Whistlin Bob

I think @vlaiv has given a very comprehensive answer to this, but to put it in a real world context I use a modded 600d in f4.5 reflectors (130 and 200) in Bortle 5 skies, and for many situations it performs very well. I'm not disputing that a 294 would be significantly better, but it's 4x the price. For that money I have the camera, both scopes (1 was 2nd hand), a coma corrector, an IDAS D2 LP filter, an Ha filter and half a Pixinsight license. I think that's a good deal!

This is a nice topic to read through whilst on my hols. I'm currently a DSLR imager with plenty of headroom to get better with my current setup, but I can see myself trying the mono route at some point. The point I really wanted to make, though, was how rare it is for a specialist forum with lots of passionately held views to debate an old chestnut like this without at some point descending into bickering. It really is refreshing. As you were...

Not necessarily. For mobile imaging I have a DSLR with an intervalometer and a standalone guider. Therefore no computer.

Welcome! That's a lovely moon mosaic.

Hi- I'm running PI on a 2nd hand laptop that's no great shakes in terms of spec. A couple of times I've used the PI stacking and calibration processes and it has taken ages, not just to stack the pictures but to run through all of the processes and set all the parameters etc etc. Despite this investment of time the output was never vastly better than what I can get from DSS. I umm'ed and arrr'ed about hardware but eventually decided to carry on using DSS and save PI for the post processing (for which I find it fantastic) because life's too short. Your mileage may vary, as they say (and I'd be interested to know if others can get something markedly better from doing their initial processing in PI), but if I had a few astro pounds to spare they wouldn't be going on processors and motherboards!

That really is superb...

Never tried an OAG and I'm sure an 80mm frac would be fine, but I'm using the finder guider option that @wimvb suggests on my 1000mm SW 200p and it works well, although it's only a 9x50 finder. Light, cheap, effective and gives me nice round stars 😊 (except the brighter ones with their diffraction spikes obvs)

Envy is never a pretty thing but I bet I'm not the only one feeling it when reading this!!!! 🤪 Glad that someone who enjoys and appreciates it has this opportunity. There- I've turned it into a sentiment that my mother would not be disappointed in!

Only just stumbled across this thread Dave, but I hope the retirement is going well. I bought a star diagonal from you a few months ago and it's seeing good service keeping my elderly ETX105 going on a SW alt az mount 😀

Really very nice. You can almost distinguish the e and f stars in the trapezium. What software did you use for the processing?

Yes! Just split it in 14" dob with aperture mask 😁😁😁😁 Thanks again for pointing it out.

Hi Paul, Welcome to the lounge! I'd just be a little careful around names- I don't think there's an HEQ6. I'm guessing you mean an HEQ5- and for my part I'm not sure with this scope, but it works well on my 200p for imaging which comes in at around 11kgs. Also- I tried to use an asi224 for DSO imaging at first and found it really frustrating. It's a brilliant planetary and guide camera, but quite limited for DSO, except for very small objects. After getting frustrated I went down the 2nd hand astro modded DSLR route, which was a similar cost (Canon 600d) and was much much better for me. Your mileage may vary as they say!

Couldn't imagine being without my 14" dob. Breaks down to be easily transportable, wonderful deep sky views, great on doubles and planets with a 160mm mask and binoviewers. Would miss the imaging though...

Epic! If I'd taken that shot I would now be spending a bit of money on a high quality print and hanging it up on my wall! I've just had a pleasant few minutes exploring it for various objects- it really is wonderful, thanks for sharing.

Nice report! I didn't even know it was a double... For me it's the star that tells me I've gone way too far when looking for m13! Now I have an added little objective next time I observe 😁

That's really good Neil. Look forward to seeing that on Friday night! 😁

I had this dilemma two years ago. In the end I took the second hand HEQ5 route even though it was more than I needed at the time. Always been happy with the decision- this year I decided to add a 200p as an imaging scope and the HEQ5 handles it comfortably; I'm not sure an EQ5 would have.

Inclined to agree with you. I was delighted with the SW WiFi module when I first tried it, but went back to the hand controller after a few sessions- mainly because I found touchscreens don't work so well in cold damp conditions.

Thanks @John- that's really handy. I'll have a go at that and see how far I get 👍

Great report- always nice to share in others enthusiasm. The NAN is a funny one- it actually looks better in my finder than in my 14".

That's unmasked- it'd be interesting to see what the limit is with masking as effectively it becomes a 160mm scope. I'm guessing the difference between a 12 and 14 inch scope wouldn't be huge. Last year, when it was a little higher, I was trying Saturn's moons and found Hyperion (very faint at 14.8) but got stuck on Phoebe (16.8!!)

Hmmm- mag 14 is about the best I've got at home, and my Southern horizon is the worst for light pollution so I was probably always onto a loser but hey ho- you don't know unless you try!

Got home from an evening out last night to a glorious clear sky. On a Monday? Really? I made an aperture mask for my dob over the weekend and was itching to try it out. The idea behind the mask is that on bright targets cutting out a bit of light and diffraction from the secondary struts should improve clarity, even though the aperture is reduced (350 to 160 in this instance). And so after failing to resist temptation I was setup by 11:20: Jupiter: Disappeared behind neighbours house. Need to catch it in the gap between house and apple tree 1. Saturn: Seeing dreadful without mask: boiling away with no clarity at all. With the mask: same but dimmer. Hmmm. Pluto: Spent ages looking for this. Definitely in the right place. Pluto formed a triangle asterism with two other faint stars. I upped the magnification to dim the sky glow and there was definitely something there. Wobbled the scope – that helped. Averted vision- didn’t make much difference. So- I’ve looked at Pluto but not seen it! Beginning to regret doing this on a work night… Jupiter again. Behind apple tree 1. That moved quick! Damn! Izar: At last- some success. Successively improved views moving from Baader zoom to binoviewers to adding aperture mask. In the final view the stars were pinpoint sharp and well separated with the companion showing a lovely blue. Double double: the same experience. The 2 pairs were easily separated in all 3 configurations, but the binoviewers plus aperture mask gave the best view. M13: Too dim for the mask, the best view was in the binoviewers- resolving all the way to the core and seemingly spherical, even though at that distance you don’t really have depth perception! Jupiter again: Gotcha! Just before it snuck behind apple tree 2… Definitely a better view with the aperture mask- slightly dimmer but with much more clarity. 6 bands plus the GRS were clearly visible, with some detailing on the bands, plus the moons spread out as clear disks 3 to one side and one on the other. Well worth the fatigue today! Very pleased with the aperture mask- it’s not often an astro upgrade is almost free. It’s only really good for bright objects and with the binoviewers I had to velcro 4kgs onto the bottom of the tube to balance it- but well worth the hassle!

Looking at these wonderful setups I almost feel like I'm neglecting mine! Mine is not lagged and is guided with a 9x50 finder mounted in the normal shoe with a finder guider adaptor on it. Works a treat, though now I'm wondering if lagging would bring some improvements! 🤔

Thanks @Mr niall. Yes- I always feel a bit vulnerable leaving my gear outside- I was lucky this one was from my back garden! I was using large jpegs for this- 5184x3456- although some of that quality is lost as it encodes the video. It takes a little while to process but the computer seems to cope ok. Videopad has a curves feature as well, but each change seems to take about 5 minutes to apply as it rolls it out across the clip!