newbie alert

Excellent.. love the HA contrast with the warmer tone

No idea 💡 as just read the text, can't remember seeing the images , didn't realise any was there🙈

Your flat panel is unevenly illuminated which will cause issues with creating a flat field

I used to have the same opinion but I've seen a fpl51 glass triplet perform just as well as a fpl53

Ok i take that one on the chin Assuming that it's a osc 460 verses a osc 533 I wouldn't have made a comment, never used either but have friends that have that sensor and yes make pretty pictures, so all good there But if it's a mono 460 verses a 533c then my statement still stands Like smarties only the OP has the answer 😜

Think I've managed the right link

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/401578-sct-corrector-plate-replacement/#elControls_4304353_menu

Splitting hairs, so you say a 533c is better than a 460ex mono We're all entitled to our own opinion and I still stand by mine

There's plenty of information on this subject on here and cloudy nights Peter Drew on here made a decent statement that he doesn't think that Celestron hand figure and match correctors but goes on to say that a optical bench makes easier work to align the corrector, or failing that as it be for the most of us a artificial star A quick Google brings these up

Folklore or not if you have the option to mark it's orientation before removal then I'd do it as a failsafe option If you have to replace the corrector then you no longer have that option Chance it or not?

Did I say that the 571 wasn't then??

Without guiding how would he know what was reliable, guiding is sub arc sec, sub pixel accuracy, even people with mesu etc still guide and with focal lengths far less than a C11.. id assume than his mount isn't in that category A few questions I'd be asking is if he want to capture more HA I'd assume he wants to shoot nebula, these normally are quite huge targets so imaging at 2800mm might be a little too much fov wise Ha requires longer than usual exposure, so I'd say it's wasted on 30 sec subs I still think it's best to keep DSO and planetary cameras separate, they have separate requirements I really enjoy imaging at 1280mm, can't think of a reason for imaging at 2800 mm unless it's really small galaxy work but it would require a really decent mount to start from, plus some add on equipment to enable you to guide at under the image scale

It's a polar alignnment tool , used for PA on all stars, hence the name Personally I never found it accurate enough for deepsky imaging and when questioned the fanbase suggested doing multiple iterations of it and returning the mount home and switching off between iterations. To my mind pa is aligning the axis with the celestial pole , so 1 point in the sky and doing the same thing multiple times doesnt help as that point in the sky doesn't move, the stars however do If you want to pa quickly then either buy a polemaster or use sharpcap, I found both really quick, really easy and highly accurate If you want to use the ASPA then just follow the instructions on the handset, it won't however tell you to return to home position and switch off and do a few more iterations Other than that the Avx is a great mount, really enjoyed mine

I'd guess the 533 isn't as good as the 460 and the 571 ( 2600) sensor is probably slightly better but there's a lot of difference between cmos data and CCD, and osc and mono Osc isn't necessarily quicker, it's been said multiple times that it's slower as you need more data The 460ex is a awesome camera

There has been several posts,u tube videos etc to do with matching the orientation of the corrector, but I've also read of people that have had replacement correctors that obviously won't match having no noticeable issues If taking yours out for cleaning purposes then there's no harm marking and replacing in the same position It maybe a expensive bit of optical equipment but doesn't mean it's precision made, or not as precisely made as you would hope

It's been quite a few years but I also upgraded to the ADM on my Avx and very worthwhile indeed, astetically and functional, great bit of kit I seem to recall having to change both the puck and the saddle, can't remember a delrin shim, although it quite possibly may have🤔

So during the polar alignment process if you dont align the axis then the software won't align the other stars as they're be abit down right or up left... Whichever method you choose other than a simple polar scope method with either align other stars or show drift up/ down, left or right or as you put it north,south east or west..

So when you adjust the alt az bolts on polar alignment aren't you doing that anyway?? IE aligning the axis

A quick search brings this up t's RGGB, but different app call it different I think the yellow one is correct you need to adjust the white balance to make the color better

Usual thing is to use fits format on capture Not sure if using a 224 makes a difference, the usual thing is it's a planetary camera run on ser or avi short exposure but rapid frame rates... Sure you can use for deepsky but files are going to be large

The known position would be home position, IE weights down pointing at the NCP Pointing with a compass is magnetic north, not far from the NCP but not quite accurate To polar align the mount doesn't need to be level

Can't see the images, but fun isn't it...enjoy

Hang on, the SX 694 is a CCD deepsky camera, it's strengths are to capture deepsky long exposure for dim targets.. you don't need frames per second, it's one exposure over several minutes,with my atik branded 694 chip i use 300 sec for broadband and 600-900 sec subs for narrowband..The 224 is usually used for planetary where rapid frame rates are their strengths, more FPS if using a smaller part of the chip, IE using ROI.. it can be used for deepsky but not the usual tool for it.. Planetary and deepsky are vastly different

Your image scale dictates how well you need to guide Remember if using a separate guidescope and camera the rms figures that you see are the image scale of that, not the imaging scope/ camera.. You will never get perfect PA as we're always looking through our atmosphere, which bends and wobbles our perspective of true accuracy There's always a conflict between softwares, so say you used Nina, then used say a polemaster and then used the drift align tool in PhD I'm pretty certain they wouldn't totally agree with each other..

Not at all... Polar alignment is to align the mount axis with the pole so its tracking matches the rotation of the earth... Star alignment is for your pointing , now superseded by platesolving such as platesolve2, ASTAP etc