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.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements




Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,088 Excellent

About MattJenko

  • Rank
    Master of none.
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North Essex

Recent Profile Visitors

2,083 profile views
  1. wow, that sucks bad. price is the overwhelming unknown in your post, so tricky to offer suggestions without being a bit clued up as to what you want to fork out?
  2. Given price is a consideration, just go for the cheapest one that crops up first and rely on fate to make the decision for you...
  3. I have tried binning and it seems to work fine. I tend to bin RGB and leave Lum at 1x1 though, where the quality of the binned data is not so crucial. To be honest though, oversampling is not a big deal with a sensitive camera like this one at high frequency (short exposure times). If you want to use this camera on a longer focal length system, then the small pixels are going to pose an oversampling issue for you anyway and it would not necessarily be the first choice of camera anyway. For example, my main use for mine is for an imaging system at 260mm focal length... Make no mistake, the images from this camera involve a significant number of pixels because of the sensor size and small pixel size (bigger files than an Atik 11000 as an example), so processing is a big task anyway. Mono or OSC involves big files, so the extra 'hassle' of mono data doesn't really come across as a big issue for me in processing terms. Gathering the data in the first place is a different argument, but in pure processing terms, I think there is nothing to worry about. Also, processing is where all the fun lies
  4. The GSO 6" Newt. It is more geared for photography, but will work for visual, although it will be very hard on eyepieces, so you won't get away with average EPs, you will need to get some higher quality ones to cope with the tight light cone at that focal ratio, as not all EPs work well below F5.
  5. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that scope, and can make a fine imaging rig and an observing system, with the right adaptors. The mount is not for imaging though, and would be for visual only, and an EQ based one at that, which I did not like when i started out, with a 5" Newt on a similar EQ mount. I would have preferred an AltAz to make my life easier.
  6. A 5mm EP in a 200p is about x240, so not an EP that will work on every occasion, although that translates into mushy views, not the symptoms you describe.
  7. An 8 inch GSO astrograph is a fierce entry into astronomy. I would not recommend that, but would advise a decent small newtonian /mak / refractor and an AltAz mount for some visual pleasure. Astrophotography is another world entirely and should be addressed when you decide to go for it. If you get a small refractor/Mak and a simple alt az mount, then you will be able to take it on a plane no problem. For that amount, here are some examples of a kit to get you thinking about total budget and what you actually need for a complete setup: Scope: Mount: Eyepieces: Couple of these: Cheers Matt
  8. Depends on the DSO. An open cluster can be done as a pure RGB image, and probably quite short subs if it is a bright one, in order to not saturate the star cores. Other types benefit from a Lum layer. A Globular Cluster for instance might benefit from a deep Lum layer to get the fainter outer halos and then shorter RGB used to colour in the saturated Lum cores. For Nebula etc, a Lum almost always makes sense as you can gather all available light for detail as long as possible to get all the nuances and then colour in with binned RGB, or just RGB with much shorter integration times. Not to say pure RGB won't work on any of the targets, but adding in Lum can speed things up considerably.
  9. FLO sale on Vixen SLVs right now. Just saying
  10. I know you now have a working set, but for extra info, I found the ES 68 degree EPs work great, as do the Baader Morpheus EPs (well the 14mm one does). I have also successfully used Vixen SLVs and the BSTs work very well too.
  11. I would almost say that the 150p is the one to go for as opposed to the 200p. The 150p is a seriously good planetary and lunar scope, which in light polluted skies are still amazing targets. The clusters and doubles of the skies are still easily available in this scope and it has the same focal length as the 200p. It will be easier on eyepieces and is lighter and more transportable, to a degree. The fact that it has less light grasp for the fainter galaxies and nebulae is not so important in an area where the sky glow is a limiting factor in my opinion.
  12. Yeah, I use astrobin to record all the subs etc against the images, as I don't make any other kind of log! My best images have come from my ASI1600!
  13. Fine line between panic and excitement! SGPro works well with the ASI1600 - I use it myself. I also use CDC as opposed to Stellarium to do the initial pointing and the PlateSolve2 software that SGPRo uses I found much better than Astrotortilla. PHD2 is good, although can take a while to know well, and I am still learning. There is a great astroimagingchannel video on youtube about using it from one of the developers.
  14. I set up and tear down every night. If you leave the camera attached to the scope and don't shake it about, flats work fine, until they don't, when I retake them. This is usually measured in multiple months.
  15. Flats are not that difficult to take and once taken generally last a while, so I take them for each filter. If you are not doing sky flats, then you can do them inside during the day. I set up a white computer screen and use a white t-shirt over the telescope end and then work out what exposure time to get 30-50% illumination. If the exposure time is too short, put another T-shirt over the end and make it longer to avoid weird banding effects of very short exposure times. Set up a run in whatever capture program you use and let it do its thing. They should last a good few months, so doing all filters is not that much of a hardship.