I find that left rim artifact on the Mak (on your Mars processed image) comes and goes depending on the shutter speed matching the frequency of the atmospheric shimmer. Whenever I get that I adjust the gain in order to adjust the exposure time to get rid of it.
Another factor to consider is that maksutovs generally take longer to acclimate to temperature than SCTs usually do. If the maksutov had more air turbulence going on inside of the tube than the SCT did, you'd have a seeing-condition mismatch between the two telescopes. The maksutov would have more trouble resolving objects, because it would be fighting a total of more turbulence effects than the SCT would be. For a true comparison, you'd have to have a way to make sure that both telescopes were equally acclimated to temperature.
Good vid, almost nobody realizes how huge telescopes are in person if they've only seen them online or in pics. I would add that if you drop from a 7" to a 6" mak, you can opt for Starseeker IV alt-az goto. The total kit of this is 26 lbs... you can lift everything with one hand. You lose longer exposures (not a GEM), but the increase in portability is night-day, with only a 1" aperture drop. Something to consider.
Great result for a colour camera Phil. If you decide to go monochrome with filters I'd recommend giving FireCapture software a go. The auto alignment, and auto guiding, ephemeris and other features are really great. The rim is a stacking artefact from the seeing . I think you're on the right track here, it was just exacerbated on that particular image run and could have happened with the other scope too.
this is a shot i the dark, but do you know if there is any kind of open-source go-to projects? I'm looking to turn my tracking fork into a go-to, using steppers and ESP32 or Arduino. I'd love if there was already some sort of project, one which might work with FireCapture...
I don’t know where you live, but in the US if you keep showing losses on self employment income they basically give you the shaft and say it’s a hobby. I bet you can get away with it a few years though.
The huge selling point back in '78 when i bought my Celestron C-8 (8 inch) SCT was portability. Of course I drooled over the 14 inch, but even if I had the cash to get it, the portability issue would have said no. I still DO drool over the monster scopes and if I ever live out my dream of owning a chunk of land in the boonies, I will spring for one. Nice comparison here. The advent of digital cameras and processing software have made quality imaging possible and a way that was impossible for amateurs back in the day. Even though I still have the gear and the dark room, I have no urge to shoot Hypered Tri-X for my astrophotograpy. - Cheers
Great video! I have a 125mm Mak, and noticed how clear my images are compared to a 8" cassigrain. And I also notice the half moon aberration in the side of some images. Denoise in processing helps some.
youre living in prague in the same area i was living in few years ago when i lived in czech. wonderful view on the prague from there. cheers from poland
@@TheRybka30 i lived on sk neumanna, and i thought i saw the same clinic on the slope i saw when i was commuting to work, so my suspicion is around that area, north prague. the view seemed familiar a bit, but i loved that view so much that i see it everywhere now, i miss prague :)
@@TheRybka30 oh maan, you have one of the best views in the world imho, for weather (as dynamic as it is there) and for city sight, i completely loved it, and i envy you a lot :D i think i remember that block, there is one with yellow windows somewhere nearby perhaps? thats also where great view on cathedral is, with good magnification it has to be really cool to watch the city too
Mak would cool longer and potentially never reach ambient if temperature change is to rapid. Aside of that 8" is bit better than 7". 6" achromat for imaging would be a dissaster, a slow one with monochrome camera maybe, but still it's only 6" where planets need as much aperture as needed - for imaging. For visual it depends...
Not sure the gain in res from 7 to 8 would matter much in practice. It's like .1" different. The mak would would probably hold collimation better which could be a bigger deal in practice. Cooling and the weird ring (which I have seen in my 4" mak) do worry me.
Focal length matters. You'll wind up comparing an image 2/3 to 1/2 the size of the Mak's with those scopes. Barlowing their image size up will degrade the quality. The Mak will win.
I've always liked the Maks, ideal travel companion to an Apo, but you need one with Meades UHTC coatings on to truely experience how sharp and correct the the image can be.
I owned a Meade Mak 7 for 9 years or so....it was stolen from my house while I was watching the Great Conjunction. I hope it fell on his toes and broke all of them.
9:26 Hey Thunderfoot, I'm not sure if you are reading comments, but I think that black rim is the result of the image moving while exposure. Use used a longer exposer for the Maksutov (1/60) than the Schmidt (1/84. And because the image is moving around during exposure, there is a higher chance for these movements to become dominant at longer exposures. Maybe also that bigger center piece plays a role.
Very informative. Thank you for putting the effort into this. Would be interesting to see how other types of scope perform side by side (refractor, newtonian, mak-newt)
The mount the telescope goes on - is also a consideration. Eq5pro which is a fairly cheap polar mount can carry mak 180 as it has roughly 10kg weight limit, otherwise your into a much more costlier mount for any heavier scopes such as your sky cannon. Thanks for the video as i have the mak180, and its real interesting to see.
Many thanks. Just what I needed as a decider. I have the skymax 180 and was seriously considering the celestron 1100. Your side by side suggests it's not worth changing or adding - at least not until I drop the 180 on the ground.....
An excellent optical comparison between the 2 best telescopes for shallow-sky! Might have been better to compare the weights of the Synta Mak on an AVX mount with the C11 on a CGEM, or Meade's 7" LX200 versus the CPC 1100. Either way, the MCT is more portable, the SCT more versatile.
Thanks for the informative video. The Mak Cass OTA may be 16lbs or so, but the EQ mount system is very heavy and slow to set up compared to even a heavier fork mounted scope. The C11 on the fork mount is heavy no doubt, but not too hard to lift and carry because various hand holds on the unit. The legs are not too heavy and quick to set up. Celestron has made it fairly easy to set even a heavy scope on the legs. I think few of us would take either on a plane, but given a choice of which to bring in my vehicle and set up in the dark, I might choose the C11.
You could save 10lbs of backache and go for the 7" LX200. Still the simple fork-mount setup as the CPC. Another benefit, for the visual observer, is the LX200 can be operated manually as it has slow-mo controls that the CPC lacks
I like the Maksutov design but also prefer open telescope designs. For planetary I‘ve got myself a 6“ classic Cassegrain (GSO makes them in different sizes and they are also sold under different brand names). The 6“ is probably to small but I‘d be curious how the 8“ Cassegrain would compare to both scopes.
Thank you for this comparison! I wonder if the fine focus on the SCT had any effect on the final results. Orion actually sells the 180mm mak for $999.99 right now. Add in the GSO Crayford focuser for about $150 and great value at $1150. I have an 8” SCT but it’s only 2000mm focal length so i think that mak would definitely beat it. I may have to make an upgrade.
some types of lenses, because of the way they focus, can produce halos, or doughnuts of light, so if there is an area that may interfere with whats coming in, it could produce a cancelling effect and make a dark band
Considering the size difference, I think the Mak did incredibly well and the fact it's portable it becomes a clear winner. I have used numerous apertures telescopes and found an 8" Shmidth to be the way to go
I did enjoy the side by side and I had said the one of the left was a better picture before you had mentioned it was the 11inch, not vastly better but noticeably.
do note that astrophotography is hard to get repeatable so such comparisons are always flawed by current conditions, imaging setup and processing skills.
Would you mind if I use a few short clips from this video for my comparison. Of course giving reference. It’s brilliant and I’m doing a similar comparison between a smaller Maksutov and a SCT.
Isaac Newton used his famous 3“ Newtonian of speculum metal that he polished most carefully, and from his window at Cambridge he resolved the moons of Jove. His telescope cost less than half a pound sterling. By 1850 a 40“ mirror had been in use for many years.
I always wanted a Celestron 8". Sadly I now live in Berlin and it's absolutely useless to have a telescope here, because of all the artificial lights here in Steglitz.
gosh, they can';t mount the mirror in a housing and put the focus screw into that, maybe some short stiff rails at the edges to keep it Really Really aligned. Nice, light especially stiff housing with threads for the screw. Maybe that adds too much to the cost : ( or size?
they are made in china which says volumes.... why make a good quality item that's expensive when you can make a average product that is expensive.. they have had the same system since the 1970`s and have only just done a update to one of the top of the line rasa`s in the last 2 years.. mirror flop has been a major issue for a long time and its why people fit a crayford focuser to the back of big SCT at great expense cheers james D
I really like the Vixen VMC200L/VC200L telescopes. They have fixed primary mirrors and use external focusers, so no image shift while focusing. Too bad these scopes have gone out of production along with most of the Vixen line. I heard the head of Vixen retired and the few remaining telescopes they will produce will be sold under the name "First Light Optics". Explore Scientific will have exclusive distribution rights for these scopes.
it is true that bigger scopes are better seeing. for a bigger scope a single turbulance seems smaller. 12m mirror scopes are incredibly stable, but still highly Limited
I have a Samsung s20 ultra with the 100x zoom, so for about 1100 USD, 175gr .. Maksutov or Schmidt, I was able to Google for high resolution video and pictures and download.
this is why you fail and will do nothing with your life you let everyone else experience stuff so you can google it your the one missing out on life and its experiences and samsung and google get your money.. your left with no experience or memory or knowledge of what its like to make a astro pic of your own . capture it process it and share it with people you know .. get ya head out of your samsung s20 and twitter and try out the real world for a change .. before a bus runs you over because you were too busy looking at stupid phone all the time ...life is too short for twitter /phone B/S cheers james D
Hey Phil, shooting any planets these days? I think the conditions for observing Jupiter are brilliant! I am actually considering Mak 180 myself, but I already own a 200/1000 Newtonian, so I am wondering if it makes any sense to obtain this Mak.
After looking at this Mars images from both telescopes I think for many users 180 mm Maksutov will be enough. And it is much cheaper and much more portable.
@@sjgonline mine is a 7 inch mak from orion,no tracking mount needed and works well for dsos. never done any sort of high level astrophotography but it works well for me
Celestron 2800 mm 279mm aperture = f10 Orion Mak 180 2700 mm 180mm aperture = f15 Heres a question, the f10 is a faster scope = so 1000 stacked images for the f10 compared to 1000 images from the mak 180 is not the same apples to apples? You would maybe get the same quality of image if you just increased the the number of image frames stack for the 180? How many extra images i dont know (also take into account the planet rotation etc). I think that is why the mak 180 is more grainy when compared with the f10. If you took more images with f15, the stacked image would improve. Im not sure what the number of images would be as the f10 to f15 is logarithmic ? Also by adding your barlow in the camera train you maybe increasing the f ratio non proportionately across the scopes. So the left f10 scope is better but can the right f15 scope get there as well and produce the same image - i think it can (just take more stacked images if timing is not an issue). Just thought i would ask ?
Good point. He should have more stacking with the f15 Mak to level out the playing field so that he can compare apple to apple. As it is, I think it’s more apple to orange comparison.
For planetary imaging aperture is king. The problem with like C14 over C8 or even C11 is a very big closed optical tube that is very susceptible to thermal lag - it has so much air and big mirrors that quite often they can't cool as quickly as the ambient air changes temperature so you get air current in the OTA and RIP any imaging. That's why people use fans to force cool big STC or they use a Newtonian. 14" Newtonian will be way way longer than 14" SCT and will require quite often better mount but is easier to keep at ambient. Some even use for example GSO RC telescopes - they have very high central obstruction, are deep space astrographs but if they have the aperture they can be used as obstruction isn't as bad as it may sound. And there are zero-obstruction designs (tilted component telescope - TCT) but they are close to non-existent as the drawback of such designs is way more complicated collimation. Good starting point for someone seriously into planetary imaging (and viewing) is 8" SCT - not necessarily on those alt/az Celestron mounts. It can be portable if needed. From cameras - one of ZWO/QHY or alike cameras. That Celestron Skyris camera is obsolete in terms of price/sensor nowadays. You can get more info on Cloudynights or SGL forums.
What's the interplay between focal length and aperture for viewing planets? A 14 inch dobsonian with a 1.6m focal length costs about the same as a SC scope with 8 inches of aperture and 2 meters of focal length
@@Mandragara focal lenght is irrelevant. You can modify it with a barlow or use a camera with smaller pixels. Only aperture defines resolving power of the telescope.
@@Mandragara for visual viewing and not imaging more will depend on telescope design and not just focal length. Some prefer viewing via smaller refractor or Mak while other big Newtonian for most detail. Based on focal length you will be using different eyepieces (field of view, eye relief - how far away from eyepiece the image forms etc) so to short or to long focal length may push favored eyepieces.
@@oninoyakamo Barlows as well as reducers/correctors aren't rocket science nowadays. You aren't really loosing anything noticeable. Although if you have pixel match for native f/ratio of a telescope then it's a plus ;)
Something people might not realize is that telescopes do not make extended objects (i.e. things which are not point sources like stars) look brighter. Mars is brighter to the naked eye than it is in any visual telescope. The higher the magnification, the lower the brightness, because you're taking the same amount of light and spreading it over a larger area. The best you can do is make the object just as bright as it is to the naked eye, before accounting for light loss in the optics. And you do that by making the magnification such that the exit pupil from the eyepiece is exactly as large as the entrance pupil of your eye. A typical dark-adapted pupil is 7mm wide. The exit pupil is the diameter of the primary divided by the magnification. So with a 280mm (11") primary and an eye pupil diameter of 7mm, the magnification with the maximum brightness is 280 / 7 = 40x. For a 180mm (~7") primary, the max-brightness magnification is about 25x. Another way of looking at it is that for any given eyepiece, the telescope with the lowest focal ratio (diameter of primary divided by focal length) will look the brightest. The Mak has a focal ratio of f/15, while the SCT is f/10. The latter will always look brighter on extended objects if you use the same EP in each.
This seems wrong... Assuming lossless transmission and no secondary obstruction, (π(140mm)ˆ2) / (π(3.5mm)ˆ2) means an 11" aperture has 1600 times the light gathering ability of the naked eye, not 40x. Divide that by f-ratio and our magical, lossless 11" f/10 Refractor should still produce an image as bright as the naked eye at 160 power. Granted, the secondary and transmission losses will chip that number down some, but by a full 3/4?
@@oninoyakamo It's not about absolute brightness differences. It's about surface brightness. In this case, the surface is a human's retina. A linear magnification difference of 40x produces a surface brightness difference of 1600x, because the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its linear size. So to maintain the same surface brightness with that magnification, you need to collect 1600x more light. This is very well established in optics, and if you want more detail, I'm sure you can find it with a search about magnification and brightness with telescopes.
@@TrueThanny Had a look. The math makes sense. So, *as a thought experiment only*, if a person looked at the Sun through their telescope, a greater area of the retina would get damaged, but slower than observing the Sun with the naked eye, no?
@@oninoyakamo No, it would be much worse. The reason you don't cause permanent damage looking directly at the sun for a few seconds is because the image is so small on your retina, and it wanders (you don't keep perfectly still). The heat can dissipate into neighboring photo-receptor cells and the blood stream. If you look through a telescope at a magnified image, you're covering much more of the retina, and making it much more difficult for that heat to dissipate. You will cause permanent damage in a fraction of a second.
Unfortunately the telescopes don't seem to be available on amazon.com and on amazon.de (and in other German online shops) they cost 1600€ and 4000€ respectively. Were the quoted prices the ones at the time you bought them? How can this huge price difference come to be.
It could be a couple of factors, does your price include a mount for the telescope or just the optics? My guess though, is those are prices when purchased in America. The prices are comparable to what I have seen here in the states.
Astro equipment is not something to be looked at amazon. Use teleskop-express.de, astroshop.eu, firstlightoptics.com or modernastronomy.com if you are in Europe. Plus local stores based on country.
I've read, at closest approach this year, on October 6th, it will be 62 million kilometers away. Stellarium says it's currently 64.076 M km from Earth, as of the time it rises tonight at 8:40 PM EST, 20:40, Sept. 22nd. 64.072 @ 9:00 PM 64.059 @ 10:00 PM 64.046 @ 11:00 PM 64.033 @ Midnight I'll hunt down the time it get's closest in Stellarium... From 1 AM, 0100 hours, EST, on 2020.10.06, Mars is 62.066 M km from Earth, until, 0512 hours, 5:12 AM, when it goes up to 62.067 M km.
Bigger is better? I've had a 150mm Mak and a 350mm Dob, amongst others. I've settled with with an F/15 68mm Mizar and an F/10 100mm triplet prototype from Skywatcher, both achromats, ofcourse ;) And no motors, just old fashioned knobs to turn. Great hobby. Get's expensive quick too!
I'm also a fan of the old fashioned knobs to turn. I just wish alt/az manual mounts were made that could hold an instrument assembly of at least 30lbs.
@@yaddahaysmarmalite4059 That would be a dobsonian then :-) But from your comment i take it that is not what you want. What OTA do you have that weighs 30 pounds? Also a Schmidt?
Visual? That depends solely on your preferences and what level of clarity/visibility of images you want to achieve. Also at 16" weight and size is a "big" factor :D
You have achieved a more accurate focus on the SCT which makes this not an even comparison. It’s almost impossible to achieve an accurate focus by hand using the standard focus knob
CPC are more expensive as they come with a complex mount. tube-only are cheaper, especially when using US second hand market where they were available for many years. Got my C14 for like 1800 GBP that way.
@@discophil6726 depends what you want to do. For most of Europe C14 without active cooling won't really work. I could do imaging even as little as 30-45min after putting the cooler off. C11 was way better but still initially actively cooled (that mid winter late night Saturn at -20C...). There are also alternatives. If you have some space then a Newtonian is an option, or even GSO RC while on a nice backyard a ultra-big Dobsonian with motors would be most cost efficient for aperture. With a equatorial wedge lucky imaging of DS objects is doable. Balconies are limited to SCT/Mak mostly.
Yup i noticed both Mars and Venus in the sky together in Scottish night sky. Why does Venus look like 2 objects (No I'm not behind glass or looking through anything other than my eyes),because I am not alone in seeing what looks like what you would expect,firstly a bright dot BUT then next to it something that looks like It's leaving a debris behind it kind of like you would picture a comet to make in your imagination. My family say they see the same as i asked them to look also so i have some people to confirm what I see incase something was wrong with my eyes. So why does it look like this to the naked eye?
The "moon wave" is 100% BS, as it never happens when you see it with the naked eye and only happens when you introduce digital recording into the mix. It's just an artifact of the recording method.
Putting something like DSLR on a telescope is often done but never as good as dedicated astrophoto camera. Larger sensor will only increase FOV. But actual pixel density is lower. For astrophotography you want good balance between resolution density and noise. That said... cameras designed for astrophotography are usually cooled with Peltiers to sub ambient temperatures to further increase sensor performance.
For planetary even very large amateur telescopes will fit a planet on a VGA resolution sensor at max resolving power. And due to nature of planetary imaging small fast sensor is needed. For Deep Space imaging it's the other way around - large sensors, long exposures.
All made by the same company according to Wikipedia: Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd. is a Chinese company located in Suzhou, Jiangsu, China, the primary manufacturing subsidiary of Synta Technology Corporation of Taiwan. It produces telescopes and astronomical equipment like mounts and eyepieces for the amateur astronomical market.[1] The company was founded in 1988 as Synta Optics, at first producing only eyepieces. In 1992, the manufacturing was moved to Suzhou (Jiangsu) in China. Their first telescopes (4.5“ (114 mm) -Newtonians) were distributed by Celestron and Tasco. In 1993, the first refracting telescopes were produced. In 1999, the brand Sky-Watcher was established by Synta Taiwan to sell optics produced by Suzhou Synta. The head office was in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. The brand is distributed in Canada and Europe and, in the late 2000s, extended to the U.S. market.[2] Products produced by Suzhou Synta are also distributed under the Acuter name and via the Synta Taiwan owned subsidiary company Celestron. Suzhou Synta also manufactures products for Orion Telescopes & Binoculars.
Ce n'est pas équitable. C'est comme comparer une Toyota Yaris avec une voiture sport. Ca aurait été plus juste de comparer le Mak avec un rival comme le C6 ou C8 en y ajoutant un barlow pour le rapprocher le plus possible la même focal de 2700mm
You guys need to go over to the NathanOakley1980's new video "Debunking" Thunderf00t on Flat Earth and give it a rating: th-cam.com/video/GANsDqH8jLw/w-d-xo.html
At 08:50. I have not found any documentation on RegiStax6, but I think the dark rim is an effect of the wavelet algorithm and Mars' real sharp rim. Very interesting experiment. I made a list of most of the Mars images : spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=171499
I get that ring artifact on my 5" mak. So maybe it's systemic issue. Here's my video from the nights prior to your video. th-cam.com/video/hFkM_cq0jvs/w-d-xo.html
For anyone who speaks of our air being 'Fresh & Clean", try shining a green laser straight up into the sky. If the air was clean you wouldn't be able to see the laser beam path. However, you certainly can see the beam. That means that our air is filthy and absolutely filled with dust, dirt, debris, and disgusting bio-stuff. Thanks Nature!
I can take you up on to a mountain near where I live and show you the brown haze of smog in the atmosphere, and this location is many miles away from any large city or industrial center. its a visible fact that humans have been gunking up the atmosphere. We have before and after photos taken decades apart. The earlier photos show more visibility than the recent ones.
I really wish NASA would stop using miles to convey distances to planets to the American public, and the rest of the world, that data then trickles down to people who mix up miles and kilometers and just ballpark the number somewhere in between. Person A reads: "It's 38 million miles or 62 million kilometers away." Person A, sometime later: "Eh, just say 50 million and use the words miles or kilometers, what's it matter either way?" Nice scopes, either way. I've been getting some nice views with my, free, discarded by the roadside, broken-autotracker-Celestron-from-Walmart scope. But best of all, just looking at Mars outside, on a casual walk at 3 AM, in the forests of Northeast Michigan, so bright and beautiful in the sky, knowing it's so nearby and beckoning humanity to come bring it's surface to life... that's the real treat. Thanks for sharing your interest with the planet, your scopes and everything else you find beautiful and interesting. Someday Martians will look back at human history, at what Earth was like prior to it's investment of bringing Mars to life, just to figure out who, or what, was responsible for their existence and your work will be one of many that they may site as an inspiration for such an impetus. So much work ahead of us; so much past behind them.
It's really hard to concentrate on a review or trust what you are saying when you're using a stupid phone to make a video and it cannot even focus. You know, it's just bad form. Surely you have a real camera somewhere?
If u watched those vids thunder made recently and multiple times as I have, he calls them sjws, It’s the same mind virus as feminist if u don’t know what they are i envy u as I live in Seattle they are everywhere
@@henkvandergaast3948 social justice warriors are a huge problem in the university's they are really marxists and communists trying to destroy the west with their propaganda and disruptions and genda B/S and racisms they have infiltrated every bit of our culture from politics to movies and our workplaces and government and news outlets and are destroying industrys .. why do you think trump banned any teaching of critical race theory (a book) in the USA government... its poison to our way of life in the west cheers james D
James Dougan i agree but not only have they made out the university but they are able to take the voice of free thinkers either by force like with thunderfoot or by cash like with joe rogan
I find that left rim artifact on the Mak (on your Mars processed image) comes and goes depending on the shutter speed matching the frequency of the atmospheric shimmer. Whenever I get that I adjust the gain in order to adjust the exposure time to get rid of it.
Another factor to consider is that maksutovs generally take longer to acclimate to temperature than SCTs usually do. If the maksutov had more air turbulence going on inside of the tube than the SCT did, you'd have a seeing-condition mismatch between the two telescopes. The maksutov would have more trouble resolving objects, because it would be fighting a total of more turbulence effects than the SCT would be. For a true comparison, you'd have to have a way to make sure that both telescopes were equally acclimated to temperature.
Good vid, almost nobody realizes how huge telescopes are in person if they've only seen them online or in pics. I would add that if you drop from a 7" to a 6" mak, you can opt for Starseeker IV alt-az goto. The total kit of this is 26 lbs... you can lift everything with one hand. You lose longer exposures (not a GEM), but the increase in portability is night-day, with only a 1" aperture drop. Something to consider.
Great result for a colour camera Phil. If you decide to go monochrome with filters I'd recommend giving FireCapture software a go. The auto alignment, and auto guiding, ephemeris and other features are really great. The rim is a stacking artefact from the seeing . I think you're on the right track here, it was just exacerbated on that particular image run and could have happened with the other scope too.
this is a shot i the dark, but do you know if there is any kind of open-source go-to projects?
I'm looking to turn my tracking fork into a go-to, using steppers and ESP32 or Arduino.
I'd love if there was already some sort of project, one which might work with FireCapture...
Hmm, all I have to do is make one video and a shiny new telescope would be tax deductible...
you could also use a new Sony camera to grab the images as well, so not having an audio recording would be good.
An Evscope would be tax deductible but absolutely useless and worthless for the task.
dont buy the telescope in australia we get so ripped off here for astro gear 100% + on top of usa retail prices
You should get in touch with Dylan O'Donnell, the friendly astrophoto bloke from Down Under :-)
I don’t know where you live, but in the US if you keep showing losses on self employment income they basically give you the shaft and say it’s a hobby. I bet you can get away with it a few years though.
Loved this comparison. I particularly liked the fact you gave us side by side live and processed views. Thanks Thunderf00t! Wes, Liverpool, UK.
The huge selling point back in '78 when i bought my Celestron C-8 (8 inch) SCT was portability. Of course I drooled over the 14 inch, but even if I had the cash to get it, the portability issue would have said no.
I still DO drool over the monster scopes and if I ever live out my dream of owning a chunk of land in the boonies, I will spring for one.
Nice comparison here. The advent of digital cameras and processing software have made quality imaging possible and a way that was impossible for amateurs back in the day. Even though I still have the gear and the dark room, I have no urge to shoot Hypered Tri-X for my astrophotograpy. - Cheers
Great video! I have a 125mm Mak, and noticed how clear my images are compared to a 8" cassigrain. And I also notice the half moon aberration in the side of some images. Denoise in processing helps some.
youre living in prague in the same area i was living in few years ago when i lived in czech. wonderful view on the prague from there. cheers from poland
@@TheRybka30 i lived on sk neumanna, and i thought i saw the same clinic on the slope i saw when i was commuting to work, so my suspicion is around that area, north prague. the view seemed familiar a bit, but i loved that view so much that i see it everywhere now, i miss prague :)
@@TheRybka30 oh maan, you have one of the best views in the world imho, for weather (as dynamic as it is there) and for city sight, i completely loved it, and i envy you a lot :D i think i remember that block, there is one with yellow windows somewhere nearby perhaps?
thats also where great view on cathedral is, with good magnification it has to be really cool to watch the city too
hmm, youre right, so unfortunately its still a mistery where Thunderf00t is... still - great view :D
I would like to see a comparison between a 7" Mak and an 8" SCT. If you really wanted to get real crazy throw in a 6" achromat refractor too!
Mak would cool longer and potentially never reach ambient if temperature change is to rapid. Aside of that 8" is bit better than 7". 6" achromat for imaging would be a dissaster, a slow one with monochrome camera maybe, but still it's only 6" where planets need as much aperture as needed - for imaging. For visual it depends...
Not sure the gain in res from 7 to 8 would matter much in practice. It's like .1" different. The mak would would probably hold collimation better which could be a bigger deal in practice. Cooling and the weird ring (which I have seen in my 4" mak) do worry me.
Focal length matters. You'll wind up comparing an image 2/3 to 1/2 the size of the Mak's with those scopes. Barlowing their image size up will degrade the quality. The Mak will win.
I've always liked the Maks, ideal travel companion to an Apo, but you need one with Meades UHTC coatings on to truely experience how sharp and correct the the image can be.
I owned a Meade Mak 7 for 9 years or so....it was stolen from my house while I was watching the Great Conjunction. I hope it fell on his toes and broke all of them.
Excellent comparison. Would be nice to see more video just like this one.
I have the smaller 150mm Orion Mak. Lots of fun, nice and portable, and it doesn't flip the image so it works as a terrestrial spotting scope too.
Any telescope flips the image. The direct image you have is represented by a diagonal prism
9:26 Hey Thunderfoot, I'm not sure if you are reading comments, but I think that black rim is the result of the image moving while exposure. Use used a longer exposer for the Maksutov (1/60) than the Schmidt (1/84. And because the image is moving around during exposure, there is a higher chance for these movements to become dominant at longer exposures. Maybe also that bigger center piece plays a role.
Very informative. Thank you for putting the effort into this. Would be interesting to see how other types of scope perform side by side (refractor, newtonian, mak-newt)
Fantastic presentation thank you! Greetings from a C8 owner.
9:50 tap on pause, then tap on an empty space on the phone screen and you will see more details!
Excellent comparison, similar to a couple on my channel but at much bigger aperture. Thanks.
The mount the telescope goes on - is also a consideration. Eq5pro which is a fairly cheap polar mount can carry mak 180 as it has roughly 10kg weight limit, otherwise your into a much more costlier mount for any heavier scopes such as your sky cannon. Thanks for the video as i have the mak180, and its real interesting to see.
Now imagine if you had an eVscope.
...just kidding.
Never done much in astro stuff but this intrigues me.
ORION for my money on that one, good comparison
Many thanks. Just what I needed as a decider. I have the skymax 180 and was seriously considering the celestron 1100. Your side by side suggests it's not worth changing or adding - at least not until I drop the 180 on the ground.....
Would it be possible to enlarge images from both scopes to see how much increased resolution the SCT at 11 inches offers over the 7 inch?
An excellent optical comparison between the 2 best telescopes for shallow-sky! Might have been better to compare the weights of the Synta Mak on an AVX mount with the C11 on a CGEM, or Meade's 7" LX200 versus the CPC 1100. Either way, the MCT is more portable, the SCT more versatile.
Thanks for the informative video. The Mak Cass OTA may be 16lbs or so, but the EQ mount system is very heavy and slow to set up compared to even a heavier fork mounted scope. The C11 on the fork mount is heavy no doubt, but not too hard to lift and carry because various hand holds on the unit. The legs are not too heavy and quick to set up. Celestron has made it fairly easy to set even a heavy scope on the legs. I think few of us would take either on a plane, but given a choice of which to bring in my vehicle and set up in the dark, I might choose the C11.
You could save 10lbs of backache and go for the 7" LX200. Still the simple fork-mount setup as the CPC. Another benefit, for the visual observer, is the LX200 can be operated manually as it has slow-mo controls that the CPC lacks
I like the Maksutov design but also prefer open telescope designs. For planetary I‘ve got myself a 6“ classic Cassegrain (GSO makes them in different sizes and they are also sold under different brand names). The 6“ is probably to small but I‘d be curious how the 8“ Cassegrain would compare to both scopes.
Thank you for this comparison! I wonder if the fine focus on the SCT had any effect on the final results. Orion actually sells the 180mm mak for $999.99 right now. Add in the GSO Crayford focuser for about $150 and great value at $1150. I have an 8” SCT but it’s only 2000mm focal length so i think that mak would definitely beat it. I may have to make an upgrade.
some types of lenses, because of the way they focus, can produce halos, or doughnuts of light, so if there is an area that may interfere with whats coming in, it could produce a cancelling effect and make a dark band
The Mars/Venus/Bright planet/Moon features dark edge/halo is light diffraction and to some extent processing artifact. Optics isn't in fault here.
Considering the size difference, I think the Mak did incredibly well and the fact it's portable it becomes a clear winner. I have used numerous apertures telescopes and found an 8" Shmidth to be the way to go
It really says something about the 7" Mak given that it the SCT gathers almost 2.5 as much light.
Great work. ✔️💯🏆
Thanks so much for sharing. 😉👌🏼
Awesome video. Do you think you could repeat this comparison for Jupiter and Saturn on a night when Mars is not your prime focus?
I did enjoy the side by side and I had said the one of the left was a better picture before you had mentioned it was the 11inch, not vastly better but noticeably.
do note that astrophotography is hard to get repeatable so such comparisons are always flawed by current conditions, imaging setup and processing skills.
What the difference between a Maksutov and a Schmidt Cassegrain.
LOVE THE LOOK OF MARS! Can you do videos on Venus or Saturn? Mars doesn't look very "Red" more like gold to me. 🤗✌💗
Well, electrical video displays can deviate from true color.
How do you think the C9,25 will compare to 7inch Mak and 11 inch SCT. Closer to Mak or closer to big SCT in term of resolution?
Would you mind if I use a few short clips from this video for my comparison. Of course giving reference. It’s brilliant and I’m doing a similar comparison between a smaller Maksutov and a SCT.
Isaac Newton used his famous 3“ Newtonian of speculum metal that he polished most carefully, and from his window at Cambridge he resolved the moons of Jove. His telescope cost less than half a pound sterling. By 1850 a 40“ mirror had been in use for many years.
I always wanted a Celestron 8". Sadly I now live in Berlin and it's absolutely useless to have a telescope here, because of all the artificial lights here in Steglitz.
The moon, Jupiter, Saturn and maybe Venus can all still be fantastic to observe within a bright urban environment (I have the same problem).
@@c.guibbs1238 interesting, didn't know, wouldn't have expected
I wonder if he has had any trouble with starlink when trying to capture long exposure pics.
some people have, especially with widefield setups.
gosh, they can';t mount the mirror in a housing and put the focus screw into that, maybe some short stiff rails at the edges to keep it Really Really aligned. Nice, light especially stiff housing with threads for the screw. Maybe that adds too much to the cost : ( or size?
they are made in china which says volumes.... why make a good quality item that's expensive when you can make a average product that is expensive.. they have had the same system since the 1970`s and have only just done a update to one of the top of the line rasa`s in the last 2 years.. mirror flop has been a major issue for a long time and its why people fit a crayford focuser to the back of big SCT at great expense
cheers
james D
I really like the Vixen VMC200L/VC200L telescopes. They have fixed primary mirrors and use external focusers, so no image shift while focusing. Too bad these scopes have gone out of production along with most of the Vixen line. I heard the head of Vixen retired and the few remaining telescopes they will produce will be sold under the name "First Light Optics". Explore Scientific will have exclusive distribution rights for these scopes.
Just like with anything, the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head.
it is true that bigger scopes are better seeing. for a bigger scope a single turbulance seems smaller. 12m mirror scopes are incredibly stable, but still highly Limited
I have a Samsung s20 ultra with the 100x zoom, so for about 1100 USD, 175gr .. Maksutov or Schmidt, I was able to Google for high resolution video and pictures and download.
Lmao
you can also prove chemtrails and the earth is flat with that zoom
@@sneakyg1250 nooo my Uranus is flat 2?
this is why you fail and will do nothing with your life you let everyone else experience stuff so you can google it your the one missing out on life and its experiences and samsung and google get your money.. your left with no experience or memory or knowledge of what its like to make a astro pic of your own . capture it process it and share it with people you know .. get ya head out of your samsung s20 and twitter and try out the real world for a change .. before a bus runs you over because you were too busy looking at stupid phone all the time ...life is too short for twitter /phone B/S
cheers
james D
"100x zoom" lol, keep dreaming.
I'd be surprised if it was just 10-15x
Have you tried a 2x barlow lens on the 11inc SCT?
Hey Phil, shooting any planets these days? I think the conditions for observing Jupiter are brilliant! I am actually considering Mak 180 myself, but I already own a 200/1000 Newtonian, so I am wondering if it makes any sense to obtain this Mak.
After looking at this Mars images from both telescopes I think for many users 180 mm Maksutov will be enough. And it is much cheaper and much more portable.
Excellent video! Thanks
Not as good as the evscope, though
Great comparison!
Portability cured my aperture fever.
we've all been there
I ended up with a permanent setup (C11), planetary semi portable (C8) and portable (71mm APO)... never used 3 at the same time though
@@sjgonline mine is a 7 inch mak from orion,no tracking mount needed and works well for dsos. never done any sort of high level astrophotography but it works well for me
Celestron 2800 mm 279mm aperture = f10
Orion Mak 180 2700 mm 180mm aperture = f15
Heres a question, the f10 is a faster scope = so 1000 stacked images for the f10
compared to 1000 images from the mak 180 is not the same apples to apples?
You would maybe get the same quality of image if you just increased the the number of image frames stack for the 180?
How many extra images i dont know (also take into account the
planet rotation etc). I think that is why the mak 180 is more grainy when compared with the f10. If you took more
images with f15, the stacked image would improve. Im not sure what the number of images would be as the f10 to f15 is logarithmic ?
Also by adding your barlow in the camera train you maybe increasing the f ratio non proportionately across the
scopes.
So the left f10 scope is better but can the right f15 scope get there as well and produce the same image - i think it can
(just take more stacked images if timing is not an issue).
Just thought i would ask ?
Good point. He should have more stacking with the f15 Mak to level out the playing field so that he can compare apple to apple. As it is, I think it’s more apple to orange comparison.
cool comparison! would love another covid update?
For planetary imaging aperture is king. The problem with like C14 over C8 or even C11 is a very big closed optical tube that is very susceptible to thermal lag - it has so much air and big mirrors that quite often they can't cool as quickly as the ambient air changes temperature so you get air current in the OTA and RIP any imaging. That's why people use fans to force cool big STC or they use a Newtonian. 14" Newtonian will be way way longer than 14" SCT and will require quite often better mount but is easier to keep at ambient. Some even use for example GSO RC telescopes - they have very high central obstruction, are deep space astrographs but if they have the aperture they can be used as obstruction isn't as bad as it may sound.
And there are zero-obstruction designs (tilted component telescope - TCT) but they are close to non-existent as the drawback of such designs is way more complicated collimation.
Good starting point for someone seriously into planetary imaging (and viewing) is 8" SCT - not necessarily on those alt/az Celestron mounts. It can be portable if needed. From cameras - one of ZWO/QHY or alike cameras. That Celestron Skyris camera is obsolete in terms of price/sensor nowadays. You can get more info on Cloudynights or SGL forums.
What's the interplay between focal length and aperture for viewing planets? A 14 inch dobsonian with a 1.6m focal length costs about the same as a SC scope with 8 inches of aperture and 2 meters of focal length
@@Mandragara focal lenght is irrelevant. You can modify it with a barlow or use a camera with smaller pixels. Only aperture defines resolving power of the telescope.
@@Mandragara for visual viewing and not imaging more will depend on telescope design and not just focal length. Some prefer viewing via smaller refractor or Mak while other big Newtonian for most detail. Based on focal length you will be using different eyepieces (field of view, eye relief - how far away from eyepiece the image forms etc) so to short or to long focal length may push favored eyepieces.
@@riklaunim Modifying the focal length by putting more items in the light path is not ideal
@@oninoyakamo Barlows as well as reducers/correctors aren't rocket science nowadays. You aren't really loosing anything noticeable. Although if you have pixel match for native f/ratio of a telescope then it's a plus ;)
What about the uranium metal project? Still working on it?
Something people might not realize is that telescopes do not make extended objects (i.e. things which are not point sources like stars) look brighter. Mars is brighter to the naked eye than it is in any visual telescope. The higher the magnification, the lower the brightness, because you're taking the same amount of light and spreading it over a larger area.
The best you can do is make the object just as bright as it is to the naked eye, before accounting for light loss in the optics. And you do that by making the magnification such that the exit pupil from the eyepiece is exactly as large as the entrance pupil of your eye. A typical dark-adapted pupil is 7mm wide. The exit pupil is the diameter of the primary divided by the magnification. So with a 280mm (11") primary and an eye pupil diameter of 7mm, the magnification with the maximum brightness is 280 / 7 = 40x. For a 180mm (~7") primary, the max-brightness magnification is about 25x.
Another way of looking at it is that for any given eyepiece, the telescope with the lowest focal ratio (diameter of primary divided by focal length) will look the brightest. The Mak has a focal ratio of f/15, while the SCT is f/10. The latter will always look brighter on extended objects if you use the same EP in each.
This seems wrong... Assuming lossless transmission and no secondary obstruction, (π(140mm)ˆ2) / (π(3.5mm)ˆ2) means an 11" aperture has 1600 times the light gathering ability of the naked eye, not 40x. Divide that by f-ratio and our magical, lossless 11" f/10 Refractor should still produce an image as bright as the naked eye at 160 power. Granted, the secondary and transmission losses will chip that number down some, but by a full 3/4?
@@oninoyakamo It's not about absolute brightness differences. It's about surface brightness. In this case, the surface is a human's retina. A linear magnification difference of 40x produces a surface brightness difference of 1600x, because the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its linear size. So to maintain the same surface brightness with that magnification, you need to collect 1600x more light.
This is very well established in optics, and if you want more detail, I'm sure you can find it with a search about magnification and brightness with telescopes.
@@TrueThanny Had a look. The math makes sense. So, *as a thought experiment only*, if a person looked at the Sun through their telescope, a greater area of the retina would get damaged, but slower than observing the Sun with the naked eye, no?
@@oninoyakamo No, it would be much worse. The reason you don't cause permanent damage looking directly at the sun for a few seconds is because the image is so small on your retina, and it wanders (you don't keep perfectly still). The heat can dissipate into neighboring photo-receptor cells and the blood stream. If you look through a telescope at a magnified image, you're covering much more of the retina, and making it much more difficult for that heat to dissipate. You will cause permanent damage in a fraction of a second.
Great video :)
Unfortunately the telescopes don't seem to be available on amazon.com and on amazon.de (and in other German online shops) they cost 1600€ and 4000€ respectively. Were the quoted prices the ones at the time you bought them? How can this huge price difference come to be.
It could be a couple of factors, does your price include a mount for the telescope or just the optics? My guess though, is those are prices when purchased in America. The prices are comparable to what I have seen here in the states.
Astro equipment is not something to be looked at amazon. Use teleskop-express.de, astroshop.eu, firstlightoptics.com or modernastronomy.com if you are in Europe. Plus local stores based on country.
9:20 Its the martian forces planetary shield hiding their cities. 😁
Cool video. I think the 700$ are warranted for that extra umpf of image. It is after all, around 50M K from Earth at the moment.
I've read, at closest approach this year, on October 6th, it will be 62 million kilometers away.
Stellarium says it's currently 64.076 M km from Earth, as of the time it rises tonight at 8:40 PM EST, 20:40, Sept. 22nd.
64.072 @ 9:00 PM
64.059 @ 10:00 PM
64.046 @ 11:00 PM
64.033 @ Midnight
I'll hunt down the time it get's closest in Stellarium...
From 1 AM, 0100 hours, EST, on 2020.10.06, Mars is 62.066 M km from Earth, until, 0512 hours, 5:12 AM, when it goes up to 62.067 M km.
Bigger is better? I've had a 150mm Mak and a 350mm Dob, amongst others. I've settled with with an F/15 68mm Mizar and an F/10 100mm triplet prototype from Skywatcher, both achromats, ofcourse ;) And no motors, just old fashioned knobs to turn. Great hobby. Get's expensive quick too!
I'm also a fan of the old fashioned knobs to turn. I just wish alt/az manual mounts were made that could hold an instrument assembly of at least 30lbs.
@@yaddahaysmarmalite4059 That would be a dobsonian then :-) But from your comment i take it that is not what you want.
What OTA do you have that weighs 30 pounds? Also a Schmidt?
What does Thunderf00t think the point of diminishing returns is again for Dobsonians? I have a 6" and am looking to upgrade to the 12-16" range.
Visual? That depends solely on your preferences and what level of clarity/visibility of images you want to achieve. Also at 16" weight and size is a "big" factor :D
You have achieved a more accurate focus on the SCT which makes this not an even comparison. It’s almost impossible to achieve an accurate focus by hand using the standard focus knob
I wish the Celestron CPC 1100 was "only" $2000.. :( Its £3500 in the UK and $3000 in the USA from a quick search.
CPC are more expensive as they come with a complex mount. tube-only are cheaper, especially when using US second hand market where they were available for many years. Got my C14 for like 1800 GBP that way.
@@riklaunim ah right, my bad. I thought that's the only way they come. Would love to own one like this one day.
@@discophil6726 depends what you want to do. For most of Europe C14 without active cooling won't really work. I could do imaging even as little as 30-45min after putting the cooler off. C11 was way better but still initially actively cooled (that mid winter late night Saturn at -20C...). There are also alternatives. If you have some space then a Newtonian is an option, or even GSO RC while on a nice backyard a ultra-big Dobsonian with motors would be most cost efficient for aperture. With a equatorial wedge lucky imaging of DS objects is doable. Balconies are limited to SCT/Mak mostly.
Yup i noticed both Mars and Venus in the sky together in Scottish night sky. Why does Venus look like 2 objects (No I'm not behind glass or looking through anything other than my eyes),because I am not alone in seeing what looks like what you would expect,firstly a bright dot BUT then next to it something that looks like It's leaving a debris behind it kind of like you would picture a comet to make in your imagination.
My family say they see the same as i asked them to look also so i have some people to confirm what I see incase something was wrong with my eyes.
So why does it look like this to the naked eye?
Well that's because of the dome above the flat earth where the lights of the night skies are reflected in, jk no clue, sounds intriguing tho
Mr Thunderfoot have you seen crrow77 video on the lunar wave? can you do a video on it giving us your opinion. thank you
The "moon wave" is 100% BS, as it never happens when you see it with the naked eye and only happens when you introduce digital recording into the mix.
It's just an artifact of the recording method.
You have some fabulous toys.
Hi Thunderfoot, Would you care to make a video comparing Geiger counters? Would love to have some idea before buying one.
Look for a videos of bionerd23 for in depth 👀 videos on Geiger counters
"Do you have a Geiger counter?" ;)
@@riklaunim Nope, I would love to get one for Christmas :)
@@mihai08 Thank you!
@@SinclairA it's a Fallout reference ;)
What eyepieces are you using for visual?
Where can I pay $2,000 for a 11 SCT?
Having a large CO does not cost resolution - it costs contrast. Thanks for playing. moving on.
Did any of you guys hear about an incoming asteroid debris field?
you need to get you a bigger sensor, have you seen some of their sizes?!
Putting something like DSLR on a telescope is often done but never as good as dedicated astrophoto camera. Larger sensor will only increase FOV. But actual pixel density is lower. For astrophotography you want good balance between resolution density and noise. That said... cameras designed for astrophotography are usually cooled with Peltiers to sub ambient temperatures to further increase sensor performance.
For planetary even very large amateur telescopes will fit a planet on a VGA resolution sensor at max resolving power. And due to nature of planetary imaging small fast sensor is needed. For Deep Space imaging it's the other way around - large sensors, long exposures.
@@riklaunim spot on mr Piotr
Bigger sensors are good only for huge objects like deep space objects, planets are small and a small sensor is way better.
@@GoldSrc_ would they not help the range of contrast?
All made by the same company according to Wikipedia: Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd. is a Chinese company located in Suzhou, Jiangsu, China, the primary manufacturing subsidiary of Synta Technology Corporation of Taiwan. It produces telescopes and astronomical equipment like mounts and eyepieces for the amateur astronomical market.[1]
The company was founded in 1988 as Synta Optics, at first producing only eyepieces. In 1992, the manufacturing was moved to Suzhou (Jiangsu) in China. Their first telescopes (4.5“ (114 mm) -Newtonians) were distributed by Celestron and Tasco. In 1993, the first refracting telescopes were produced.
In 1999, the brand Sky-Watcher was established by Synta Taiwan to sell optics produced by Suzhou Synta. The head office was in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. The brand is distributed in Canada and Europe and, in the late 2000s, extended to the U.S. market.[2] Products produced by Suzhou Synta are also distributed under the Acuter name and via the Synta Taiwan owned subsidiary company Celestron. Suzhou Synta also manufactures products for Orion Telescopes & Binoculars.
Amazing
Optics and a hammer do not belong on the same desk!
You should make it darker. /s
cool :)
Ce n'est pas équitable. C'est comme comparer une Toyota Yaris avec une voiture sport. Ca aurait été plus juste de comparer le Mak avec un rival comme le C6 ou C8 en y ajoutant un barlow pour le rapprocher le plus possible la même focal de 2700mm
You guys need to go over to the NathanOakley1980's new video "Debunking" Thunderf00t on Flat Earth and give it a rating: th-cam.com/video/GANsDqH8jLw/w-d-xo.html
More, more, more .. :)
I see the autofocus is set to 110% lol!
At 08:50. I have not found any documentation on RegiStax6, but I think the dark rim is an
effect of the wavelet algorithm and Mars' real sharp rim. Very interesting experiment. I made a list of most of the Mars images :
spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=171499
I get that ring artifact on my 5" mak. So maybe it's systemic issue.
Here's my video from the nights prior to your video. th-cam.com/video/hFkM_cq0jvs/w-d-xo.html
Ive had enough of your schmidt!
11” better than 7”...that’s what she said
For anyone who speaks of our air being 'Fresh & Clean", try shining a green laser straight up into the sky.
If the air was clean you wouldn't be able to see the laser beam path. However, you certainly can see the beam.
That means that our air is filthy and absolutely filled with dust, dirt, debris, and disgusting bio-stuff. Thanks Nature!
Our atmosphere is not clear even if if it were perfectly clean.
I can take you up on to a mountain near where I live and show you the brown haze of smog in the atmosphere, and this location is many miles away from any large city or industrial center. its a visible fact that humans have been gunking up the atmosphere. We have before and after photos taken decades apart. The earlier photos show more visibility than the recent ones.
11 is better, but notb700 dollars better
Long winded as bloody hell
I really wish NASA would stop using miles to convey distances to planets to the American public, and the rest of the world, that data then trickles down to people who mix up miles and kilometers and just ballpark the number somewhere in between.
Person A reads: "It's 38 million miles or 62 million kilometers away."
Person A, sometime later: "Eh, just say 50 million and use the words miles or kilometers, what's it matter either way?"
Nice scopes, either way. I've been getting some nice views with my, free, discarded by the roadside, broken-autotracker-Celestron-from-Walmart scope. But best of all, just looking at Mars outside, on a casual walk at 3 AM, in the forests of Northeast Michigan, so bright and beautiful in the sky, knowing it's so nearby and beckoning humanity to come bring it's surface to life... that's the real treat.
Thanks for sharing your interest with the planet, your scopes and everything else you find beautiful and interesting.
Someday Martians will look back at human history, at what Earth was like prior to it's investment of bringing Mars to life, just to figure out who, or what, was responsible for their existence and your work will be one of many that they may site as an inspiration for such an impetus. So much work ahead of us; so much past behind them.
It's really hard to concentrate on a review or trust what you are saying when you're using a stupid phone to make a video and it cannot even focus. You know, it's just bad form. Surely you have a real camera somewhere?
The world is on fire and He won’t do a video on these sjws Thunder has been effectively silenced, I’m a huge fan I admire thunder foot but this hurts!
Um.. what is a sjws? I know Thunderfoot had an issue with feminists that had nothing to do with any feminist I met in Oz..
If u watched those vids thunder made recently and multiple times as I have, he calls them sjws, It’s the same mind virus as feminist if u don’t know what they are i envy u as I live in Seattle they are everywhere
@@henkvandergaast3948 social justice warriors are a huge problem in the university's they are really marxists and communists trying to destroy the west with their propaganda and disruptions and genda B/S and racisms they have infiltrated every bit of our culture from politics to movies and our workplaces and government and news outlets and are destroying industrys .. why do you think trump banned any teaching of critical race theory (a book) in the USA government... its poison to our way of life in the west
cheers
james D
James Dougan i agree but not only have they made out the university but they are able to take the voice of free thinkers either by force like with thunderfoot or by cash like with joe rogan
SCTs are overrated.
you keep claiming you are a scientist. then you start using inches. you played yourself.
;)))))))))
Worthless !!