All Activity

An absurd number of galaxies, great image!

It is an interesting question. I am not sure your thought experiment of a 5inch vs 8inch would see the smaller scope beat on any object (caveat shortly), but having been doing this for a very long time and used more scopes than I can count, I have found high quality refractors typically make up for 2-3 inch deficiency in aperture by the improved contrast against obstructed scopes where the same extent of detail can be seen even if the image itself is dimmer. The obvious exception is something like M33. That is very low surface brightness and I have had scopes quite a bit bigger than 8" fail to show it where as a 4-5" scope shows it pretty easily. Something like the E and F stars in the trapezium mentioned above also does not surprise me. If seeing is decent, those two stars are a good test for spherical abberation in smaller scopes as the dim stars against bright glowing nebula means they are smeared out by SA and rendered invisible. The impact of extra diffraction from spider vanes and secondary could have a similar impact.

I'll check out Siril. So far I'm only using DSS and Photoshop. For the levels, when you're choosing a specific channel do you clip the data if its more than the other colors? I.e. for my case should I clip the red data in the levels just to have them equal?

If you've shared your setup on your YouTube channel, I'm sure it's inspiring others to delve into similar projects.

Looks great1 Very Hubble-y What do you use to stitch the panes together?

The other thing that comes into play is the history and reputation of the ones making the claims about Askar's visual performance. What else have they compared in order to make well rounded decisions? What are their seeing conditions like? Are they mostly imagers? What is their level of experience on interpreting aberrations such a zones, under-correction etc, acclimation, color perception, diagonal selection, observing platform. What did they see specifically when they observed stars and planets? This is why I care greatly about who writes these reviews. People love to get data, but the problem with data is end-users obviously struggle to differentiate theory from observation itself. Anyone who has an Askar can do a review. It doesn't mean they are seasoned enough to know what they should be looking for. The other side of the coin is it may be good enough for them and that's perfectly fine, in fact, that's great. The real issue though is if they are going to set a claim on real world performance, I like to hear more specific information about the observation, knowledge and experience of the observer. The internet is plagued with imagers and theorists who do nothing but read about optics and sadly there are not enough observers doing real world observing by comparing telescopes who have a long history behind them. Those are the details I look for because too many beginners are just pontificating the same stories about optics and glass again and again.

I've imaged with modified Canon's for several years. Firstly I'd suggest you try out Siril, and it's "Photometric color calibration" tool. If that fails, use the standard color calibration tool. This will most likely give you a neutral background. For fine-tuning I use the "levels"-tool in my image manipulation software (Gimp). Choose the channel you want to reduce or increase, and move the middle slider a little bit sideways. Easy does it.

M51 is my nemesis I have seen it once in Damians (Mapstar) 22", I have had 6" 8" 10" reflectors 4" and 5" Refractors and never seen it from home. Just got a 120mm refractor as I sold my 5" so I will try this one. Blue snowball I have found looks much better in a refractor the colour is unmistakable in a refractor.

Let's be honest on this, to an extent we all have bias on scope type, aperture etc. It may be a unconscious bias, but we will all have it and that will navigate our response to the OP question. I did laugh at @Earl and his Bank Balance answer, which is patently correct. I have always flip flopped about Newtonian and Refractor scopes, I have a deep love for both. My last direction was all refractor and I quickly added back a reflector to the mix, as horses for courses applies. This year due to a back issue, that is long term, I find I cannot sit and use a refractor of the aperture and focal length that I like without making my back far worse for days on end. I am presently only using Newtonians from 6 to 10 inch aperture and thoroughly enjoy my lot. One thing to bear in mind is the question posed needs to take into account funds available and mounts available, A badly mounted 5" or 8" or even 10" is a scope that will be a drain on the pleasure it could bring to its user.

Well having pondered a little while, often best to do so in my case, I have ordered the SL 20 and will see how much I can or cannot see with my glasses. I have done this as it has been spoken of highly and the eye relief may or may not work for me, That is the critical bit 'for me' as EP as so personal. I would love a Nagler t4 22, it has a mythical status, but its not cheap and I cannot see the whole 82 degrees with my glasses on, so if the SL is limited in the same way and excellent in quality, why not give it a try and report back. After all FLO have a returns policy and this is very much one of the reasons why. I will report back in due course.

Here are the histograms for each photo. I'm thinking that the red hue/tint is because of the wider field of reds in the image. Not sure if I should clip it to get the original color of the target.

If you see only white and no detail you need to lower your exposure time. The Moon is very bright so youll use something like 5ms for capture.

That was only one night of course, and afterwards the 8" went back to its owner, and I continued using the 120ED for many more years. Had I have continued observing with the 120ED and 8" Dob, there may very well have been times when the opposite occurred. Either scope could have been the scope of a lifetime, but I suppose my love of refractors has given me more hours using them and seeing great sights along the way.

A bigger bank balance just buying the newt 😜

You might need to add an extension tube to achive focus.

I posted on here SGL because my EQ5 black plastic cover had snapped on the top screw tried everything only thing I could do was bodge it with melted plastic. Was advised contact FLO so I did got a Email back from Alex said he would check if they had one or contact their supplier. The next day Alex got back to me he had found a unit sent photos but for some reason I could not see them. Sent me another email apologising which was unnecessary but he did with photos attached I could see. As I was in hospital I said I would contact him today all being well I did so this morning Alex got back to me with a way to pay for this non stock item it's now paid for and getting dispatched. The service went above and beyond I really appreciate it nothing less than five star treatment no wonder FLO have a very good reputation they are excellent and every employee. Paul

Mike, This is fantastic stuff! Exactly what I was after! And certainly justification for both. 😉 Thanks Mark

Hello, I have a SkyMax 150 and ZWO 120 MC-S Colour Planetary Camera. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/telescopes-in-stock/skywatcher-skymax-150-pro.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asi120mc-s-usb-3-colour-camera.html Setup 1 Took off the 90 diagonal and put the camera into a 1.25" to 2" adapter and put it on the tube on the back of the scope. Pointed it to the moon, then used FireCapture, however I could only get a very white bright image. Setup 2 Put the 90 diagonal back on. Used the 1.25" to 2" to hold the camera into the 90 diagonal. Still no better image, however this time I got a white or black image. One of our members at Astro club asked me about Back-Focus. I have no idea on this, nor can I find a value for this. Any help would be appreciated, I am very new to this. Thank You

Hi Stu, Yes, it is sorted now. I didn't want to leave it as it was, and I could see Dweller had a point, after reflection. And, you're correct, perhaps I have exhausted you all with my posts. 😉 But, on the plus side, I think that all the exhaustion has achieved something, and in fact I give you (and others) a lot of credit for my decision to switch from getting a 12" newt for the AZ-EQ6, to going for the 200pds. The latter choice was also finalised when I found some stunning images of jupiter together with ganymede showing detailed albedo markings, on astrobin. So, to me, this shows what it's capable of, and it's a very good starting point for both visual and planetary AP, and won't break my back in the process! Doesn't mean I can match the images, but one has to start somewhere. You raise some interesting points above about your frac and newt, certainly the type of comparison I'm after, and it does seem as if having both would be most interesting. 😉

Doesn't this go to show there's nothing written in stone when it comes to one aperture or scope design vs another! A number of years ago I'd been loaned a very nice SW 8" Dob which I'd set up in my garden at around 3pm on a clear afternoon. Alongside the Dob was my Equinox 120ED and both spent a good six hours standing in the cool air before being aimed at the Moon. My friend Derek witnessed this event as we looked at the Moon using the 8" and both genuinely felt the view was quite literally as good as it could ever possibly be. I knew in my heart that the 120ED would be hard pushed to get anywhere close to the 8", but when we looked at the Moon through the 120ED standing alongside, we were both in awe at the improved sharpness. The night had excellent seeing and both scopes were giving their best. It would have been very easy to assume the 8" would be unbeatable by a smaller scope had the smaller scope not been standing right alongside, and anyone with that 8" would have had a seriously great scope. It didn't stop there however, as we next aimed the 8" at Saturn which was high in the south east, and again the 8" gave what appeared to be another unbeatable view of the planet and its rings. Again I felt that the 120ED would struggle to get close to the view given by the 8" as it was perfection. Anyone seeing that 8" perform as it did on Saturn would be convinced it wouldn't be possible to get a better view through a smaller scope, as the A ring, Enke minima, Cassini's division, variations in the brilliance of the B ring, and the Crepe ring were all visible with ease, as well as globe detail. Nervously I aimed the 120ED at Saturn and Derek took the first look. His response to what he saw was littered with expletives which made me want to push him out of the way and look for myself. Instead I patiently waited for my turn to look, and when it came I was gobsmacked at the improved definition. The rings in the 120ED were as in the 8", but unlike the 8" were littered with the finest grooves similar in appearance to the grooves on a vynil record. Derek likened the view to a Voyager image!

Probably mine about my op sorry.

Captured over 3 nights (in February 2024 and March 2024), this is a four pane mosaic of the Virgo cluster. ~14 hours across the four panes with my Epsilon 130D and 2600MC Pro. So much to enjoy when browsing the full size image. Some more chat/info in the Deep Sky Imaging thread here Annotated version if you want to look anything up after browsing around the primary image.

Only if you do the analogy with moving train, three people on the train - one seated, one exiting car on one side and other exiting car on the other side versus bystander watching the train go by Who will see what?

Did I pass the test then Vlad?? 🤞🤞

@Flame Nebula bear in mind there may be a degree of ‘response fatigue’ going on as you have posted many questions, quite a few of them overlapping. I didn’t interpret your post as anything disingenuine if that helps, it seemed quite clear. Luckily you all seem to have played nicely and sorted it yourselves, so thank you for that from a moderator perspective 🙏🙏 I have an FS128 and an 8” f8 dob. I think doubles are probably the main area where the frac probably shows things better than the newt due to the crisp round star shapes it produces. I probably find E & F in the trap easier in the frac, even things like the Double Double are generally cleaner splits. The frac does also show lovely contrast so competes fairly well but generally won’t show anything the newt won’t although perhaps some planetary and lunar detail can be better at times. Did I mention getting some miles under your belt before ? 😉😉