Adam J

The 72ED is a much better bet for astro imaging as a beginner if you are imaging DSO. I would not get a full frame, the optics you have will not be corrected across a sensor that size. You could use a small sensor like the 585 with a scope that focal length. Or just use the 8L on the 100ED....all in all though if you have the 72ED that might be better for the future. Adam

Yes these are arguably the most advanced CMOS sensor that Sony are currently making for the consumer market. Cooling is very much not required for DSO work with these. A sign of things to come.

Optically I doubt much has changed, but what you do want is the ability to run a fully threaded system for imaging and that will depend on what focuser is fitted. Adam

I find if very unlikely that you will get use from the smaller pixels of the 183. The 72mm aperture simply will not support imaging at the resulting pixel scale due to Daws limit, but also due to the likely spot sizes a fast ish ED doublet is able to produce in general. The 533 is a better more sensitive choice as a result.

Happy for you that you are now happy with it. It would be really hard to get that perfect without star testing but its great you got it close enough. I would now get some tape / mark the position of the red ring incase it shifts in future. For the record tilt is actually much less common in imaging than collimation issues. What most think is tilt will actually be collimation 90% of the time. Thinking about it one reason for this is likely that telescope makers and stores have a vested interest in convincing users that their issues are between the scope and the camera (tilt) and not the scope itself. As for what caused it, a slight knock is all it can take. Adam

Yes welcome to the carousel of specification changes that is William Optics. Every year something new to the point that you cant even keep track of it. On the other hand you have skywatcher who will sell you the same scope in 2022 as they did in 2012. For me this is actually annoying and a reason to avoid them. Adam

I dont think that the warranty itself is a gamble more the time taken to send it for repair. But to be honest others have had good experiences in this regard none the less.

We discussed before how well the two cameras would align without the ability to adjust one FOV, you had them both in fixed mountings at the time. Can you comment further now you have tested? Seems like it all went well, I would be tempted to increase saturation though. Adam

With the 294mm and the 2600 coming out some suddenly thing that the 1600 is rubbish, just not true really is it? Can still more than hold its own. Great image. Adam

What targets are you hoping to shoot? The 200PDS suggests galaxies. Personally if you are wanting to image nebula then I think you need a smaller scope. Something like the 130PDS or the new 150mm F4 SW newtonian. Beyond that I would not reccomend the ASI294mc pro due to difficulties calibarating images. I own the ASI1600mm pro and its a great camera, the 294mm-pro is an unknown to me but to be honest the issues with the 294mc would put me off. Perhapse the issue with mono is that you are aiming too high with the camera, what about the 533mm or the 183mm both are inexpsnsive ways to get into mono imaging. After that all you will need is some LRGB filters if you intend to image galaxies. You can use duel band filters with OSC cameras these days that will mitigate allot of light polution but lets be clear, you are still better off with a mono camera in that circumstance. Adam

Don't confuse AI with Artificial General Intelligence, which is essentially a term invented to cover the fact that people are now using the term AI for things that are not infact what traditionally would have counted for AI, hence now AI doesn't mean AI we now have AGI which is what AI used to be. Adam

I am not sure about gimp but the Channel combiner and the LP gradient removal tool and the very good mozaique processing are the stand out features of APP. But there are others too. I mainly use it for stacking / pre-processing as opposed to actual image manipulation. Adam

I would say that if there is any chance you are going to try astro imaging (Deep sky) then go for the F7 scope or you will need to buy another scope when that time comes. Adam

Depends on what you are doing with them, if you are going to do any imaging then the starfield is the better choice due to being F7 which you can reduce to F5.4 The SW 100ED is not well suited to imaging at a native F9. If just visual then I would say it depends on what you want to observe. Adam

Less than F5.5 even at F4 you should see very little vignetting even on a 4/3 and the 533 is smaller than that so i think even F2 is fine. I use the ASI1600mm pro with 1.25 at F4.5 and I see absolutely zero vignetting with the ZWO wheel. Also as a rule 1.25 have less edge reflection issues than the 31mm alternative. Although with Astronomik they did mount their 31mm filters in a ring. Adam

I dont think you can go wrong, with Astronomik every once in a while one slips through that has some reflections but universally people say that they imediatly replace the filter often even without receiving the defective one back, thats really good customer service. Adam

What are the F-ratios of your scopes? If you are using a fast system you may actually save youself allot of pain but going for 6nm filters. 3nm filters are very very crytical and i personally would not buy them from a cheaper brand, 6nm are much more forgiving. You could end up with a 3nm filter that only has 50% transmittion. Baader 6nm are fine but their ultral narrow filters have not got a good reputation. Antila are potentially better but still not totally problem free. My actual suggestion is 6nm Astronomiks or 5nm Astrodons / 5nm Chroma. If 3nm then only AD or Chroma. To underline my belief in this I have 5nm Astrodon filters, and if you asked if I wanted to strait swap them with a set of 4nm Baader or 3nm Antlia filters my firm answer would be NO....no thank you very much. So yeah you are better off with 6nm unless you are willing to pay for the best 3nm filters. Others will pipe up to say their baader 4nm or Antlia 3nm filters are great, theirs may be, thats the nature of the filter lottery some people win some people loose, I am not a gambler myself. watch this: Adam

For the 533 you dont need larger than 1.25 inch even on optics as fast as F2 so dont waste money on larger sensors, do get a 8 position wheel though for the reasons stated above. Adam

Really you need to post an image. Adam

OSC results in less accurate guiding, really the 120mm is all you should be buying for guiding, unless you are using an off axis unit. Adam

there is a 1.25 inch filter adaptor included with the camera, dont need to spend your cash on 2 inch filters. Adam

A new sensor has been released by Sony: https://www.sony-semicon.com/files/62/pdf/p-13_IMX472-AAJK_Flyer.pdf Its very new and not clear if astro camera makers will pick it up, for that matter it will never enter full production unless someone makes a purchase for use in the compact camera market as they wont start up production just for ZWOs kind purchase size. It is essentially a back illuminated stacked sensor replacement for the IMX269 as used in some Altair and risingcam asto cameras. Its a very promising sensor designed for use in the 4/3 format compact camera market. But nothing announced in terms of astronomy cameras and even if they did you would expect 6 months from announcement to seeing availability. I doubt you want to wait that long for something that may not happen. Adam

The mount will handle 1-2min exposures at 2 arcseconds per pixel if its perfectly aligned, the problem is that with your current scope at F7.5 you would likely want to go longer than that even with a CMOS and certainly 10-20min expsoures with a CCD. So really a guide camera / guide scope are a requirement for imaging with yours setup. The minimum sensor size at your focal length for the majority of targets a beginner is interested in is APSC. Adam

Its difficult because there are certain caractoristics of the sensor that make calibration less than straight forward, there is also a factor of sample to sample veriation in the quality of some of the sensor coatings that result in a fixed red / green pattern that is reveiled by use of duel band filters and can be a serious pain to remove using calibration frames. Essentially in most cases it will calibrate but you have to do everything perfectly and methodically to ensure this and you need to avoid certain gain settings too due to none linear responce at lower gains. It is simply the case that the IMX5XX series sensors are more forgiving than others and better all round using the latest technology. I have a friend who is a very experianced imager and he managed to derive a process to ensure sucesssful calibration but I think even he would admit that it was a royal pain to get it working well for him. So while the results may be worth the pain to an esperianced user I would not recommend it to someone taking a first step into dedicated cameras as it has the potential to sour the experiance for you. I could find many many more threads consisting of people ripping their own hair out trying to get their IMX294c sensors to calibrate correctly but below are some highlights for you to examin. So once again my advice is, while sure you could get it to work, why do it to yourself if you dont have to? https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/811140-flats-and-calibration-problems-with-asi294-mc-pro/ https://www.astropixelprocessor.com/community/main-forum/asi294mc-l-extreme-gradients/ Adam

The 533 is a better sensor the 294 can be a royal pain to calibrate, but for OSC i would buy neither these days, I would get the risingcam IMX571 OSC. Its the best bang for the buck camera on the market today bar none. Adam