Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

SamAndrew

Members
  • Posts

    897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

584 Excellent

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SW London

Recent Profile Visitors

3,136 profile views
  1. I thought the focuser is excellent, one of the best I've used, no issue with a 2600MM + filter wheel. The problem I had was the blue channel was much softer than the red and green; all the reviews I've seen have been OSC which I think will hide the issue because you'll focus to an average point for all colours, but when using mono and refocusing between colours it was very noticeable. I was probably expecting a bit too much for the 0.6x reducer. Shame as it was so well built, It would be fine for narrowband, I nearly kept it for visual use, but FLO were happy to accept the return. Plan to share my analysis once I get chance, the data is hard to process to an acceptable result.
  2. Depends what wavelength you're imaging at . You could say the inital universe was one big nebula, so the microwave background is the most distant nebulosity.
  3. But you need to add a flattener to both of these, so you end up with more glass in the end
  4. I don't think you'll see much improvement by switching to a "better" scope with a similar focal length, given you're not using a big camera chip, so 2600 mono would be my choice; of course once you have that camera you might start to notice the limitations of your doublet, and then want to upgrade the scope
  5. If the slower scopes you mention were cheaper or a lot easier to use then yes you could make an argument for them. You'll get the same image out of a budget F4 newt, but have the flexibility of a wider field of view; there are always other neighbouring galaxies you can capture at the same time.
  6. I've had decent galaxy results from the Esprit 100; you don't really need that much focal length to get to a good sampling rate for galaxies: 1~1.5 arc seconds I've also had imaging newtonians; entry level ones are a lot cheaper than RC scopes, you can't beat them on bang for your buck. 200pds or Quattro 8S can produce stunning results for the price. The main thing RCs have going for them is the more compact design. Any entry level one will need a focuser upgrade.
  7. I plan to do expensive scope without BXT vs cheap scope with BXT comparison although I don't have much broadband data with the FSQ-106; given my light pollution most of my data is narrowband. For 1/7th of the price the Askar 103 is looking good.
  8. First imaging light for my Askar 103. I threw caution to the wind and went for the 0.6 reducer. Initial impression There's minimal tilt straight out the box Corner stars are reasonable considering I haven't adjusted spacing to account for my filters yet, looks promising given it's a refractor at F4. ASP-C sensor. Median FWHM on that single sub is 1.84 * 1.88" = 3.46" Mechanical quality and fit and finish is excellent. I'll try and do a full review once I've got some complete images, but so far I'm happy. First frame with a stretch, no calibration: raw corners (looks like spacing adjustment needed to account for filters): Corners once BXT applied (basically perfect, wouldn't expect anything less now ) : Single frame, no calibration, BXT, Graxpert and a stretch:
  9. Buying and selling astro gear is all part of the journey, I've had plenty of gear that didn't live up to expectations, but no real regrets on the astro front I think I'm on about 30 telescopes in 13 years. Biggest financial mistakes/regrets have all been car and motorbike related.
  10. Thanks, basically applied no stretch to the stars 😆 if I spent more time I would have a sparate workflow for the other stars to bring out some of the colours. Would be interested to see your technique, I don't see a way to do a synthetic flat given the dust bunnies are coving the nebulosity.
  11. Gave it a quick bash in PI, can't do too much with the dust bunnies, need someone to make an AI tool to fix those
  12. Looks good, could see myself getting one of these, but it also looks like a bit of a beast to mount! the 140 is probably the more sensible option.
  13. Nice, good job bringing the nebula out while keeping the background under control. I've got 2 hours of Ha on this one, kudos for getting nearly 35 hours given our weather!
  14. I would happily get another Zenithstar 61, I do miss that scope. Evolux 62 looks tempting for the price though.
  15. Have just aquired one of these, have had a quick peek through it out the window, looks and feels very nice so far. It's going to be a few weeks before I can test it properly as I wait for a new camera, but it will be interesting to compare it to my FSQ 106 and Esprit 100 data. I suspect with BXT AI4 the end result will be just as good.
×
×
  • 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.