3X vs 2x barlows at least for Digital CMOS imaging, any benefit from 3x? Some comparisons on an 8SE..

[theskyisthelimit99]

I know that a 3x barlow is probably pushing the power limits of the scope depending on lens used.. but i did some visual testing (optical) and i thought the 3x vs 2x was better given say the same lens size (in this case about 25mm).. 

I then did imaging using the zwo asi 224 + adc.. i did mars at both 2x and 3x and i found the 3x image to be better in some ways.. maybe its just my brain lying and wanting it to be better.. I like to do trial and error physically with these things so this was just a small test to see real answers in the flesh.  Or maybe the 3x is fine but only at larger diameter lenses and maybe with the imager unsure.

(i guess by better it was just larger more so)  i also may not have post processed these quite the same.

3x:

Diameter 23.89
Mag -2.63
FL 7300mm 
Res 0.11
FPS 41
ROI 456x384
Shutter 3.051
Gain 410
Histo 37%

 

2x:

Diameter 23.89
Mag -2.63
FL 5850mm
Res 0.13
Frames 53,142
FPS 177
ROI 400x340
Shutter 3.051
Gain 410
Histogram 36% (i think this should be more like 60% if this is the same as the graph?.. i never can get the left most lighter shade of blue to go much above 40 though)

A few out there seemed to say the 3x was decent for imaging, but more than not, most dont agree, maybe 2.4x being the highest.. here i guess its just a size difference and it certainly looked better on the laptop screen at 3x vs 2x while capturing.

Any thoughts

Thanks in advance

[Peter Drew]

Both nice images, I agree that the 3x image tends to show the detail a little better. F20 - F30 seems a popular focal ratio for planetary imaging, which is best on the night will be due to the conditions.  A 3x Barlow with a 25mm eyepiece is still just the equivalent of a 8mm or so eyepiece so not really overdoing it.   ?

[celestron8g8]

Mainly all i see is the 3x slightly larger but detail almost the same . What 3x brand were you using and what scope ??

[vlaiv]

13 minutes ago, celestron8g8 said:

Mainly all i see is the 3x slightly larger but detail almost the same . What 3x brand were you using and what scope ??

Well, physics says that for camera such as ASI244, limit a bit below F/16, so you are bound to see the same detail at F/20 as at F/30 (subject to seeing at the imaging time of each). Some people maintain that it is easier for them to process images when shooting at larger scale - longer FL, and that is probably true - wavelet sharpening might work better on larger / over sampled images.

[theskyisthelimit99]

19 hours ago, celestron8g8 said:

Mainly all i see is the 3x slightly larger but detail almost the same . What 3x brand were you using and what scope ??

Its the Celestron 8SE (on its default SE mount till i go for a GEM later) and the Celestron 3x Barlow.

Thanks for the feedback... i guess i wasnt completely insane when i felt it was a tad better (in some way or ways, even optically).. i guess worth hanging onto then.  Sorry I was a tad slow to respond.. i dont seem to get email notifications from here 

[Stub Mandrel]

I find an x3 definitely works better than an x2 with my 150Pl, but trying an x5 was disastrous.