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_dslr_mirrorlesss.thumb.jpg.5b348d6a5e7f27bdcb79e9356b7fc03b.jpg

orley

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by orley

  1. How about this... http://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-az-eq5-gt-geq-alt-az-mount.html
  2. Jupiter through a 6" Istar anastigmat.
  3. A 6" refractor can be a weighty beast. What mount do you sit your newtonian on?
  4. I did the same thing. Only have to PA every now and then
  5. I have the 100. It's a lovely scope with crisp images. Yes it comes with a reducer, but you can also get a reducer for the 80, which makes the 80 even more suitable for AP. The flip side is that visually the 100 pulls ahead. I settled for the compromise!
  6. You could get 3 decent BSTs at that price. Well worth the money.
  7. Not a silly question at all. I looked for Polaris, placed the mount facing it, got it visible in the eyepiece and used that as a starting point. Made marks on the floor to drill holes into the next day. Drilled holes, next time out placed mout legs in the holes and drift aligned. Works a treat
  8. see my post on this thread: http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/240961-frustrating-celestron-4se-setup/ I arrived at my current method through trial and error and the attempt to eliminate potential guiding errors I was suffering from at the time. If you're carefull in handling the mount the alignment is pretty good from word go. Occasionally I drift align but usually find what I start with is good enough for 10-15min guided subs. Like Liquid indicates you can use software too. Celestron software has a polar alignment tool that works reasonably well, although sometimes for me it throws a wobbler. One day I'll work out why
  9. Yes. Did exactly that last night. Jupiter in the eyepiece for over an hour at 105x. All it requires is a good polar alignment. A while ago I fully extended the legson the mount, positioned it facing north and drilled holes in the patio so that each time I could place the mount in exactly the same spot and height, then drift aligned. Now all I have to do is plonk the mount down in its spot and the initial positioning is good enough for a solar system alignment, or, like last night 15min guided subs until the fog rolled in. Take things slowly and one at a time. Spend some time making sure the mount is in a good initial position. Patiently align each star, it helps if you have an illuminated reticle eyepiece. Don't use the barlow when aligning, you'll find it really difficult to get the star in view. I used to worry about only using alignment stars that I knew. These days I just use whichever stars the handset picks, they're usually brighter than the surrounding stars. I realise that it isn't always possible or practicle to place the mount in the same place each time. I did it initially to help isolate another issue, buf found it helped overall. Orley
  10. Late to this party, apologies. To be honest, does it matter? Want to use goto? Good on you, go for it, enjoy it. Don't want to use goto? Same reply. Enjoy the skies, that's the main thing.
  11. Have a look at this: http://uncle-rods.blogspot.co.uk/2011_08_01_archive.html Scroll down the page until you find the article called "cats and kittens"
  12. The goto accuracy of this mount is excellent as long as the time, date, daylight saving time and lat/long data are all entered correctly and that it has a fairly accurate polar alignment. With mine I extended the legs to full height, drilled small holes in the patio to put the feet in so that the mount was in the same place/height each time, then performed a polar alignment. All I had to do after that was plonk the mount into that same spot and solar system alignment was pretty accurate. Would always do a 2 + 4 for photography though.
  13. I use an old drummer's stool. Light enough to pick up and move around and height adjustable to suit. Got it for a song (pardon the pun!) off ebay.
  14. Whilst I loved my CG-5 the VX is a better mount all round and would better support a 200p.
  15. If you are running Windows on your laptop try this: http://plugable.com/2011/07/04/how-to-change-the-com-port-for-a-usb-serial-adapter-on-windows-7
  16. Have you set the com port to match the required port number?
  17. Good fun reading all the above My OP was born out of reading similar statements over and over, the first being the equivalence of the two stated scopes, the second being that aperture is king. What I'm left taking from this thread is that not only is neither statement is absolutely true, but also but that it's quite fascinating how different designs produce different results, almost, at times, regardless of aperture. Oh, and that it's all subjective of course Thanks everyone, Orley
  18. Lol, start a thread and watch it wind this way and that. All good fun
  19. Lol, had to smile. Last Sunday I got Daylight Saving Time back to front. Wondered why all of a sudden the mount thought the world had changed...
  20. Hey, Thanks for the info guys and about what I expected. I can see that simple maths isn't always the key, and I appreciate all the factors you guys have kindly pointed out. Since I posted I tried to recall where I'd last seen the comparison, and I'm pretty sure it was in The Backyard Astronomer. Having previously owned a 150mm newtonian and 127mm mak I can say that I prefer the views with my 100mm refractor, so can relate to your points. At the risk of starting an argument the above lends weight to the argument that aperture isn't always king! Cheers guys
  21. Hey, Been following the recent 8" SCT threads and, reading around, have several times stumbled on a statement along the lines of the performance of an 8" SCT is equivalent to a 6" refractor (not stated achro or apo, but I'll assume achro). Now to my puzzle. Back to simple maths, the light gathering area of a 6" frac is around 17,673mm (3.142*(75**2)) For an 8" SCT, the area equates to 31,420 (3.142*(100**2)) Less area for 35% central obstruction (3.142*(35**2)) = 27,571 That gives a difference in area of 9,898mm than with a 6" frac. How then, can the 2 be equivalent? I keep reading that there is a loss of contrast with the SCT, but I'm finding it difficult to believe it's THAT much of a difference. What else am I missing? Or have a made a booboo with my figures? Worry not about causing me embarrassment if I have Thanks in advance, Orley.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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