Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

PeejaySTB

New Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About PeejaySTB

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Manchester
  1. Cheers for that. I can't find anything on belt modding the CG5. maybe it is too old a mount.
  2. I have an old CG5 (2nd generation) which was initially a manual op scope, until I fitted the full Synscan upgrade some years ago. I have toyed with the idea of buying the HEQ5 Pro as a retirement present, and the questions I have are these: 1. Is it a better mount to the tune of £775? Can I fit an HEQ5 head on my (very solid) 2" tripod legs, and is it available anywhere as a separate item? 2. If not, should I consider modifying the mount I have to belt drive - is this even possible? 3. Are there any viable competitors to the HEQ5 pro that I should be considering at a similar price point. My main scope for AP is an Orion ED80, I occasionally use a MAK150 for lunar and planetary. Many thanks, Peter.
  3. BTW Olly, I've just read an article online re' ST80s, apparently triangular stars are common and are due to poor collimation. They give a guide similar to your suggestion but loosening the retaining ring on the objective and loosening the focuser screws, and then doing the tap tap routine. So it looks like you were on the money with that suggestion. I may try it when feeling braver - maybe when I have my ED80 to fall back on Thanks, Peter.
  4. I wonder if your 'Out of memory' error is because you selected "2 x Drizzle", try it with that option unticked - I get that same error message when I try to use drizzle.
  5. Hi Olly, I have checked each sub, and with the exception of one or two they look pretty much the same, ie - peculiar, - its tricky seeing them properly unprocessed. I see what you mean regarding the focus tube and I agree its not the best standard, I sometimes make the mistake of touching the drawtube when putting everything away and its like it is covered in glue, also, I can say that my stars look much rounder using my Mak, so it could be a scope issue. I have an Orion ED80 coming soon so maybe that will be a good side by side test. Meanwhile, looks like I'll be tapping that ST80 later. Peter.
  6. Thank you all for helping, I will go through frame by frame to check. I am not sure how to lock up the mirror (I am using a Canon EOS1000D with Backyard EOS) is it done through the software on BYEOS? I am thinking that this sounds like something possible. Olly I am intrigued by the collimation/ settling the lens tip, do I tap the side of the scope? also, I didn't alter the camera angle after focussing on a nearby star, so it will have been tilted slightly. As I say thanks for this, I will check each sub later and report back. Peter.
  7. Hi all, As the following image will show, I am new to this business. I took this image last night of NGC884 and was quite pleased with it until I zoomed in, all of the brighter stars are triangles of a sort, is this trailing? the subs are only 30 secs and I believed I did a pretty good polar align, any comments/ suggestions welcome. My equipment was as follows: Skywatcher ST80 at prime focus on a CG5 synscan mount 30x30sec subs with 12x30sec darks.
  8. Great! thanks Jules, I have bought some at 182mm which seem a snug fit, took off the dovetail (and dropped the nut inside) and took off the corrector to retrieve it. I just chickened out on tightening up the rings in case the tube crushed, I wasn't sure if there was any support internally and imagined squashing it like a coke-can once it was under stress on the mount. The idea is to fit my ST80 alongside for a bit of wide-field company, a CG5 should manage them both do you think? Peter.
  9. Hello, I am wondering if anyone has removed the dovetail from a Skywatcher Mak150 and replaced it with Tube rings? Is it ok to do structurally? I have googled this without success, and hope it can be done. Many thanks, Peter.
  10. Thank you for replying Peter, I was beginning to wonder if it was a crazy question! The one I saw is the 1st link you have, I have read elsewhere that it won't give good results on a DSLR? I see also that you are a Mak 150 owner, so you can appreciate my thought train on looking for a wide-field option.
  11. Hmm... I guess this must sound like an unusual combination? The thinking behind it is something initially to give me a wider field of view to piggy back on the Mak, and possibly image with. I will try a second question, Having had a go at imaging with the Mak/Dslr I discovered that the long focal length is probably responsible for the limited time I can track for without trailing, would a focal reducer help with this? I have seen one at Rother-Valley for £34, it is an Antares 0.5, if so, where does his fit in the optical train, do I fit it on my dslr T adaptor. Peter.
  12. I am thinking of buying a Startravel 80 as a companion scope/ Superfinderscope / eventual guidescope for my Mak150 pro. I wonder if anyone has done this and can describe their mounting arrangement. Peter.
  13. I for one think the Telrad is such a frustration-saving device, I've just bought a second base so I can swap it between scopes. Also, a big thumbs-up from me for the X-Cels, which are for me a big quality-leap from the standard eyepieces.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.