noah4x4

I have just had my Celestron 8" SCT serviced by high end carbon fibre OTA manufacturer Orion Optics UK (OOUK) located near Stoke on Trent, which cleaned my mirrors in mild acid, realigned all optics including corrector plate and re-centered secondary mirror, replaced my Phillips screws with Allen bolts, re-collimated and returned my OTA in a better than new condition. I am now convinced that my mass produced and assembled Corrector Plate and secondary mirror had never previously been perfect. The difference this adjustment has made is astoninishing. I used to blame 'poor seeing' for lack of detail in planets. Now I am getting the performance I desire. I had earlier spent £500 on a Hotech Laser Collimator which after using it for collimation led me to question the alignment of my optics but I didn't think there was an easy DIY solution. Cost of the OOUK service was £120, well worth the investment. The scale of charges for different OTAs is listed on their website. The adage, if it ain't broke don't fix it is sensible, but if convinced your optical performance isn't great, this service is worth considering, if your scope is out of warranty.

I think it's down to volumes of sensor production. Outside of long exposure AP and a few limited commercial uses nobody wants mono sensors, so production per unit is more expensive. The terrestrial camera market drives demand for mass production of colour sensors. With your set up, I would suggest an OSC camera such as a ZWO ASI294mc, use short stacked exposures (under 20 seconds) behind a 0.6.3x focal reducer. For EEV, you don't need a cooled camera, or autoguiding. Frankly, I don't notice any difference with my cooled camera if I forget to turn on the cooler. You might need cooling for long exposures, or if in Death Valley, but in Bristol, the benefits are limited. I suggest a ASI294mc as cheaper models such as an ASI224mc have a very narrow FOV. Think of this like eyepieces. The ASI224mc is great for planets, but you need a wider field of view for most DSOs.

That suggests you don't suffer much light pollution Olly. If you lived in a dismal overly illuminated location like so many of us you might find Electronically (camera) Assisted Astronomy to be the only viable way to observe, then AP using live stacking is merely a step away.

My post Olly reflects what I believe Hyperstar best fulfils and it isn't traditional deep sky astrophogography. It produces images incredibly fast at f/2 but its FOV is so massive you need Zoom on many objects, which inevitably impacts on image (and viewing) quality (ultimately pixelation). So I think we are on the same page. I'm not interested in the artistic aspects of AP so Hyperstar suits me. But it might not satisfy the OP and a solution between f/4 and f/6 is probably better for AP.

OOD manufacture high end telescopes in the United Kingdom. But what I recently discovered is they will service and repair (if possible!) ANY make of telescope. It was a (double) 400 mile round road trip to Stoke as I didn't want to risk couriers without OEM packaging. Then, the service cost me £108 including VAT, but my 8" Evolution SCT now has incredible optics. It's never been this good in four years of ownership! They disassembled my scope and professionally cleaned and polished all mirrors and corrector plate. They reaffixed and aligned my Fastar assembly which had come loose, also adding a sorbithane Hyperstar gasket (which I acquired from Starizona) to prevent reoccurance. They recollimated my scope replacing the Phillips screws with easier to use Allen key bolts, and even trimmed my dust cover with felt as it was a tad loose. The latter going beyond the scheduled service agenda. Their website publishes servicing costs, and if anybody has a scope out of warranty and in need of a bit of TLC, this company are masters of their craft. The can recoat mirrors, knock out dents (within reason) and I am delighted with the result.

Just came across this thread and I am a Hyperstar user. If your interest is observing and you are dissatisfied with looking at indistinct "grey faint fuzzies" through an eyepiece you will love Hyperstar. Images at f/2 will form in two to twenty seconds and if you live stack them you will enjoy great views and even capture credible images in under five minutes of total integration time. You don't need polar alignment, guiding or wedge/GEM. But you do need a high resolution, medium sensor, small pixel camera and 4K UHD resolution display for best results as you will require Zoom having removed your secondary mirror. You won't win Astrophotographer of the Year, but if your interest is seeing stuff "near live" rather than creating astro-art, then Hyperstar is for you. It's incredibly easy too. The FOV is so wide you can succeed with a crummy alignment as it's impossible to miss a target. Then it's down to Zoom and decent tracking or plate-solving, a feature of Sharpcap. It's perhaps not for astro-artists, but I love it.

Yes, I found the problem with Bob's Knobs is that they don't hold collimation as well as original Phillips screws. You can never apply enough torque with them. I was forever having to adjust them and regretted adopting them. After a month of frustration I restored the Phillips screws where 1/8th turn (with enough torque) is desirable. I would only recommend Bob's Knobs if you are prepared to collimate every other session, and definitely not recommended for Hyperstar users that regularly handle their secondary mirror. Phillips screws are far more snug.

Last night had a great view with both naked eye and binoculars. Unfortunately, my portable battery was not charged (I normally use mains power at home) so I didn't photograph. Am set up with camera for tonight. However, I fear cloud will be my enemy, but there is still time over the next couple of weeks.

Neximage Burst Camera. The only decent image I ever got with It!

Jupiter was quite low last night and shooting through considerable atmospheric soup doesn't help. 90% of my Jupiter shots look just like yours, then one day in 2019, the conditions, elevation, my tracking, focus, gain, wavelets, stacking, all just clicked. It really does take practice and patience.....

OK, it's not available in Hardback or Paperback.... But download Celestron's free 'SkyPortal' APP to your Apple or Android device. You get an interactive sky atlas where you can look forward (or back) to any moment in time. Great for planning future observation targets. For most principle objects you get a text description. For some you get an audio description. It offers features like "tonight's best". Better than any collection of books.

To be frank, more often than not I forget to turn on the cooler of my Atik Horizon camera and I don't notice the difference when shooting 5 second subs on Hyperstar. For long exposure AP a cooler will make a difference, but it's not essential for short exposure EAA. As regards my ASI294mc (non-cooled) I am delighted. The rear end clearance of longer cooled cameras is a major problem on alt-az. You can get around this by using a diagonal, but putting more glass in the way can't help. The read noise of both of these cameras is so low, I favour having more clearance than worrying about cooling.

I tend to use my cooled Atik Horizon with Hyperstar. I think that conbination is absolutely awesome and at f/2 images form near live as photon capture is 25x faster than at f/10. But an issue is that whilst the FOV at f/2 is great, some objects are small and ideally need f/4 or f/6.3 (albeit that requires longer exposures/integration time). F/6.3 is where I employ my ZWO. I bought the ASI294mc (uncooled) because the Atik Horizon is 12.5cm long and it is impossible to gain rear end clearance on an Evolution. However, with 105mm back focus required behind a 6.3x Celestron Focal reducer the (non-cooled) ASI294mc fits perfectly with a fraction to spare using a 50mm T-Adapter plus Baader Varilock. Cooled cameras and Alt-Az are typically a clearance problem unless you employ a wobbly visual back and diagonal combination that introduce all manner of issues. However, I have tried the ASI294mc on Hyperstar and frankly, have not noticed much difference compared to the Horizon except back focus is critical. It needs 4mm less spacing, hence I had to get Starizona to ship a different spacer ring to fit between Hyperstar and my filter slider as you do need to pair Hyperstar with OTA plus Hyperstar connection with each Camera (it helps that back focus in the ZWO range is commonly 17.5mm). Frankly, I am more of an EAA observer than Astrophotographer. Vignetting, coma, undersampling (etc) simply doesn't trouble me and as long as I can observe my primary target I just don't notice such aberations. But if it worries you, I am not convinced that any imaging at f/2 or f/4 will satisfy you and you will probably be better served buying a £5,000 high quality GEM mount and pursuing long exposures at (say) f/6.3. Using an extremely 'fast' scope probably infers acceptance of some compromise. For example, both Atik Horizon and ZWO ASI294 have sensors larger than the current NightOwl image circle and some vignetting is inevitable. Similarly, I have tried stacking two focal reducers. Works well, but you need to crop the corners.

I bought this kit thinking it would collimate both my Hyperstar and 8" Evolution SCT. However, you need an extra part for the latter. You require either a 2" visual back so you can use the supplied 2" reflector mirror, or buy a 1.25" reflective mirror to fit the Evolutions standard 1.25" visual back. I chose adding the 2" visual back, a route that works out cheaper than seeking the standard Hotech ACT laser collimator plus Hyperstar upgrade. Step one, the co-alignment of collimator target and OTA is very challenging. It took me an hour to master that. The movements required are not intuitive. Forget doing this on carpet orcwooden floor. You need firm concrete to prevent shake. But eventually I got the knack. You then get thrown by video guidance that shows an adjustable focuser that is more likely to be seen on a refractor. Instead, with a fixed rear cell and vusual back you need to further adjust co-alignment to get both laser crosses where they are supposed to be (on each other). The provided instructions are not great, and this step can be very frustrating, but eventually doable. Once co-aligned, I found the final adjustment using Bob's Knobs impossible and too imprecise. So I started again with my Phillips screws restored. It's far easier applying a 1/24th turn and getting the three screws tight enough with the regular screws. My fat fingers and Bob's Knobs didn't coordinate as they should, and as this is a daylight tool, a screwdriver is safe. Ultimately I got a great collimation result. But the only reason I purchased this kit was because I couldn't get my scope professionally serviced (£180) due to Coronavirus lockdown. Will I use it again? Yes. Would I recommend it to others. NO, unless you have great eyesight, infinite patience and a steady hand. It will appeal to the DIY enthusiast that takes delight in stripping telescopes bare, but for the average garden astronomer the learning curve is steep.

The chance of finding a used Hyperstar is negligible. If you ever did, its supplied T-Ring will be specific to its previous owners camera and each aperture of OTA needs a different model (hence, you can't use an 8" Hyperstar with a 9.25" OTA). Users love them and (for example) mine won't become available until my passing. Hyperstar works with a relevant (same size) fastar SCT on GEM or Alt-Az. The joy of Hyperstar is that at f/2 you don't need polar alignment or GEM (or wedge). You don't need autoguiding. Capturing great images is easy because you can stack (under) 5 second subs as the system is 25x 'faster' than at f/10. Challenges like Field Rotation are of no consequence. Even GoTo precision isn't critical as the FOV is so large its hard to miss your target. However, a benefit is also a disadvantage. Removal of your secondary mirror increases FOV x 5 (excellent!), but there is a corresponding reduction in magnification. This means a panoramic view like Horsehead + Flame etc is wholly within FOV, but some DSO objects remain small. To some extent, using Zoom plus Region of Interest in Sharpcap does assist with the mitigation of this. Works best with small pixels and high resolution CMOS to permit optimum zoom without pixelation. Instead, at (say) x0.63 with focal reducer then objects are much larger. But images take much longer to form. Here, you need (say) 30 second stacked subs, which is more challenging for your mount. I dabble at x 0.63, but soon gravitate back to Hyperstar. I suspect the new NightOwl reducer at f/4 is the best compromise between Hyperstar and f/6.3, but that device is also hard to source.

I use Hyperstar at f/2 and Celestron Focal Reducer at f/6.3 with my 8" Evolution and Atik Horizon and ZWO ASI294mc. Both work great. The only issue with Hyperstar is the removal of your secondary mirror means wide FOV, but loss of magnification. The issue at f/6.3 is it is much slower than at f/2. No solution is perfect. The NightOwl might provide a decent compromise. I too am awaiting availability of the NightOwl at f/4. However, my understanding is that vignetting is likely, especially with larger sensors. That is certainly true of another option I have tried which is the use of dual Celestron x0.63 FRs. But if you crop the corners to delete the vignetting, then stacking dual Focal Reducers is a possible option.

Take a look in the SGL classified adverts. There is at least one 4SE computerised GoTo for sale at around £250

A simple Jennov POE (3MP) is a remarkably good bit of kit for merely £35.90 (it's an Amazon "Choice"). The joy is that being POE one cable carries both power and data. The unit itself is tiny. However, the issue you need to consider with any CCTV camera is data storage. It will soon fill up a hard drive if continuously recording (say) a 28 day cycle. Ideally, you need a network video recorder (about £100).

There was a slow loading version. However version 2.3.5 beta1 (released this week in TeamCelestron) loads fast and fixes some gamepad and hot key bugs.

A larger sensor than the three small cameras discussed is generally an advantage. But too large a sensor for any particular scope and that can provoke vignetting. However, with something like an ASI294, if using Sharpcap, you can use region of Interest (ROI) to crop and mitigate this.

I suggest you also use this tool to check out field of view of each camera. http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ The common challenge with all three of the budget cameras are that they have small sensors. That is fine for planets and smaller DSOs. However, as you will see from the FOV tool on larger DSOs they offer a narrow field. Think of these a bit like eyepieces. They are perhaps the equivalent of 12mm when for most DSOs you might be choosing 32mm. Using a focal reducer will assist. The other issue with a small FOV you need a very good alignment to get your target into FOV. You then need a decent quality mount with good tracking to keep the object in FOV. I have the ASI224mc, but would use it only for planets. I would turn to my ASI294 or Atik Horizon for DSOs. Unfortunately, there is no one size camera fits all. The ASI294 or ASI533 are probably the best all round compromises, but do require much more budget. But if you can't spend more, I suspect the ASI385mc would serve you best, albeit it has a 1/2" sensor and 2.12mp resolution.

Caution with low budget mini-PCs. It is easy to underestimate computing power. If all you are doing is capturing and saving subs at a frame rate of 0.2 per second (e.g. 5 second exposures) for next day processing. You need trivial computing power. But if running at a frame rate of 120 FPS (as you might for planetary,) you inevitably need more. But then there is the question of camera resolution. For example, a 11.7 megapixel ZWO ASI294 Pro inevitably demands far more ooomph than a 1.2 megapixel ASI224mc, assuming the latter isn't running at its incredible maximum of 577 FPS. Next consider live stacking in (say) Sharpcap. If using the maximum resolution and FOV you need more computing power than if you select a smaller Region of Interest. If doing traditional long exposure Astrophotography you need much less power than for EAA (EEVA). Many traditional Astrophotographers will recommend low powered computers because that is all they need. They then process the FITS that they have captured next day. By contrast, the EAA observer probably saves subs, live stacks, captures video, broadcasts (etc), all on the fly. I additionally stream 4K UHD screen data to my indoor mission control using WiFi and Windows Remote Desktop. Inevitably, all these factors compound. I found a seventh generation i5 with 4Gb RAM too slow with my Atik Horizon simply because as an EAA observer doing all the above the demand was extreme. I now use an eighth generation i7 with 16Gb RAM and get the real time performance that I seek. However, an i5 with 8 Gb RAM should meet most needs. But here be cautious. A older generation i7 might be slower than a new i3. In summary, be absolutely clear what camera, what tasks and what other circumstances will apply. Astrophotography is a broad church. Yesterday, I read a question in another forum why a ZWO ASI294 runs slower in daytime than at night. The simple answer, in daylight you might be capturing 6 millisecond frames when at night it's more likely to be 6 second frames. Res Ipsa Locquitor.

I always remove camera/Hyperstar as I need to carry my fully assembled scope back indoors and I fear perhaps cracking it on patio doors and smashing my corrector plate. However, despite its frequent removal, I have never had problems with Hyperstar collimation ever since I fully screwed down the components. There is an article on Cloudy Nights about Hyperstar collimation. But if you reach its conclusion the final tilt required by the author is less than the width of a human hair. That's why I decided to just lock down Hyperstar with no tilt (which is often advised by Starizona) as there was no way that my skill or my mount could justify that precision. The critical adjustment is actually the position of the Fastar secondary mirror holder and the corrector plate which is factory set. Provided you have never meddled with those components they will remain screwed tight. Hence collimation of Hyperstar is less necessary. If you do need to cover it, I would suggest a large cloth pump bag of the type kids keep their trainers in.

I think this could confuse some people, so let me clarify... A SkyPortal WiFi device can connect your scope to either a tablet/phone (using SkyPortal or SkySafari APP) or connect to a laptop (using CPWI). These devices then replace the hand controller. Celestron third generation SkyPortal WiFi usually works fine, but it's range is short and in densely populated urban locations can occasionally be a bit flaky as it depends on the cluttered 2.4Ghz channel that is also known to conflict with nearby USB3 devices (like cameras). In the 'great outdoors' away from urban clutter there is greater stability. In both cases where computer control is employed rather than HC, then GPS is not normally required as date/time can be sourced from the control devices <location services>. However, this only works if the control device has recently been connected to the Internet at that location (time will normally be fine). If at a different location where there is no Internet signal (dark sky site?) then GPS can be of assistance as regards determining location. A thought here, if you can't connect to the Internet, it might not be easy to determine your latitude and longitude (has caught me out!). The reported problem is that this combination sometimes doesn't work. There seems to be an issue when Windows is wrestling with multiple Celestron devices (Starsense + GPS + Focuser) and one or other isn't recognised by CPWI. However, GPS works fine in isolation with Starsense and HC. Hence, I only use my SkySync GPS with Starsense or Nexstar + HC where it is helpful. But if using a control device with Internet access is in proximity, you don't require GPS.

You need somewhere free of light pollution, unobstructed views with car parking and yet few people at night. I left the area 30 years ago, but I recall the top of Clee Hill (26 miles from Worcester) met that criteria. Malvern is higher (highest point if you travel due East until you get to the Ural mountains), but doesn't have the same quality of road access. It's no coincidence that the NATs Radar used for flight tracking run along the spine of Clee Hill.