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

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_nlc.gif

Adam J

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

370 Excellent

1 Follower

About Adam J

  • Rank
    Proto Star
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lincoln, UK
  1. Its also an IR block. I use an external filter with mine though not the internal baader mod.
  2. Oh I know my mount performs really really well its just never experienced it pre-mod.
  3. You will be happy with it, although I bought mine second hand with a belt mod already fitted so not sure how much difference that makes.
  4. As I have said above, unless its a full APO then you will end up with larger halos with a removal only. Look at it this way, if you already have coloured halos around bright stars before the mod, after the mod they will be worse as you will be letting more IR light through by the nature of the mod. As such if you either get a replacement filter or use an external IR filter you will reduce the impact of the mod. I would assess this after the mod and consider if you think an external cut filter will help. Focusing is only effected for shots taken at or near infinity as without the additional glass path length some lenses don't have sufficient adjustment to reach infinite focus. As you say with your scope it will be fine.
  5. ah ok well in that case if you can increase the spacing so that you acheive the required spacing
  6. Do you know if this will also support a HEQ5 pro??? in terms of attachment not weight capacity
  7. No 55mm is optimal if you make it longer or shorter than 55mm you will make the image worse in either direction the tolerance is about 2mm. The thickness of the t-ring is about 10mm so unless your using a low profile t-ring then you should end up with a 55mm ish spacing to the sensor itself (don't measure to the filter in front of the sensor).
  8. something like this but make sure the barrel of the cc is less than 35mm if you use this exact one. http://www.365astronomy.com/TS-2-Extension-Tube-with-35mm-Optical-Length.html
  9. 2 inch draw tub extension might be a solution with the cc sliding into the extension. The cc spacing is critical it will not tolerate being 10mm out of wack.
  10. This is my latest attempt as posted in the 130PDS thread. I am struggling to get any more out of it now though.
  11. Ah perhapse this is where the misunderstanding is then. Both the filters in a unmodified Canon are in effect IR filters the rear filter (the one you remove in modification) also blocks IR and as you know results in 80% of the H-a signal being blocked. This block extends further into the IR than just H-a though and so it stacks with the front filter (the one you leave in place). So at 700nm in a unmodified camera you have two filters each blocking over 80% of the incident light, this means that the amount of light that is transmitted at 700nm is 20% of 20% of the original incident light and so the two filters combined only let 4% of the 700nm IR light through as opposed to 20% when you have removed the rear filter. So no, with an unmodified camera you dont need an additional filter. However, as previously stated I am only saying that you will need an additional IR block with a basic filter removal mod in some situations, for example when chromatic correction is marginal to begin with. I am not saying that you will always need it. Essentially you are letting additional IR though out to 750nm as opposed to 700nm if you dont use an additional IR block though and that has a small effect on image quality.
  12. No not just the hand set, the stepper motors in the pro are higher quality
  13. The brayer matrix allows plenty of IR through especially via the red filters and blue also at near IR wavelengths, hence you get the purple (red and blue). The IR block is there for a reason and as for the inherent response curve of a CMOS sensor, well that stretches out to 950nm with no filtering before it dips below 10% QE, at 750nm the QE is almost still 2/3 what it is at 530nm. Like I said using only the front canon filter may not be an issue is the scope is decently corrected, but for semi-apo scopes you may benefit from an additional filter depending on how picky you are. So not a huge problem just not optimal...would likely show only on very bright stars or very poor quality optics.
  14. Don't forget that the HEQ5 and the HEQ5 pro are two different mounts and I would be sure to get the pro version.
  15. You would still require a field flattener. I know a couple of people that use a TS Optics ED70mm Carbon Fibre scope with the Star Adventurer very successfully.