Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nmoushon

  1. Check out a new thread HERE over on CN. Getting some very interesting results. Its looking to be very comparative to the 8300 ccd sensor and even beating it in some aspects. Me personally I would rather go with the 1600 over the 8300. But once you start getting to better sensor than the 8300 the 1600 drops off pretty quick. But this is just the beginning of a CMOS era.
  2. Anything. If you are getting guiding soon use this time to practice. Spend some time on any type of target you think you would like and get at least 4-6hrs of data on it. Then practice processing. You will only need better processing skills with longer subs. Just pull up stellarium and pick something that will be easy to find and image.
  3. I think dan might be bring up the point that you can make a master file for your darks, bias, flats that will really really help cut down on the size and time for DSS to stack. This would be to stack them separately without any lights to create a single file. Kind of like how you where wanting to do it in your OP for lights. It works for these and not lights because they your are not trying to pull data out of them but to take the anomalies/unwanted parts out of the lights.
  4. I was saying which was better. Sorry for any confusion.
  5. Put each night in its own group (lights, darks, bias, flats). So you will have 5 groups before you start stacking. DSS will stack each group separately then combine then.
  6. Part of me says it should matter and part of me says it should.... When I think about that it should I compare it to looking through the EP. When I compare looking through my ED80 and 9.25"HD, even with tracking on, the object in my EP in my SCT will eventually drift out of view. It takes a while but I can notice. Maybe my PA is off but it can't be that bad. But when I think that it shouldn't I compare it to a tire. If you take a point at the center and take any two point along the same line(one at the edge and one at the middle) the move at the same rate all the way around the tire. Now both those require a constant movement and guiding is not a constant movement since it corrects for any errors. I agree with a point in vlaiv suggestion and that it depends on the mount. So if you taking guiding out of the equation and human error and have a 100% perfect PA then theoretically you would not need guiding at any FL and would have perfect stars at any FL and any exposure length. So I would lean more towards that it doesnt matter in theory but with different mounts and guiding it might actually help to have different speeds...but I dont know how to confirm or deny that. Or it could be that my anologies are a complete cluster *#)@* and I'm just making thing more confusing lol. Edit: Added more to clarify.
  7. After doing AP for several years I have made the switch to observing full time. I have been enjoying getting use to the change and seeing everything I imaged the past show up in the EP. But now that I have gone through the winter and we are not heading into galaxy season the number of objects that are bright enough to pass through my horrid LP as slimming very fast. I was looking at getting a filter to help cut the LP but noticed there are A LOT of different filters for observing and not sure which is best. My budget only allows for me to buy 1 filter so I know that some filter will allow for better viewing of certain objects more than others but I will just have to compromise. I'm not picky on brands and that it has to be the best quality or for certain wavelengths. I'm just looking for a good over all filter that will help be cut through my LP. Any suggestions and experiences are greatly welcomed. Thanks. Edit: Oh and to note my current scope I'm using the most for observing is my 9.25"HD with a .63x reducer and 2" EPs not sure if that makes any difference but might as well make it known.
  8. Not sure what your question is. Are you asking about is that scope works well with a DSLR?
  9. I love my Equinox ED80 for both visual and AP. Great views and well corrected. But for visual only its going to be very underwhelming for you since you are comparing it to your 200mm newt. Both scopes will be just because of aperture loss. Have you looked at the new achros at all? The newer ones are very well corrected for the most part and offer a lot more aperture for the price. Are you replacing your Newt because you are tired of traveling with it because of how large it is or are you trying to lighten the weight on your mount?
  10. I totally read right over where you said you took some short one. Sorry about that. I guess it looks even brighter than normal on my screen. Maybe because its just in Ha that it seems so bright and once (if) you do other filters it will be just fine.
  11. My first thought would be to go smaller pix camera but as pipnina said a barlow could possibly do a similar job. If your intent is to use it for small targets like galaxies and PNs I think it could work. Just as long as the barlow plays nice with the rest of the optics. If you dont want to go that route then I would at least give moving the camera a try. It might disrupt your set up for a while but at least you wont be out any money. I think from there you would have a better judgement as to what you would need to do (new camera or new scope).
  12. You have gotten some really sharp resolution in the nebulae! You have also dont superb in controlling the core even though you use 10min exposures. Great image! I will add a bit of critic though if you dont mind :)... I think if you threw in some short subs for the core and masked those in I think you would be able to pull out even greater contrast for the outer edges while sharpening up the center trap.
  13. Fantastic set of galaxies! Great detail for the short subs and horrid LP.
  14. I thought you got a new one...I guess not though. Where you testing one maybe? Maybe my brain is just to confused. Olly's image is exactly why I love galaxies! Just hope one day I can get something even remotely comparable to that.
  15. Hey! No galaxy bashing. They are my favorite objects to image. I'm sure your new Avalon mount could hold a very nice long focal length scope you could switch out your itty bitty little one for lol Just kidding. I love yours and Olly's wide fov shots. The mosaics you two put together are stunning. Can't wait to see how this one comes together....if Olly doesnt find another target to get sidetracked on lol.
  16. Though some really good quality apos can get some great contrast and good CA control I think the sheer aperture you can achieve with a SCT will win out in the end. Now maybe a 9.25" apo could beat a 9.25" SCT, I dont know, but for that kind of money you could buy the Hubble. lol jk but you get my point.
  17. With fitting a secondary focuser would there not be wires and thus creating star spikes? Unless its a wireless control I guess. Is there a link to the secondary focuser? Would be interested in reading up on it. Also wouldn't doing the same thing (with perma locking the primary) and then added crayford style focuser on the back do the exact same thing? Except that there is no movement in any of the mirrors, primary or secondary.
  18. I dont know much about DKs for visual but if I remember right they are not very suited fro visual for the same reason RCs aren't. Its not that you can't its just that for the price and size there are better options. Someone could say otherwise but I think DKs are designed or imaging in mind not viewing. To your Dob response - if you put it in an obsy you only have to set it up once (unless you take it out). If you get a good quality scope collimation is easy and also rarely needed if you you are not moving the scope in and out of a building (i.e in an obsy). I'm with you and stayed with my EQ mount and SCT vs a Dob because in my budget I could not afford a 10"-12" Dob with goto/tracking. Im not sure your budget but you could look for a 12" Dob with at least tracking if not GoTo or there are kits you could add it for most scopes. Not trying to push you one way or the other just saying.
  19. If you are really fond of the SCT a 11" EdgeHD will fit your bill nicely. Will have better optics than than a CPC....well I guess I should say flatter field. Which is really nice if you have really wide EPs like the 82 or 100 degree EPs. They are more expensive than the CPC but second hand ones come up very often. And the mount you specified will hold it nicely for observing and if you ever dabble in AP it should do just fine for your dabbling. Also it has a dedicated reducer that really works well and keeps the field flat. As for other options you might be able to find a 12" or 14" F/4 or F/5 Newt but those tend to get long and not sure if it will fit in your obsy (you havent mentioned a size). Or you could always design it so you have room for two scopes. Keeping your CPC 8" as is but on a pier and then have a large dob next to it. You could either get a wedge for the occasional imaging with the CPC or even a EQ platform for the Dob. Theres lots of options for you.
  20. Th equinox ED80 and 120 are great scopes for imaging. The 100 isnt bad but a good bit slower than the other two. Half price is pretty good but for that scope but I would make sure to look it over as they are great scopes that usually dont go below 65-70% of new. Thats what i've seen them at at least. Though you will need the neq6 before you would be able to us it for imaging. Your current mount wont be up for the task. So I think you will need to determine (if the scope is in good shape) is the price of the scope now worth it over pushing the purchase of the neq6 back farther?
  21. If you are going to do mostly planetary why not look into a SCT? If you are not going to do major DSO imaging then no need to get a Edge HD version so you can same some money there. Either the Celestron 8" or 9.25" would fit comfortably on the HEQ5. You would get more aperture and fl than you could with any Mak. And a use Starbright XLT come up often are fairly cheap. Here in the US you can pick up a used 9.25" Starbright for about $800-900 which is about 700 GBP ish if I did the conversion right. Which would leave you with a bit extra cash you could spend on some additional upgrades.
  22. So I might be a bit crazy but couldn't pass up the calm after the storm. Just got 33" of snow yesterday and spent the whole day digging out. But 95% clear of clouds. Seeing and transparency are top notch...as long as I'm several degrees away from any roof top. Everyone got the heat cranking tonight. Would be perfect night if the near full moon wasn't here....well northern Virginia perfect anyways. I was amazed how much the moon washed out even the brighter dso even before it broke the horizon. M42 was only half as bright as with out the the moon. So most fainter objects like M1 or any galaxy was washed out but clusters were still great to look at. Temp is dropping fast so doubt I'll stay out too much longer. But will finish the night on the moon.
  23. I agree with vibration being an issue. All though you are not going very high, comparatively, these are designed to hold loads horizontally for the most part. Now they can be used vertically (think almost any telecommunications tower) BUT if you notice those are braced with a lot of tension wire to keep it rigid. Now I know yours wont be anywhere near that tall but its just the same in that they where not designed to stand vertical alone. Especially with a lot of weight at the top. If you where looking into this to begin with I am assuming you planned on putting in some type on concrete pier for it to anchor to under the deck. So if you are planning on doing that anyways why not a typical metal column? You can have the concrete come just above the ground then the steel anchor to it and then a joint just below the deck where you then put another piece that sticks above the deck where the mount attaches. This lets you take it down and hide it from the land lord. Though I will say that if you are cutting through his deck be prepared to lose part of or all your deposit for repairing it.
  24. I have never heard of the first mount you mentioned. The Fornax 102 and GM1000 are really two completely different mounts. The Fornax 102 has a 90kg load where the GM1000 only has a 25kg. Though I'm thinking the 90kg is total weight and not imaging weight (based on price). Since it looks like a higher end mount Im not sure what the image weight would be. But even then the loads are greatly different. If you are looking eventually get a 14" or 16" of any type of scope the GM1000 would not handle those scopes. The 10microns, in my opinion, are best used for unguided imaging since their encoders and modeling are such high quality. Now this is just my person opinion but I would rather spend money on a mount that has a better load capacity and good tracking that expensive high end encoders if I where doing long FL imaging that a 16" RC would bring. But if I had the extreme budget to image at the FL of a 16" RC unguided that would probably be nothing less than a GM4000, especially if you are wanting exposure lengths that are really long, and I would totally get rid of guiding if I could. But that comes at a high cost. Since Im in the US I would normally suggest look at the AP or Paramount series mounts but I know those are hard and expensive to get in Europe. Have you looked at the Mesu200? I also think Mesu is or is coming out with a big sister for the Mesu200 also. Not sure on that one though.
  25. There are several people here that use the 10microns and have nothing but praise for them. The biggest thing though is what scope/equipment are you using? Are you visual or do you image or both? A little bit more info on what you have and what you intend will help other to suggest what you should get.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.