wuthton

This morning I stumbled across this relatively new and superb Youtube channel and I thought I'd share.

Buy a wedge..... I'm sorry but the fact remains, cameras belong on EQ mounts. Your mount is tracking on both axes so double the error before you even get to field rotation. In EQ mode have it slightly unbalanced and polar alignment slightly off and it should be tip-top.

I'd be tempted to make the face plates out of mild steel or aluminum and butcher some spacers for the T2 threads, then 3d print the carcass and filter wheel.. Two metal faceplates bolted together through a printed carcass should be pretty stiff, there's no way I'd hang a camera off a 3d printed thread.

You might want to upgrade to Win 11 Pro as you can then connect with Windows RDP which is far superior to the likes of Teamviewer as it works over your local network rather than bouncing around servers. You only need Pro on the remote PC.

If you do go down the on mount PC route, get one with plenty of usb ports as USB hubs are nothing but trouble. I use a Zotac CI320 in the obsy and a Raspberry Pi on my portable setup.

No, I was wrong at native pixel size and binning just increased my humiliation. I'd like to say a thank you to the contributors on this thread, I’ve never seen a comparison of different systems with the same field of view, it’s been fascinating. But with that said, I own an 8” RC and for a moment I was looking at it in a different light but the bottom line is… it’s still slow when not binned.

Focal length has the big effect on field of view, more aperture (at the same focal length) gives you more speed. Larger pixels on your camera also give you more speed. This is certainly an interesting example as an F6 at a lower sampling rate should be faster than an F8 at a higher sampling rate but this is the same field of view, and the ASI16200 has larger pixels which leads me to think that I might be missing something.

Colour me confused, my apologies if I've misread your post but isn't the LZOS 130/ASI183 (F6, 0.63"/px) significantly faster than the 10" RC/ASI16200 (F8, 0.38"/px), regardless of the aperture?

In the spirit of friendly debate would you mind explaining to me (like I'm five) the advantage of a 80/600 over 80/480 of similar price and quality when used with a DLSR?

I'm sorry but I thought we were having a debate about pixel scale vs mount guiding accuracy. I never asked for your advice, but you are very welcome to an opinion. Both sides of the debate are correct but I'm saying the cheapest route to a great image is pixel scale over guiding accuracy. This is firmly a debate, please don't think I want to argue.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. A mono CCD is easier to use in almost every respect apart from channel combination but that's hardly difficult(comparatively). At +4"/pixel just a few minutes will be plenty for a narrowband sub, my AZ-GTI can easily go five minutes. I agree with @vlaiv, it's not I mount to recommend to a beginner which is why I've lingered on the EQ3 which I refuse to believe is worse. I fear you're never going to join me in my heresy. But out of interest what would you recommend to a beginner with £1500 to spend? My vote is in my original post and I'm fairly sure I'd have enough budget for a finder guider too.

My apologies, as usual I'm being overly brief and unclear. I pointed the finger at the HEQ5 because it's often the most recommended mount, but I think it's fair to say that SGL and any other astro forums' advice to AP newcomers is "get the best mount you can afford and work from there" But I think this advice should change to get yourself a cheap, mono CCD as it blows your mounting options wide open. What I was trying to say with the above post is that, that same camera with some cheap narrowband filters also allows for much cheaper optics that will give excellent results under light pollution. Could I take an Atik 314L+ with a baader 1.25" Ha filter and an ST80 on a guided EQ3 and take what could be considered a good image, yes, I could. With some patience buying second hand, the whole lot would cost less than a HEQ5 (new admittedly). It'd be fairly likely though that I'd need some counselling after spending a night with "that" focuser. Obviously it's not a scope I'd recommend to a beginner, I just used it to make a point about mono narrowband being extremely forgiving on the optics and therefore, the cost.

If I've said something to antagonise you, it wasn't my intention. I'm quite light hearted in person but I'm very aware that my writing style can be blunt and for that I apologise. If were talking about the quality of the optics then I can't help but think of Narrowband. If I bring out my trusty standard bearer, the Atik 314 and put a Ha filter in front of it then the quality of the optics matters (almost) not a all, as long as you can flatten it and focus it. If you put a decent focuser on a Startravel 80 you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between what you can achieve with that vs a Takahashi. Then there's light pollution. This forum is littered with great images, taken with DSLRs under light pollution but it's difficult and the fact remains if you take your kit to dark site, you can take a better image with less effort. With narrowband and a cooled camera, the effort-reward ratio with light pollution is much, much higher.

You're going to have to explain to me what is more important than the speed of the system in the context of this discussion?

I think we posted at the same time and it sort of looked like an answer to your question. What I was saying is you can you can now pick up a good F6 for what a F7.5 cost, pound for pound for 15 years ago. ------- With large pixel cameras and fast, short optics available for comparatively little money is the "work from the mount up" dogma getting old? I very much think so.

I think the Skywatcher ED80 is an excellent example of what I've been clumsily trying to say. We give advice on this forum from our past experience which is largely made up from good advice that we've received in the past. The Skywatcher ED80 was recommended as an AP refractor for beginners, long, long, long after it should have been put out to pasture. It was recommended by people who'd been recommended it, used it, and had good results, it was advice given with good intention but times had moved on. I think we just need to occasionally ask ourselves, is the good advice I received still good advice today.

I've no doubt that you've done a lot over a metre but I've got a sneaking suspicion that as a percentage it's in the minority. Astrophotography doctrine has always been "work from the mount up" but I've thought for a few years now that a better mantra would be "short focal length and a large pixel scale is your friend" for the following reasons. - Cooled, large pixel cameras are getting cheaper and more obtainable as each year passes. - Software improvements, particularly backlash compensation can make a mediocre mount guide like a dream. - The cost of good quality, short and fast optics has dropped through the floor.

For me, the entry point to "serious" astrophotography is not the HEQ5 it's a cooled camera which need not be expensive, you can pick up the baby Atik 314 for £200 and the (imo) sweet spot for high return astrophotography is 85-500mm of focal length, do I really need a HEQ5 at those pixel scales? 500mm with an Atik 314/383, you can use an EQ5 Pro easily. At 250mm you'll not see much difference without pixel peeping between my AZ-GTi (rms +/- 2, I assume an EQ3 would be a bit better) and a HEQ5. I haven't used a CMOS camera but from what I've read they cement my opinion. I've got one last question for you and then I'll leave you in peace. Over the years, approx what percentage of your imaging time has been spent at over a metre FL? Me less than 10%.

Same for me! @ollypenrice Let me give you a budget restraint, the Samy, DSLR and the HEQ5... or Samy, AZ-GTI /EQ3 pro and a dedicated, cooled camera, with which could you take the most impressive image? I know my answer.

Malc, I'm also in a town location with Bradford 4 miles North, Huddersfield 4 miles south, Halifax 5 miles West and Leeds 7 miles East? Come on, you were the one with the "LOL", lets have some fun?

LOL...... Now that sounds like a friendly challenge? Orion or the Triangulum? My AZ-GTI and Atik 314 vs your HEQ5, I'll need a couple of clear nights as I assume you'll want some proof but you're welcome to drop your trousers first if you wish. Shall we say £5 to the charity of choice of who's deemed the winner?

I think @malc-c is correct that we now going around in circles at a point where everyone is correct in some way or form. But I'll bow out with the following statement: I still believe that a cooled camera with a lens and cheap mount gives me a greater chance of an APOD than a DSLR and a HEQ5 and in many cases where the HEQ5 has been pushed to improve guiding accuracy for beginners they'd have been better off increasing their pixel scale for a similar budget. The later point is very much an opinion as both options would be correct advice but personally I'd always prefer a great, big pixel camera over a great mount if I could only afford one of them.

Hear, Hear!!!! The following stuck in the mind as they are my last comments on the subject but I'm sure I could find many more. Op wants a mount for AP for under 500 Euro Post #3 - "I don't think 500 eur is going to be enough for any astrophotography mount" Loads of talk in-between about how bad cheap mounts are. Post #13 "For me, the HEQ5 mount (which I bought used) is the minimum for astrophotography." I'll concede that the thread ended up in the right spot but I fear if you or someone else who's also used a variety of mounts, cameras and focal lengths hadn't joined in it would not have done. I bowed out before casting aspersions at other peoples equipment choices.

I'm going to amend my original estimations as the post was originally meant to be a talk about beginners with modest budgets to what would be a much better number, arcseconds/pixel as it accounts for the focal length and the camera pixel size --- the magic number to get the most out of modest/lighter equipment. Give or take half and arcsecond between larger reflectors vs smaller refactors. Fixed tripod - 150mm - I've never used one, I'll let some else suggest Star tracker - See above AZ-Gti - 250mm - >4"/pixel EQ3 pro - 400mm - >2.5"/pixel EQ5 pro - 500mm+ - >2"/pixel HEQ5 - +/-1"/pixel NEQ6 - +/- 1"/pixel but with a bit more grunt for those big reflectors. I'm going to have a guess that your camera and scope combination was close to 1 arcsecond, in which case you'd need a HEQ5 and I'd be the first to tell you. But, but, but would you have been better changing the camera/scope/lens rather than the mount as the cheapest route to a great image, that's my question.