Astrophotoguru · Compare

telescopecomparison · 2-way

Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P vs SharpStar 61EDPH III

Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
Sky-Watcher

Quattro 200P

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

SharpStar 61EDPH III
SharpStar

61EDPH III

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Key differences

+139% focal length
+228% aperture
Faster by 1.5 f-stops

Specifications

SpecificationSky-Watcher Quattro 200PSharpStar 61EDPH III
Optics
TypeNewtonianRefractor
Optical designImaging NewtonianDoublet APO
Aperture200mm61mm
Focal length800mm335mm
Native f/ratiof/4.0f/5.5
Image circle32mm32mm
Full-frame supportNoNo
Physical
Weight10.5kg2.4kg
Advantages of Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
  • Tighter framing — 800mm vs 335mm focal length
  • 228% more light-gathering aperture
  • Faster optics at f/4 vs f/5.5
Advantages of SharpStar 61EDPH III
  • Wider field — 335mm vs 800mm focal length
  • Lighter (2.4kg vs 10.5kg) — easier to travel with
Best for — Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P
  • Medium-sized galaxies and planetary nebulae
  • Fast imaging — short exposures per sub
  • Faint-object imaging under dark skies
Best for — SharpStar 61EDPH III
  • Wide-field nebulae and Milky Way regions
Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 2.58° × 1.72°Scale: 0.97"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.68° × 1.12°Scale: 0.97"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 0.81° × 0.81°Scale: 0.97"/px
SharpStar 61EDPH III — typical FOV & scale
  • With Full-frame (36×24mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 6.16° × 4.11°Scale: 2.32"/px
  • With APS-C (23.5×15.7mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 4.02° × 2.69°Scale: 2.32"/px
  • With IMX533 square (11.3×11.3mm, 3.76µm)
    FOV: 1.93° × 1.93°Scale: 2.32"/px
Sky-Watcher Quattro 200P — recommended user

Best suited for intermediate imagers building a versatile kit running a backyard imaging setup.

SharpStar 61EDPH III — recommended user

Best suited for beginners and wide-field enthusiasts running a portable travel rig.

Recommended alternatives