Sorry...can't fool that cruel old dame, Ma Nature.
How do you account for the following? Some of these reviewers have extensive (decades of) experience.
From Ed Tng’s review of a Meade 7” Mak.
“The results were very close. In times of good seeing, the Mak slightly
edged out the FS 102 Takahashi. However, during times of average or slightly un-steady seeing, the refractor won out, and in fact the FS102 gave the more consistently excellent images.”
From Jay Reynolds Freeman’s review of a C14 against a AP 7” Apo Refractor – right here on CN The Apo has half the aperture of the C14.
“With respect to lower-contrast detail, I do not think the C-14 was doing as well as the AP 180. I don't think I had as good a view of the big garland through the C-14, and I had much more difficulty seeing some fine, east/west streakiness in cap of Jupiter's northern hemisphere, say, north of Jovian latitude 50N. Also, prominent color contrasts and intensity variations, seen in comparing large-scale features, such as the equatorial belts and the adjacent zones, did not appear to me to be as pronounced in the C-14 as in the refractor.”
From Rodger Vine’s review (here on CN) between a C8 and a TMB (LZOS) 4” F8 Apo refractor
“(On Mars) The C8 still delivers a big, bright orange ball that just hints at the details the APO shows clearly.
My wife agrees – round one to the APO in these conditions.
(On the Moon) In the C8 the image is much brighter, but there’s less detail. I keep swapping back and forth over a period of several hours to check, but it’s true. A white smudge in the C8 resolves down to a tiny crater in the APO. I see details in Gassendi – rilles, slumping, craterlets, that are just a smear in the C8. From the domes of Mons Rumker to the hills and embayments around Gassendi and the edges of lava flows on the mare near Aristarchus, the APO shows more detail.”
From Mr. Yoshida (from Japan) a seasoned amateur astronomer. “The criterion is how these scopes perform on planet viewing. I think the order is roughly within our expectation.”
Note the much smaller refractors ahead of the C11.
(96 points) ASTRO-PHYSICS 160EDF
(96 points) Zeiss APQ150
(96 points) Takahashi TOA-150
(95 points) TMB 152mm/F8-CNC-LW
(95 points) Takahashi_-250
(93 points) ASTRO-PHYSICS 155EDFS
(90 points) INTES-MICRO ALTER A-608
(90 points) ZEN250
(88 points) C-11”
From Ralph Aguirre’s review between a C8, Tak TSA 102, and a MK67
“For tonight, with steadier seeing conditions, the smaller, but very potent Takahashi TSA-102, was clearly showing more resolution by pulling out surface details (on Jupiter), that the larger mirrors couldn't even see.”