neil phillips

7 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Great photo , Neil ... i am glad you are getting proper use from the scope mate , far better than i could have done

Stu

 

Cheers Stu many thanks

4 hours ago, dan_adi said:

Well, put that Celestron on a real astroimaging test ;), the moon is way too easy and doesn't require much. Let's not fool our selfs, with regard to amateur astroimaging of DSOs the refractors will outperform many reflectors. They are well designed, well build, and a lot and I mean a lot more easy to work with. I tried for 2 years to work with a 12 inch SCT on a Mesu mount and the SCT ended up sitting in a corner collecting dust., no matter how much I tried to "optimize it". Try modeling a mount with a Celestron or Meade? forget about it, they simply are not built well enough. For lucky imaging of moon and planets, sure a Celestron or Meade will do because you don't need guiding or mount models or any kind of precision. If you want a good reflector that won't give you much trouble you still have to pay the big bucks .... see those 12-17 CDKs from Planewave (they are not cheap).. and even so they still need collimation from time to time, "thermal management" and all the management a reflector demands. Using a refractor demands almost 0 effort.. you have to focus before imaging and that's it. They cost much? Well that depends on the budget, but just for the "hassle factor" involved with imaging, I will gladly choose a refractor any day, even with their small aperture, keeping in mind that for long exposures the resolution will be limited by the seeing

Think i have enough experiance to determine if a telescope has sharp optics or not. God knows ive had some lemons go through my hands in my time. All determined visually live. No faint deepsky imaging was required. I recently sent back a 90mm SW refractor F10 Achromatic.. Because i could tell the optics were not great. Contrary to you suggesting the moon is too easy. It was infact the perfect target, to evaluate how sharp this telescope is coming to focus. In this instance i kept trying to find a position of excellent focus. Only to find myself never really achieving it. The images later were not inspiring to say the least. I could determine how much seeing was affecting the outcome. The very next night i tried the small reflector. Under again similar seeing conditions. In around twenty seconds i could see how much sharper the optics were. With tiny little craterlets the size of a pin head revealing themselves very quickly while focusing. Deepsky imaging may well be a good tool to evaluate optics. I assure you i have enough experiance to be able to see how sharp optics are visually live on the moon. Trust me on that or dont. Next. Requirements for deepsky as you say are very different to lunar and planetary. To suggest lunar and planetary imagers can not evaluate how sharp optics are, without doing deepsky imaging is a bit presumttuous. Think we should leave it there. I have no doubt you are finding the best scopes for your art. Hopefully i can be given the same courtesy. I was Blessed many years ago to get one of the best Newtonians to go through my hands a 1/10th wave Orion optics F6.3 

Seeing wasnt great, Capturing under low pressure weather system. Using a mount with motor that doesnt work ( wrong speed ) Downsized 50% 

Stats on the image. 462C Camera. Considering all things the scope and filter showing promise. 

1 minute ago, jetstream said:

I have to say that your lunar images are excellent, its amazing what your doing with the 114mm newt.

With respect to the large central obstruction ina the SCT's used for highly successful imaging- the effects of the central obstruction and other things can be dealt with in processing, frequency restoration etc, as you know. The large aperture provides more detail than smaller ones , just the way it is. I'm not saying this for you Neil, as you already know it- I'm hoping the OP @chrispj can sort some of this out from info in the thread.

 

Think we all went a bit overboard here. Its a classic stand off debate isnt it. For the poster with my experiances i think a 8" F6 Newtonian will give him much of what he wants. Not too fast (planets) Not too slow (Deepsky) But collimation can be frustrating is my only worry

2 hours ago, John said:

It's worth re-visiting the original post that started this thread. The original poster asked 2 questions I think:

Question 1:

"But, I'm finding one thing I'd like to see is galaxies and other DSOs, which I've had quite limited success so far (for example I'm reasonably sure I could see M13 but it was barely a smudge). I'm uncertain what the limits of what I should expect to see through the ST102 are, but aperture seems to be king so I presume I'll need to go bigger. But how big? Will a 6" fast refractor improve things significantly, or do I need to put in another garden store and go for a 10" or 12" Dobson? I've shied away from reflectors so far for simplicity sake."

Question 2:

"The other question is what effect higher quality glass has (I am clueless) - is the main benefit for resolving more detail on planets for example and more aesthetically pleasing images, or is there an element of compensation for aperture with better light transmission?"

Both entirely reasonable and quite different questions with different answers but I think they may have got conflated at times by some of the "this verses that" discussion ?

 

 

 

A 8" F6 Newtonian will cover most bases from both questions. DSO and planets. Its just the collimation question. Being the sticking point. If he can learn it great. It will do most of what he wants i will bet

3 hours ago, Davey-T said:

Blimey Jake thought you'd left us, good to see you back.

Dave

I gave up astronomy Dave late 2016. Just got burned out on it. But the pandemic and being indoors seemed to breath life into the interest again. Btw The 120 achro evostar, is never going to produce good colour images. Especially with a 495 longpass. Hence the muted or greyscale offerings 

3 hours ago, SnakeyJ said:

Great guns for such low elevations Neil - nicely done.

 

 

Nice to speak with you again Jake. Its been a while hasnt it. Thanks for the kind comments. Its great to shoot the planets again. Even this low. 

Congrats Trevor looking good. Seeing wasnt the best. So the Mak will do even better under better conditions of course.  Saved my files in avi forgot to set ser, for some reason i have pattern noise ruining the images Hey ho

14 minutes ago, Stu said:

As I’ve said many times before, when conditions are good, I see more detail at high power in my 8” f8 than I do it my Tak. I don’t have @mikeDnights eyes unfortunately! When conditions are poor, it can be the other way around.

The key point is actually that the scope I had with me was the 4” refractor with a light weight mount (and actually a Heritage 150p), because my car was full of other stuff and the dob wouldn’t fit, plus I expected it to cloud over so not worth taking anything bigger. It’s the scope you have and use most that’s the best. Oh, and the chap wasn’t just being nice, it was a genuine unprompted comment.

But I still recommended the 12” dob in answer to the original question! 

I quite like it under this table anyway, so I’ll stick here for a while. The hat is keeping my head warm.... 🤪🤪

From your first top line statement. And the reasons we already know that can affect outcomes of different size telescopes of different designs. I think we see eye to eye quite clearly here Stu. Like you, I am a man with one foot in both camps i understand why they are there. Not sure thats a universal understanding on here. Wallet expectation bias might have a lot to answer for lol.

15 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

It doesn't matter what anecdotal evidence you provide, a 250mm is considerably brighter than a 100mm, while black remains black.  A scope without a central obstruction can produce a better MTF curve which would favour picking out faint contrasts on such as Jupiter, but the 100 to 250 ratio is overwhelming; even with a central obstruction the 250mm has significantly greater contrast.

I have a feeling this conversation is a dead end. People can have some funny opinions based on misunderstandings of the complexities of telescopes. Damien P comes to mind with that oh so large central obstruction. There is a reason he uses that rather than a tak sharp refractor with amazing contrast and no central obstruction. Its because he likes to work out body building every chance he gets and lifting a C14 is right useful for muscle mass. Anyone believing that needs to get a hat quick. And dive under the nearest table.

2 hours ago, cloudsweeper said:

I agree Stu.  Aperture is good, especially for faint stuff, but if you want real sharpness and contrast, fracs are the way.  I've never used a Tak, but my Bressers and Exp Sci Apo also give fine views!

Move over, I'm joining you under the table!

Doug.

Oh God not again. How about this for contrast and sharpness. A mass produced 15 year old Celestron power seeker F8  4.5" with pin holes in the primary. Trust me on this, when well collimated its supremely tak sharp (no pun intended ) and contrasty. It cost how much ? ? ?  I can see you under that table quite clearly 

1 hour ago, Stu said:

I say this without wanting to stir up a load more trouble, but it actually happened....

Last night, I was observing with my local group, and one chap turned up without his scope. At one point I offered him a look at the Moon through my Tak FC100DC, which he accepted.

His words were ‘Wow, that’s better than my 10” dob”.

Now, I know from experience that my 8” f8 will show better detail at high power due to its resolution so I’m not going to argue that. I guess it’s a case that at the x148 I was using, the Tak gives a very nice, clean and contrasts view which is very appealing.

I shall now don my tin hat and seek refuge under the table 🤣🤣

#justsayin’

Each case can be different for a multitude of different reasons, How well a scope is collimated. How long its been cooling. Falling temperatures affecting larger scopes with bigger air cells. The optical figure. Perception of what constitutes better ? Someone being nice (He he ) on and on. You get the point. Of course there will be times a smaller scope. Can do better. It was the blanket statement i took issue with.  like it was set in stone.  Were all friends here. Come out from under that table. And take off that silly hat Stu 

39 minutes ago, Kon said:

I know your standards from other posts but I would be over the moon to have something like that! Great job!

Thanks whats making it harder is the motor has a wrong gear so its continually moving. That and low elevation

Missed this. Wow Luc. Inspiring. 

49 minutes ago, dan_adi said:

It depends. The "aperture rules" rule is not always true. The resolution of the scope will be limited by seeing. There is no point building a 10 meter scope in a back yard, cause it will perform no better that a 10 inch scope. Sure the image will be brighter but in terms of resolution ... I guess a more important factor is the quality of the optics and mechanics. A small scope with high quality will go head to head with bigger, less quality scopes. 

I used only a few designs, 10 inch newt, 12 inch SCT, 4 inch doublet frac and lately 8 inch Apo triplet. It might seem strange but the 8 inch frac performs better that the other scopes on DSOs. Is it the quality? Is it the design? I don't know, but all the other scopes were donated to friends. The major downside is cost, but for me the views and general versatility of the refractor justified the purchase.

Bottom line I think quality is more important than aperture

No better than a 10" ? Politely disagree. Show me a 10" scope that can match the resolution, and details in Luc Cathala lunar images. Just one example ?

 Ive had superb seeing in the UK from time to time over the years. At those times No 10" is going to match Lucs Newtonian. Not even a Zambuto. Ask Luc if he can resolve those details with a 10" at hes location ? Of course seeing matters. But even in the UK it does happen from time to time. Let alone many other back yard locations around the world.

UHD in Moretus 22 april 2021 with 625 mm and QHY5III178M focal 13650 mm - Imaging - Lunar - Stargazers Lounge

Low pressure and 15 degrees elevation dont inspire much clarity. Strangely enjoying it none the less. 20th May. evostar 120. Baarder long pass 495nm GSO 3x barlow QHY462C Camera. skyview mount motor drifting

26 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Nothing resembling an amateur refractor can, as you say, match this resolution.  When/if lucky imaging comes to deep sky imaging, as it has come to lunar and planetary, then the refractor will lose out to the reflector. Although some lucky DS imaging is being done already it has some very considerable way to go. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen eventually, though.

Superb image from a bargain scope. Bravo.

Olly

Having said all that. I am getting older and 300ps are not light. Recently got a secondhand SW 70mm F12.8 Achro. And a Evostar 120 F8.3 Achro. Could they produce a image as good as this ? Obviously not. Am i enjoying them ? most definately. As long as expectations are adjusted along with apeture loss.

Easy to set up. Quick cool down. No collimation needed. Grab and go fun. But if i want to get up close and personal. I will have to setup my 245mm Orion F6.3. For hi resolution lunar and planetary imaging. Different situations require different instruments and thats all we need to worry about. 

Dabbled lucky imaging deepsky. But would rather leave the dark art to those who truely know how to get the best out of it. Like yourself Olly. 

Good result. Especially under low pressure

14 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

I've missed my 250mm Newt over the years, so, another is arriving tomorrow.

At the moment I'm contemplating completing the set up. At the time I had my best views of the Moon and Mars using a 4mm NLV. I sold that when I sold the 250. I bought a C9.25 with which the 4mm at x588 was useless. I now have a 12, 10 and 9, when I really need a 6, 5 and 4... For now I'll be using a Barlow. But, the thoughts of a set of SLVs is beckoning. Sell the 12, 10 and 9 NLVs and replace with 6, 5 and 4 SLVs.

Deepsky or planetary Newt ? Not many planetary around tbh. My F 6.3 is leaning in the planetary camp 

14 hours ago, Stu said:

For me, I think a Televue Genesis combined with a 31mm Nagler is about there in terms of perfection for widefield DSO viewing under a dark sky. Add a Lumicon (original) OIII, a mag 21+ sky and you are in Veil/NAN nirvana. The 5 degree field of view fits the whole Veil complex in easily, setting it in context yet still allowing you to see each individual section. Not detailed, but a view I never tire of seeing.

I’ve had three Genesis scopes now, and don’t intend to let this one go as it seems the best of the three. It’s even quite capable at high power, CA present by well controlled. I’m also on my second Nagler. I sold the first a long time ago and have missed it ever since. I had an ES 30mm for a while in between and while it was excellent, it showed field curvature in the Genesis that spoiled the view, so when a big Nag came up at a decent price I jumped at the chance to re-unite these two lovely Televue items. I’m now just waiting for the opportunity to use it under a dark sky again.

Here’s a report from 2014 when I used the combo first. There was a 21mm Ethos in the mix too, but I certainly can’t afford one of those at the moment!

Never looked through a TV Stu. Guess i dont know how perfect a fracs view can be. Just reports from others. Ive had a couple of lenses over the years (Barlow, powermate ) But nothing scope wise

Is there any combinations of equipment you have fond memories of ? Mine was A Orion 250 F6.3 1/10TH pv in combination with TV powermates and barlows. Another was same said scope with a Celestron 2x Ultima barlow. In my opinion one of the best shorty's ever made period. I loved its extremely sharp images it produced. About to get the revamped Orion 250 running again soon i hope.

What better combination to pair it with than the excellent Japanese 2x Ultima. So i couldnt resist. Call me crazy but just purchased a nice condition one from ENS optical for £80. Steep i know. But heck. I want a trip down memory lane. And clearly i am willing to pay for it. I know they can come up much cheaper than this from time to time. But they are rare. 

So here's hoping its in good condition.

1 hour ago, WestCoastCannuck said:

Thanks much on your thoughts on my result Neil!  Truly I am thrilled with the details I got here.   Certainly my best for mid day - I have had plenty of night times with worse results! It is the sky i had trouble with.  Had to try brushing the sky darker to hide the artifacts...  and it is very difficult to do that along the terminator and have look natural.

 

On your question...    (no problem  by the way!!)    I only have experience with the 290m and the 183m sorry!  Have not had issues with 290...   I think I may have had pattern noise with the 183 once or twice...  but nothing I think is a problem.   Was something extreme about my settings though I can't remember what now.  (My memory beyond bad)   178 pretty solid from what I have heard!

Cheers

 

Mike

Ok apologies i thought for some reason you had used the 178. It can produce pattern noise. But i should be able to deal with it, if it does. One reason i got to hate bright sky for lunar. Is edge blending. Know exactly what you mean. Worth it on occasion though like your result here. Once again good job.

The shots i tend to take are early morning, or early evening before the sun goes down. For midday that is a cracking result Mike. Looks very good to me. I think you should feel pleased with that. Processing looks great to me on my plasma tv.

Though i guess your seeing more critically in 4 k now. Lovely result from what i can tell.

Wanted to talk to you actually Mike. I need a fairly cheap large mono chip, in a few weeks was thinking of getting the 178m (player one camera) wanted the 290m but i have that size with the colour 462. So the 178 seems to fit the wallet and spec. Read some about pattern noise. Have you experianced any. Should i trade the size of the chip for the 290 ? Really need a bigger chip. Hope you dont mind me getting your perspective on your post.

42 minutes ago, Stu said:

I’ll respectfully disagree with that Mike 😉. 

I’ve owned a 16” dob and used it under some pretty reasonable skies, so know what it is capable of. I sold it because it got used about once a year, same with my 14”.

I choose refractors to observe with (amongst others) because of their convenience, flexibility and quality of views. My scope ‘which must not be mentioned’ is highly portable, will show me excellent lunar, planetary, white light solar, double star and widefield DSO views. With my current personal situation I simply wouldn’t use a large Dob, so the views are pretty irrelevant. Refractors aren’t just better for imaging, they serve a very valid purpose and would not still be so popular for visual if they didn’t.

I confess I don’t get this ‘aperture is everything’ argument, there is so much more to it than that. I fully understand what you get from owning and using your scope, the views are fabulous I’m sure and I would enjoy viewing through it, and even owning one if my circumstances allowed me to regularly use it. I struggle with being told that I’m missing out on something, or using the wrong scope constantly when my refractors fulfill my needs very well, and have kept my enjoyment of the hobby going for years despite living under some fairly horrendous skies.

If it helps, despite being a refractor nut, I would choose a 12” dob over a 6” refractor in the case of the OP 👍

Great points there Stu, and it runs central to the debate of reasons why someone may own a refractor. Recently got a bog standard Evo 120 achro and enjoying both the views and images it produces a lot, Whats the debate here ? we know the science of resolution. We know why people enjoy refractors. I am glad we have both in the world. It makes astronomy much more interesting and varied. Different flavors  always enrich life.

22 minutes ago, faulksy said:

there will always be refractor v,s reflector wars. refractors are better for photos. but i realy dont think these apo ish people have looked through a decent sized reflector. if they did they would buy one.

Get your point. But it should never be a war of words or beliefs. Both have merits with advantages and disadvantages obviously. The idea refractors are better for photos, is a bit misleading, especially cost per performance criteria. Would like to see a refractor do this for anything less than many many thousands of pounds. Skywatcher 300p new price £900 

I got mine for £100 secondhand. Would like to see the cost of a refractor, any refractor match this for resolution. Either new or secondhand.