cpsTN

Lunar is my primary goal here. From what I understand the field of view for the planetary cameras is much narrower on average depending on the camera of course then your average DSLR and not but I guess I could borrow the hell out of my DS all are if that's the case. Although with a DSLR at Full Resolution I will be getting 24-megapixel images and I could crop somewhat using medium power.

My current telescope is a Celestron Omni 150, it's 6in f/5 Newtonian on Orion's Skyview Pro GEM, undriven. Not that the type of telescope that I'm using matters necessarily but I thought I would give you the information. I am tiring of having to continually rotate the tube to put the eyepiece in a good position because I do use it a visually more, so I'm considering replacing it with a Mak in the 5 - 7 inch range. Anyway, I currently have a relatively new Canon DSLR (2000D) and I was wondering if since I'm having to buy a new laptop for processing because my old one is after the task any longer, I was wondering if I should just image with the DSLR or would it be a better or worth the price I guess to move to dedicated Astro camera for this? I would still keep that the DSLR.

I don't know what to do with these responses. I don't know what is best as far as pixel size and type of sensor. If you take the ZWO series, there seems to be like a hundred of them and I don't know if I need a smaller pixel size or a larger pixel size or a smaller sensor bigger sensor more megapixels are fewer megapixels... I'm trying to differentiate among the several planetary cameras as far as what I need and particularly the quality of prints I might make. No one seems to ever address that issue.

My current scope is a Celestron Omni 150, the 6" f/5 Newtonian on an Orion Skyview Pro GEM. What are the desired parameters when considering a dedicated astro camera for lunar Imaging? My goal is to get enough data, in single images or by stacking images or video frames to print reasonably high to high quality 8x10" or at least 5x7" prints.

That would be fantastic. Also, I say "it's the law" about nearly everything and I didn't know that anyone else said that. I I don't even remember where I got it since I've been saying it so long. I remember seeing pictures of the tardist but I haven't in a while. Is that Newt 10"?

A 6-inch aperture collects more than double the amount of light than a 4-inch aperture will. The 6-inch would have to be twisted into a pretzel to perform that poorly.

I knew what people were going to say generally speaking to this topic. This came to my mind that the other day when someone said they moved from a 6in f/5 Newt (I believe) to a 4in Mak and said they could see more detail and more clarity on the moon. But I was thinking you shouldn't be able to see more detail and more clarity as a general rule when you move down in aperture, assuming equal quality of optics, especially when you're moving down 2in in aperture. When you go from a 6in telescope to a 4in telescope, you were losing tons of brightness at equivalent magnifications. ???

Nearly all of my life, I've heard two things. One is that aperture is King . You always want as much Aperture as you can afford. Two is that longer focal ratios are always better or generally better for lunar and planetary observation. Here's the issue though. As aperture increases, the focal ratio goes down to keep the size of the telescope from becoming an unwieldy beast. Most of my best views of the moon and planets have been from mediam to large (8" to 12")apertures with ff4.5 to f/6.0 focal ratios. So, is a longer focal ratio always better for lunar and planetary or is aperture still king?

For reference here, my current telescope is the Celestron Omni 150, the 150mm f/5 Newt on Orion's Skyview Pro manual mount, with the Moon as my primary target, along with planets and Open Clusters. For years and years, I have used an Orion 2x shorty barlow, the old style without filter threads. It was used when I bought it. During my time of using it, I have misplaced the set screws and the lens is rattling a little within the cell. As an upgrade, to go with my recently acquired 10mm ES52 eyepiece, I was thinking of getting a Televue 2x instead of a new shorty. To my surprise, though, I have been told by one person that at the price points of the eyepieces I have begun to aquire, beginning with the aforementioned ES52, I wouild not see a noticalbe differnce between the newer Orion 2x shorty and a Televue 2x. I have also been told that my Orion 3x trimag barlow in on-par with or better optically then the Televue 3x barlow. While I am more inclined to believe the 3x trimag statement, I am having difficulty with the ascertain of equitable quality of the 2x shorty and 2x Televue, especially given Televue's high-quality reputation. I would appreciate any further input on this situation. Thank You.

With clearer skies last night and the Moon quite high in the sky, I was able to see that the 9 SLV was a little sharper and definately brighter than the 9 Redline, but not only that, the overall view was more consistent and uniform and noticeably more comfortable to view. The narrower FOV of the Vixen SLV, 50* vs 68*, made the field less distracting too. The SLV handled the seeing better and the Redline, compared to the SLV, seemed like I was looking though a teary eye, with a ring of light and dark around the edge, not to mention the kidney beaning of the Redline. The detail available was not always noticeable, but the SLV is definately a better qlality eyepiece. Just for the hell of it, I am going to be get a 10mm ES52 and compare that to the SLV and see which one comes out better. Then I will know in which of those two lines (Vixen SLV or Explore Scientific ES52), to make further eyepiece upgrades. I am sure if I upgrade my barlows that would be a noticeable improvement too, replacing my Orion 2x shorty and 3x Trimag with TV 2x and 3x.

To answer the prevailing questions, I've been using the moon and looking at very subtle detail to see if I could see any differences and I'm seeing only a definite eye brightening up the field obviously because of better light transmission and a lack of kidney beaning which isn't present in the SLV. I'm also using open star clusters and general starfields to see the sharpness of the stars towards the darkness of the field and the sharpness of the stars at the edge. I'm not seeing really any difference there either but we've had a lot of storms here lately and the atmosphere hasn't been exactly gung ho. If place has had decent eye relief so I didn't have to screw them in my eyeball and Below 12mm focal length I would I would be happy with those. Same with Orthos. I know that I really shouldn't be using an F5 scope for planetary but especially in the six inch and a quarter but many people use much larger aperture Scopes and they tend to be f/5 range if they re Newts. I'm also not using a coma corrector and I'm looking into one of those but there are tons of those to and I probably should be using one of those but I haven't decided online yet. Anyone have a 180mm Mak in their pocket they re not using right now? 😁😁😁

I've never had very high-end eyepieces. The most I've had was maybe $150 at the most, lines like that and under. Anyway, should high-end and moderately high-end eyepieces always show their superior quality views in all conditions or just under good seeing conditions? I ask this because my new 9 mm Vixen SLV is still not shining very well, really hardly any difference at all except for the brightness of the field and the lack of kidney beaning. This is with comparing it to an Svbony Redline 9mm, by themselves and with 2x and 3x barlows in a Celestron Omni 150, 6" f/5 Newt.

Until my new eyepiece arrived, my two main eyepieces were the very inexpensive Svbony 9mm and 15mm Redlines, coupled with the Orion 2x shorty Barlow and the 3x trimag Barlow. As a means of starting to upgrade, I recently bought the vixen LV 9 mm to compare to the Red Lion 9mm. Ahead of a couple days of snow that was going to blanket our area and has, I went out this evening to view the waxing crescent moon hanging just above the trees in somewhat hazy skies. Other than the narrower field of view with the SLV and the field being noticeably brighter with the SLV, I could barely see any difference, particularly with field sharpness. I also did a run through star fields in Cassiopeia. Everything seemed to be just as comatic at the edge of the field of view in both eyepieces. I'm going to have to take more time and do some more rigid comparisons, particularly with clearer skies and a better-placed Moon, but as for the first batch of looks, it isn't promising. This was a quick test when I had time before I went to work that night and before everything clouded over. Shirley this $135 eyepiece has to be significantly better then that $25 eyepiece from Svbony but who knows. Celestron Omni 150, 6" f/5 Newt.

I have been observing since 1986 with a variety of telescopes. I've had virtually everything from 60mm up to 305mm, refractors and Newtonian reflectors (dobs and GEMs) and a couple Maks. My current scope is a Celestron Omni 150, 6 inch f/5 Newtonian on Orion's Skyview Pro GEM. When I sold my last telescope, I mistakenly sold the eyepieces with it so I had to hurry up and get eyepieces and I bought three of the Svbony Redines (9, 15, 20). Supposedly, these are the same as the Orion Expanse line. Anyway, I would like to start upgrading my eyepieces individually. My most used eyepieces are the 9mm and 15mm along with 2x and 3x Barlows (Orion's 2x shorty and 3x trimag). I'm looking at a high price point of around $150 per eypiece. I am a Lunar and Planetary observer and also that of double stars and open star clusters. My main interest, though, is and has always been the Moon. Although I have just joined this site, I have been a member of CN since 2007. I've been looking at TV Plossls, Baader Orthoscopics, the ES 52s and the ES 62s. Since I'm dealing with an f/5 scope, I'm looking more toward optical sharpness over eye relief or field of view. I do wear glasses but I don't have to wear them while I observe. That being said, that doesn't mean I want to screw the damned things into my eyes either, so I DO need some eye relief.