Aperture allows more detail resolution at the same magnification. Depending on eyepiece used apparent brightness will be affected by exit pupil size. If both telescopes have same exit pupil size, brightness won't vary much because our eyes will be efficiently using the light. But if our eye's pupil has to change size it affects the contrast. This effect is easier to demonstrate using a camera with a fixed exposure and gain/ISO
if the Resolution of the sky allows it , bigger will always be better , but his sky does not allow for more then 9 inch of resolution . Basically his view is brighter , but resolution is about 2x or 3x better , i don't know the math but that is about 9 inch of resolution , its the limit of the sky, obviously lot brighter for brightness is not impacted by sky resolution , but one should take that in to account . I think this is actually 8 inch quality if even that . I know of 8 inch Newtonians with better image . But where sky resolution is 3x better then where he is , his getting about 1,5 Arc seconds of resolution , Canary island have 0,4 . So if he took the small scope to Canary island , it would actually beat the 12 inch Newtonian . This impact is easy to see as the Planet gets higher the picture gets better so you see more , also there are Atmospheric dispersion filters , they cost a lot but they can help to get better image . Newtonians are really good scopes , but by the time you fix everything , might as well buy 6 inch Apo , it really is like that . Unless we are talking about brute force , and dim objects where resolution is not so important as with the planets and the moon . But basically i think the best all around scope is 6inch ED refractor , F9 if you can get it , or find it . For general vieweing , for dim objects light buckets are a must , so it depends on what you are looking at .
@dedskin1 you have that backwards. In good seeing, the larger aperture wins. And how do you know how many "inches" of seeing he has? He mentioned that the seeing was pretty good when he got to the 12"
@@k.h.1587 we are not talking about seeing , you dont know what we are talking about , RFT telescopes , RFT is visoual clasification for a number of stars telescope can see , this number is not influenced by seeing that much since stars are bright , or the aperture , you dont need more then 50mm binoculars for this but its a poor RFT , Ritch field telescope , not that good picture . The most aperture you need is 4inch , you need big apertures if you want too see faint objects , but stars and star fields are not faint . on the contrary you can see star cluster with anything . Now the Field of View , FOV , not apearant field of view that is something like aperant image size in your eye . We need here real wide FOV to put a lot of stars in , you can use F2 newtonians , but they have large secondary's and are not sold commonly . Or you can use Refractors for this , any refractor will do , they do not have secundary optical element to limit the size of incoming cone of light . A lot of people dont know this , in an F5 Newtonian you can have 3 inch focuser , 5 inch focuser , the widest you can go is 25mm EP . Beyond that you will see the focuser or the tube . Try it , everyone goes for higher power EPs so they dont know this , take a Newtonian , put 30mm EP in it , normal, 2inch , 3 inch focuser i dont care the size , all can support 30mm EP , but none can work with it . Take a 50mm 2 inch EP this time it has to be due to size , in simple 80ED , it works you do not see any barrel . Go to even more complex designes such as CAS, SCT, what have you , all have small secondary , you can not see beyond it , but its usually made for 25mm EP max , everyone wants small obstructions , hence the compromise . No one talks about it , they dont know this . You dont know this , you mistaken RFT concept , the fact that any Refractor can be RFT while only specialized Reflectors can usually hand made . So actually if you want to see the most number of stars in the sky possible , rich field of stars , magnificent view , low power one but magnificent , you have to make your own Reflector , expensive , buy RFT scope , Expensive , or get any Refractor , doesnt have to be ED , achromat will do , at such low powers it really doesnt matter , its all the same , todays glass is very good . And you take that , wait in the dark for 1h for you eyesight to get good , on a knigth without moon with good seeing . You shell want no better tool in your life . This is the only kind of scope that interests me . For Astrophotography i would use something different , talking visual for i have no time for Astrophoto , and i dont have money for the observatory now , its only thing i want , i dont want to move a damn big things around just to get a few shots , decent knigts for observing and taking pictures , come rare . 4 or 5 times a year . That is why its important what im saying , that one can get any time of mount , small mount , get refractor with 2 inch focuser , get 2 inch at least 30mm EP , 40 preferably , 50 if possible , and you will have couple of unforgetable knights a year . There is no time to pull gear around , and you often have to go places , move a little bit . This i witnessed only once in my life , took photos of what i wanted , and now i only want 80mm refractor , i can buy it , but problem is i want 50mm Japanese best there is EP , and that costs a bit more , so im waiting for that . I dont know whitch cycle of Astronomy life you are in , but i went trough stuff , for me there are 2 choices , observatory for pictures , and portable refractor for Visual . Not a dubsonian . Everyone says oh Dubsonian , you can see faint nebulas . Why would you want to see that . Zoom out a bit , take a look at a Ritch Field of Stars , it feels like you are in SPACE, with a good EP that is . Unfortunately you cant use Binos on a telescope for RFT , FOV is limited . But if you can put 2 80mm ones together and make Binos with that and 50mm EPS . Wet dreams .
Skywatcher, Orion, and Celestron for that matter, are all made by Synta. They are all the same scopes, just with different names. As far as the two scopes shown, the 12" will show everything nearly 6x brighter than the 5" at the same power.
not always , aperture gives you better resolution , but there is a limit set by the sky , basically if you look trough water , bigger binoculars do not help you , but when waters gets clear , you don't even need any help . This must be taking in to account .
Aperture rules as you've shown for resolution. I have the little 127mm Apex in my mix of telescopes and it's a nice compact package for solar system and double stars with a decent mount. You'll pick up a bit better performance from it with a better diagonal rather than the "correct image" version which is for terrestrial use such as birding or spotting. A dielectric mirror diagonal would be a way better pairing and fit in the camping box. Take those mirror from the 12" and build out a truss tube dobsonian that'll fit in the car and dark skies camping. :)
I say you can have both. One for around the house or short distance night observation and the other that is extremely portable so you can take it almost anywhere with you.
Thanks for that. I have a 127Mak by Sky Watcher and have seen the Cassini division on good evening. Whilst an older observer I do live in a rural fringe area with only one street light nearby; putting a tree between me and the light helps. 188 times magnification is closer to the theoretical limit for the 5" Mak compared to the 12" Dob and that would IMHO account for the lesser image. You stress the portability, that is always my first recommendation to fellow beginners. Thanks again.
I am using a Celestron Starsense LT127 AZ. The image from your Dosbsonian is exactly what I caught on my cheap Samsung crap phone. Very sharp and bright. Cassini division is barely seen though. After all, using the crappy cheap eyepieces that came with the telescope. I'm surrounded by 6 street lights, city area. Very bright sky. Reviews stated that the telescope I own is crap. Based of the 127EQ. Although there is no info that it is based on it. But given what you showed, I'm happy. Once I buy better eyepieces, I'm sure to see more. Thanks a million.
City light pollution- I feel your pain! Bortle 8 levels here. I've heard great things about the Starsense telescopes. Thank you for watching. Here's wishing for clearer skies.
I regularly see the Cassini division with an 80mm F11 refractor. It usually depends on seeing conditions. If the image is terrible at 100X then it's a bad night. The resolution of a 12" Dobsonian is many times the resolution of the 126mm Orion!
Great video- I'm weighing up between an 8 inch Dob vs the 127mm Orion Mak-Cass you showcase on the Orion Starseeker IV GOTO mount. Same Price 600 new zealand dollars each. The 8 inch Dobd collects more light but doesn't track like the GOTO. Any thoughts on which would be a better set up for city viewing planets and moon in Bortle 7/8? Thanks
I'm a big fan of the 8 inch Dob. It's such a perfect combination of light-catching capability and portability. The GoTo mount would be fine, but... understand that when it does, it becomes a manual mount. You won't be able to get any replacement parts (unless Skywatcher has an identical model).
I notice that nobody has mentioned that you were looking into a light in between views at two different setups which kills your contrast perception. You did photograph your views, you could have explained how those images were different. For example, same exposure duration, iso, etc. was there stacking involved, if so the difference between the tracking and stacking versus lucky image processing. In general the best conclusion was the difference in the convenience of scope’s portability and aperture . And the difficulties in viewing in light polluted areas. I’d recommend for city viewing building blinds to block bright lights sources. Keep up the good work
Light pollution has no effect on bright objects like planets though. Viewing over buildings can cause issues with heat rising off the building and creating bad seeing.
Good question. No stacking involved (I don't know how). Images and video were captured right from phone moments after each portion was filmed to make sure my description matched the captured images closely (my only camera is my smartphone). I didn't get video from the Mak because I was fighting the mount. I was lucky to get a few stills. ISO and shutterspeeds were adjusted to get the brightest possible and sharpest picture for both. Note: I just finished refurbishing a nice EQ mount and may repeat this. Thank you for watching!
@@rodsmolter5046 yes viewing planets from my backyard can only be done over my neighbor’s garage. Since the planets are about 15° above, all I see is heat waves rolling across my view. Very frustrating.
Hi. The difference in the depiction of Saturn is abysmal. I own a 12 inch Dobson myself and it displays Saturn similarly. I attribute this not only to the larger aperture but also to the smaller central shading of the secondary mirror. It's much smaller on the Dobson.
The astro images/video didn't quite show the true quality of what my eyeball was seeing. I think in real life (to my eyeball), they looked better than what my smartphone camera caught.
@@AstronomyGarage Yes, I'm aware of that. You see, I want to get a MAK 150 SkyMax from SkyWatcher to go with my 12 inch Dobsonian as a travel telescope. It just has quite a bit less central shielding than the 127 version. So I'll see.😄
If you are using an erect prism diagonal like what came with the apex127, that destroys the view, try a star diagonal, cassini is pretty easy in a 5" mak, I have owned a couple, and even a 90 can do it.
I suppose a newt with same aperture as the mak wouldnt be as good as the one with the the 12 inch aperture. But if you compare the 5 inch mak to a 5 inch newt i think the mak would win hands down 😊
How old is your Zhumell? Reason I ask is that they improved their mirrors sometime back before 2018 or so. Maybe you have one of the good ones. Also, consider resolution of the 12 in mirror. It will be better than the 5 in.
Unknown, but probably pretty old. I bought it used and the mirror surface was very bad. I had to get it recoated. It works great now. The best mirror I have is in a 10" Orion.
@@AstronomyGarage I have a 10 inch Zhumell (GSO) I got in 2020. I don't know exactly how good it is but it seems to have about equal performance with a 120 Tak on Jupiter. I dont know if that is normal or not but I know I have worse mirrors. My 8inch GSO seems good too. Rumor has it they are good mirrors.
@@lornaz1975 Thanks for watching! According to Ed Ting and Joe Jaguar, the Tak's are the absolute best as far as optics go, but they can be pricey. I've never owned a Tak and, after I broke the Stellarvue, I'm not sure if I trust myself with a refractor anymore, lol. As for me, I'm still partial to Dobsonians.
@@AstronomyGarage Yeah I have heard the same. It seems refractor vs reflector for planets is a controversial issue. Some fall on one side and others on the other side. Right now I am turning my attention to Newtonians but just don't yet know how to gauge what good visual performance is for a newt. Its something I will have to figure out. I have to figure out if I should stick with my GSO mirror or maybe upgrade. Thanks
Most GSO mirrors are good. I think the older ones actually have better glass and smoother surface, although the newer ones might have a better figure. My friend has an older Z12 and it puts up amazing images of Jupiter, almost as good as my 16" Ostahowski mirror.
If you look at it through a digital camera with a large ISO preview that allows you to see very dim images, would that live image work well on the smaller telescope? (not just to take photos, but also to view on the LCD screen)
Good question. The camera app on my smartphone allows me to pick an ISO from 50 to 800 and, as crazy as it seems, I had it dialed way back to around 300 or 400 or else it got washed out (bright blurry ball). The astro images/video in this video were taken moments after the recording that you see. The problem with the Mak was the tripod mount - it was really fighting me especially when I had the smartphone adapter hooked up to it. I wished I could've gotten a good video example from the Mak too.
How was the collimation on the Maksutov? I can generally see the Cassini division quite easily if the seeing is average or above. It’s definitely clearer and brighter by a good margin though in my 12” dobsonian. Clear skies.
with all the camera advancements and stacking software size isnt as relevant anymore, its a lot more work and not as much fun but the images can be like looking through the largest telescope that doenst exist cause it would crumble under its own weight
Thanks! I really thought the image sharpness would be the same while the Dob would just be brighter. The sharpness was "close", but the Dob won out during this comparison. I've been wondering if I let the Mak acclimate long enough (about 30 minutes). The temperatures outside were pretty similar to the shop where I keep it. And of course humidity is non-existant here - "Dew? What is dew?"
@@AstronomyGarage It’s kinda hard to say it depends on people’s eyesights as well. It’s possible if you let it cool down longer because MACS needs so long to cool down that could’ve helped a little bit When I compared a 5 inch Mac to a 4 inch triplet takahashi I found that the takahashi was sharper and more contrast than the Mac although there’s a huge difference in price In another video I compared a triplet 130 mm to a 10 inch reflector and I found a refractor was sharper it was not brighter but it was sharper and more contrast But again that triplet 130 mm refractor in Canada with tax it’s about 4500 so again it’s not cheap at all
@@JoeJaguar I dare say that refractors in general will in principle show things sharper and with higher contrast compared to systems with central shading. This will of course be matched by their price. Especially with a brand as reputable as Takahashi.😄
@@kamilmoucka6811 Price always is a big factor some people will not pay big money to get that extra little sharpness that an ED or an APO will give. I guess so I can really say in the end is why would you want and enjoy the hobby
Hi, Thank you for the video. Unfortunately I don't have space for a big Dobsonian, but I have seen Saturn through one in the desert and it looked great! So probably for visual the Dobsonian has an edge. One thing you don't mention is price, I think the Mak is about half the price, IF you already have a mount that can carry it, which in the case of the Mak isn't much of a problem. The third option would be a 6 inch SC, which also has the same magnification, but come at a higher price, weights more and requires a serious mount to operate. Since my mount is a small SW AZ GTi, I'm considering to add a 127 Mak to use for solar system.
Thank you for watching. I used the big Dob last night again and Saturn & Jupiter both look amazing. You have a good point - price is a big deal. In a way, I am somewhat immune to that because I buy my telescopes used at big discounts, usually because they are either damaged or neglected. The big Dob had to have the mirror re-coated immediately, but brought the overall cost to about 1/3rd that of new. I just refurbished (last night) a very stout Orion EQ mount (my first) that supports the Mak very well, but the picture still isn't up to equality with the Dob. Not bad, of course, but not quite equal. The SkyWatcher AZ GTi looks extremely useful - have lots of fun. Again, thanks for watching and... clear skies!
The 127 Maksutov is an excellent scope for the planets, lunar and the brighter planetary nebulae. I used one for years before upgrading to a 12” dobsonian. The 127 is also great as a grab and go scope and ideal for those gaps in the clouds for short sessions where dragging out the 12” just isn’t worth the gamble. Good luck 👍
You should try the Mak again with a traditional mirror diagonal. I find that the erecting prism adds a little diffraction that impedes the view. You must have had that Dob perfectly collimated! Many inexperienced users don’t pay attention to that.
Thank you for the tip! I will try doing that very soon (just got inside from using it on Jupiter). It's true that my Dobs are all in perfect collimation - I've got it down to a two minute process. Super easy. Clear skies!
Your bias for Dobsonian was evident and justifiably so. Aperture rules. Nevertheless portability and convenience make the day. I think Dobsonians make good backyard scopes. If you are blessed with clear skies most of the time and have a good wheeling gear, even better. For camping and imaging Maks or SCTs rule. Not getting into the debate between these two.
Thanks for watching. That's a great way to look at it. My big Dob is thankfully on wheels so I can take it out into the driveway pretty quickly. Clear skies!
Light pollution has no effect on planet brightness. Must be a bad example of the 127 or the collimation was out, cassini was always really easy for me in both 127s I previously owned. My first was a grey orion svp127 20 years ago, and I regretfully sold that tube a few years later. The second one was a few years ago, celestron branded, and that one was effectively stolen. Try putting a 2" diagonal on the 127 opens it up for some deep space viewing, and you can use budget widefields sharp to the edge because it is f12 with a flat field. On the dob to do that you need both a coma corrector and a premium eyepiece, though there are some lower cost eyepieces like the celestron luminos that do a pretty good job. But going to nagler and panoptic like designs alone even without a coma corrector is still pretty good, as they dont have the edge astigmatism that older designs, which the budget eyepieces are based on (erfle mostly), and that is more offensive than coma. I used to have an older televue 7.4 plossl, and several other short plossls, such as the older japanese meades I have collected, but i rarely actually use plossls below 12mm because the eye relief is just too little, and when I do look through them, I try to wash my upper face since a greasy eyelash will gunk them up. And the public doesn't go near them for that reason and worse, like mascara. Those small lenses are hard to clean. Televue wont even make anything shorter than 8mm in a plossl now, but others have gone below 4mm which is crazy hard to use. I would prefer to use a type 6 nagler in that range, or the 4.7 and 5.5mm meade series5000 UWA which is much cheaper, but performance is very close to the televue. With manual scopes like a dob or camera tripod mounted, 82deg eyepieces make things so much easier
My original theory was that the picture itself would be identical, but the Dob would be brighter. What I found was that both brightness and sharpness were better in the Dob. Perhaps the weather (it was extremely hot) may have skewed the results?
@@AstronomyGarage It's no surprise actually : diffraction becomes significant below 1mm pupil exit. The effect is demultiplied on low contrasted Planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn. Having a 4" ED Refractor, I rarely observe those Planets, with my eyes, beyond x100 mag, because of that.
"the atmosphere must be really stable" I think this is more important than the aperture difference. Under normal, average, not-so-stable conditions, I bet this shootout would be a heckuva lot closer. You'd still only barely be able to see the Cassini Division with the Mak, but the 12" wouldn't do too much better.
Over the past few years I've had planet viewing experiences where it would go from okay to very sharp for a few seconds here and there. This evening, it was surprisingly sharp for much longer periods of time.
@@AstronomyGarage Yeah, that's just the general nature of seeing. The way I explain it to people here in the scope store is just like that: that every few minutes, for just a few seconds, the turbulence in the atmosphere will quiet down, and whatever you're observing will sharpen up. When that happens, aperture is king - the 12" will SMOKE the 5". But if you've been observing for 10-15-20 minutes, and that's just not happening, then there isn't going to be a heckuva lotta difference between the two.
Good point. I had a hunch the Dob would be brighter, but with such a naturally bright subject (Saturn), this was more of an academic look to see if sharpness would be defined by focal length matching. Thank you for watching. Clear skies!
The best telescope is the one you can use the most! Great presentation, thankyou.
This is so true! It makes me sad when telescopes don't get used because their either too complicated or too big to maneuver. Clear skies!
Aperture allows more detail resolution at the same magnification. Depending on eyepiece used apparent brightness will be affected by exit pupil size. If both telescopes have same exit pupil size, brightness won't vary much because our eyes will be efficiently using the light. But if our eye's pupil has to change size it affects the contrast. This effect is easier to demonstrate using a camera with a fixed exposure and gain/ISO
if the Resolution of the sky allows it , bigger will always be better , but his sky does not allow for more then 9 inch of resolution . Basically his view is brighter , but resolution is about 2x or 3x better , i don't know the math but that is about 9 inch of resolution , its the limit of the sky, obviously lot brighter for brightness is not impacted by sky resolution , but one should take that in to account . I think this is actually 8 inch quality if even that . I know of 8 inch Newtonians with better image . But where sky resolution is 3x better then where he is , his getting about 1,5 Arc seconds of resolution , Canary island have 0,4 . So if he took the small scope to Canary island , it would actually beat the 12 inch Newtonian . This impact is easy to see as the Planet gets higher the picture gets better so you see more , also there are Atmospheric dispersion filters , they cost a lot but they can help to get better image .
Newtonians are really good scopes , but by the time you fix everything , might as well buy 6 inch Apo , it really is like that .
Unless we are talking about brute force , and dim objects where resolution is not so important as with the planets and the moon . But basically i think the best all around scope is 6inch ED refractor , F9 if you can get it , or find it . For general vieweing , for dim objects light buckets are a must , so it depends on what you are looking at .
@dedskin1 you have that backwards. In good seeing, the larger aperture wins.
And how do you know how many "inches" of seeing he has?
He mentioned that the seeing was pretty good when he got to the 12"
@@k.h.1587 we are not talking about seeing , you dont know what we are talking about , RFT telescopes , RFT is visoual clasification for a number of stars telescope can see , this number is not influenced by seeing that much since stars are bright , or the aperture , you dont need more then 50mm binoculars for this but its a poor RFT , Ritch field telescope , not that good picture .
The most aperture you need is 4inch , you need big apertures if you want too see faint objects , but stars and star fields are not faint . on the contrary you can see star cluster with anything .
Now the Field of View , FOV , not apearant field of view that is something like aperant image size in your eye .
We need here real wide FOV to put a lot of stars in , you can use F2 newtonians , but they have large secondary's and are not sold commonly .
Or you can use Refractors for this , any refractor will do , they do not have secundary optical element to limit the size of incoming cone of light .
A lot of people dont know this , in an F5 Newtonian you can have 3 inch focuser , 5 inch focuser , the widest you can go is 25mm EP . Beyond that you will see the focuser or the tube .
Try it , everyone goes for higher power EPs so they dont know this , take a Newtonian , put 30mm EP in it , normal, 2inch , 3 inch focuser i dont care the size , all can support 30mm EP , but none can work with it . Take a 50mm 2 inch EP this time it has to be due to size , in simple 80ED , it works you do not see any barrel .
Go to even more complex designes such as CAS, SCT, what have you , all have small secondary , you can not see beyond it , but its usually made for 25mm EP max , everyone wants small obstructions , hence the compromise .
No one talks about it , they dont know this .
You dont know this , you mistaken RFT concept , the fact that any Refractor can be RFT while only specialized Reflectors can usually hand made .
So actually if you want to see the most number of stars in the sky possible , rich field of stars , magnificent view , low power one but magnificent , you have to make your own Reflector , expensive , buy RFT scope , Expensive , or get any Refractor , doesnt have to be ED , achromat will do , at such low powers it really doesnt matter , its all the same , todays glass is very good .
And you take that , wait in the dark for 1h for you eyesight to get good , on a knigth without moon with good seeing . You shell want no better tool in your life .
This is the only kind of scope that interests me . For Astrophotography i would use something different , talking visual for i have no time for Astrophoto , and i dont have money for the observatory now , its only thing i want , i dont want to move a damn big things around just to get a few shots , decent knigts for observing and taking pictures , come rare . 4 or 5 times a year .
That is why its important what im saying , that one can get any time of mount , small mount , get refractor with 2 inch focuser , get 2 inch at least 30mm EP , 40 preferably , 50 if possible , and you will have couple of unforgetable knights a year .
There is no time to pull gear around , and you often have to go places , move a little bit .
This i witnessed only once in my life , took photos of what i wanted , and now i only want 80mm refractor , i can buy it , but problem is i want 50mm Japanese best there is EP , and that costs a bit more , so im waiting for that .
I dont know whitch cycle of Astronomy life you are in , but i went trough stuff , for me there are 2 choices , observatory for pictures , and portable refractor for Visual . Not a dubsonian . Everyone says oh Dubsonian , you can see faint nebulas . Why would you want to see that . Zoom out a bit , take a look at a Ritch Field of Stars , it feels like you are in SPACE, with a good EP that is .
Unfortunately you cant use Binos on a telescope for RFT , FOV is limited .
But if you can put 2 80mm ones together and make Binos with that and 50mm EPS .
Wet dreams .
Aperture is akways king but bang for buck those Maks are pretty good to I own the Skywatcher variant & it does a great job.
Skywatcher, Orion, and Celestron for that matter, are all made by Synta. They are all the same scopes, just with different names. As far as the two scopes shown, the 12" will show everything nearly 6x brighter than the 5" at the same power.
not always , aperture gives you better resolution , but there is a limit set by the sky , basically if you look trough water , bigger binoculars do not help you , but when waters gets clear , you don't even need any help . This must be taking in to account .
Aperture rules as you've shown for resolution. I have the little 127mm Apex in my mix of telescopes and it's a nice compact package for solar system and double stars with a decent mount. You'll pick up a bit better performance from it with a better diagonal rather than the "correct image" version which is for terrestrial use such as birding or spotting. A dielectric mirror diagonal would be a way better pairing and fit in the camping box. Take those mirror from the 12" and build out a truss tube dobsonian that'll fit in the car and dark skies camping. :)
Get a minivan for the Dob and anything else you wanna move
We had a minivan for ten years. It was wonderful.
Aperture rules! My largest is a 16" truss dob. Small telescopes have their role too - travel, short sessions at home.
I say you can have both. One for around the house or short distance night observation and the other that is extremely portable so you can take it almost anywhere with you.
It's funny you mention that - I use the big one in my driveway and I have a small one that I like to travel with. Thank you for watching!
Thanks for that. I have a 127Mak by Sky Watcher and have seen the Cassini division on good evening. Whilst an older observer I do live in a rural fringe area with only one street light nearby; putting a tree between me and the light helps.
188 times magnification is closer to the theoretical limit for the 5" Mak compared to the 12" Dob and that would IMHO account for the lesser image.
You stress the portability, that is always my first recommendation to fellow beginners.
Thanks again.
I think our Maks may be very similar, but I suspect you get better images in your darker skies. I'm jealous! Thank you for watching.
I am using a Celestron Starsense LT127 AZ. The image from your Dosbsonian is exactly what I caught on my cheap Samsung crap phone. Very sharp and bright. Cassini division is barely seen though. After all, using the crappy cheap eyepieces that came with the telescope. I'm surrounded by 6 street lights, city area. Very bright sky. Reviews stated that the telescope I own is crap. Based of the 127EQ. Although there is no info that it is based on it. But given what you showed, I'm happy. Once I buy better eyepieces, I'm sure to see more. Thanks a million.
City light pollution- I feel your pain! Bortle 8 levels here. I've heard great things about the Starsense telescopes. Thank you for watching. Here's wishing for clearer skies.
@@AstronomyGarage thanks. Really hope I get clear skies. It's really tough with all the weather also. I'll be looking more into your channel tonight.
Aperture rules - It's the laws of physics. You want portability and large aperture, then get a truss Dob.
Far clearer image on the second one. Quite awesome
Thanks! It was a fun comparison. Clear skies!
I regularly see the Cassini division with an 80mm F11 refractor. It usually depends on seeing conditions. If the image is terrible at 100X then it's a bad night. The resolution of a 12" Dobsonian is many times the resolution of the 126mm Orion!
Agreed. I think I've come to the conclusion that seeing conditions and dark skies are the secret to a great experience regardless of telescope size.
Great video- I'm weighing up between an 8 inch Dob vs the 127mm Orion Mak-Cass you showcase on the Orion Starseeker IV GOTO mount. Same Price 600 new zealand dollars each. The 8 inch Dobd collects more light but doesn't track like the GOTO. Any thoughts on which would be a better set up for city viewing planets and moon in Bortle 7/8? Thanks
I'm a big fan of the 8 inch Dob. It's such a perfect combination of light-catching capability and portability. The GoTo mount would be fine, but... understand that when it does, it becomes a manual mount. You won't be able to get any replacement parts (unless Skywatcher has an identical model).
@@AstronomyGarageawesome- thanks for that
I notice that nobody has mentioned that you were looking into a light in between views at two different setups which kills your contrast perception. You did photograph your views, you could have explained how those images were different. For example, same exposure duration, iso, etc. was there stacking involved, if so the difference between the tracking and stacking versus lucky image processing. In general the best conclusion was the difference in the convenience of scope’s portability and aperture . And the difficulties in viewing in light polluted areas. I’d recommend for city viewing building blinds to block bright lights sources.
Keep up the good work
Light pollution has no effect on bright objects like planets though. Viewing over buildings can cause issues with heat rising off the building and creating bad seeing.
Good question. No stacking involved (I don't know how). Images and video were captured right from phone moments after each portion was filmed to make sure my description matched the captured images closely (my only camera is my smartphone). I didn't get video from the Mak because I was fighting the mount. I was lucky to get a few stills. ISO and shutterspeeds were adjusted to get the brightest possible and sharpest picture for both. Note: I just finished refurbishing a nice EQ mount and may repeat this. Thank you for watching!
@@rodsmolter5046 yes viewing planets from my backyard can only be done over my neighbor’s garage. Since the planets are about 15° above, all I see is heat waves rolling across my view. Very frustrating.
@@AstronomyGarage I guess you've figured out that Maks need an EQ mount. I learned that lesson.
@@bowrudder899 It made a world of difference. Thanks for watching!
Hi. The difference in the depiction of Saturn is abysmal. I own a 12 inch Dobson myself and it displays Saturn similarly. I attribute this not only to the larger aperture but also to the smaller central shading of the secondary mirror. It's much smaller on the Dobson.
The astro images/video didn't quite show the true quality of what my eyeball was seeing. I think in real life (to my eyeball), they looked better than what my smartphone camera caught.
@@AstronomyGarage Yes, I'm aware of that. You see, I want to get a MAK 150 SkyMax from SkyWatcher to go with my 12 inch Dobsonian as a travel telescope. It just has quite a bit less central shielding than the 127 version. So I'll see.😄
Thanks for the good video. I learned something. Oh, time for a microphone. 😎
I've been experimenting with new microphones on my latest videos. :)
If you are using an erect prism diagonal like what came with the apex127, that destroys the view, try a star diagonal, cassini is pretty easy in a 5" mak, I have owned a couple, and even a 90 can do it.
That's good to know! Thank you.
I suppose a newt with same aperture as the mak wouldnt be as good as the one with the the 12 inch aperture. But if you compare the 5 inch mak to a 5 inch newt i think the mak would win hands down 😊
I have since replaced that Mak with a really nice Intes 6 inch Mak and it is fantastic on planets.
How old is your Zhumell? Reason I ask is that they improved their mirrors sometime back before 2018 or so. Maybe you have one of the good ones. Also, consider resolution of the 12 in mirror. It will be better than the 5 in.
Unknown, but probably pretty old. I bought it used and the mirror surface was very bad. I had to get it recoated. It works great now. The best mirror I have is in a 10" Orion.
@@AstronomyGarage I have a 10 inch Zhumell (GSO) I got in 2020. I don't know exactly how good it is but it seems to have about equal performance with a 120 Tak on Jupiter. I dont know if that is normal or not but I know I have worse mirrors. My 8inch GSO seems good too. Rumor has it they are good mirrors.
@@lornaz1975 Thanks for watching! According to Ed Ting and Joe Jaguar, the Tak's are the absolute best as far as optics go, but they can be pricey. I've never owned a Tak and, after I broke the Stellarvue, I'm not sure if I trust myself with a refractor anymore, lol. As for me, I'm still partial to Dobsonians.
@@AstronomyGarage Yeah I have heard the same. It seems refractor vs reflector for planets is a controversial issue. Some fall on one side and others on the other side. Right now I am turning my attention to Newtonians but just don't yet know how to gauge what good visual performance is for a newt. Its something I will have to figure out. I have to figure out if I should stick with my GSO mirror or maybe upgrade.
Thanks
Most GSO mirrors are good. I think the older ones actually have better glass and smoother surface, although the newer ones might have a better figure. My friend has an older Z12 and it puts up amazing images of Jupiter, almost as good as my 16" Ostahowski mirror.
If you look at it through a digital camera with a large ISO preview that allows you to see very dim images, would that live image work well on the smaller telescope? (not just to take photos, but also to view on the LCD screen)
Good question. The camera app on my smartphone allows me to pick an ISO from 50 to 800 and, as crazy as it seems, I had it dialed way back to around 300 or 400 or else it got washed out (bright blurry ball). The astro images/video in this video were taken moments after the recording that you see. The problem with the Mak was the tripod mount - it was really fighting me especially when I had the smartphone adapter hooked up to it. I wished I could've gotten a good video example from the Mak too.
How was the collimation on the Maksutov? I can generally see the Cassini division quite easily if the seeing is average or above. It’s definitely clearer and brighter by a good margin though in my 12” dobsonian. Clear skies.
The star focus test looked good. Other than that, I've never collimated a Mak-Cass.
Best to have one of each
Absolutely! Thank you for watching. Clear skies!
with all the camera advancements and stacking software size isnt as relevant anymore, its a lot more work and not as much fun but the images can be like looking through the largest telescope that doenst exist cause it would crumble under its own weight
You have a point. Stacking software is pretty awesome these days.
what sensor are you using to take the video please?
I may have found my answer: (lol) "Also some astrophotography using smartphone."
If this is the case, I am so pleased!
I'm using a Samsung Galaxy S9+ smartphone built in 2019? It works pretty well. Thanks for watching!
❤, I have 8 inch SCT and I ordered today the 12 inch dob if the difference is not big, probably I wasted my money :(
The 12 inch Dob is going to give you tremendous views, especially if you have dark skies. Have fun!
@@AstronomyGarage thanks 😊
great video iam sure people will find this info handle. Portability is also tied to size for me too.
Thanks! I really thought the image sharpness would be the same while the Dob would just be brighter. The sharpness was "close", but the Dob won out during this comparison. I've been wondering if I let the Mak acclimate long enough (about 30 minutes). The temperatures outside were pretty similar to the shop where I keep it. And of course humidity is non-existant here - "Dew? What is dew?"
@@AstronomyGarage It’s kinda hard to say it depends on people’s eyesights as well. It’s possible if you let it cool down longer because MACS needs so long to cool down that could’ve helped a little bit
When I compared a 5 inch Mac to a 4 inch triplet takahashi I found that the takahashi was sharper and more contrast than the Mac although there’s a huge difference in price
In another video I compared a triplet 130 mm to a 10 inch reflector and I found a refractor was sharper it was not brighter but it was sharper and more contrast
But again that triplet 130 mm refractor in Canada with tax it’s about 4500 so again it’s not cheap at all
@@JoeJaguar I dare say that refractors in general will in principle show things sharper and with higher contrast compared to systems with central shading. This will of course be matched by their price. Especially with a brand as reputable as Takahashi.😄
@@kamilmoucka6811 Price always is a big factor some people will not pay big money to get that extra little sharpness that an ED or an APO will give. I guess so I can really say in the end is why would you want and enjoy the hobby
Hi,
Thank you for the video.
Unfortunately I don't have space for a big Dobsonian, but I have seen Saturn through one in the desert and it looked great! So probably for visual the Dobsonian has an edge.
One thing you don't mention is price, I think the Mak is about half the price, IF you already have a mount that can carry it, which in the case of the Mak isn't much of a problem.
The third option would be a 6 inch SC, which also has the same magnification, but come at a higher price, weights more and requires a serious mount to operate.
Since my mount is a small SW AZ GTi, I'm considering to add a 127 Mak to use for solar system.
Thank you for watching. I used the big Dob last night again and Saturn & Jupiter both look amazing. You have a good point - price is a big deal. In a way, I am somewhat immune to that because I buy my telescopes used at big discounts, usually because they are either damaged or neglected. The big Dob had to have the mirror re-coated immediately, but brought the overall cost to about 1/3rd that of new. I just refurbished (last night) a very stout Orion EQ mount (my first) that supports the Mak very well, but the picture still isn't up to equality with the Dob. Not bad, of course, but not quite equal. The SkyWatcher AZ GTi looks extremely useful - have lots of fun. Again, thanks for watching and... clear skies!
The 127 Maksutov is an excellent scope for the planets, lunar and the brighter planetary nebulae. I used one for years before upgrading to a 12” dobsonian. The 127 is also great as a grab and go scope and ideal for those gaps in the clouds for short sessions where dragging out the 12” just isn’t worth the gamble. Good luck 👍
You should try the Mak again with a traditional mirror diagonal. I find that the erecting prism adds a little diffraction that impedes the view. You must have had that Dob perfectly collimated! Many inexperienced users don’t pay attention to that.
Thank you for the tip! I will try doing that very soon (just got inside from using it on Jupiter). It's true that my Dobs are all in perfect collimation - I've got it down to a two minute process. Super easy. Clear skies!
Your bias for Dobsonian was evident and justifiably so. Aperture rules. Nevertheless portability and convenience make the day.
I think Dobsonians make good backyard scopes. If you are blessed with clear skies most of the time and have a good wheeling gear, even better.
For camping and imaging Maks or SCTs rule. Not getting into the debate between these two.
Thanks for watching. That's a great way to look at it. My big Dob is thankfully on wheels so I can take it out into the driveway pretty quickly. Clear skies!
Sold by orion, made by synta. Sold by zhummel, made by GSO
Just looking at Saturn last night in my 4” APO and it was super bright and clear. Added a sky glow filter. Interesting comparison
I'll have to try that. Thanks for watching. Cool user name (I'm originally from the midwest)
@@AstronomyGarage my dogs name grew up near Mackinaw, we call him Mack
The larger of those two telescopes will always win.
In this case, true.
Not when the seeing is really bad
Light pollution has no effect on planet brightness.
Must be a bad example of the 127 or the collimation was out, cassini was always really easy for me in both 127s I previously owned. My first was a grey orion svp127 20 years ago, and I regretfully sold that tube a few years later.
The second one was a few years ago, celestron branded, and that one was effectively stolen.
Try putting a 2" diagonal on the 127 opens it up for some deep space viewing, and you can use budget widefields sharp to the edge because it is f12 with a flat field.
On the dob to do that you need both a coma corrector and a premium eyepiece, though there are some lower cost eyepieces like the celestron luminos that do a pretty good job.
But going to nagler and panoptic like designs alone even without a coma corrector is still pretty good, as they dont have the edge astigmatism that older designs, which the budget eyepieces are based on (erfle mostly), and that is more offensive than coma.
I used to have an older televue 7.4 plossl, and several other short plossls, such as the older japanese meades I have collected, but i rarely actually use plossls below 12mm because the eye relief is just too little, and when I do look through them, I try to wash my upper face since a greasy eyelash will gunk them up. And the public doesn't go near them for that reason and worse, like mascara. Those small lenses are hard to clean.
Televue wont even make anything shorter than 8mm in a plossl now, but others have gone below 4mm which is crazy hard to use.
I would prefer to use a type 6 nagler in that range, or the 4.7 and 5.5mm meade series5000 UWA which is much cheaper, but performance is very close to the televue. With manual scopes like a dob or camera tripod mounted, 82deg eyepieces make things so much easier
Visually the Focal ratio is going to give you a brighter image than a MAK, every time
My original theory was that the picture itself would be identical, but the Dob would be brighter. What I found was that both brightness and sharpness were better in the Dob. Perhaps the weather (it was extremely hot) may have skewed the results?
@@AstronomyGarage
It's no surprise actually : diffraction becomes significant below 1mm pupil exit. The effect is demultiplied on low contrasted Planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn.
Having a 4" ED Refractor, I rarely observe those Planets, with my eyes, beyond x100 mag, because of that.
@@c.guibbs1238 I've wondered if my eyesight may be an issue. I've been mildly nearsighted my whole life, but only recently got bifocals.
The comparison I was looking after, without purchasing both scopes. However, the 12" Dob looks definitively too bulky for me...
Thanks for watching! I built a Dob 25 years ago, so I am somewhat biased, but it does seem to get heavier with each passing year.
You can get them in a truss style instead of a solid tube. For 12" and up I'd recommend a truss for portability.
If you want to see those galaxies, you need a Dob
"the atmosphere must be really stable"
I think this is more important than the aperture difference. Under normal, average, not-so-stable conditions, I bet this shootout would be a heckuva lot closer. You'd still only barely be able to see the Cassini Division with the Mak, but the 12" wouldn't do too much better.
Over the past few years I've had planet viewing experiences where it would go from okay to very sharp for a few seconds here and there. This evening, it was surprisingly sharp for much longer periods of time.
@@AstronomyGarage Yeah, that's just the general nature of seeing. The way I explain it to people here in the scope store is just like that: that every few minutes, for just a few seconds, the turbulence in the atmosphere will quiet down, and whatever you're observing will sharpen up. When that happens, aperture is king - the 12" will SMOKE the 5". But if you've been observing for 10-15-20 minutes, and that's just not happening, then there isn't going to be a heckuva lotta difference between the two.
What????? Don't compare focal length-compare aperture! A 5" scope against a 12"....... what???????
Good point. I had a hunch the Dob would be brighter, but with such a naturally bright subject (Saturn), this was more of an academic look to see if sharpness would be defined by focal length matching. Thank you for watching. Clear skies!