Skywatcher 100p f/4 vs Takahashi FS60 f/6 Shootout

[Chris]

I've been meaning to do a shoot out with these two very portable scopes for quite some time. Both of these scopes have impressed me in their own way. The Skywatcher Heritage 100p as an advantage with aperture but costs many times less than the Takahashi. Can quality albeit with 40% less aperture win out? and indeed can a budget scope costing 1/10th that of the Takahashi keep pace?

Both these scopes have very similar focal lengths, 355 vs 400, so any comparison from that point of view can be viewed as reasonable fair, and because both are relatively limited on aperture the bright Moon with it's even illumination across the FOV seemed like a great test subject.

I placed both scopes on my recently purchased Star Adventurer mount in lunar tracking mode, and I used an ASI120MC to record the test so I can share my findings which I'll link below.

 

My opinion is that the 100p costing roughly 1/10th that of the Takahashi package does a remarkable job for the price point, It's amazing that a scope, mount, eyepiece, finder pacakge costing just £89 can perform so well, especially with it's steep curved fast f/4 primary mirror which makes this feat even more impressive as faster mirrors are more difficult to produce to a high standard and accuracy. However, the views through the Takahashi had some special magic to them, they were very pure and and more consistantly sharp over the field of view. The stacked images at native focal length actually compared quite well with each other, the Tak wasn't that much ahead, but when I plugged in the 2.5 Barlow lens the Tak just ate up the magnification. The 100p still did very well with the Barlow once the images were stacked and processed, but with the Tak I sensed I could have used a 5x Barlow and still got usually stacked images. It just seemed to handle the magnification noticeably better.

Anyway, take a look at the video and if you have any thoughts feel free to share. Both seem to be great choices, it just depends on your budget. 

 

[Rob]

Enjoyed that. Thanks for sharing. Very interesting indeed. Rob

[Alien 13]

Very nice video, looking at the price difference the Tak is certainly not ten times better..

Alan

[Chris]

9 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Very nice video, looking at the price difference the Tak is certainly not ten times better..

Alan

Hi Alan, I too was surprised by how well the Heritage 100p did. I don't know how Skywatcher do it for the money.

[Chris]

32 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Very nice video, looking at the price difference the Tak is certainly not ten times better..

Alan

Just to further add, if I had to quantify it I'd say the Tak was 2-3 times better, but certainly no where near 10 times better......the classic diminishing returns. 

I would be interested in getting a more powerful Barlow to see how far I can push the Tak, it ate that 2.5x barlow for breakfast. 

I'll certainly be recommending the 100p to more beginners on a budget. 

[Craney]

Great video. 

I think a lot of beginners should watch this to realise that a modest scope is an excellent starting point for this hobby.

There is a great temptation  (especially if you have a few spare pounds burning a hole....)   to go for the best, with the expectation that it will deliver everything you ever need in terms of imaging or observing.   That's not really the case and not really the point of the hobby.

It really is a journey and you really have to put the hard yards in to appreciate the difference.  I would like to end up with a Tak or a TV or.....<insert name of dream scope>  but I want to enjoy the scopes I'll have along the way as well.   As they say, the best scope is the one that you reach for first.

It would be good to have comparable shots of the same Lunar features side by side in a split screen, so that you can see the difference directly, if only to conclude the difference is minor and subtle.

Thanks for sharing.

 

sean.

[Chris]

5 minutes ago, Craney said:

Great video. 

I think a lot of beginners should watch this to realise that a modest scope is an excellent starting point for this hobby.

There is a great temptation  (especially if you have a few spare pounds burning a hole....)   to go for the best, with the expectation that it will deliver everything you ever need in terms of imaging or observing.   That's not really the case and not really the point of the hobby.

It really is a journey and you really have to put the hard yards in to appreciate the difference.  I would like to end up with a Tak or a TV or.....<insert name of dream scope>  but I want to enjoy the scopes I'll have along the way as well.   As they say, the best scope is the one that you reach for first.

It would be good to have comparable shots of the same Lunar features side by side in a split screen, so that you can see the difference directly, if only to conclude the difference is minor and subtle.

Thanks for sharing.

 

sean.

Absolutely Sean, All I can say is the 100p cost about the same money as the plastic lensed thing I was bought for xmas aged 7......the 100p is leagues ahead of that thing! So yes, I totally agree the 100p is an excellent starting point and a scope you can keep as a grab n go as you progress  

I really wanted comparable shots side by side, and I was a bit gutted I coudn't figure out how to do it loll. I'm currently using Movavi movie editor which doesn't appear to give you the option unless I've missed it somewhere, so I'm looking into other editors. Final Cut X is supposed to be excellent, but I think it's optimised for Mac's and I have a PC. 

If I can figure out how to do this I'll update the video   

[Stu]

Excellent video Chris. The 100P certainly does very well. Some zoomed in comparisons of the stacked images would be really interesting. I had the impression of a little bluish CA from the Tak when watching the video, but sharper and a little more contrast perhaps although surprisingly close. Perhaps I should try the Tak 100 against my 130P?

[Chris]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

Excellent video Chris. The 100P certainly does very well. Some zoomed in comparisons of the stacked images would be really interesting. I had the impression of a little bluish CA from the Tak when watching the video, but sharper and a little more contrast perhaps although surprisingly close. Perhaps I should try the Tak 100 against my 130P?

Thanks Stu, I know what you mean, I think there was a slight glint of CA on the limb, but even so the image to me seemed 'purer' through the Tak, but if only had the 100p as a grab n go, I can't say I could complain too much  

I'm going to take another look at my movie editor and see I've missed the options for side by side clips? it would indeed enable us not to have to try and commit one image to memory whilst we looked at the next lol 

YES! Tak 100 vs 130P !

[Ricochet]

1 hour ago, Lockie said:

I'll certainly be recommending the 100p to more beginners on a budget

If FLO's popularity sort is accurate it is their 5th most popular telescope and yet I don't remember ever seeing a second hand one for sale anywhere. 

[Chris]

18 minutes ago, Stu said:

 Some zoomed in comparisons of the stacked images would be really interesting.

Oh wait, yes I can do this! I mis-read and thought you meant zoomed in video footage side by side.

I'll get on that and post some zoomed in pics here   

 

Might be later after the kids go bed, I can't hear myself think! lol

[Chris]

2 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

If FLO's popularity sort is accurate it is their 5th most popular telescope and yet I don't remember ever seeing a second hand one for sale anywhere. 

I once sold a 100p, but that doesn't mean anything because I used to sell all my kit before I had properly explored it ?

But yeah, you're right, you don't tend to see them second hand do you, and that as you say must stand for something  

[Ricochet]

2 minutes ago, Lockie said:

I once sold a 100p

I should have guessed! ?

[Chris]

34 minutes ago, Stu said:

Excellent video Chris. The 100P certainly does very well. Some zoomed in comparisons of the stacked images would be really interesting. I had the impression of a little bluish CA from the Tak when watching the video, but sharper and a little more contrast perhaps although surprisingly close. Perhaps I should try the Tak 100 against my 130P?

Here we go! 100p then Tak60......I'll post some more zoomed comparisons later to be sure any comparisons are accurate  

[FLO]

22 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

If FLO's popularity sort is accurate it is their 5th most popular telescope and yet I don't remember ever seeing a second hand one for sale anywhere. 

It is accurate. Currently it is our fifth bestselling telescope. 

It is good to see it performing so well ? 

Steve 

[Chris]

Another even more zoomed in side by side, 100p on the top, and Tak60 on the bottom. 

This is even closer than I initially thought!

[RobertI]

Great comparison Chris, I love this kind of test! I always root for the underdog and the 100P is producing some great results and holds its own. Is it my imagination, or do the images from the 100P seem to have more CA? I also wonder if there are some other effects at play, like the camera and software having to deal with less dynamic range in the smaller aperture scope allowing the shadow areas to show a bit more detail? 

[Guest]

Hi Chris. Brave to put the small Newtonian up against an institution. The good video works well. Thankyou for producing it. 

Martin

[Chris]

6 hours ago, RobertI said:

Great comparison Chris, I love this kind of test! I always root for the underdog and the 100P is producing some great results and holds its own. Is it my imagination, or do the images from the 100P seem to have more CA? I also wonder if there are some other effects at play, like the camera and software having to deal with less dynamic range in the smaller aperture scope allowing the shadow areas to show a bit more detail? 

Thanks Robert, I didn't notice any CA on the 100p myself, but maybe you're seeing a bit of processing artefact? All images were processed the same so it should still be a fair test   

[Chris]

6 hours ago, Grumpy Martian said:

Hi Chris. Brave to put the small Newtonian up against an institution. The good video works well. Thankyou for producing it. 

Martin

Hi Martin, thanks  well they are both Apo's technically lol, and I don't know about you but the results have surprised me a little bit.

[mikeDnight]

13 hours ago, Lockie said:

Another even more zoomed in side by side, 100p on the top, and Tak60 on the bottom. 

This is even closer than I initially thought!

I have to say I'm enjoying this thread! It's an unusual choice for comparison but interesting never the less. In the above images I'm naturally drawn to the refractor view as you might expect, as it shows to my eye at least, a more well defined view. However, its immediately obvious that the suns angle has changed between the two images giving the refractor a more detailed view of features hidden in the reflector image. Looking back at the initial video comparison there was quite a bit of shimmer due to atmosphere or local heat sources, which has me wondering if heat shimmer could have softened the reflector image above? Also, there's a touch of blue fringing around brighter crater rims in the reflector view but none in the smaller refractor?? The fringing perhaps adds to the softer appearance.

I don't know if you're kitted out for imaging star fields Chris, but it would be nice to see views of the double cluster, the Pleiades or the M42 region of Orion to see how the two scopes compare on stellar objects. 

[paul mc c]

This is an interesting post,i actually picked a 100p up last week for a pricely sum of £30,never been out of the box until i got it,but hav'nt had a chance to use it yet,so will look forward to that.Fits nicely on a shelf too.

[Chris]

13 hours ago, mikeDnight said:

I have to say I'm enjoying this thread! It's an unusual choice for comparison but interesting never the less. In the above images I'm naturally drawn to the refractor view as you might expect, as it shows to my eye at least, a more well defined view. However, its immediately obvious that the suns angle has changed between the two images giving the refractor a more detailed view of features hidden in the reflector image. Looking back at the initial video comparison there was quite a bit of shimmer due to atmosphere or local heat sources, which has me wondering if heat shimmer could have softened the reflector image above? Also, there's a touch of blue fringing around brighter crater rims in the reflector view but none in the smaller refractor?? The fringing perhaps adds to the softer appearance.

I don't know if you're kitted out for imaging star fields Chris, but it would be nice to see views of the double cluster, the Pleiades or the M42 region of Orion to see how the two scopes compare on stellar objects. 

I guess it's the classic refractor verses reflector, only in miniature ? I too prefer the refractor view, but it's closer than I thought it would be. There are some sources of uncertainty, like you say the angle of the Sun as they were taken 24 hours apart. Elevation was similar, but there could have been heat shimmer like you say, both nights the Moon was viewed above neighbours houses which could have caused this. I have no idea about the CA on the 100p, I'm not sure how this is possible with a mirror? and both sets of images where processed in the same manner with very similar settings in wavelets so this has me a bit baffled. I'll go back over the footage and pay closer attention to the bright crater rims to see if I can see this. 

I did manage to do live stack image (EAA) of M42 in Registax using the ASI120MC and 100p, I could repeat this with the Tak in the near future no problem  

Here is the live stacked image of M42 using the 100p f/4, lots of 5-10 second exposures stacked.  The first image was post processed with a little levels and curves, but the second image is how it appeared on the screen after live stacking a bunch of short exposures. 

 

EDIT: I've reviewed the footage and I really can't see any blue fringing on the 100p, just a sliver of CA on the lunar limb of the Tak footage. I think Robert mentioned he could see the fringing too. Maybe we can get a few other people to take a look and see if they can see it? 

 

[Stu]

Is there any way you could takes shots with both scopes on the same night Chris? I guess that's the easiest way to rule out differences in illumination and seeing.

[Chris]

5 minutes ago, Stu said:

Is there any way you could takes shots with both scopes on the same night Chris? I guess that's the easiest way to rule out differences in illumination and seeing.

Yes if I'm organised enough I should be able to get data for both scopes on one night. if the weather plays ball I can be out between 9-11pm ish, so an hour for each scope  including setup and capture. I'll have a think about what target to try next? Although any target has got to be easily found manually using the small chip of the ASI120mc. That's the biggest challenge, it took me two or three minutes to even find the Moon! ?