Adam J

ok thats probably going to push me down the Skymax 102 direction then. I keep it n the garage so hope the cool down wont be excessive as its for use with a 4/5yo and they have no patience. I own a AZ EQ6 GT also but thats not grab and go no matter what you put on it. Adam

Should have said this is purely for visual I already have a much smaller imaging setup on the mount.

Yes I have a 2Kg counter weight. Adam

Just wondering if people have opinions on if this bresser AR102L will work with the AZ GTI? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-ar-102l-1000-refractor-ota.html I think its quite close to the stated weight limit. I am using a much more stable tripod than the one what is normally shipped with the mount if that makes a difference. Adam

It's a fantastic sensor, that much is true.

Yes it's all one unit made from two vixen bars forming a T shape. You can slide the main scope back and forth in the clamp between the two vixen bars as well as the whole thing in the AZ GTI clamp. That allows you to balance it in both directions as the rotation of thing like the filter wheel move and change balance. I can piggy back it on the larger obsy rig or move in one piece to the AZ GTI. The whole thing can be stored in a box or placed in a hard cabin bag for travel. All the numbering is so I can't forget anything when I travel against a list. In far flung locations a single missing usb lead could bring the whole thing to and end.

ZWO don't really seem to have much luck with APS-C and larger, just remember all the frost issues on the 071.

Completely inaccurate lol, mounted mine fine.

Its over corrected coma, but just because you can see it out of focus doesnt mean its a problem in focus. But am also seeing that you have a slight collimation error. Adam

Yeah that is wrong. There is a short extension that fits after the flattener and it's 55mm from that extension. I don't remember the length off hand be 28 sounds about correct. So just keep it as is and add that extension between the camera extensions and the flattener. Adam

One has been spotted in the field. So not long at all.

It's not 55 from the flattener it's 55 from the spacer designed to sit after the flattener. Just incase you have that wrong.

@Sunshine i see you are confused, the resolution in terms of arcseconds has not improved because the wavelength of the light is much longer WEB being a IR observatory and not a visible light observatory. Also I must assume that the pixel size is larger to account for longer wavelength IR detectors. Adam

was reading about the image scale and interestingly it has no greater resolution than HST did. Adam

I have a small section of this in an image of the fish head from years back but not enough to have recognised the larger structure. Great stuff well done. Adam

I have a band saw but you could just use a dremel or a hacksaw in a vice (dont deform the tube). I would not like to try and recal how much a took off, just focus it while imaging then place a black line with a marker pen where is exits the tube holder aperture, leave an extra 10mm longer than your mark, then cut it. You then need to glue a tiny peice of plastic or similar onto the flat at the bottom of the tube to act as a stop so that you cant move the tube out past the internal mounting bearings. Simply place it inside the current lip by the same distance as the thicknes of material removed. To me its a little crazy to buy a 150-200 pound focuser to save you from having to cut the tube on a 189 pound scope. Adam

Had exactly that combo and chopped the focuser.

I would think that the C90 will be very significantly better than a ZS61 for lunar imaging. Adam

Not really sure how you would fake that. Its possible that the image went viral and that tends to result from exceeding a certain threshold beyond which the FB algorithm artificially pushes it to people in preference to the others and so there is a snowballing effect. Hence FB or similar platforms are not a great way of performing a scientifically valid survey. However, that being said in order for it to have snowballed it was likely still the most popular image, its just that the relative popularity has been exaggerated by the algorithm. I see no reason to overtly dislike the image though so for me it would be a none issue. Adam

You keep your filters spotless mate, its possible but pretty much involves never opening the filter wheel and going over them in detail before sealing them inside. Adam

When I talk about single night imaging its more a gauge as to how much effort the imager in question is willing to put into their imaging. With RGB I cycle my filters as you suggest, but I tend to run 1 hour then auto-focus on filter change as I find that most efficient in terms of productivity per hour. For narrow band imaging with mono I will invariably only take one channel per night though and always multiple nights paying attention to the moon when selecting my filter for a given night. In narrow band I tend to find my absolute minimum integration is around 6 hour per channel and so not something I would do in a single night. The place I feel OSC shines is for mobile imaging at a remote / dark sky location when you may not get to return to that location for additional data, or want to keep your setup as light weight / simple as possible reducing the chance of something going wrong. When you dont want to keep your filters spotless or take flats per channel, when you dont want the pain of combining channels in processing, or when your budget just dose not allow for filter wheels, filters and auto-focusers. Or even when you want a larger sensor for your budget. I should also be clear that I dont own a modern OCS but have considered it for the above use case, I also never do single night imaging as it would not support my imaging goals. Mono is faster for sure even in single night, but my gut feeling is that if you are the type of imager (and its perfectly valid) that wants to image a different target every night then move on to the next exciting object, then you are better off with an OSC, a duel band filter and a UV/IR cut or a combination of the two in as lower f-ratio scope as you can afford as you are also unlikely to want the extra work associated with mono. Adam

I have used my Esprit 100 @F5.5 to image galaxies at 1.4 arcseconds per pixel and I am not convinced I need a longer focal length. But I would say that maintaining the same kind of image scale with a bigger pixel camera / larger aperture scope would have benefits in terms of image quality if not resolution. Being able to image faster means that you have more ability to be selective about using data from only the best nights of seeing. There are some locations where you will get better seeing than available where I am in the UK though so I am not saying that you should consider 1.4 arc-seconds per pixel to be a hard deck just that you need to be realistic. Adam

The general progression is to start out with OSC, however if you are currently using a DSLR you may feel that you have already progressed beyond this. Both do have advantages but my own conclusion is that the most impressive images are almost invariably produced using mono cameras. This is the case for DSO imaging certainly. Your issue is that Solar and DSO imaging = Mono (for best results) Planetary imaging and Lunar imaging are usually best with OSC. Despite what some have said you do not have to refocus with each filter change you can create offsets using a program like nina, but if you have an auto focuser refocusing is not an issue anyway. In the extream you just dont refocus at all, after all you cant refocus with a OSC per channel can you and its subject to the same issues with CA as mono. I would personally say that if you are wanting to progress in the hobby, with a main focus on DSO imaging and you are willing to image over multiple nights to increase your total integration time on a single target you should go with a mono camera. If you want to get an image in a single night, you are budget limited, or just want less stress in exchange for lower performance then OSC is likely the best way to go. If I had a budget of £1500 including filters I would actually not go for a ZWO for OSC I would go with one of these: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001359313736.html?spm=a2g0o.store_pc_home.hotSpots_6001922564357.0 Discussion on the camera here (get the AR coated window option): In the case of a mono for 1500 including filters I would wait a little for a ASI533MM Pro to be released (should be only weeks away) and will likely come under your budget with a set of Optoling / Baader LRGB filters and a Ha filter. Adam

It's just an expression. Second hand is fine, if you have for sure it's still going to be capable of great images in the right hands as with anything. New is another thing though.