewhat like in the video, but I wouldn't call average 'splendid'. Most sites, on a good night, will do better and allow the 12" to pull ahead by a margin that's at least noticeable. However the video is still a useful illustration of what seeing-limited observing is like.
@@solarscopedunedin3853 Well, I see what you are saying. I suppose it is a matter of semantics. By splendid, I meant most youtube viewers have never seen a celestial object thru a scope, and if they had it most certainly did not look like this. This is a great hobby, and I'm of the opinion that if more folks knew about it the world would be a better place. There's a Greek term: HoiPolloi or grazers, grass feeders such as cattle, which philosophers spoke about those that only looked at their basic needs: eating, and such, but never looked up to the heavens, toward greater things.
Clear skies youtube friend. Kind regards.
Is this the Farmers Insurance guy who says We Know a Thing or Two
12inch did better
yes it did. I didn't try to find low light objects and should of. You'd really see a difference there
If a 12" would not have performed better than a 5", then the entire theory and empirical knowledge on optics could be scrapped right away! But perhaps the point of this video was to look for apparent differences and not a confirmation of well-known theory.
I only own a 90/1250 Maksutov on a EQ-1 mount and a 120/600 refractor on a EQ-5 mount, but that may change, as a Newton is still on my mind. That will probably be not smaller than 12", depending on the contemporaneous Wife Approval Factor somewhere next year ;)
Since 20 October 2020, I can also call myself the proud owner of a Maksutov-Newtonian 190/1000 from Sky-Watcher. Obviously, the comparison between this rather large scope and my previous smaller ones amounts to one conclusion: superb! Details of Jupiter, Saturn and even Mars are striking now, whereas I could not see that much detail through the small 90/1250 Mak or the 120/600 refractor. And this is yet only live-peeking through an eye piece (although 2" now, also on the 120/600).
The next challenge is to prepare the 190/1000 Mak-Newt to withstand dew. I bought car seat heater inlays and got them sewed into a thin jacket, which my wife tailored, as she conveniently is a rather good amateur seamstress. Now, I stil have to make some facilities to put a 12V car battery into a wooden box and make the cable connections. I used a yoga foam mattress as a cover-jacket (not too thick, or it will obstruct the focusser). Simply use scissors and tailor the mattress around the finder-attachment and the focusser insert, sew some elastic bands that will fit the girth of the scope and there you are: a tailor-made heating jacket for your Newtonian scope! It also can act as a passive dew shield, if you tailor it so as to protrude from the aperture, as I did. The yoga foam mattress is stiff enough to allow for this.
After that, the next stage is to get a more sturdy mount than the EQ5 that I have now for the 190/1000. It will have to be motorised, so that I can start making long exposure series. For now, I will have to do with manually driven axis movements and stack images more tediously, which is something I did not yet attempt to do. I am not in a hurry.
2nd!!!
12" Dobsonian looked better
Odd. No moons? I can see the 4 moons with a 90mm cass. Your camera sux.
1st to comment...
Congrats. I tried, but you beat me.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 hahaha....
I'm currently last to post but it won't last long. 😉
3rd XD