Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Astro Buer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

About Astro Buer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Thanks @tomato. I think you're right in saying it will be OK. I'm going to roll with it for now... It just seemed a little strange for it to be racked out this far when the spacing is (almost) correct. But as you say, autofocus routines do not move the focuser very much. Thanks fro your reply!
  2. Hi! I recently purchased an Esprit 120ED which I am using in conjunction with a ZWO ASI1600. According to the manual the Flattener requires 75mm of back focus. I have Astrodon Filters that are 3mm - so adding 1mm to the spacing requirement means I need 76mm - So 77mm was the closest I could get for a first test. I am achieving this by using the following: Flattener ---- Extender Tube (comes with scope) 21mm ----- OAG 16.5mm ----- 11mm spacer ----- 2mm Spacer ----- EFW Filter Wheel 20mm ----- 6.5mm distance to sensor = 77mm Here are some images from the manual and my setup (sorry for the rubbish photo, I don't have callipers!) When using this setup I have to rack the focuser pretty much all the way out to achieve focus? up to around 7.5 on the focuser scale - which goes up to 9. I don't like the idea of the focuser being racked out this much. I'm also worried that when I use autofocus, as we know sometimes there are problems! if the focuser goes searching for a new position it might hit the end of the draw tube thus potentially causing damage. The theory suggests adding more space would reduce the overall draw, but this goes against the spacing measurement required. Do I need a different adaptor to connect the imaging train to the flattener. Something like this? https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/astro-essentials-m48-to-t2-adapter.html I know some people might say 'well, you can achieve focus so that's all that matters' but it doesn't seem right that the focuser needs to be racked this far out, especially if the spacing is correct. Any advice welcome.
  3. Hi! Very tempting... How long have you used the mount for? The pictures look perfect, I assume it's in mint condition?
  4. Another advantage of an OAG, is you should not have any differential flexure (which @rickwayne nodded to when he mentioned rigidity) Differential flexure is when parts of the imaging system shift, when others do not. This can lead to unreliable guiding. IMHO, an OAG is worth the hassle. You can also buy a helical focuser (if you go down the ZWO route) to make setting up easier. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-accessories/zwo-125-helical-focuser.html
  5. Tenerife is a very good choice. It’s extremely accessible as you can drive up to the base of Teide at 2,200m to be above the clouds. There are also a lot of parking bays up there which makes setting up a breeze. Bang for buck it’s an excellent astro holiday. As for other things to do on the island, you’d be surprised what you can find when you head away from the main tourist areas. Another option is La Palma, which in my opinion is more dramatic with the views over the Caldera, and it’s a touch darker than Tenerife, but not a deal breaker by any means. The most structure I have ever seen in the central core Milky Way (from the northern hemisphere) was from Tenerife last June. The only problem with La Palma is there are not as many accessible spots at the top in which to set up. But that’s not to say there aren’t any... once I bumped into a gentlemen nestled into a nook precariously on the side of the caldera with his dob he’d ferried all the way from Holland...! Anything is possible. With the Canaries, if you want ease, Tenerife is best. If you want a little bit of extra drama, go La Palma
  6. I hope this is not hijacking the thread, but I literally came online to ask a question in a similar vein, which is: I have a Berlebach Planet tripod and am looking to build an observatory in the not too distant future. I'm purely an imager and it would be a permanent setup, so +1 for a pier... but I only image at short to medium focal lengths (400-900mm) with CMOS cameras, so exposure times much shorter than for me than with a CCD. Basically my setup does not demand too much... but apart from the overall footprint and obvious increase in stability, given my setup is not likely to change that much because I'm most interested in large nebulae, would I benefit from installing a pier over keeping the Berlebach Planet? Please feel free to remove this if it's not appropriate. Thanks,
  7. Thanks for this! Hmmm... it is pretty weak but this end result is well worth the effort, and worth collecting the OIII for the bi-colour palette with synthetic green... I'm thinking let's just capture as much OIII as possible ! ! !
  8. Hi all, Tomorrow night looks like it's going to be the first clear night in about a month! (don't curse it!) and I'm going to try and image IC405, The Flaming Star Nebula in Auriga for the first time, and if time will allow I will move down to IC410, The Tadpoles Nebula to start a two frame mosaic (I'm shooting with an Esprit 80ED and a ZWO ASI1600) I shoot from a light polluted back garden so narrowband yields the best results, and as there is no moon about at the moment I usually try and soak up as much OIII data as possible on my chosen target! My first thought was to shoot OIII all night and when the moon returns, clear skies dependent I will gather the HA data to create a HOO bi-colour version. But doing a bit of research, a lot of people chose to just shoot HA and RGB, with very good nice, natural results. See here: https://www.astrobin.com/383314/?nc=iotd I know the Tadpoles has a decent amount of OIII signal, an but what about the Flaming Star? So, I need your thoughts SGL on what to capture... do I: 1) Capture OIII all night aiming for 3 hours on each target (IC405/IC410) 2) Capture 3 hours of OIII and 3 hours of RGB on the IC405 (when I can capture Ha I can try a HOO palette as well as a HaRGB) 3) Capture Ha until the target is high in the sky, then switch to 3 hours of RGB 4) Stop worrying about these things, take my time and just shoot as much OIII as possible on the Flaming Star !! Given limited clear sky time at the moment, I don't want to set of a massive OIII sequence on the Flaming Star if there is not a lot of OIII in there. Any thoughts/experiences would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
  9. Ah! Thanks @vlaiv. So this is a little misleading ad the 17.5mm possibly relates to an older model. With the newer model, by removing the 11mm nosepiece I can use the same 6.5mm backfocus distance as the 1600. Basically, what I’m trying to work out here is can I just swap this camera over using my existing imaging train for the 1600, and from this information, the answer is yes.
  10. Please forgive my naivety here but my spacing behind the FF for the 1600 is a 16.5mm extender, T2 extender 11mm, M42-M42 male adapter, 2mm, EFW Filter Wheel, 20mm. This adds up to 49.5mm which added to the 6.5mm sensor distance comes to 56.0mm. But you are saying that I need to lose 11mm from this to achieve the back focus of 17.5mm? This does not make sense to me as in my mind you would have to add 11mm from the back of the FF to achieve the correct distance? Please forgive me if I am mistaken?
  11. Evening SGL, So I own a ZWO ASI1600MM where the back focus distance is 6.5mm. I know this measurement is correct as with 1600 I have perfect stars edge to edge allowing for this 6.5mm on top of my spacers in my imaging train. Now I'm looking at the ZWO ASI178MM, and the back focus distance is stated as 17.5mm, but on the ZWO website is still states the best solution is a total of 55mm back focus length? See image attached: I know this cannot be correct as I use this exact imaging train for my setup with a total back focus of 6.5mm, and this solution would be 11mm to short. I've checked on other retailer sites and they all state 17.5mm back focus distance. Am I going crazy or have ZWO posted a bit of a misnomer here? Anyone using the ASI178MM and can verify what successful spacing setup they use?
  12. Sorry to bump and old(ish) thread here, but I have a very newbie question. Before I start tugging and pulling at my beloved Esprit; how do you actually remove the focuser from the OTA? I’ve looked online but cannot fine the answer. Is it simply a case of spinning back the captains wheel and the focuser detaches? Is there anything else I should be aware of/risks of this mod? Sorry again for such a noob question. Just want to make sure I approach this the right way, first time.
  13. Thanks RayD. Just what I was after (and posted so recently as well! should have searched more...!) Seems like a little bit of a surgical procedure, but it's the answer I was looking for. Thanks again : )
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.