Comparing a Budget 8" Reflector to a Premium 4" Refractor

Please set quality to 4k for best results, cheers!👍

Aperture always rules.

500€ versus 3000€..

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!

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 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

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.

The 8" looked crisper to me.

I was wondering, is there any particular reason you've been using the fc-100dc vs the fc-100dz?

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!

Cool comparison. You've got to be pleased with the performance of your Tak. Very impressive. Thanks for putting this together 👍

Thank you. 👍🏻🔭

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.

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!

What about doing a nebula?

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.

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.

I think the 8 inch won. It was close though.

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 :)

Looks like the larger aperture won.

I think the Sky-Watcher 200P has the sharper image.

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.

You should do a DSO comparison as well.

Appreciate the video, but the background music for the first 75% is ridiculously over the top.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Contrast was much better with the Tak.

Wow … the newt is the better photo … yes I know it has the aperture but we are talking Takahashi here ! Great comparison, Chris .

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.

👏👏👏

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.

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.

Like! The 100 mm Takahashi is almost as good as a 200 mm newtonian.

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.

Looks like the 8 inch edged out the 4 inch.

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).

Remarkably close - that Tak is a piece of art!

Which one do you prefer for visual observation?

Great comparison Chris not much difference between the two, think the Newtonian is a really good all rounder for the price ,

Not much in it INHO , apart from the obvious, price and aperture.

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.