malc-c

I've downloaded all 77 subs, and setting a threshold to stack only those that score 80% or above, 31 passed - the rest were rejected. The resulting image wasn't great given it's just lights with no flats darks or bias images, and the stars still had a bloated appearance, but hopefully it will give you some encouragement - Here's a Jpeg cropped in Photoshop Looking for the C5 it is often listed as a tube only, so no idea what "standard" mount you have, but looking at the regular rotation of the subs I get the feeling that it's not an equatorial mount ? If you can inform us (or post up a picture) of the mount we can then advise further.

Controversial question as the trend for planetary scopes is long focal lengths and neither of the two scopes you mention have that. Some of the really jaw dropping images of the planets that we see on magazines taken by armatures will have been taken through 12-14" CATs with some really expensive camera. The reason is that there is a ratio between aperture and focal length. So for example, if you were using a 4mm eyepiece to view Jupiter through a 6" f10 scope, and also an identical 6" f5, the image in the latter will be brighter, but smaller as the magnification is half that of the f10. The image in the f10 will be larger, but duller with less resolution. So the ideal is to have an f10 or f20 focal length, but also large aperture to gather more light and produce more definition. Out of the two I would opt for the 150P having more aperture and better mirror. But at f5 don't expect to see a large detailed image. The image above is very much spot on. However, if you obtain a couple of decent barlow lenses and stack them, and have a planet that is high up and a decent seeing state then you can get something quite reasonable. Here's an image of Jupiter, taken in 2011with an old Philips CCD webcam, through my 200p using two 2x barlows stacked to give an approx f20 focal ratio Not perfect, and with todays modern cameras the resolution would be a lot better... but for what I had I was (and am) pleased with the result

Will, welcome to SGL. Seems a lot of the subs have elongated stars, suggesting tracking / guiding issue. As above, can you provide more info on the mount and your workflow, etc then we can offer more advice. To me it looks like better polar alignment might give you more chances, but unless the mount is in the HEQ5 class or above, even 30 seconds unguided will give star trails, especially if your polar alignment is off. Just to add, DSS is good, but no amount of correction will resolve poor initial images

Hi, Nope not had a chance to yet. Most of the planets are too low down for me and are morning objects. Was waiting for the Moon to come back around, and then give it a whirl. I also injured my back again last week, which makes for opening the observatory rather tricky... But no doubt I'll get round to giving the camera a run at some point

Thats the debug log not the guide log....

Shame you ditched the images as that would help the guiding gurus on the forum. However if you could upload the PHD2 guide log files that would be useful as it will show what movements the mount made and those experienced in deciphering the logs might be able to give you some idea of what went wrong. If you could also list the specs of the equipment used (main scope and guidescope, and cameras used) that would be useful too.

Can't really comment on your mount, but belt modding other mounts such as the HEQ5 reduces backlash a fair bit as you tend to only have to deal with the worm interface, compared to the gearing mesh on a standard mount. I would suspect the same occurs on the EQ3 when fitting the OnStep system. Yes the .io interface takes some getting use to. Those of us that are old enough will akin it to the old Newsgroups

Worth joining the OnStep user group... seems the subject has been discussed there based on a google search

There is no upgrade path. A new HEQ5 is supplied with a new handset, tripod and leads. This makes all the existing EQ5 synscan unit, handset and tripod redundant as it's only suitable for the EQ5. If you were purchasing a second-hand HEQ5 mount only, then your EQ5 tripod and handset can be used, provided the EQ5 is the synscan pro-goto as previously mentioned. You can not use the HEQ5 with the standard or deluxe EQ5 motor controllers.

Well if he's still trading may I suggest you PM the above member and give him any information on from where he is trading from and any contact information so that he can in turn pass that on to the bailiffs and hopefully KY will get closure

The Ironic thing is that the new ARM based board has an additional connector J5 which is a full blown USB port, so the connectivity is there, just can't be utilised, at least not without a lot of modification to the mount. Don't worry about the mix up Steve, we're all getting older

👍 Makes life easy 🤞

I can't really advice as I don't have the same mount or use the same driver. There is a lot of information on the driver in the link I placed in the post above - might have the answers there

I'm no expert, and we all have different ways of doing things. Others might suggest a different workflow. I think if the PA is out then yes to a degree the software will compensate for that, but naturally if its way off the corrections may compound the inaccuracy. If the mount is moved for any reasons then you would need to delete all the previous sync points as they will no longer be valid. It's no hardship, you only need to do the three point alignment once again and then you should be fine, even if you never added any additional sync points to the mapping.

Having told the mount when its pointed correctly at three points in different directions then in theory through the math built into the driver (assuming it has the same feature as EQMOD) it should be able to work out the small errors and make the small corrections for any target within the area mapped out by those three points, and give you reasonable accuracy, especially with a high precision mount. My HEQ5 is fixed in the observatory, so I sync on every target I've visited and now every goto has the target more or less central in the fov of my Canon 400D. It may well be that on your mount the target is still out slightly rather than under the cross-hairs every time given how tight your FOV is. But given your mount is far superior to the HEQ5 I would expect the precision would give you good accuracy, and you will hopefully find the mount hits the mark each time.

I know the new motor boards are ARM based and most new mounts do indeed have a USB -B port on them, but from what I can see this has yet to be included in the HEQ5, possibly down to the fact this mount has a remote pcb with the all the connectivity on it. To add the USB connectivity directly to an HEQ5 it would require the additional revised secondary PCB, and given the physical constraints in that area, would, IMO require the removal of the ST4 port in order to add a USB socket. I agree that a direct USB connection to a mount is not ideal as there is no locking mechanism to prevent the cable dropping out mid slew !

My apologies, I should have looked at the mount listed in your signature. I would assume the same function is provided through the V2 Driver, which strangely enough looks quite similar to EQMOD ! details here The website states Maybe this option needs ticking to give you better accuracy ?

Options are: An FTDI EQDIR cable. It replaces the handset and provides a direct connection to a computer that has a USB-A type socket. If the handset supplied is a V5 it will have a USB - B port. A standard USB - A to B cable can be used between the computer and handset. The handset still needs to be connected and plugged into the mount. If using the second option you may need to place the handset into a PC-DIRECT mode to enable pass through commands. The first option tends to be the "standard" way people control an HEQ5 using a computer. Both ways achieve the same result, one with less wires and takes out one element (the handset) from the equation.

I believe the "offset" is calculated by EQMOD (I'm sure Chris will hime in if he still reads this forum). If your system is mobile and needs setting up each night you need to clear the stored sync points in EQMOD otherwise the corrections will be out. Much the same way as doing a three point alignment with the synscan handset creates a new alignment patter. Having polar aligned and powered up the mount in the default home position connect EQMOD via CdC. Expand EQMOD and click on the button to clear all sync data (has Dx in blue and a red X), Select a bright star in the west in CdC and right click on it and select slew to... Once you are at target, used the NSEW buttons on EQMOD to position the star centrally in the field of view. Then right click on the target star in CdC and select sync. This informs EQMOD that the scope is on target, and EQMOD notes the difference in where it thought the scope was pointing and where the target is. I then repeat this for a star in the East, and one in the North. This provides EQMOD with a triangle to which all the corrections and offsets will be applied, and any target within that triangle should then be well within the field of view, if not near centre. The advantage with EQMOD is the more sync points are stored the higher the accuracy of subsequent gotos become.

Don't be in a rush to dismantle the scope and clean the mirrors. It's surprising how well mirrors perform with what we may consider as being dirty. If you do need or want to clean them then research this properly, and don't go using detergents and tap water. Ideally deionised RO water is needed along with IPA. Once cleaned and reassembled the optics will need re-collimating. Again, this has been well documented on the forum, websites and youtube videos. You can then use the mount you have with the scope and see how well it performs visually. You can then try attaching a camera and try your hand at imaging. Then if you find the limitations of your existing mount restricts your progress then that may be the time to upgrade to an HEQ5 or similar.

Polar alignment must have been good then

There has been a similar thread running where another member was looking at using the same mount and motor drive option for imaging. A few of us suggested the Synscan goto upgrade but the member opted for the enhanced controller, and after trying to overcome issues the motor drive presented is now considering selling it and upgrading to the synscan system. Whilst a 200P on and EQ5 will cope with a dslr camera, by the time you add a guide scope and camera etc you are really stretching the EQ5 to its limit for imaging. A better option is to mount the 200P on an HEQ5, which has better load capability, has far better precision and is overall a better suited combination, and I'm talking form personal experience as I started with an EQ5 and soon sold it and bought a second hand HEQ5 soon after.

It's a standard Skywatcher Explorer 200P - 8" f5 Newtonian Reflector. It seems to have the standard focuser which would suggest it's not the PDS version which was more suited for taking images with. That said you should be able to use the scope for astrophotography, provided the mount is suitable

I remember the discussions had when you were considering your options, and mentioning the impact on your wallet should you choose to upgrade in stages rather than jumping straight in to a pro goto set up. I'm sure you'll have no problem selling your enhanced motor kit on the classified section, mainly as there are people like you who want to upgrade their mount but can't justify the initial outlay for the synscan option, and are in that same dilemma as you were at the time. As your kit is just months old and like new you could get upwards of 75% of the amount you paid, especially if it is still with the original packaging. The pro goto does, IMO offer a lot more options. Check with the supplier (FLO ?) that the upgrade is one of the new generation with a USB-B port on the sysnscan controller. This gives you the option of a direct PC connection without the need to purchase an optional EQDIR cable. You can then use EQMOD or GSServer and ASCOM (windows) or INDI (Linux) to control and pulse guide the mount through PHD2, which is a lot more refined than ST4 (IMO).

I'm not best placed to answer the question on dithering... Hopefully someone more experienced will advise