Jump to content

Banner.jpg.39bf5bb2e6bf87794d3e2a4b88f26f1b.jpg

Rossco72

Members
  • Posts

    1,955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rossco72

  1. 9 minutes ago, iPeace said:

    All great suggestions (keep them coming!). Is there a "slo-mo divide" amongst refractor / AZ users? At the moment, I'm using a Manfrotto 405 geared camera head, and am glad for the slo-mo control it offers...but perhaps only because there's no way a mount like this will give me smooth enough control to do without. Having no experience with big "light buckets" on dob mounts, I keep thinking: if those users are happy to work / slew around that way, surely there must be something to be said for it and surely the same experience should be available to a refractor user, given a quality mount? Or is it more of a personal preference thing?

    If it's well balanced and silky smooth, you wont need slow motion controls as you can just nudge the scope to follow what youre looking at

  2. On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 16:09, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

    Nice looks, but still, it is only 4" in diameter. If you insist on obstruction-free optics, the dream planetary scope is this one:

    http://www.apm-apo.com/apo530_6500-cnc_e.htm

    This is in the category: if you have to ask about the price you cannot afford it :D

    Bigger Intes-Micro Mak-Cas designs with their tiny CO would be the more "affordable" option

    http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/telescopes/reflecting-telescopes-ota/maksutov-cassegrain/intes-micro-alter-m1610-deluxe-apm-special-delivery.html

    In terms of detail (not contrast) and for imaging, even my humble C8 will hit any 4" for six on planets.

    6.5m length, id like to see the roll off roof obsy that takes it lol.

  3. Greetings folks,

     

    I have been away from astronomy for about 18 months now and haven't managed a single night under the stars in that time.

    It's made me think that I need to trim my kit and manage my expectations. I still have an interest for sure but the Scottish weather coupled with my lack of time and access to a good site has been soooo frustrating.

    I hope to keep an interest and will deffo keep some kit but I have too much gear that simply isn't getting used.

     

    Hope everyone else is fairing better and having clear skies and lovely images.

    Cheers

    Stuart

     

  4. There are many better alternatives to the sky watcher and celestron branded powertanks. As long as it delivers 12v tip positive then it will work and the ah rating will define how long it will run your proposed equipment. If its just the mount you shouldnt need much. I use 120ah marine battery as I have to power a mount, dew heaters, 2 cameras, a laptop and these all consume a fair bit of power.

  5. If I wanted to get both the Lagoon and Trifid in the frame, or the entire Veil I would choose a lens. If I wanted to image the Milky Way I would choose a lens. If I chose to image the North America I would choose a lens. I doubt if many have actually done 1:1 comparisons. Opinions are free.

    I have imaged the north american nebula and veil with lenses and the results are ok in a sense of showing someone what's there, but to pick through and correct all of the issues with colour offsets, star fringing etc would be a labour beyond my patience.

    I have also imaged north america with a small 370mm apo triplet and the results were far more pleasing and mucheasier to correct the smaller number of residual issues.

    That's just my opinion based on my experience.

    Regards

    Stuart

  6. The coatings are specific for each brand, but in a large fast achro you will probably find there isn't much difference that you can see.

    Both brands are owned by the same company so there is bound to be some commonality there to make use of tooling etc.

    Celestron used to be american made but are now made in China along with the Skywatcher, so unless you find an old made in USA Celestron then you will likely find the two scopes are much of a muchness.

    I'd be surprised if the optics are any different in the old skywatcher over the new one but the newer ones might have newer coatings applied.

    Regards

    Stuart

  7. As already said, at least an HEQ5 for AstroPhotography.

    The mount in your link will only lead to many frustrating nights wasted trying to get any results, then you will give up.

    Whatever mount you get needs to be able to "easily" hold the weight of the scope plus all the extras, it must also be capable of being auto guided otherwise your images will just look like blurry messes. Equally, do you want goto or are you happy you can find all of the objects you want to image?

    Buy the book called "making every photon count", read it, read it again, then make your purchase as an informed buyer. Otherwise you risk throwing your money away.

    Regards

    Stuart

  8. I dont think the choice is allways that simple camera lenses are usually much faster than the scope equivalent if in fact there is one so its not exacly a fair comparison maybe judging them at the same F ratio would be better  it is also very difficult/impossible to get hold of a scope that is sub 250mm.

    I wonder why there isnt a 200mm FL scope at F4 that could work with a full frame sensor i would certainly be very interested (the borg 60ED gets close).

    Alan

    I think the problem with this is that when used "wide open" most camera lenses give their worst performances. Even £10,000 worth of Canon L glass will likely need to be stopped down to f4 or f5.6 before it gives acceptable performance on the stars. At these speeds you are right back into APO territory and the APO will be cheaper...

  9. Depends on what telescope. If the cost is equal then the dedicated telescope will be much, much better for astro work. However most of the long primes will easily outperform an achro and can hold up well against non-premium apos as well. Additionally they are "free" if you have already got one and you get much more use out of them if you use them during the daytime as well...

    I wouldn't recommend getting a premium "L" lens purely for astro work. But if you are into birding for instance I would highly recommend a Canon 400mm f/5.6 L lens for astro work on those rare clear nights and birding/bird-in-flight photography during the daytime.

    Sorry, I should have excluded achros.

    In my own experience then every apo I've owned would outperform a lens on the stars.

    As you say, if you have one anyway...

    But if both are available to you I doubt you will select the camera lens.

    Cheers

    Stuart

  10. In the end I got professional help.

    The binocular repair centre in Glasgow, £60, full alignment and nitrogen topped up.

    If anyone is looking, you can contact them direct or through Viking Optical who use them for all UK repair work.

    Done an excellent job.

    Cheers

    Stuart

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.