All Activity

Interesting new development. It was a matter of time. If it gets to work properly (had to RMA my 2600MC DUO), I like the concept. What do you think?

I have a Meade ETX 125. When I plug the controller in it does a "Test" then says there is a fault on the motor, has any one else had any experience of this ? Could there be a fault with the controller ?

One copy for me, as the winner, please. It looks like there are 4 USB ports. The Raspberry Pi rather cannot fit there, also it has USB ports in a fixed place. I would say that there is an ASIair mini and a power hub.

Well guessed. So the “waist” are the vents.

You need to put the above drawtube back into the focuser, marked below..

I just saw an eyepiece - it’s in the end of the draw tube….

End-users always generalize about brands, no different than you generalized about Astro-Pysics being a top tier brand. Have you ever tested a bad AP, Tak, TMB or TEC? I have. The problem today is end-users want what they interpret to be facts. Facts based on what experiences of the end-users themselves? What experiences do people or end-users with those concerns have to bring to the table other than just some more images of DSO's? Most of the end-users who insist on optical authenticity of quality struggle to even understand what they are looking at and since most of them don't even observe in the first place, it's going to be even harder. So in essence, they don't know what they don't know. There's also this idea by many end-users where they seem to believe that because they see something on a computer screen, that somehow means they are seeing hard facts. Just because end-users look through an eyepiece does not mean an issue is treated with any less care or can't be confirmed, in fact, quite the contrary. Some people are just horrible observers and depend on computer screens while others are excellent observers. Observing is a skill learned over time. For example, some people choose to look through microscopes while others choose to use digital screens. For refractors, both methods can achieve excellent results while both methods can also achieve bad results depending on the aberrations they are concerned about. Yes, there most certainly are differences with refractors better intended to be used for visual while others are better suited as astrograph's. Most of the confusion with that topic stemmed from the imaging community though, not the visual community. The reason this happened is because imagers were mixing their own concerns with the visual community. Most who were starting out, didn't know any better and huge amounts of misinformation were posted by the imaging community in particular. This is why I have advocated on numerous occasions in another forum that there needs to be two separate refractor topic threads; one for imaging refractors and another for visual refractors. Yes, with the increase in aperture, they inherit greater challenges that are pretty specific.

Sounds like an 8” F/5, mirrors look reasonable but hard to tell. Do you have any eyepieces with it like this - ignore the writing.

Haha, should I understand that I guessed properly (2600MC, not 6200MC) ?

Diffraction spikes on Jupiter really annoy me. Too much brightness also washes out planetary feature and colour detail to my eyes. I also think events like Galilean moon eclipses and transits particularly ingress and egress appear much better in refractors.

Thanks Mike.

Better planetary definition. Never seen an 8" Newtonian give sharper views than a good 5" refractor.

Right, so here is how the final version looks like with 1.2mm spacer. Before and after BlurXterminator, just 'Correct only' selected. I nearly forgot: it's F/1.4. I'm not going to kill myself, I think it's much better than an average 40mm lens.

Different flange distance in simple optical design lenses should make a difference only in infinity focus position. But with complex design lenses as the Sigma it will introduce aberrations. So my guess is that you need some spacers / washers so your focus (when focusing at stars) mark is similar as when you had the lens on the DSLR.

It's Alchemy, I tell ya!

Glad, that so many members were lucky enough weather-wise to spot the ray! Was out with the 5.1" Heritage early enough to confirm, that the phenomenon had not started at 20.45 CEST. Fifteen minutes later, the clouds had left the moon invisible, and rain was starting. Ok.; I have seen the ray three times up to now, and will wait patiently for the June 15th occasion. I didn't manage the reverse phenomenon, the Pitatus ray, up to now. The times for observing are less convenient, during the morning hours (waning moon!), but it seems worthwhile to get up early; have a look: (c) Frank Mc Cabe; https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/554510-craters-pitatus-and-hesodius-during-lunar-sunset/ http://www.lunar-occultations.com/rlo/rays/animation/Pitatus.gif Next occasion will be May, 2nd, 03h 26min; the moon will be very low, so you'll need a free horizon to the SE. More data here: http://www.lunar-occultations.com/rlo/rays/pitatusp.htm Stephan

…images free from spikes.

Interestingly, I found myself liking one more than the other then vice versa. I think the 200p was sharper, as one might expect with stacking, but in terms of light and dark areas, both were nice. I'd be happy with either. The refractor did very well considering the aperture difference.

I use the ES68 24mm with my LX90 12, works very nicely. Very pleased with the views it provides. Also transforms the views through my ST80 as well.

Mine is the same. I use a Reego for the secondary and star test for the primary. Cheshire or Laser is well off. In theory once you have the collimation spot on you could add a tilt corrector to get the secondary on the same axis as the primary. You could then use a Cheshire. However, I only collimate about once per year so it is not that critical.

From my view I think it's clear the newt shows more detail (IE resolution). Another thing to note, my Z61 is tiny but I can comfortably look at the moon unfiltered, when I tried it in my 130pds the light was blinding, so a testament to the difference of light gathering capability as aperture goes up. Note the camera capture will have had short exposures so that surface detail and contrast is well controlled, visually it will be much brighter.

The poster of those is a long standing member here. Perhaps he can chip in personally ? 🙂 Maybe he actually looked through the scopes as well ?

Thats interesting. I'm not an imager of any sort but when I look at the stills of the moon in the side by side comparison, from the perspective of a visual observer, I see pretty equal resolution and sharpness but the contrast between the lighter and darker areas on the surface seems more enhanced in the refractor. Whether that would be replicated in purely visual use, I don't know though.

Much as I like imaging small, little known galaxy targets, I can't let the season go by without having a go at one of the blockbusters. Inspired by @ONIKKINEN's wonderfully deep and detailed M101, I have collected 102 x 2 mins Lum and 94x 2 mins RGB over the last couple of nights to add to 352 x 2 mins RGB from Feb 2022, all captured with the Esprit 150/IMX571 dual rig, captured at 0.74" per pixel. So at 18.25 hrs integration I might have thought that was enough, but if you compare it to Oskari's 25 hr image, it's found wanting. For a start the lack of Ha data is a big minus, I don't have a Ha filter for the mono camera but I could try and get some hours with the OSC and the NBZ dual band. Also, the faint outer spiral arms are less distinct and small objects are lacking in detail. For example, the tiny barred spiral galaxy that I admired is a just a mangled blob in my image. Now some of this may be due to the different OTAs used to gather the data, and my heavy handed processing, or my sky conditions are inferior, but I'm hoping that 18 hrs is just not enough.

That's the issue with the video feed, the exposure duration will have been lowered so that surface detail can be captured in better detail. Take it with a pinch of salt. Visually it should be much brighter in both scopes than the video shows, but you can ascertain the resolution capacity a little.