80ED vs 130pds - Round one (M8 and Triffid)

[Uranium235]

Hmmmm... I love the 80ED with this contrasty optics, but then again I love the 130pds with its Ha-hoovering speed - but which one is best?

Only one way to find out..... FIGHT!!

A couple of weeks ago I attempted a 2 pane Ha mosaic of the M8 region, it was however cut short by trees (I only get 50 min on target). So what ive done is process the first pane (30min worth) to see how it looks.

After processing, I thought "I wonder how this stacks up against last years smash & grab effort?". Fortunately, the image is still online - so Ive been able to compare the two side by side. Ok, its not quite a fair fight because 130 was binned 2x2 - but it does demonstrate that im getting more signal (and less noise) for the same period of time.

Round two will involve the Veil (which im still waiting to finish), where I will be able to compare three hours worth of unbinned subs - should be interesting!

Last years effort:

6x300 Ha - 80ED, Atik 383

And the 2014 version:

6x300 Ha - 130pds, Atik 383L+ (2x2 bin)

[PhotoGav]

Interesting. How fair is that round of the fight though?! A year is a long time in image processing...! I look forward to seeing Round Two - The Veil.

Come on the 80!

[Epicycle]

Interesting exercise, what are the pixel scales of each image?

E.

[Martin-Devon]

Difficult comparison to make Rob, since unless exactly the same processing was done, with the same data sets & Moon level, then it's going to be skewed to some extent one way or the other. On first look, the lower image looks like its had more curves applied and sharpened more? Will look forward to seeing the Veil comparisons when they are ready.

Martin

[Uranium235]

Interesting exercise, what are the pixel scales of each image?

E.

The 80ED is 2.18 (1x1), the 130 was running at 3.9 (2x2) - quite a difference, but my workflow hasnt really moved on much - still use the same plugins and high pass etc. The process was the same apart fron lifting the outer fluff on M8 with the 130 (becuase the noise level allowed me to do so), and a little extra sharpening applied to the inner portion of both nebulas. The next round should be a fairer fight (the 130 carried a horseshoe in its glove for this one...lol). Also, there was no moon for both versions.

Its not really intended as a serious comparison, it was more of a "lets see how much X telescope can get me in Y minutes". For it to be a true test would require two identical cameras operating simultaneously, that would be a bit expensive

[Singlin]

I have an Orion 80ED and a 383 camera.

Did you use the field flattener and if so what spacers did you use?

Regards,

Simon

[Uranium235]

I have an Orion 80ED and a 383 camera.

Did you use the field flattener and if so what spacers did you use?

Regards,

Simon

Yes, I have the FF/FR for the 80ED and used a spacing of 56mm, along with using 2/3rds focusing to ensure the corners were good enough for mosaics.

[Singlin]

Which product of spacers did you use?

[Coco]

The ED80 is really the best bang for buck if you are starting out

[gingergeek]

The F ratios are a little unequal; F5 for the 130 and F6.4 for the ED80. So for the same exposure times I'm not surprised the 130 is pulling more signal. Don't get me wrong I think this is a great way to show what budget scopes can achieve for the first time imager. In fact if you were to offer both scopes to a first time imager I wonder which would get picked ? Would it come down to comparing the two images above or would it be down to refractor vs reflector, hmmm.......interesting.

[Scott]

The ED80 is really the best bang for buck if you are starting out

That's a big call with the 130p ds coming in at around half the cost.

[gingergeek]

Agreed, cost too should be included. The 130pds looks mightily attractive now when all factors are considered, I wonder how much Rob paid for the full 130 setup including his tweaks ?

[Scott]

both cracking images. for me I'm leaning toward (well jumping actually) the 130p ds in this shoot out. I'd say that the 130 is probably a little more high maintenance but most of the best girls are aren't they . 

[Pete Presland]

definitely the PDS for me, much more fainter stuff on show and bigger image scale.

[tingting44]

i do love my 130-pds, but im dying to get an 80ED lol, if i could afford to have both i would, if i had to pick which i have done all ready its the 80ED, the biggest jump in my level of AP if getting a CCD tho which i can not wait for either

[ollypenrice]

Clearly there is way more signal in the reflector image but it's binned, so there would be. This has really clobbered the stars, though, which are very blocky. This is why I don't bin Ha. The stars are small anyway and easily look pixelated.

They are both terrific images and both giant killers. With these budget scopes you are knocking out some of the best images on the forum and you've pioneered the smallest Newt for DS imaging. You have to take it seriously and what does it cost? Peanuts.

Olly

On thought on processing; you are getting fantastic nebulosity but I think you'd hit nirvana if you excluded the stars from any sharpening. In Ha I even blur them slightly sometimes.

[Scott]

Clearly there is way more signal in the reflector image but it's binned, so there would be. This has really clobbered the stars, though, which are very blocky. This is why I don't bin Ha. The stars are small anyway and easily look pixelated.

They are both terrific images and both giant killers. With these budget scopes you are knocking out some of the best images on the forum and you've pioneered the smallest Newt for DS imaging. You have to take it seriously and what does it cost? Peanuts.

Olly

On thought on processing; you are getting fantastic nebulosity but I think you'd hit nirvana if you excluded the stars from any sharpening. In Ha I even blur them slightly sometimes.

you'd get a hell of a lot of peanuts for the cost of a 383L+

I do get (and agree with) your view that these truelly are remarkable images using budget 'scopes. They're certainly worth taking a second look at.

[ollypenrice]

you'd get a hell of a lot of peanuts for the cost of a 383L+

I do get (and agree with) your view that these truelly are remarkable images using budget 'scopes. They're certainly worth taking a second look at.

Heh heh, but for the cost of just the little Newt I bet I couldn't buy more cashew nuts (my favourites, to die for, to die for) than I could eat in two days! I meant the Newt, not the whole rig, was inexpensive.

The 383 is brilliant value though.

Olly

[Uranium235]

Which product of spacers did you use?

It was a combination of an M48-T2 adapter + a 6mm extension I think. It was back when I was using 1.25" filters, I havent used the 80ED with 2" filters yet. The adaptation between the FW and camera is zero distance.

[Uranium235]

Agreed, cost too should be included. The 130pds looks mightily attractive now when all factors are considered, I wonder how much Rob paid for the full 130 setup including his tweaks ?

heh the tools to modify the 130pds cost me about £100 (bench drill, drills, taps and hex screws). Others have gotten away with less modification, but not everyone is bonkers enough to hang a large format CCD camera and 2" filter wheel off the stock focuser

I still have the tools, so it wouldnt be too hard to knock another one together should I need it.

[Epicycle]

I've  just added an extra thumb screw to avoid tilt and I want to believe I'm getting away with it... But my camera (H9) is smaller than Rob's.

What would be interesting also is to try the 130pds with an SX 694 or Atik 460... Pixel scale: 1.44" sweet!  (And decent field of view and 1.25 filters)

So at the moment I'm thinking "forget optics, upgrade camera"... Mmmm

E.

[Uranium235]

Clearly there is way more signal in the reflector image but it's binned, so there would be. This has really clobbered the stars, though, which are very blocky. This is why I don't bin Ha. The stars are small anyway and easily look pixelated.

They are both terrific images and both giant killers. With these budget scopes you are knocking out some of the best images on the forum and you've pioneered the smallest Newt for DS imaging. You have to take it seriously and what does it cost? Peanuts.

Olly

On thought on processing; you are getting fantastic nebulosity but I think you'd hit nirvana if you excluded the stars from any sharpening. In Ha I even blur them slightly sometimes.

Thanks Olly, youre right in that the stars took a bit of a battering at 3.9" - but Im expecting a massive improvement once the latest project is complete, where I will be comparing unbinned data. Im pretty close to getting this newt mastered, but the tiny tweaks it would need to go further cannot justify the risk of messing it up (again!).

I hope to wrap the Veil up sometime next week, although I have reserved Tuesday night for comet Jacques (as it passes through the soul nebula) - could be a once in a lifetime photo opportunity so I'll have a go at it.

The 383 is for sure a fine camera, and once you show it some fairly fast optics - it will thank you in spades

[Coco]

The F ratios are a little unequal; F5 for the 130 and F6.4 for the ED80. So for the same exposure times I'm not surprised the 130 is pulling more signal. Don't get me wrong I think this is a great way to show what budget scopes can achieve for the first time imager. In fact if you were to offer both scopes to a first time imager I wonder which would get picked ? Would it come down to comparing the two images above or would it be down to refractor vs reflector, hmmm.......interesting.

But for an imager using a Newtonian you should add the cost of collimating tools, that should be considered under bang for buck, I have a Quattro and about to by a cats eye to keep it sweet..