Jules Tohpipi

Thank you so much for this because I really need and welcome the help!

I’m away from home this week so will be trying your advice next week when back. 

Actually, on the first night I did try using the Snapshot button. But the png images seemed to be black and white rather than colour (despite the RAW8 setting for the live stack). This happened also when doing a straight capture video of the moon (non-stacking). A brief Google possibly suggested de-bayering issues? A topic I’m generally familiar with from non—Astro photography.

I really need to have a proper read still about image settings with Sharpcap - most of my efforts so far have been on getting any kind of image with the various software and hardware. 

Thank you very much Peter - that's a compliment indeed!

I think some good fortune was involved. Plus, I was able to use the craters of the moon as a nice sharp focusing aid before it went dark.

Last night didn't go so well, though. All because I tried getting too fancy for this second attempt. Used the PC version of SynScan Pro and interfaced with Stellarium to drive the AZ-GTi. So far so good. Then downloaded ASCOM drivers and successfully connected the mount to ASCOM Device Hub. Next downloaded ASTAP and star file for plate solving and SharpCap confirmed succesful install to the right PC location. After this my luck ran out - because couldn't get SharpCap Pro to see the AZ-GTi. I kept getting an ASCOM driver error (forget the exact words) and lost the rest of the session. Was so nearly there! But I'll try troubleshooting indoors now instead. I'm hoping the plate solving will improve the speed and accuracy of finding targets.

Having been inspired by this EAA forum at SGL, and after much reading, I had my first attempt this week. The images may be crude but nonetheless I'm completely overjoyed to get it working and capturing images on the first go. Previously over the years I've been purely visual - mostly on 8 or 10 inch dobs. More recently with lighter instruments for my back.

My kit this time was AZ-GTi in alt-az mode, Sky-Watcher Star Travel 102 refractor and a ZWO ASI585MC camera. Ran the SynScan app on my iPhone to align and point the telescope and a USB cable from the camera to SharpCap Pro on my laptop (for the image capture part only). 

The night was intended to be baby steps, proof of concept stuff i.e. does the camera and software work, can I get any kind of image at all.  

Generally speaking it couldn't have gone any better. Within a few minutes I had images of the moon. Within 30 mins I had a few brief short-exposure live stacks of M13 and M92 which I've posted below. Then the mount started mis-behaving unfortunately.

Didn't really concentrate much on the camera Live Stack settings in SharpCap at this stage (which were probably all over the place as per under-exposed moon!) nor use any filters nor any post processing. The images posted below are simple screen grabs (from pressing Print Screen after opening the .fits files in ASI FitsView - the crop shots viewed 1:1).

Anyhow, deeply thanks to everyone for getting me to this point by the sharing of your experiences and knowledge here at SGL. This will open a new dimension of observing for me and I couldn't be more thrilled

And my apologies for the thread de-rail. It was all becoming so exciting with the reading I could'nt  stop myself from asking you all if jumping now was OK.

Well, thank you very much for the great comments everyone. It's really reassured and encouraged me to start right away. So much so the order has been placed now for the ZWO version of the IMX 585 along with a UV/IR filter that FLO recommended. Chris at FLO was extremely helpful answering some newbie questions about the camera's suitability with my scopes. I was perhaps more tempted by the Uranus-C equivalent which I've read much about also; however, being brand new to using astro cameras I've played it safer(less hassle) in local support terms by going for the ZWO.  

Think I'm on a similar trajectory to you all. I've experience with visual over the decades, albeit recently coming out of a longish observing break. But the accessibility and affordability of EAA seems to have improved beyond all recognition. Despite owning the biggish dob, I was always slightly disappointed to some degree observing DSOs from a small town site. However now it seems, with some patience and learning, possible to obtain live images somewhat approaching the ones I'd marvelled at in books as a 70s/80s kid. Plus there's the convenience element that appeals and something else to be looking at when the planets are not in the right positions.

So I'm really looking forward to supplementing the visual side of things with the EAA. I would never have been aware nor contemplated it were it not for the SGL community

Guys, just as an aside, I wanted to say how much I’m enjoying reading and following your recent discussions on EAA. It’s really informative and inspiring. 
 

I intend to pull the trigger shortly on a 585 camera and join the club. Prefer to do the learning curve now the nights are not so cold. 
 

I appreciate the images won’t be as good during the forthcoming lighter nights but would I be correct in thinking it won’t be a total washout? I’m mainly interested in live viewing DSOs on alt-az mounts. If OK I’ll jump now rather than waiting for the autumn. Don’t want to de-rail the thread - just wondering if worthwhile to start this time of year. 
 

Keep up the good work. You’ve got an enthralled audience 😀

22 hours ago, Starfazed said:

2. Next on the list, a goto Dob. The 250 Skywatcher flex looks fabulous, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to cart 100m down the road (or to the car, which might be parked down the road too). Might be a squeeze to get through the door too. Sack trolley perhaps?

I’ve got the Sky-watcher 250 goto dob. Due to all the motors etc it’s very significantly heavier than the manual dobs you’ve already had a play with. Which are lightweights in comparison. Especially if having to lug it somewhere like to the centre of a grassy park. Sack trolley is only suitable for under 10 metres or so and on smoothish ground before all the rattling and bumps knocks it out of collimation or worse. 

Your particular scenario sounds ideal for either a refractor or mak or a small reflector on the Skywatcher AZ-GTI mount. It’s highly portable and the mount is goto and tracks. The youngsters can also connect their mobiles to it over Wi-Fi and control the telescope themselves to move to a selection of objects. Or you can even just push it around and use in full manual mode. Further down the line you can buy add-ons to convert it to equatorial mode for longer exposure photography - if you wish. 
 

A Skymax 127 mak will give you similar magnification and FOV as you’ve experience already with the dobs at the observatory. The view will be slightly dimmer and not quite as detailed but similar scale. Of course DSOs will be much dimmer than the big dobs. 
 

A Skywatcher ST102 refractor will be a different experience with a much wider FOV than the mak and dobs you’ve used. Image scale (magnification) will be smaller. It’s a choice to which presentation you prefer. 
 

A smaller dob will be somewhere between the two.

The AZ-GTI has a 5 kg limit to what telescope you can load onto it - hence the above recommendations. 
 

The above is not to say there are other equally valid options. But just the ones within my own personal experience. 

1 hour ago, Moonshed said:

Not at all, I really appreciate the points that you have raised.  I have indeed not looked through a 12” dob, the larger aperture scopes I have looked through were all SCT’s, the largest being 14”. What I am hoping for is a wider aperture than my current 8” SCT, which I have to say I find difficulty in lifting in and out of the shed, a permanent back problem being the main reason. The obvious problem with the larger aperture is the increase in bulk and weight of the scope. I am being perhaps overly optimistic in thinking a sack trolley will solve the problem of transporting the large dob, I’m not really sure it will. For example I was moving some stuff about in my garden shed yesterday, nothing especially heavy, but my back went into spasm and as I sit here typing this it is still giving me grief. This is giving me second thoughts.

I am not getting any younger, I am 77, and make no secret that I have advanced prostate cancer, hence the back problems where the cancer has eaten into my lower spine. Maybe I have left it too late, I’ve had the large aperture itch for some time now but taking everything into account and all the good advice I have received here I really am in two minds.

If I put my sensible head on I realise I should stick with what I have, better the devil you know. But if I put my daft head on I want that big light bucket!

Your comments have given me pause to think and I thank you for taking the time and trouble to give them and to share your own experiences. 

 

Thank you very much for the kind words.

You know, I guess you might find all your answers and info at Kelling (alas I’ve never had the good fortune to go). Nowt wrong being interested in something new and exciting!
 

If the 12” views really connect then you could investigate more deeply the ways of accommodating it. 
 

An awkward and cramped layout meant my options were limited to a compact dolly or sack barrow. I favoured the dolly as I could hold the scope directly and push. The sack barrow to me felt rather unsafe transporting a cylindrical object - especially during the tilt up and tilt down phases. The scope needs to be fully secure for this or the momentum can topple things in different directions. It’s not as convenient as moving square boxes.  I abandoned  the idea after the initial feeler attempts purely and solely because the swift and random body movements to grab and stabilise the scope (sometimes) during the tilt/release were exactly what my back couldn’t cope with. 
 

However, you may have more room available and therefore more options to use something much better and more secure. And that could be a great match if you like the big dob views.

Best of luck with it all

54 minutes ago, Moonshed said:

With any luck I may come across a 12” dob which would be very handy for me to be able see its size, hard to judge from images only.

This may come across as overly blunt towards an obviously experienced astronomer - but please understand it's not intended in that manner.

The above words also suggest you've not yet looked through a bigger dob yet either? And you mentioned the purchase can only take place once all your current equipment is sold. If so it would be highly recommended to do some actual observing through one at Kelling also. Just to be 100% sure that theory matches expectation.

A cautionary tale to share in case it turns out to be any way relevant to your own situation and circumstances.

Your intended trajectory mirrors my own to some rough degree. I had many happy years with a manual 8" dob. It was easy enough to move around, quick to setup, and gave outstanding clear, detailed and sharp views at f/6. Then, one year, aperture fever bit and I upgraded blindly to a 10" dob with goto. Sure it was better but not nearly as better as I had expected. It's so much heavier. I'm not a weak person but my back issues mean lifting in just slightly the wrong way puts me in pain for days - plus the years are not batting in my favour anymore. I built a makeshift dolly for moving it around but that didn't completely remove the lifting nor particularly ease every aspect of the handling. At f/4.7, sharp pin-point views across the field were now gone compared the f/6 scope. Which also meant nudging more frequently to keep planets within the central field.

In summary, the trade-offs - for own my personal situation and requirements - weren't worth it and pretty much stopped my dob observing stone cold dead. Itch scratched it's now reserved for occasional use on demanding targets and/if I can be bothered.

Of course, there's many variables here so make the choices that best fit with you. I'm just chatting for the community fun of it rather than it being any earnest suggestions or direction.

For what it's worth, after eventually accepting I was never gone to use it frequently anymore, during which I lost several years observing, I went a completely different route. A small mak for planets and a small refractor for wider views, all on a super-light and portable AZ goto mount. Ticks all the boxes for me except aperture and for that I might now investigate some simple live EEA for DSOs.

4 hours ago, doublevodka said:

@Jules Tohpipi you raise an interesting point there that wasn't on my radar. Out of interest, with the kit you have, 250 Dob, Skymax, 127 and ST102, which gets used the most?

Having owned reflectors, refractors, and cassgrains I'm leaning toward the refractor a little just because I prefer the contrast they give (and being able to carry out with one hand is a big plus), but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on your own kit.

The straight answer is I use the Skymax 127 the most.

Context being I like looking at views that change somewhat e.g. Jupiter and its moons, the other planets and our moon. After that it’s clusters and comets. The Skymax is intended to replace my 250 dob GOTO eventually as it’s getting used less and less due to my back when moving it around. The GOTO adds a lot of weight to the dob. Sure the dob gives good views on my favourite targets but the mak is more than good enough at giving the scale of things in the eyepiece and the detail I need - it seems a trivial sacrifice compared the better convenience. Actually, targets are slightly larger in the mak than the 8 inch dob. 
 

This would be a very different matter if I were going out to dark sites to look at faint fuzzies. Alas, I never did get around to doing that with the big dob and my local skies are disappointing for such viewing.  So the mak is my new favoured instrument. Also bear in mind with a manual 8 inch dob under medium LP skies, star-hopping can be a real challenge. That’s why I moved from 8 inch manual dob to the 10 inch goto. 
 

The ST102 is the newest addition. After many years, I realised I didn’t necessarily want always to look at max magnification. But just take in the wonder of the stars themselves. It’s a great partner for the mak in that regard and its weight is ideal for the AZ-GTi too. It literally adds a new dimension to things and I like that. Plus it was a low cost addition. The weaknesses of the ST102 are 90% covered by having the mak to hand. 

I don’t necessarily want to put you off buying the 8 inch dob. By experience I know it to be the biggest bang for the buck out there. But it’s not that much a different beast to your existing mak except on the faintest of targets. Consider it a higher resolution, brighter mak (with similar mag and FOV but no Goto and more cumbersome. Albeit I found the 8 inch manual quite easy to move around). Consider it if your priority is dimmer stuff  Then buy the frac too for a proper wide view 😀

On 25/02/2023 at 22:04, doublevodka said:

First the background, I'm a visual observer and likely to stay that way, I usually have limited time so quick setup and go is important to me. I love the az-gti for this, up and running in minutes, but I find myself hankering for a wider field of view than the skymax 127. The az-gti is also a plus for finding objects quickly

 

Just a double-check here in case you didn't realise. The field-of-view, for any given eyepiece, is not much wider in an 8 inch dob than your Skymax 127. Whereas the 80ED does have a much wider field of view.

Of course, the dob is an excellent telescope but the FOV and magnification are on a par with your existing mak. The views in the eyepiece will be the same size roughly but brighter and more detailed. If you are seeking a brighter and more detailed view then jump in. But if your priority is a much wider view then the 8 inch dob won't deliver that. 

Conversely, the ST102 works a treat on the AZ-GTi and gives a wider field of view than the dob/mak. Plus, as you are visual only, you won't need to worry about its CA when looking at dimmer/fuzzier targets - you'll be using the mak for brighter objects like planets and the moon. And the ST102 has got more aperture than the 80ED.

I'm still relatively new to the AZ-GTi and it's working well for me. I'm purely visual.

Had a eureka moment couple of months ago. Realised I didn't need to be outside in the cold and dark to learn the basics of the mount. Just plonked it on the kitchen table - no tripod, no telescope. Guessed at north and level using the saddle jaws as a guide. Turn it on and connect to app. And take it from there experimenting.

As the simplest of examples: pick Polaris as first alignment star - saddle rotates down then I got my invisible telescope mounted on the wrong side, so turn it around. Now it goes up to Polaris.  Pick a second star and see if roughly heads in the correct direction (use Sky Safari in VR mode to 'see' where the second star is). None of this has to be 100% accurate but lots of different things to try inside the house watching how the saddle moves around. That's been good training exercises for me which speed up the learning curve.

I had a complete break from observing for 10 years and coming back noticed I could barely see the Pleiades unaided anymore from the same location. Whereas before it really stood out. Thought it was solely due to my ageing eyes. But maybe the LP is the bigger effect, even though there's been no expansion to the town. As much as I like looking through telescopes, I equally like marvelling at the wonder of it all with just my eyes - but that pleasure has now mostly disappeared from my garden.

Another shout out for the SkyWatcher stainless steel tripod. I also bought a 127 MAK on the AZ-GTi mount with the stock tripod. I think the bundled tripod is a bit rubbish in the context of the MAK because it takes a long time to settle after each focussing attempt. Focussing is inherently a more heavy handed activity on a MAK compared to a refractor or dob. Meaning fine focussing was a drawn out and frustrating experience with the bundled tripod. Albeit the clothes peg on the focussing wheel trick helped somewhat.

I eventually could stand it no longer and bought the Skywatcher stainless steel tripod and what a revelation. It's rock steady. And that's judged against some of my nicer and much pricier photography tripods. But as already stated, make sure you get the correct version i.e. the one with the 3/8th thread on top. LaurenceT's link points to the correct one.

You don't need any adapter, the AZ-GTi sits on top and you push the thread up to screw into the mount's base. This is not apparent/obvious from the photos either.  You only need an adapter for the AZ-GTi if you are repurposing the EQ version of the stainless steel tripod.

On 15/12/2022 at 18:06, Stephenstargazer said:

@Jules Tohpipi the Charon dimensions measured as used:

Footprint  32.5 cm wide, 52cm deep

Seat  26cm wide, 23cm deep

Seat height   15cm lowest, 92cm highest.

Thank you very much indeed for this Stephen! Apologies for the delay replying as the run up to Christmas has been a much busier/traumatic time than usual.

The 52cm deep footprint is much much more compact than I expected - which is a good thing. 

Hi I was very interested in reading the review on the Charon chair. Been thinking of getting one as a Christmas present to myself. Have a couple of questions though if anyone can help please?

1. With the frame opened fully (i.e. in its typical observing configuration) what is the front-to-back distance at the base? I'm a little short on space so it would reassure me to know its footprint

2. What are the dimensions of the seat (again when in its observing configuration)?

It's a toss-up between the Charon and the Geoptik chairs (the latter possibly having the smaller footprint as its rear leg hinges midway down rather than the top). I'm flip-flopping between the two at the moment and ideally need some data

Many thanks!  

16 hours ago, gamermole said:

Oh wow thank you very much, this scope seems to suite my needs far better than the one i posted..... in terms of actual telescope are these the same just using a different mount?

 

Yes, these are fundamentally the same telescope with the same optics. So the views will be identical. There can be some minor ancillary differences depending on which Sky-Watcher mount they are bundled with from the factory. For example, looking at the online photos, the green dovetail bar on the telescope looks longer with the virtuoso version. 

21 hours ago, gamermole said:

Hello there guys.

 

I'm currently thinking about purchasing my first telescope and after looking around i have decided to maybe buy the Skymax-127 Virtuoso GTi tabletop telescope as seen here https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-skymax-127-virtuoso-gti-table-top-maksutov-telescope.html

 

although the telescope has apps and an automatic mount i will also be wanting to use it manually, i will also be wanting to take photographs using the telescope (mainly by attaching my smartphone to the eyepiece) or if there is a better way by purchasing a specific camera.

 

Can you guys tell me your thoughts on this telescope, or if you know of any better options out there regarding my needs.

 

PS im very new to this.

Yes a good choice for a new telescope with an excellent range of features. 
 

Before committing it’s worth investigating the same telescope but with the AZ-GTI mount. Features are pretty much the same except the tripod gives more positioning flexibility and the ensemble is smaller when stored. The AZ-GTI can also easily be upgraded with add-ons for next-step Astro photography. There’s also quite a big online community of AZ-GTI owners if you need help and advice. 
 

Either choice would be excellent. 
 

https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-skymax-127-az-gti-wifi-telescope.html

20 hours ago, allworlds said:

I have a similar scope to the one vlaiv posted, though on an alt-az mount. I find it quite challenging to find things with because the long focal ratio and only accepting 1.25 inch eyepieces makes it impossible to get a wide field of view. 

Just for context, as your comment is a little extreme, the Sky-Watcher 102 Mak has - for any given 1.25” eyepiece - the same field of view as the Sky-Watcher 200P Classic dob. Which is a highly recommended and popular telescope (regardless of whether used with the more expensive 2” glass). 

Potentially a bit of a daft question here.

I have 8x AA Eneloop batteries inside my AZ-GTI. Would they need to be removed if using an external 12V power supply? Or will the mount automatically default to using the external power supply - if one is detected?

I think the hardest step is the first one out the front door. Once outside the door everything seems easier. 
 

I’ve recently downsized after some time off. The 10” Goto dob had become too big and cumbersome for frequent viewing and my back. Now I’ve acquired a mak and ST102 and it’s cooking on gas once again. 
 

It’s supposed to be fun, right? Not a chore, challenge or commitment. Otherwise no incentive to stand up and grab the door handle - especially when the clear nights get really cold outside. Sometimes I think we get so wrapped up in what’s possible that we set ourselves unreasonable daily challenges. 
 

Maybe have fun with your dob for a while and take the full rig out only when you’re in the mood for it. 
 

55 minutes ago, badhex said:

Haha thank you! I used a whiteboarding/ diagramming tool called Miro which I have used for work for many years. 

It is 2D only, Miro is very free-form and a bit like powerpoint in how you can group and join shapes, so most of the shapes (being variations of cylinders) were actually the standard flowchart database shape of a cylinder, which I then joined several of and shaded accordingly to give me a rough version fo the shape I wanted. I'm a very visual person so diagrams are very helpful to me. 

I even made the focuser (which I am removing so was not really necessary!) 

Wow - mind blown all over again! I've had a 20 mins play in Miro and I can see its various templates and features are going to revolutionise my little world in PowerPoint for looks/speed/efficiency. I love the way you used it to create 3D representations of your astro gear. I'm truly inspired.

Good luck with your ongoing portable project which I'm finding equally interesting

On 19/10/2022 at 20:38, badhex said:

After quite a lot of back and forth with the vendor mentioned previously, we may now have success! They will make the adaptor for 45eur plus shipping, which is pretty reasonable! 

I've also created an overview diagram of the planned setup:

On a slight tangent, I love the graphic you created for this! Out of pure curiosity, did you use a 3D package or get very creative indeed overlaying rectangles and ovals in PowerPoint or 2D drawing software?

I still think that a Skymax 102 Maksutov is worthy of serious consideration. In no particular order:

1. Its field of view and magnification is near identical to the 8" Starsense dob (for any given eyepiece)

2. Meaning the views in the eyepiece will be very similar to your bigger dob - just less bright and less resolution. And no collimation required

3. Skymax 102 overall tube length is 27cm vs 58cm of the Startravel 102 refractor (inc dew shield) . The Skymax is shorter than a sheet of A4 paper and around half the width

4. Skymax has no CA on lunar and planets compared to the ST102 f/4.9 refractor

5. Skymax has a much longer focal length i.e. easier on the eyepieces

Ultimately, would you be happy to carry around something very small with great optics that delivers the same FOV and magnification as your 8" dob? If so the Skymax 102 will do that minus some brightness and resolution. If the aim is to go wider-field and lower magnification than the 8" dob then go for a refractor.

BTW, I'm not bias either way - I've got a 10" dob, Skymax 127 and an ST102 refractor. The Skymax is quickly replacing the dob for all but the most demanding sessions in my older age. The refractor is giving me the wider-field views I never got from the 250P or Skymax.

This is where I've always found prism terminology confusing - when in the context of diagonals. I get that erecting means the image will be the right way up but does it necessarily mean left and right will be corrected also? I'm guessing not as some prism diagonals - such as a Celestron and the Tak - don't seem to be left/right corrected.

Generally speaking, it seems most people/websites/manufacturers don't stick to any standardised terminologies to define the nature of prism diagonals; therefore, you have to read any accompanying text to know whether they are L/R corrected (FLO is very good at clarifying this). Most get labelled 'erecting' at best. But 'Amici' often gets dropped (if it applies). Whereas, for example, finder scopes are more likely to be labelled RACI which makes the situation more clear from the outset.   

I found this thread comparing diagonals an interesting read.