KemalOz

6 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I would take what TS say with a pinch of salt and look at the spot diagrams. If the spots corrosponding to the corners of APS-C are OK for you then go with it, else crop.

Myself, I'd rather go with a normal triplet apo and either a plain flattener or a reducer, as I did with the 130 I bought.

hmm I'll probably pass this scope. Thanks again for the info

On 08.04.2018 at 17:28, ultranova said:

Hi, In the End it was sent back. shame as it was what I was looking for,

I was lucky enough at the time to have quite a few clear nights to try and get it sorted

unfortunately I never was able to get it to a level where I could say the stars are ok in the corners,

using a adjustable  spacer I was going in and out of the purposed sweet spot, never did get right.

Not to say they are all like that, you might be lucky and get one that's good from the start.

I would like to see some astro photos take with one of these scope at 100% ,

at the time I could not find one.

Paul

22 hours ago, DaveS said:

This is nearly the last of my images from the 80 f/4.4 and ASI1600 MM-C

The Rosette in NHO, lost count of the number of hours I collected data, but is was several, some of it from last year. The corners don't bear too much inspection, and it's a crop as I had severe alignment issues in all data.

But you know what? I don't care anymore. It is what it is, OK for "pretty pictures" provided you don't look too closely.

I've now set it up with the ASI183MM-C for Markarian's chain. Whether I'll get any data is unknowable, given our rubbish weather lately.

 

Edit: Looking at the TS site, it should give reasonable stars out to 6.5mm, and usable to 10mm. Beyond that they start to get bloated. So imaging circles of 13 and 20mm respectively. The ASI183 runs just under 16mm, and the ASI1600 runs 21mm.

thank you guys for the answers. Yes I also had trouble to find any other review or sample images. I guess it isn't a popular scope.

So Dave what I'm getting from your answer is that this scope won't work with an APS-C sensor. Even though in the specs it says; " Well corrected and illuminated image field with 42 mm diameter ".

On 31.05.2016 at 22:03, ultranova said:

Well perhaps its me then, the last slow scope I got was a

 F9 Ritchey Chretien Astrograph, and that had loose mirror bolts

and the spacing was wrong, apart from that it was great

sarcasm has never been my strong point, that scope was easy to take apart

and sort out, I would not like to attempt this scopes optics.

Came out and took him one you say, Well that was sweet, was it his neighbour.

I know I'm reviving an old topic, but what happened at the end? TS is still selling these scopes and yours is the best review I could find online. If possible I would like to know how the story ended

if you can find any you might wanna try angular contact bearings on the worm. They are both good for radial load as well as axial. I couldn't try them on my mount because they only exist in certain sizes.

My 15x70 Celestron Cavalry. Last night I have collimated it looking at Rigel. When it is in focus and stable on a tripod (although this one is very crappy and wiggly) it gives very beautiful images. I've also looked at the full moon but there was noticeable chromatic aberration around it. Green on one side and purple on the other. I'm guessing that is normal at this price point for doublet glass.

1 hour ago, LightBucket said:

Because they are a raw untouched stacked image, which is what you need when moving to another programme, you don’t want any changes that DSS makes applied to the image, you want all the data to work with, like I said before DSS is excellent at stacking, but not much good at anything else..

hmm, so even though I don't make any changes when I press save button it alters the original image?

I also use the autosave files, they are easier to process in PS. A friend recommended it to me though I have never bothered to investigate why