Adam J

Honestly the spot size on the redcat is so good that its one of few scopes that can actually take advantage of the small pixels on the 183mc pro, but I have got to say that my preference accross the board at any focal length is to go with mono. In which case my choise would be a mono 533. If 183 then why buy new so many to be had on the second hand market, but if you want faster imaging the 533mc is the choice as it will image faster with the bigger pixels. Adam

Steve, You quote ED optics both here and on the FLO site descriptions, this to me normally means FPL-51 equiverlent, yet on starfeilds own site its calling them FPL53. https://starfieldoptics.com/gear60-quad If it is FPL-53 this is something that deserves a mention and should be on the description as its an expensive freature not to mention. Adam

On the used market: Got a AZEQ6 GTI for £650 and sold my HEQ5 for £650 to buy it. Free upgrade. I got my ASI1600mmpro for only £1025 new in the Christmas sale back in 2018. I paid 'only' 250 for my Astrodons months before they doubled in price too. Adam

I would guess it's a clone. Identical optics with some different focuser and dew shield mechanics so optics probably made by sharp star.

yeah that's not a filter halo that's from a curved surface or it would not be offset from the star like that. Filter halos are almost universally centred on the star as you say.

Was never really happy with this one when I posted it back in 2020 could not get thechannel balance right. Opinions welcome. Esprit 100 ASI1600mmpro Astrodon 5nm Filters 4min subs, 18hours total intergration. New: Cheers, Adam

exactly I wanted a quick grab and go option for use with a 5yesr old that has no patience for cooling. The 102 is ready to go by the time I have aligned it for the most part. Cooling on a Mak scales poorly with size.

That's not totally correct, my 102 can be collimated. There are two versions of the scope, one that can't be collimated and is packaged with mounts and one that is sold as OTA only and has a full set of collimation screws. Both versions are sold by FLO.

62% more expensive for 18% more resolution. But probably not even that, because of the primary shading the central obstruction is larger in comparison to the mirror. It's also bigger, heavier and takes longer to cool down. Neither are for DSO. It's all good, but the 102 is a valid option over the 127 dependent on budget and other requirements.

a tally the 102 is very close the F-ratio is the giveaway. The design needs about a F13 ratio to work at full aperture that's 100mm for the 102mm so hardly any difference. The 127 is the worst it's not even F12.

There is not as much difference as you might think as the 127mm does not have a 127mm clear aperture only 118mm. No idea how SW get away with that. Honestly the 102 cools faster and is more portable as it will go in hold luggage easier. The 118mm will outperform it just don't expect the margin you would get if it was a true 5 inch scope.

original FMA180 or the pro model?

it's amp glow and totally normal.

Got to be honest that is not its only issue, collimation is off and it has a touch of astigmatism too. Still might be hard to see hidden under the CA. Adam

It doesn't quite work as simply as that, it's not just about the focal point being different it's about spherical error changing with wavelength. Hence although you can focus for RGB at best focus B and sometimes R will not be as sharp as G and that leads to blue bloat or purple halo irrespective of you refocusing. Longitudinal chromatic error and spherochromatism are traded against each other in all lens designs so if you want to bring all colours to focus at the same point you normal end up having to trade against a reduction in focus quality for some wavelengths normally blue. Also as others point out you can't do this for Lum anyway. To avoid this design compromise you need a triplet design slower than F6, a quad design will do better and doublet worse. In most cases.modern processing will fix things for you but for galaxy imaging. your going to inevitably loose some resolution. Adam

The cooler is not in direct contact with the sensor. The pins for the sensor are on the rear so heat is conducted away via these, causes some none uniformity in cooling. Once the tablets have been refreshed you need to leave them to dry the chamber for 48 hours ish before re-testing. Adam

As others said Ivan on the sensor caused by moisture in the chamber, it's just going to keep getting worse. Best bet is to open it up and refresh the desiccant. Adam

It will likely have some bloat in the blue and not be what I would consider a true apo but it should be manageable with blue filters cutting at 420-430nm or higher and or UV/IR like a Astronomic L3 or Baader UV/IR. But once you do that I am sure it's going to be great for the money. The reason I conclude that is hidden in the spot diagram. Askar normal generate the blue line at 430nm but for some 'inexplicable' reason the choose to specify it at 440nm for this scope, that says it all to me it's not a true APO but it's good for it's price. Adam

probably not workable, just crop it down.

OMG you are right, OP why have you no bought it yet lol. Also mono is much faster in terms of data collection than and OSC due to lum. Just more effort, there is a difference. The effort is worth it. Adam

just to be clear, are the flats not working? You don't explicitly say or show a stacked image.

If your budget is about £300 then this is impossible to beat at the price. But you would need to pick up as a minimum a LRGB set or a Ha filter to get started. https://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=201930 4 year back you would have been looking at £900 for this camera used and £1250 new. Don't like that then there is also a Orion 533mc camera on Astro buy sell at them moment too for £550. These days you have more options so unless you can only muster £250 max then can't recommend a DSLR any more to start out. Adam

My honest opinion is that you need to switch out that telescope the NEQ3-2 pro is not going to Handel it for astrophotography. It will struggle with anything bigger than a 60mm refractor and the shorter the focal length the better. If you change the scope you can make the mount and the camera work for wide field targets. I assume the X-t2 is not modified. If not you will need to choose your targets with care. Adam

Interesting thought occurs to me in that turning the settings up to the max, while not visually preasing, might produce extreams of results that give a clue as to the underlying process or direction being used by the AI. Adam

It only matters to me for three reasons, 1) If the result looks fake 2) If the result unintentionally adds elements that did not appear at all in the original image. 3) If the result removes elements from the original image that you don't want to loose. For me the example above covers all three. 1) I find the stars too perfect to be believable. 2) A weird approximation of a planetary nebula was added. 3} In adding that nebula like object a star was totally removed from the image as opposed to repaired. It could well be setting that the op has selected causing these issues. But that's another reason to take care Now does that mean I would not use it myself. No I would use it. It means that you need to keep a very close eye on what it's doing. For me the biggest sin is adding anything not real to the image as it removes it too close to art and to far from the science sides of the hobby. To put a finger on it I believe it's sometimes treating bright linear structures as stars. Another one I have seen is it creating little blobs ob diffractions spikes. All in all it doesn't matter, but it makes me think more is going on than just the claimed AI administered deconvolution. So I would be checking my images. It's just an opinion don't be offended by it. Adam