- Celestron PowerSeeker 70AZ Telescope ($10 Scope)
- Orion EQ-26 Mount Review
- Review of Explore Scientific First Light 8
- Rebuilding my CGE Pro
- COUNTING SUNSPOTS WITH A $10 OPTICAL TUBE ASSEMBLY
- Hubble Optics 14 inch Dobsonian - Part 2: The SiTech GoTo system
- iStar Optical’s Phantom FCL 140-6.5 review
- Who’s Afraid of a Phantom: Istar Phantom 140mm F/6.5, that is?
- SHARPSTAR 94EDPH APOCHROMATIC REFRACTOR
- My Losmandy G11T review
- FIELD TEST: THE NOH CT-20 ALT-AZ MOUNT
- SkyTee-2 Alt/Az Mount Review
- SharpStar Askar ACL200 200-mm f/4 astrographic telephoto lens
- A review of the Unistellar EVscope
- Astrotrac 360 tracking platform – first impression
CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.
Can a 4” APO ‘beat’ an 8” SCT? (yes and no)
Discuss this article in our forums
a 4” APO ‘beat’ an 8” SCT? (yes and no)
by Gary S. Strumolo
This article is derived from a talk I gave my local astronomy club many years ago. This competition, and variations of it using different types and sizes of telescopes, seems to be a perennial question. Our goal in writing it was not to disparage any type of scope; all have their use and, like beauty, their value to an individual is in the eye of the beholder. We’ll not bring up issues like portability, weight, cool-down time, cost, or any of the many other factors that go into a purchase decision.
Rather, we’ll focus on the optics and their ability to render visually appealing images of both low and high contrast objects. We are not going to address what could be generated after recording, stacking, and processing thousands of video images. This analysis is not for astrophotographers; it’s for visual astronomers!
The tool we’ll use to conduct this analysis is called the modulation transfer function, or MTF for short. The MTF curve for an optical system, like a telescope, determines how much contrast of the object being observed is maintained after passing through the optical system. It can be illustrated here:
The MTF curve reflects the ratio of image contrast to object contrast.(This and all subsequent MTF curves were generated by the Windows program Aberrator).The type of curve above is typical for an unobstructed scope, like a refractor. If you compare two refractors of different apertures you get:
basically showing that the larger scope can reveal finer details on the object than the smaller one can. Aberrator can analyze more than an unobstructed lens, however:
In this example, we consider the case of an 8” aperture with a 33% central obstruction, as found in your typical 8” SCT. The downward bend in the curve reflects the fact that low contrast resolution is degraded because of the obstruction. To determine how much we consider the previous graph and ask how much smaller in diameter must the aperture be so that the new (unobstructed) curve will line up with this dropped down portion. That will give us the ‘effective’ size of an unobstructed scope that will match this one for low contrast features.
For example, consider this for an obstructed scope:
The black ideal curve is for an unobstructed aperture (refractor). The red actual behavior curve is for an obstructed aperture of the same size. The low contrast blue line, which matches the red curve drop, is for a smaller unobstructed scope. To determine its size we look to see where the blue curve hits the X-axis. Here it is around 0.7, which means the original scope performs like an unobstructed one 70% of it’s diameter.
The effects of a central obstruction on the ability to resolve low contrast features can be illustrated in the following diagram (20% for a typical Newtonian and 33% for a typical SCT):
So, e.g., the 20% obstructed scope (blue line) behaves like an unobstructed one 85% of its diameter (blue dashed line). Now obstruction isn’t the only factor in making the final decision about which is better. There are two others: collimation and seeing (turbulence). Let’s consider each, and how they are linked to the obstruction issue.
Collimation (for more, see T. Legault astrophoto.fr/collim)
Most people are familiar with the first phase of collimation, where you pick a star and deliberately rack it out of focus. You will see a set of rings (if you have an obstructed scope like a Newtonian, SCT or MCT there will be a dark central circle in the middle). The goal of ‘rough’ collimation is to make everything perfectly concentric. But that isn’t the end!
(and the bane of MCTs and Newtonians as well). The second stage is to use high powers on a focused star to see the Airy disks. These must also be concentric. As the figure above indicates, fig A is ideal while Fig D is still off. Now, how bad is it? Well, consider the pattern in Fig C above. It doesn’t look that bad, right? Well …
The figure above is an example for a Newtonian. We can see that that a C level of miscollimation produces an MTF curve that is similar to one from a spherical aberration of 1/3.5 wave, and one with a 43% obstruction. These are ‘equivalent’ to a 20% obstructed scope at 63% diameter (again, for resolving low contrast features).
So returning to our SCT:
we can see that while a perfectly collimated 8” SCT under excellent seeing conditions might behave like a 5.6” APO (left), poor collimation can reduce it to the level of of a 4” APO or worse! (hence the ‘yes and no’ in the title)
Seeing conditions (turbulence)
We will equate seeing conditions to turbulence in the atmosphere, ignoring things like poor transparency due to clouds, etc.. Now different aperture scopes are affected differently by turbulence:
This behavior might actually help the smaller scope over the larger one during visual astronomy because the eye can better follow detail as it moves a bit vs being steady but blurry. And unless you live in areas blessed with frequent steady skies …
But given the observation above, the effective turbulence for a larger scope is greater than that for a smaller scope. So we could be in the following situation:
So under fair-below average seeing conditions (which many people deal with most of the time) it’s possible for a reasonably well collimated 8” SCT to simply match a 4” APO.
So how do these analysis results compare to observations?
l An 8” beats a 4” on high-contrast objects (moon craters, Cassini division, shadow transits, edge of planet)
l A 4” can match (or possibly beat) an 8” on low-contrast objects (surface of Jupiter and Saturn, possibly Mars) except under very good-excellent seeing conditions.
To test this, we can use the Aberrator program to simulate the effects of turbulence on image quality:
We can see that under no turbulence the SCT beats the APO even for the low-contrast surface features of Jupiter, but when there is turbulence the image quality is equal.
I hope this helps explain the factors behind the quality of what you see in the EP. Of course, size matters, and if your goal is DSOs then the larger scope will always win out (after all, they are called ‘faint fuzzies’ for a reason). But, as we all know, the ‘best’ telescope is the one we use the most!
Thanks for reading and clear skies!
Gary S. Strumolo
- B McCandless, ed100, Max T and 17 others like this
Thanks! I'd say that it would've given a 9.25" SCT a good run for for its money, but I suspect the APO cost more!
A week or two ago I went out to my favorite dark site with some friends to do some imaging. I ended up doing mostly visual with my C11 and comparing views with my friend’s 4 inch Stellarvue refractor. I would have never imagined that any view through a 4 inch refractor would be better than my C11, and that is usually true, except that M81/82 looked better though the smaller scope. The dark skies helped a whole lot and the contrast and the wider field though the Stellarvue. My C11 had more detail and brighter highlights, but the narrower view and a bit less contrast made that particular target less appealing.
My conclusion is that even though I have always preferred my SCT’s to my refractors there are targets and situations where a 4 inch refractor is just a bit better.
Sure. Since M81 and M82 are separated by around 1 degree it would be easier to frame both in the 4" refractor than the C11. Of course, as you mentioned, the C11 gave you brighter images and greater highlights as expected, but there is something to be said about framing an image perfectly. It doesn't contradict what the article states, as it is more concerned with absolutes of resolution and contrast rather than artistic appeal.
I built and ran numerous labs for the government to test sensors. It was extremely diffecult to get the managers to understand if they wanted better resolution, they needed bigger aperatures. I could magnify a 4 inch aperature as much as they wanted, but at some point all I was doing was magnifiing a blur spot. Not gaining any resolution.
But I like artistic appeal!
It's just for reference.
TMB 100/800 vs Celestron C8 Review
Thanks for the link. An interesting article, although his bias for the TMB scope comes out clearly. One thing he said struck me: "After twenty years of little use, the mirrors are still bright and dust-free. The only maintenance required before the tests was a very careful clean of the corrector plate." Seriously?! Not a mention of the state of collimation of this 20 year old scope? Or that before testing he extensively worked to collimate the C8 as best as one could? Without that there would be no need to carry out a comparison test; the SCT would be severely handicapped.
My article makes an effort to discuss the negative impact that poor collimation has on an SCT's performance. In fact, I'd hypothesize that a major reason why a 4" APO can hang with an 8" SCT is because the former is very rarely out of collimation while the latter is very rarely in excellent collimation!
M81 and M82 are 37 arc-minutes apart. They're easily framed in a scope with a 2800 mm focal length..
"More detail and brighter highlights" constitutes a victory in my book.
And both deserve enough magnification that the details can be seen in their fullest..
Thank you for this article.
If you look at this thread I started, you will also see a slight SNR advantage of using a refractor. This has to do with "T-stop" versus "f-stop" :
Nothing like my 10” SCT….maybe a 16” SCT.
But I can’t afford to have one (space and $$$)
I love the 4” for its clarity, and portability though. But if I want to feel like Buzz Aldrin…the 10” sct wins, then the 8”ACF, then the APO
I believe this thread has run its course. We all know that 4 inches of aperture can’t compete with 8 inches unless something is really wrong with the 8 inches. Sadly many scts never live up to their potential due to mis collimation, thermal problems, rough optics, take your pick. It’s also true that many of these comparisons are comparing high end instruments with the sct that is made to a modest price point.
As a community it does not serve us well to continue to push the “ one magical scope scope” that does everything. I personally use a 4 inch refractor and an 8 inch sct. Both scopes compliment each other. I recently acquired a 10 inch dob which is “ auditioning” for the role of my larger scope. One idea that comes to mind is don’t spend too much on an apo because the money is better spent on larger aperture. This is why I think the mid priced apo is tough to beat for visual over “ high end” gear. With the money saved you can buy a nice dob. The combination of the two scoped opens up far more possibilities. Consequently spending all of your budget on a huge dob without a “grab and go” is the opposite problem with some of the same consequences.