Adam J

Well personally i would be going for a larger sensor planetary camera from ZWO like the ASI585mc if i wanted to image the moon, then use it cropped at higher FPS for planets. Also the ability to have a larger frame will help you keep the planet in view and find it.

You really need a camera that is able to produce high frame rates at an appropriate image scale. I dont see that a 6Da or 60Da would be a good match to that you are trying to do. Not sure what the cost of those DSLRs are currently but I would recommend a dedicated planetary camera even if its a cheap 120mc as you will likely get much better results than you can get with a DSLR. What is your actual budget? Adam

Could be the replacement focuser is not aligned to the tube, those are solid so unlikely focus sag. Could still be the optics. Only way to know is to test.

The outermost ring of the airy disk is not even in its illumination so collimation is most likely out. It's most even to the top right of the image indicating the likely center of the optical axis is out in that direction. Of course in the case of the ED 80 it's likely that the focus tube is not running parallel to the optical axis and less likely that your optics are not aligned to the center of the OTA tube. Perform a test with a collimated laster collimator and see if the dot passes through the center of the objective. If not then the focuser is your issue.

The 585 would replace the 178 and the 385 in my opinion. Good for planets and moon. Sell those and you will cover it's cost pretty much. Adam

It might be caused by the optics being pinched so my be fixable by backing off the centering screws. If it was my own the. I would back them all off 1/10th of a turn. But it's not without risk.

I would think that a simple test with an artificial star would show astigmatism. Its how I look for it. Adam

The theory is that if both scopes have a similar f-ratio then to long as the shorter focal length scope has the same total integration of the mosaic then the end SNR will be similar across the two if you bin the 130pds to the same pixel scale. What this really shows you is the power of a larger sensor (if you can afford optics to cover it). As in this situation it might mean you are collecting data much faster.

Sorry to say it is astigmatism and would normally warrant the scope being returned. I am very shocked if it is a tested example. I would contact FLO it will be too late for WO warranty if it's a MK1. It may be caused by an overnight lens cell and so be fixable. Adam

Just would not happen with stars of this brightness.

You say these are the same optics but there is something very off about the stars in the mono shot. They look to me for all the world like stars that are suffering from optics with bad astigmatism. Little Maltese crosses all over the place. Yet the OSC data is not showing the same optical fingerprint. Something not right here. Adam

you dont really say what you want to use it for?

Is the shutter sticking?

For that price the 585 is probably the way to go. But it is always worth looking for used dedicated cameras with larger sensors such as the 183 or the 533. Adam

Honestly that's a very small sensor. I would not consider it good for general use.

I doubt you are going to see more resolved detail it that is the idea? However, the main advantage is the larger sensor.

So the interesting thing is that what people often think of as the mono version of the IMX294 mostly because it's called the ASI294mm pro is actually somewhat uniquely, as far as I know without going through the entire sony sensor catalogue (although I am reasonably familiar with it) the only instance when Sony have given what is apparently a mono version of the sensor a different IMX designation. In this case the IMX492, which just happens to be 294 backwards. So you could conclude that something more changed in moving to a mono version than simply removing the Bayer matrix and updating the firmware. This is likely because of the need to read the sub pixels of the quad Bayer individually to enable the full resolution bin 1 as opposed to in pairs or groups of four as in the OSC dependent on read mode. My personal feeling with this sensor is that much of the widely reported issues with the 294 in terms of calibration result from the way it reads the quad baryer matrix or rather the circuit that switches the sensor from quad baryer mode to HDR mode. One thing seems clear and that is that the pattern visible in imx294 flats is compounded by the apparent non linearity in the chip at some gain values and that these two issues together create the perfect storm. Many explanations have been proposed for this pattern and it is still present in the mono chip but even so I don't see thread after thread of people complaining about calibration of the IMX492 in the way you do with the IMX294 however, a quick Google search still reveals a unsettling pattern. Furthermore testing undertaken by owners confirms the odd behaviours present in the 294 still persist in the 492. The issue you have with both chips is that the pattern in changing from one sample to the next creates and issue for some and not for others. Hence you also find people with good copies insisting that the problem doesn't exist and everyone else is just rubbish at calibration. Putting all that together I would treat them the same way and use gain 200 which has been shown to result in more predictable behaviour, you will still have plenty of dynamic range at that gain. But for me it's the reason I'll be sticking with my ASI1600mm pro until a more forgiving 4/3 mono sensor replacement is available in the future. This stuff is difficult enough as it is without a lottery on chip quality and the resulting potential that you will need to play nurse to the calibration process. Of course the flip side is that you may get a good copy or one that calibrates with a little knowledge, in which case you have a very sensitive camera indeed, even more so than the imx571 notably in the deep red for Ha and SII. Adam

585 it's more about the no amp glow and bigger sensor. If Sony ever release a mono 585 that would be king though.

Yes I did not mean the peak of the mountain I meant the national park.

Really excellent shot, well worth all the effort. Lovely processing so many stars being resolved here. A target ideally suited to the FMA180. Very envious of your getting the opportunity to shoot this target. Adam

16gb is not enough that'd for sure. I have 32gb on my laptop and can saturate that. But in terms of stacking I use app and it weights the subs by fwhm / star shape.

My research says that while darker la palmer is less likely to have clear sky's than Tenerife. Teide is at 7000ft or so, higher then the highest point in la palmer so is more accessible. Also I lost interest in the Tenerife stargazing trips when I saw that they where using some very cheap looking equipment.

No idea how many got discarded. All I am saying is that I doubt it would be as detailed as it is if he was doing even 30s exposures.

Not my image a link to one posted on cloudy nights. 0.5s exposures at F5.3 with a 12 inch scope. I doubt he is resolving to the pixel scale but to be frank it's the highest resolution image of m82 I have seen from amateurs so the technique is doing something beneficial.

double post