cuivenion

Is the 60d effected by that?

Thanks I'll look into it. I had heard that models after the 600d had a banding problem when used for Astro. The 60d is a bit more expensive as well.

I image using Backyard EOS, but if I ever get a short focal length lens the tilt screen would be great for Milky Way shots and the like.

I think the larger sensor would be welcome although both suit the 130pds I use. I think I might go for it, and get the Baader mod done at some point as well.

I'm thinking of buying a Canon 600d as an upgrade from a Canon 500d. Would this be a worthwhile upgrade? Or would I be better off just sticking with the 500d until I can afford a cooled camera? That might be a while, a year or so.

Why don't you spend half your budget on Astro, half on Jewelry. At the end of the day you don't buy Astro gear as a financial investment, but it's still important to do the things you enjoy.

I've observed it through binoculars a few times, but it's too hard to image from my suburban area. It never really gets high enough. I may try a daytime shoot sometime.

To be fair a single 30 seconds unguided sub is about as much imaging time as I'm going to get at the moment. ?

I'll be retraining my PEC for this one!

I appreciate the post. I consider all of it to be observing using different tools. I've always taken visual observing to be using an eyepiece.

If you're saying you prefer eyepiece observing then thats fine with me, but you did say: 'I like that too, but it's not observing'. Yes it is.

Guess Nasa is wasting it's time then. Observing is making an observation, this can be done by looking at an image. The photons have hit the digital sensor instead of your eye and while the image is a representation of those photons it's no less viable a technique. Lenses and mirrors are a type of technology too and introduce their own abberations to the photons you're seeing (CA and diffraction). To be a complete purist you'd just have to use the naked eye, of course many of us would have to take off our glasses too. The advantage of EAA is you can also record what you have seen, so other people can confirm the veracity of your observations. I have no problem with anyone exploring the universe in his or her own way but too say that EAA is not observing is completely inaccurate.

Completely agree I've had some great times eyepiece observing and it's not to be denegrated as some important discoveries have been made with it and will continue to be. I think its important to note that progress marches on though. I reckon people like Herschel would have have loved our modern mirrors, lenses, mounts and other technology. If I happen to discover a supernova or comet during an EAA session does it not count because I wasn't using an eyepiece?

Yeah I mean, why bother with the HST? It's not like you're looking through it with your own eyes. (Sarcasm aside I will say that eyepiece observing is great and I've enjoyed it immensely. However it's ridiculous to claim that EAA isn't a form of observing.)

Technically yes, but theres no monitors, computers or cameras involved as far as I'm aware. At that point it's more like more traditional observing. There's not a lot of overlap between live stacking/Cam and monitor based EAA and NV. It would be great for NV to have its own section but if there's only four people posting in it it does seem a little pointless to me.

There's obviously a difference between EAA and NV. As an occasional EEA'er myself I have no problem describing what I do as a branch of imaging. NV seems to be geared towards to purely visual observing so maybe it would be best being discussed in the observing forums until the branch becomes more popular. This may have the effect of exposing more people to this aspect of the hobby too. I'm fine with being placed in a section alongside NV, but maybe for now that isn't the best way to go about it.

I'd personally go for being able to see Polaris and image North, West, and East.

Hi,, All images taken with a ZWO ASI224, Skywatcher 130PDS and Skywatcher HEQ5. Apart from M27 which was taken with a Skywatcher 200p. Bubble Nebula, 4 hours of 40 second exposures: Iris Nebula, 3 1/2 hours of 29 second and 42.7 second exposures: M27, 90 minutes of 8 second exposures: Crab Nebula, 83 minutes of 30 and 8 second exposures: M82, 150 minutes of 30 second lights: Next step for me is a light pollution filter and another crack at tuning my HEQ5 mount.

Just wondering what the silver material on the middle of the scope is? I presume its to stop heat radiation.

I've recently purchased this adapter: http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Accessories-Imagers-Opticstar.asp?p=0_10_5_0_3_811 That will take about 10mm off the optical length. I'm using the Baader MPCCIII CC that will be mounted in the focuser with this part: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/accessories/adapters-imaging-accessories/astro-t2-system/baader-adapter-m36.4--t-2-(t-2-part-03).html and various T2 extension tubes. As the MPCCIII pushes the focus out by about 10mm anyway, I'm hoping that the additional 10mm taken off the optical path by the low profile T2-EOS adapter will take the end of the focuser tube out of the light path sufficiently.

Are those custom built tube rings?

Totally OK, no. Possible to image with, yes. Some people have got good results with the EQ5 and even the EQ3-2, but its easier to get good results the better the mount is. The tracking is better and you end up throwing away less subs. A better mount means you get better images quicker. Thats why we all want the best one we can get, and I want an EQ6-R.

The EQ6-R Pro is my realistic dream mount ?. Please don't take what I said as discouragement, good luck with your imaging.

It all depends on your budget and what equipment you already have. People have got good results with the EQ5 and similar mounts, but the lower the quality of the mount the harder it is. For visual the EQ5 and 130PDS are well matched but for AP a HEQ5 will be a real step up, I've used both mounts and I'd definitely go for the HEQ5 if you can.

The Samyang is pretty expensive brand new, over £400. It is supposed to be very good though. I agree that the flattener is overpriced for what it is, it's a shame because the example images on the site look excellent.