newbie alert

Excellent.. love the HA contrast with the warmer tone

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

You base this on rhe flats as posted? I would not be so sure. I think they are so far off the mark as to suggest a more fundamental problem. I doubt that these flats are recording the illumination at all. I think they might be entirely rogue.

Olly

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

On 13/12/2023 at 21:30, Louis D said:

You're comparing apples to oranges with the Esprit triplet comparison.  It uses FPL-53 equivalent instead of FPL-51 equivalent glass as in the Askar.  The former is considerably more expensive than the latter.  That, and I find the Esprit line priced on the high side for a Chinese made product.  Synta (SW) makes a good product, but so do JOC (ES/Bresser), Sharpstar (Askar and many house brands) and Taiwan's Long Perng (many house brands).

Do your homework and choose the accordingly.

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

23 hours ago, Stuart1971 said:

Sorry, I missed where the OP stated it was a mono 460…(oh he didn’t !! ) I assumed as he asked about getting a OSC and currently had the 460, and  that the 460 was also OSC… my bad if it is a mono…as the OSC 533 would not be better than that….or would it….🤔🤔

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

11 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

No, you said the 571 was, I was just re iterating that, and adding the 533 into the mix of being better, maybe i was not clear with my grammar….🤔
plus you said “slightly” better and I stated “much” better….if you want to split hairs…

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

10 minutes ago, Bugdozer said:

I agree that's a sensible option if it's possible to do it, my point is it may be a precaution against nothing. The aim of this thread was to try and establish if it is. So far, nobody has any information either way.

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

39 minutes ago, Bugdozer said:

Exactly. If the corrector plate can be replaced, then there clearly cannot be any real value in matching the orientation. I have not seen any guidance from manufacturers on this either. I do wonder if this is just "telescope folklore".

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?

3 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Hmmm, I would argue that both the IMX533 and 571 are much better than the 460 CCD camera…

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🤔

10 hours ago, adyj1 said:

To put it simply, if you have a level mount your alt bolt will go straight up and down. If the mount isn't level , it will go "up and a bit to the right" or "down and a bit to the left" (depending on how badly out of level the mount is).

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.. 

9 hours ago, adyj1 said:

Although if you have a goto mount and are using software like Nina's polar alignment plugin, being close to level is useful for PA (because your axes align with the adjustment instructions of north/south east/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

On 06/06/2023 at 15:21, chubster1302 said:

This is the bit I'm getting confused about I think. 

Mount is level and pointing north, using a compass. I even looked in live view of cam and polaris was sitting low in the frame. Then did TPPA in NINA

So, how do I "tell the scope" where it is before I then slew ??

 

 

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.. 

7 hours ago, chubster1302 said:

I used Ninas 3 point polar  alignment plug in. I would assume once this was completed I would then be basically bang on when slewing to targets ?

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