Mark_C

Hey all,

Haven't posted my solar images in here before as I'm still learning the ropes on solar processing but think I'm getting the hang of it now!

All taken with a Daystar Quark.

This first picture was taken through a Sharpstar EDPH III at f/5.9, the full disc image is a composite of 8 exposures taken with Sharpcap solar mosaic tool and stitched together using Autostitch:

The second picture is a 36 minute time lapse of an active area on the limb of the solar disc, this was taken with a Skywatcher ED120 at f/7.5:

14 hours ago, Elp said:

Have you tested NB with a reducer? You've done a great job at F10.

Haven't got a reducer (yet) but I may invest in one if I can find one at a decent price, unfortunately they're around £800 new for the Edge 11" so I've been reluctant to splash out 😞 

I do seem to be having great success with binning and bringing the pixel scale to a level where the image is no longer severely over sampled and of course doing so increases the SNR of the final image.

9 hours ago, Paul M said:

It is indeed a very pleasant image, natural and easy on the eye. And yes, if I hadn't been told different, I'd have taken this as a very well presented M33, from an aesthetic point of view.

I dabble myself but, I aint no imager. I'm an appreciator of fine images and on the subject of NB and Mono, I sometimes find that harshly blended Ha layers can be quite "jerking" on an otherwise fine image. Just sayin'  

Not unlike taking portrait of your favorite niece and highlighting the zits... 😁 

Thank you, I appreciate the comments! 🙂

I know what you mean, sometimes the Ha areas can be overstretched and look a bit unusual. I could probably have stretched more out of the Ha regions but I'm not sure how difficult this would be with a OSC camera. Overall I'm quite happy how this has turned out but it definitely would have been interesting to see the outcome using narrowband filters vs just OSC!

9 minutes ago, Clarkey said:

Nice image. Always worth adding a bit of Ha to this one.

Thanks. 🙂 and agreed, it would certainly enhance the nebulousity of this galaxy significantly. I will definitely invest in a narrowband setup in the future as OSC shows its limitations here on Ha rich targets, not saying it's not do-able with the right filters but certainly takes a lot more time. Once I get an observatory set up I think I will make the switch over!

This galaxy for some reason seems to get little attention but has so much detail. It reminds me very much of M33!

This is an integration 87 x 5 min subs binned at 3x3, producing a pixel scale of roughly 0.83 "/pixel. These were unfortunately taken under moonlit skies so noise was an issue - with further integration under dark skies the noise levels would hopefully level out, I may revisit this one under better conditions.

Taken with a Celestron Edge HD 11" at F10 with an ASI2600MC on a ZWO AM5 mount.

3 hours ago, Zakalwe said:

Vignetting isn't really the problem here, it's uneven lighting across the whole image.

The way I do it is to centre the image on the disc so the whole field is illuminated. Then either use a bit of clingfilm across the aperture and defocus, or just defocus without any film (depends if there is cloud cover or not). Dunno if it the correct way, but I know that it seems to work for me.

 

 

Very nice!

Regarding flats, I also do the same, I use an A4 ring binder wallet that I've separated in to one single sheet then wrap it around the OTA dew shield with an elastic band. I then higher the exposure so that it's at around 60% in the histogram, then get SharpCap to take the flats, seems to work just fine and the results seem to be decent. I think this is the way DayStar advise to take solar flats, or use one of their dedicated flat screens (that do pretty much the same thing but more convenient.)

6 hours ago, Grant said:

It is essential to use flats with the Quarks to ensure a nice even field of view - DayStar themselves recommend their Flat Caps which work really well to diffuse the sunlight and get a good flat alternatively, just move your focuser so you are fully out of focus and take your flats that way - Sharpcap has a great tool for doing that.

If that example image is from your Quark then it's working A-OK and you are getting some lovely results, don't be concerned - enjoy! 🙂

 

Thanks Grant, I suspected this was the case and it is great to have confirmation from yourself and other users of the Quark that what I'm experience is perfectly normal, it gives me reassurance. 🙂

3 hours ago, Stu said:

Thanks Grant.

@Mark_C incase it’s not clear, Grant is FLO so hopefully that is reassuring 👍

I suspected it was, thanks for the heads up Stu! 🙂

1 hour ago, Zakalwe said:

I've had my moments.....

 

That's incredible! Very sharp and detailed. It's impressive how excellent results can be achieved even when you have to fight against challenging equipment, well done!

56 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

 

I've seen a lot worse than that , as far as I'm aware FLO send their Quarks to be checked over by Gary Palmer before they're released into the wild so it should be one of the better ones.

I think you need to give it a proper session running right through the temperature settings visually before jumping into imaging so that you can find the sweetspot.

And remember that your local seeing will ultimately determine the image quality , more aperture is not necessarily better .

Ah yes when I queried FLO about my concerns about Quarks and their QC before purchasing, they did say that they are checked by Gary, hence why I bought it from them as I didn't want to take the risk elsewhere, plus I'd be backed by FLO in the event there are any problems.

I did not realise there was such a wide variation with these devices, and it sounds like mine may actually not be a bad copy after all. I did not realise how bad they can be.

38 minutes ago, Zakalwe said:

Nothing wrong with that Quark at all IMHO. I wish that mine was that flat!

Solar flats are an essential piece of the imaging workflow and are very easy to create- either stretch some clingfilm over the aperture or de-focus the heck out of the image.

 

For example, here's a flat from one of my Quarks....and this is after correction with a tilt adapter to get rid of the Newton's Rings. You'd have a conniption if you saw the image without the tilt adapter!

Oh wow, that really is rather bad! How does your images look once the flat has been subtracted?

Thanks for the responses all! Really appreciate the feedback. I guess it's comforting to know that I'm not the only one who has these uneven illumination issues with this filter. To be fair with the flats taken and subtracted within Sharpcap the results are fairly good (i think) although I'm no solar expert.

I've attached a picture - this was taken with an Evostar ED120 and UV-IR cut filter. I've not had a proper chance to test the different dial settings of my quark because the weather has been so rubbish over the past 6 months that it clouds over before I get a chance to try each setting! This picture has been taken with the dial set at 0 from a set of 1000 frames.

16 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

Perfectly normal for a Daystar product and perfectly acceptable as far as Daystar are concerned ... 

Their customer service and T&Cs are pretty appalling so good luck dealing with them should the unit have to go back to them.

This recent long-running thread over on Cloudy Nights should give you an inkling into their attitude and the reason why I will never go down the Quark route ... 

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/909154-daystar-filters’-sr-127-‘qt’-dedicated-hydrogen-alpha-solar-telescope-chromosphere-model/

I've just read through this thread and this is very dissapointing to see, had I known this beforehand I probably would have avoided buying this filter, as the CN thread does not represent Daystar in a good light.

I think the attraction of being able to put this filter on a long FL scope such as the ED120 to get close in details drew me in more than the risk of getting something that may not have worked properly!

Thanks Stu, I think that's definitely good advice. Hopefully @FLO will see this, if not then I'll get in touch!

Hi all,

I purchased my Quark from FLO last October and was just wondering if this is normal for a Quark Chromosphere to have uneven field illumination such as in the flat that I've attached to this post? I find that without taking these flats, my solar images are totally unusable when I start stretching the curves in imppg. I realise that taking flats is good practice anyway, but ideally would have liked to not have these inconsistencies to begin with.

The unevenness is consistent regardless of whatever OTA I attach the Quark to so I assume this lies with the Quark itself.

I'm just wondering is it worth asking FLO to look in to this being a warranty issue or is this normal and to be expected?

Thanks for the positive comments everyone, it really is appreciated!

I just slapped everything in to Pixsinsight's WBPP at default settings so I suspect that with the aforementioned tweaks in the settings I can reduce or totally eliminate those pesky sateliite trails!

Hi all,

This is my first attempt at M106 and overall quite happy with the end result.

This is an integration of 119 x 300 sec exposures taken at  native 2800mm F10 with an 11" Edge HD. The image is 2x2 binned and was taken with an ASI2600MC. No doubts that a focal reducer would have helped tremendously with this!

Processing performed PixInsight with BlurX and NoiseX.

Super frustrated with the ridiculous amount of satellite trails which were passing the FOV - they are still slightly visible in the final image. 😞 

19 hours ago, Ags said:

I am trawling your back catalog of images after seeing your stunning M51

These results really motivate me to have a go with my C6/HEM15.

 

Thank you! 🙂 definitely go out and give it a try, you might be surprised with the results. The C6/HEM15 is a much smaller and nicer setup to get to grips with. The C11 is a heavy beast and I do not have a permanent setup so it's never particularly a nice experience to set up, which is the only downside of having such a setup. I went out with the expectation of failure but happy to be proven wrong. 🙂

11 hours ago, assouptro said:

Great image Marc! 

I know what you mean regarding the guide stars at that focal length especially around m51! 
(I have a 12” Meade which I use at 2084mm with a Starizona reducer/flattener)
I was using the Celestron oag until recently, it’s massive prism and ability to rotate was perfect but it eats up loads of back focus and my latest rig hasn’t the space so I’ve resorted to the tsoag9 (my first ever oag purchase around 10 years ago?!) it is really fiddly and doesn’t have the biggest chip but thanks to a rotator I can normally find a guide star 

Imaging at this focal length is great fun, it’s not without its challenges but I enjoy it! Even on large nebula it can be fun to get up close and personal with just a small interesting area and there are many more guide stars around Cygnus and Cassiopeia! 

One thing to consider, re- the 0.7 flattener it will speed up your subs, so less waste due to guiding errors, wind, planes etc so it may be worthwhile in the future? 
 

Anyway, that’s enough waffle from me, going to go back to your image and enjoy 😊

Thanks for sharing 

Bryan 

Bryan, thank you for the kind words! Glad to hear from someone else who has also endured the difficulities of long focal length imaging, it really is a wild ride but its well worth it. The M51 is a bit of a nightmare at native FL to be honest, even with the big prism and large sensor, there seems to only be 1 prominent guide star so if conditions aren't great , guiding suffers a lot as multi star guiding is either sketchy or just isn't functional.

The Celestron OAG was one option I had considered as the rotation feature was really attractive along with the big prism, but like you had unfortunately discovered it really consumes a great deal of backfocus which would cause issues with the way my ZWO system is set up. Another consideration was the Askar OAG but I think that has a slightly smaller prism.

Absolutely 100% agree that a reducer is something that I should aquire and should be considered an essential purchase for this scope - not only will it reduce oversampling a little, but like you say imaging at F7 will allow for light collection in a shorter space of time.  The great thing about the APS-C sensors is that there's plenty of cropping potential so lessening the FL isn't an issue. 🙂 

I think the aim for me in this instance was to stretch the limits of what's possible with this telescope on a mount that's not even supposed to be rated for imaging beyond 900mm. 🤣

Just waiting for another long session to arise, doesn't look promising though as weather has been/looks to be awful 😞 and it doesn't help with the nights now rapidly drawing out.

8 hours ago, tomato said:

Very nice, I love the detail and subtle colours.

Thank you, really appreciate it! 🙂

Thank you for the positive feedback, I really appreciate it! 😀

Absolutely delighted with the AM5, it has exceeded expectations and makes a very nice setup as both the scope and mount are highly versatile! Never would have expected this setup to work but it handles the C11 with no issues at all! I am now wondering if ordering the 0.7x reducer for the C11 is actually worthwhile as so far these results even at F10 are nothing short of fantasic.

The only issue I sometimes find is finding a decent guide star but it does help tremendously in having an OAG-L with a larger prism and an ASI174MM attached, that larger sensor really makes a difference!

Hi all,

Had an extensive break in the weather last night which managed to bag me 71 x 300s exposures on M51 with an additional 15 x 300s from a previous session. This was imaged at 2800mm @ F10 with a Celestron Edge HD 11" on a ZWO AM5 mount using a 2600MC. Image was software binned in Pixinsight 2x2 and optimised with BXT and NXT.

Conditions were quite difficult as the first part of the night was slightly breezy and of course at this FL guiding can be a pain, but it calmed down later in the night and am very happy with the results.

Overall pleased with the outcome and am really enjoying imaging at this focal length, it's possible to frame some really small objects. F10 is a bit of a pain but absolutely workable if you have dark enough skies (I'm currently in a B4 area).

Next target is M101!

2 hours ago, Saganite said:

I think it is a fine image and I would be proud of that if I practiced  in the dark art....

Thank you Steve! I honestly wasn't expecting anything remotely close to this so it really is a suprise. Given the nature of the AM5, I probably wouldn't have opted for deep sky imaging with this scope as it was mainly intended for planetary imaging, but knowing that I can get these kinds of images at this FL means that it can only get better with a FR and even more so if I opted for Hyperstar. This really is a versatile scope that has so far impressed me!

Hi all,

After recently purchasing a Celestron Edge HD 11" and wondering if I had made the right choice trying to even dare perching it on top of my AM5, let alone image with it, I can safely say it has been quite a positive experience and way surpassed my expectations. I have been saving up for the 0.7x reducer but in the meantime thought I'd have a go in its native configuation, more so for a laugh than anything else because I fully expected it to be a failure given how often I've seen mention of not bothering attempting imaging at this FL.

Have to say that I'm quite impressed, it's not the sharpest image there is, nor will it win any awards, but I'm happy with the results given the setup. It's quite tricky imaging at this FL, the seeing has to be faily good otherwise guiding does suffer a little and it makes accurate focusing difficult, also any slight gust of wind will ruin a sub. Last night was particularly good, I was getting guiding RMS of 0.30, which for the AM5 and this OTA is really good.

This is M81 shot at native focal length (2800mm f/10) with an ASI2600MC. Processed in Pixinsight with BlurX, NoiseX with slight colour saturuation enhancements with curve adjustments. No other processing done other than just a little cropping.

The image is slightly oversampled due to the pixel scale.

The sub consists of 39 x 300s exposures, this is over 3 days (due to clouds) under heavily moonlit skies.

With further integration and dark skies I'm certain further detail can be captured.

The mount is now back together and working perfectly! Virtually no play in any of the axes and sounds a little better with the TF2 lithium grease too.

Before the disassembly/tweaks I could not achieve over 5 minute guided subs, now I can get 20 mins without issue. Something was obviously not right and it was difficult to determine where the issue lied. I am glad that I opened up the mount now, it was a great learning process, even if it was daunting. Doing so also means I can repeat the same steps if necessary as I know how the mount is put together.

My PHD graphs are nowhere near as wild as they were before and am getting a guiding RMS error from between 0.18 - 0.25/ or 1.10-0.80", depending on the part of the sky being imaged, not too bad!

Mark_c

Did you photograph the strip down?

Sorry for the delay in response. I have taken some photos and will try and get disassembly/reassembly instructions written as soon I have the time.

I believe the way in which the mount is tweaked (worm gear removal/meshing, bearings etc) is very similar to the EQ6 so this aspect still applies from Astro Baby's tweaking tutorial.

I've got two EQ sixes and they work remarkably well. I'm not really knocking them but the fact remains that I would rather have spent another hundred quid on the finer details of finish, like having a properly cleaned interior. Also providing proper instructions regarding maintenance etc would be a simple courtesy to their huge customer base. I don't see myself flinching on either of these points.

Olly

I totally agree with this. I would be happy to spend extra £ to avoid the cost cutting that certain aspects of these mounts have evidently suffered from. It's just the silly little things too and you wonder why on earth they carry shipping these mounts with parts that won't stand up to the task. It would be great if Skywatcher shipped their mounts with better bolts, larger knobs and sturdier levers. The AZ EQ6 GT does improve on many of the shortcomings of the EQ6 in this regard but there are still things that need improvement. A stronger and larger clutch release knob that doesn't snap off like kindling is a good example (there's an M6 bolt for that :lol) and larger saddle release knobs, the existing ones are just too small and fiddly, especially when it's cold. The maintenance aspect is something that should be addressed too, I almost ruined my mount due to misunderstanding how it is assembled and without any prior guides written on this I was going in blind. It was only until I had a few other people look at it that we could determine how it was put together.

Don't get me wrong, they're very good mounts but there are definitely issues that need to be sorted out, irrespective of whether I have a deficiency in mechanical mindedness. 

The RA axis had quite a significant amount of play/backlash and this is what really caused the set of events that led me to having to open the mount up to begin with. I must have been unlucky as most people seem to have no issues with these mounts. As mentioned before, the amount of swarf present in the RA mechanism was shocking, it was like running sand along my fingers, this should not have been there to begin with. 

The clutch lever should not have snapped off either, the metal used for the bolt is very brittle. I accept that force should not have been used to release the clutch but the bolt should not have snapped like that.

Regarding disassembly, a simple one page PDF with an exploded diagram of the mount internals and screw placements would have been helpful. My brother and his mate who are skilled engineers were alarmed by how difficult was to open up. Without having any sort of idea of what to look for, you end up having to be the guinea pig unfortunately and things can go wrong very quickly when you have nothing to work from.

Following on from my first post, I have successfully managed to dismantle the mount after a nightmare of a time and with some help. The retaining nut that I was talking about with the 4 holes inside the chrome clutch is actually held in by 3 grub screws around the perimeter of the nut. Do not try and remove this nut without loosening the grub screws or else you will begin to strip the thread on the shaft and potentially jam the clutch (like I did!). I really wish there was more documentation about this online as it's frustrating having to be a guinea pig where schematics should really be freely available to avoid things like this happening. Access to the grub screws is gained through the threaded holes of the clutch which you have to rotate until you see the holes beneath line up, I think the grub screws have a 2mm allen key head. The nut should not be difficult to remove once the grub screws have been removed.

I have successfully managed to tap a 5mm thread from where the old thread was stripped for the RA worm alignment screw and have installed a larger grub screw,  this should make fine tuning the worm position more precise.

It is quite shocking how much swarf is present in the worm/gears from factory, I'm pretty sure this will have an effect on the accuracy of the mount.

I'm currently waiting for isopropyl alcohol to arrive on Monday so will clean everything up and remove the old grease, remove the swarf and put some TF2 lithium grease in its place, this should make everything smoother. Hopefully I should be able to remove the RA backlash completely once reassembled.

I will try and write up a guide for dismantling/reassembly, as explained before the internals are quite a bit different than the EQ6 so it would be best not to use existing guides as a basis.

Mark.

Hi all,

Has anyone successfully managed to disassemble one of these mounts? I know they're relatively new and most owners will have not had the need to open them up but I am trying to retap the thread for the RA worm positioning grub screw and the whole mount needs to be in bits to avoid swarf falling in to the gears. I can't see a single guide online about disassembly of these particular mounts and the excellent disassembly guide on Astro Baby regarding the EQ6 doesn't really apply to these mounts as the layout is quite a bit different.

Disassembling the Dec axis was very easy but the RA is next to impossible. Where the counterweight bar goes through at the bottom of the RA axis, there looks like a retaining nut with 4 holes at the bottom, looks like a special keyed instrument has to fit inside the holes, bit like a grinder key. I think removing this retaining nut is the only way  to get to the RA axis and with the clutch being surrounded on the outside, it's impossible to get a oil filter wrench on it. I really don't understand why they make it so difficult to take the RA part of the mount apart when the Dec part is so easy, it just seems utterly stupid.

I've tried putting some m4 bolts inside the holes and running a piece of angle iron in-between but it just won't shift, ends up the bolts just bending and starting to mash the holes up. Now with attempting to loosen the retaining nut, the RA clutch is so tight that seems to be seized and impossible to release, I even managed to snap the RA clutch lever in the thread, luckily I managed to extract the loose piece of thread. This is whole charade is starting to turn in to a bit of a nightmare really and I'm getting really frustrated with it.

I am tempted to going to go back to an NEQ6 and get a belt mod done on it, I never had any issues with mine many years back and looking back I wished I had never sold it as it worked perfectly.  I seem to be having nothing but trouble with this AZ EQ6 and these events have just added further unnecessary frustration. Perhaps I have been unlucky.

Anyone have any ideas ? My brother is an engineer and is going to have a look at it tonight but I want to avoid further hiccups. I should have really left it till then but you know what it's like, impatience sets in and you want to get the job done.

If someone has successfully managed to disassemble one of these mounts, any advice would be appreciated on what steps we should take next.

Mark.