Thank you for the information. Your second telescope is equipped with the comacorrector. Does that fit to the cheaper one as well? Which one do you prefer? Well, nice video. Thank you

I honestly like the first image more. In the second image the galaxy looks pink and there is a lot of walking noise probably due to autoguiding and not dithering (I may be wrong just my 1st impression). Anyway great video, thanks for publishing !!!

Oddly enough. I prefer the cheaper image... Looks a little sharper in the center galaxy region. Also the colour post processing is better. The stars definately look better in the skywatcher scope.

I wouldn't say the SW is necessarily an expensive telescope. More than the other, sure. But still on the cheap side. Luckily, even cheap telescopes have decent mirrors, meaning that the extra money pays for stuff that does not appear on the image, but still are important, such as focuser, rings, screws, etc.

Hey felix! Great video! Question, what Bresser telescope is that? I cannot find any for under 200 euros for the life of me. All of the Polluxs start at almost twice that?

Nice video, i recently got into astro this year with the 150P so almost the same telescope! That picture looks better than most of my images so nice job. But im also not the best with polar alignment given im in the southern hemisphere and dont go out of a bortle 9 area.

I don't think this is a good comparison - it's clear that these two nights must've had different conditions for the second image to turn out so much worse. The first image has great colors, low amount of noise and very nice contrast while the second image has very poor contrast, almost no colors at all besides blue tint and A LOT of walking noise. Dunno why, maybe it's just a difference in processing or maybe the conditions on the second night were just much worse resulting in poorer signal to noise ratio. Both these telescopes are pretty cheap and there shouldn't be that much difference between them except for the diffraction spikes and obviously the coma since you only used a corrector on one of them. The amount of light gathered on both should be nearly identical with maybe the cheaper one having a bit more vignetting because of the smaller secondary. And about those diffraction spikes - the ones on the cheap telescope are extremely weird - 3 spider vanes should produce pretty nice 6 spike star pattern instead of what you got and I'm wondering if the telescope was just out of collimation or perhaps the primary mirror had pinched optics (clips holding it in place could be overtightened in which case you need to pull out the mirror from the tube, undo the screws just a little and put the mirror back in). The diffraction spikes on the more expensive telescope are also pretty ugly and it could be the collimation and pinched optics but in that case I know from experience that it's mostly just because of the cheap flimsy sky-watcher spider that's identical in all their Newtonians (I replaced mine with a 3D printed one and it's miles better).

Is the 2nd picture color calibrated? It seems much more red/violet. Color wise the first is much better. 2nd had auto guiding so naturally the stars are going to be slightly better.

Both of those scopes are classed as cheap, it's just that one is cheaper than the other. There are upgrades available for the Sky Watcher which includes tube flocking material, a better focuser, secondary mirror spider and an edge cover for the main mirror to prevent artifacts around stars caused by the clips holding the main mirror. I was going to upgrade my own Sky Watcher 150P in this way but as I now own a 115 f7 apo refractor, I probably won't bother. For the price both of the scopes have given reasonable images, but I think that overall the image captured through. the Sky Watcher scope was better. Both scopes probably required collimating and fine tuning. Were they straight out of the box? The main mirror clips are often over tightened for shipment to prevent any movement during transit which may result in pinched optics.

I also got an 150/750 dps but I don't have a comma detector and a tripod. Do you maybe got any tips for wich comma detector and tripod i shoeld buy (and maybe a lens)

Excellent video. Refractor vs newtonian would also be very very interesting :)

ehh..not sure what you did or maybe your eyes need collimation? there is way more detail in the left image

I would try masking the primary mirror clips to help with those miscellaneous "spikes". Heck, a well collimated 6" Newtonian for less than $200 is totally good enough if it produces the sample images you captured.

Maybe i am ignorant, but the first picture looks like more detail is showing in the galaxy.

Great video and comparison! I wonder why only the second image has walking noise? Did you dither while taking subs for the first image? Also, those spikes are caused by the tabs that hold the primary mirror in place. It's recommended to install a round mask on top of the mirror to make the stars look almost perfect.

Well done👍

Woah cool!

Your video really helped me understand the difference in these telescope. can you please suggest budget friendly goto mount for the first telescope. Amazing video , Keep Growing👍

Which camera did you use?

I expect the optics (mirrors) are the same in the two scopes. The main difference is the heavier/thicker 3-pronged spider vanes on the Bresser causing the less pleasing diffraction flares, and the coma corrector + autoguider used with the Skywatcher resulting in a cleaner sharper image. The SW focuser is a lot nicer too - it's a better scope all-round, probably more comparable with the Bresser NT150s OTA than this basic 6-inch kit scope on that wobbly EQ you're forced to buy with it.

11:11 I definitely KNOW you are not correct. Please redo the capture on an equally moonless night. The image taken with the cheaper scope looks way better. DEFINITELY way better.

smart how you titled it cheap vs expensive "telescope" and made it seem like you're presenting cheap vs expensive OTA

Seems like collimation of both of them was pretty off. I’d do that first and then compare!

Please: don’t say I‘ll attach the counterweights in a view minutes. It is always recommended to put the counterweights on first and I don’t want your viewers to dent their OTA on their tripod. The images are very different, I think it would have been wiser to capture less time but on the same night as you initially intended. The Skywatcher is far from beeing an expensive telescope but Bresser is often surprisingly cheap. It should be noted that Skywatcher uses standard Vixen dovetails to attach on your mount as well as standard finder shoes. Although Bresser is usually Vixen compatible, I have seen telescopes that made mount connection surprisingly hard and not using standard finder shoes but their own Bresser/explore scientific type complicates things (for example you can’t swap your finder for a guide scope so easily. That said, seems like the optics are fine and there are a couple modifications that can make the Bresser a lot better (main mirror mask).

It seems like you got walking noise on the 2nd image, you should dither :)