Icesheet

Outstanding! Thank you for making it, and well worth the effort. 👏🏻 

The depth the RASA has achieved in this image is amazing. Given it's a significant crop, the level of detail is very good too, but I wonder if you plan to use the TEC140 data you have here? Whilst I appreciate the depth the RASA has achieved I'm more drawn to the level of detail in TEC image,but why compromise when you can have the best of both worlds? Give the people what the want @ollypenrice!

Comet 12p/ Pons Brooks, Andromeda, M33 and some Aurora in Samnanger, western Norway. I used the PlanItPro app to find a location where the comet would be near the horizon to the NW. On the night of 8th March I had clear skies so headed out. As I was capturing my foreground shots some Aurora appeared, which although exciting for my composition, made  it difficult to process. Very happy with the final outcome (after lots of revisions!) Final composition is a crop.

Canon EOS R and Sigma 40mm Art

Sky tracked with Bemro Polaris 62x30s f2 ISO1600

Foreground 1x30s f2 ISO1600

Stack processed in PixInsight and PhotoShop then blended/ merged with foreground shot. 

Thanks for the kind words everyone 😊

5 hours ago, Paul M said:

That's stunning!

For what it's worth I prefer version 1, 

 

3 hours ago, WolfieGlos said:

What a shot! 

I really like the version 1, gives a sense of scale but the third version is a great one too. If it was me, I wouldn't be able to choose between them...

3 hours ago, FenlandPaul said:

Love it, and love the aggressive crop. Great capture - one that’s evaded me on account of stubborn clouds to the north!

I do quite like both versions but in hindsight my composition could have been better as M33 was actually caught by accident. My only other annoyance is the trees in the foreground that have caught the nasty orange glow of some nearby street lights. A friend suggested using a radial filter and trying to bring the warmth down. Will give that a go.

I think you’ll have more opportunities to capture it @FenlandPaul! Also, I read it may be naked eye visible soon too @Paul M

Ok, so I’ve looked one last time 😆 It’s pushing the resolution of the image but maybe an even more aggressive crop is cleaner and gives more emphasis to the galaxies and comet?

Looking at it again, does cropping in from the right give more balance on the landscape shot?

Here’s a couple of recent images I took of the PonsBrooks comet in western Norway, framed with Andromeda and M33 in the case of the landscape shot. That was nearly not to be as at the point of my composition the comet was washed out by some unexpected Aurora. In the end I couldn’t not attempt a blend of the comet stack and the foreground with Aurora. I think it still looks good?

The landscape shot was with an EOS R and Sigma Art 40mm. Sky was tracked with 30s exposures with 30mins total exposure. The foreground was a single 30s exposure. The final image was blended and cropped. 

The other image was shot with the same EOS R and a Samyang 135. Sky tracked with 15s exposure for a total of 26min. 

All images were processed in PixInsight and Photoshop

30 minutes ago, h107 said:

oh my goodness, Love a good galaxy shot and this is most certainly that. 

Thanks!

54 minutes ago, paul mc c said:

Brilliant.... can't wait to see the full 10 hours if under 4 gives this.

Thanks! Hoping to get more before the nights get too light here. 

Fantastic result and I'm amazed the AM5 is carrying that beast with such results!

First light for my Tak TSA120 with flattener at f7.3 883mm FL. Well, technically it was second as I basically had to throw away all my subs from first light. 
 

Probably not the best target for me at 60deg N as it’s pretty low throughout the night and I really noticed that in subs at the lower altitude. Then, issues with guiding and particularly poor seeing on the first night left me with only 3.8hrs stacked  out of over 10hrs over the two nights. 
 

A little noisy but some got some detail in the galaxies and fairly happy with the outcome considering the integration time. This is a crop and there’s just the slightest hint of the tidal tail but I would probably need the full 10hrs to bring it out. 
 

Managed to integrate the differing exposures. Here is the result. It doesn't look like it's added much but hasn't affected the resolution either it seems.

I recently got first light with a Tak TSA120 with flattener on the Leo Triplet. The first night wasn't the best, initial teething problems with the set up, poor guiding and poor seeing. The second night was better. In the end I stacked ~3hrs data from each night. It wasn't until WBPP spat out two master lights that I realised I had shot 300s sub-exposures the first night and 180s the second. I had a quick look at each stack and it was apparent that there was a huge difference in resolution between the datasets. I'm wondering if there is any value in the data from the first night at all? Could I integrate it to get a little more deeper and higher SNR without losing the detail from the good night? Here's a crop on M66 that shows the difference between the two. I am at the moment trying to work out how to integrate data with two different sub-exposure lengths but in the meantime if anyone could comment it would be appreciated!

Both data sets have had AutoSTF-->GraxPert-->SPCC-->BlurXT-->NoiseXT

This is a warning for anyone located outside the EU that may be considering using Astroshop.eu. If you will, or ever have made an international order please read on as you may be due a significant refund. 
 

Before I outline my experience I’ll give some background for those that are not familiar with making international orders.  Any retailer located in the EU and delivering out of the EU should not collect their respective VAT. Same applies for UK retailers delivering out with the UK. So, using the UK as an example, if you order a product that costs £500 including VAT then an international customer should not pay UK VAT @20% meaning a total of £416.67. You will then likely pay import taxes and VAT in your home country on delivery. The vast majority of companies I have made international orders with do this automatically at checkout or update prices if they detect you are browsing from abroad. 

To my experience. I had landed on the Astroshop.eu site a few times and finally decided to make an order on a couple of items. I noticed while going through the checkout process that German VAT was not being removed, even when providing a delivery address outside the EU. I delayed making the order and sent an email to their customer service. I received a response within 24hrs advising that I should write in the comment field when ordering that this delivery is out of EU. I would then receive a refund of the German VAT and the customs invoice for delivery would be updated. The day after making the order I received notification that the order had been processed and was being prepared for delivery. I checked the invoice and noticed that German VAT had not been removed. I contacted customer service by phone and they apologised and said they would correct this immediately. I then received an updated invoice which showed no VAT but the total amount was still the same I.e. they had zero’d VAT but just added the equivalent amount to the non VAT total. I contacted them again and they apologised again and this time I received a correct invoice with VAT removed and I was notified that the difference had been refunded to my card. I was assured this was also correct in the customs documentation provided to the shipping company. 
 

The shipping process was smooth and I revceived the product within 72hrs (Germany to Norway). However, when I received my import invoice from DHL I noticed that the declared amount included German VAT meaning I had now paid 25% extra Norwegian VAT on that German VAT. Essentially,  paying VAT in two countries and then some! Fortunately, in this case that was not a significant amount. I have contacted the company again and I expect I will receive another refund. For me it’s likely to be nothing more than a frustration that will eventually be rectified. What is more worrying is that it seems unlikely this would have been noticed or corrected unless I was aware of the tax rules. With a more significant order this could easily run into a significant over payment. I have no idea why their website and payment system do not automatically correct for this with international orders. I have asked why this is the case. The cynic in me says it’s by design. Whatever the reason if you have made an order please check back and ensure the invoices are correct. If making an order please stay vigilant to it to ensure you don’t overpay!

Open to DM’s if anyone needs clarification on this. 

Thanks for going to that trouble. Very illustrative and helpful! Clearly, when unscrewed the 76 (along with the FS60) would be difficult to beat for portability but I’m still surprised how compact the FC100 is there. 

4 hours ago, Stu said:

I have travelled with both, and there are pros and cons to each. The FC100DC will go in carry on baggage but this requires removal of the dew shield and focuser. This is fairly straightforward to do and I normally then put the dew shield over the OTA with some protection between them to avoid scratching.

I normally split the 76 in two which in itself takes up two parts of my travel case so the main benefit becomes the weight. You can also just remove the dew shield and put it over the OTA so it fits into the central section so that is more compact than the 100DC. Obviously it is thinner too so more can be packed around it.
 

For info, weights and lengths are as below including MoreBlue rings and dovetail:

FC-100DC   3.5kg   62.5cm

FC-76DCU  2.1kg    53.5cm

FS-60Q       1.95kg  42.5cm

The 100DC needs the focuser and dew shield to be removed in order to fit in my Airport accelerator case, the 76DCU just needs the dew shield to be removed and of course the 60Q fits in fully assembled.

The 2” FTs work very well with, and suit all these scopes in my opinion. I find the 2025 is better with its longer travel range.

In terms of performance, they follow theory in my view ie you can see the differences between 60, 76 and 100. I think the 100 definitely shows more detail on planets and the Moon, and splits tighter doubles. The 76DCU or Q are fantastic for their aperture, but I don’t think the Q addition enable it to beat the 100.

3 hours ago, DirkSteele said:

Agreed. Even a “perfect” 3” scope which one might argue the 76Q comes close to achieving will not outperform a 100mm scope that has been executed to the usual Takahashi quality, I.e excellent. That 24mm increase at this aperture makes a heck of a difference.

Thanks. Makes sense that the 100 bests the 76, even with the Q module. Wasn’t sure how much of difference but it seems you both agree it would be worthwhile. I picked up the 2015BCR second hand, so hopefully just a case of an extension tube if reaching focus is an issue. 

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Just as an aside, my CQ Extender normally lives on my FS-60, making it a Q as that’s where it makes most difference. I do love the 76Q configuration though. Comparison here, sorry if I’ve posted this one too much 😬

Apologies for hijacking your thread somewhat @Mumia. Lovely set up you have and one I am looking at in the future. 
 

I recently sold my Tak FS-60 with reducer. I had a feeling I might end up regretting it so I kept the Q extender, visual adapters and FT 2015BCR that I never got round to putting on the FS-60. My thinking was I could buy the 76DCU objective in the future and have a 76DCUQ on the ‘cheap’. However, looking enviously at the photo of@Stu scopes, I am struck by how little there seems to be size wise between the 76Q and FC100. I also didn’t know the 2” FT’s were compatible with the FC100. I’m now wondering if it might be worthwhile skipping the 76 altogether and jumping to the FC100. What’s the thoughts on the improvement of the FC100 v 76DCUQ on planetary and lunar? Would I miss much on portability and cool down time between the two?

26 minutes ago, Froeng said:

I looks like the VSD70SS can shoot digital medium format (33x44)!?! That is impressive…

Yep, and from the image it looks like round stars right to the edge! Also, it looks like it’s fully correcting the 3.76um pixels of the IMX455 (ASI6200) which seems to be the holy grail for widefield refractors at the moment.

Wish they used a more appropriate box size for the spot diagrams but to put it into perspective it’s the same scale as the FRA400. Just look at that difference! Not sure how much of that would translate to a final image but you’ve got appreciate the design.

6 minutes ago, DirkSteele said:

As it is, I cannot think of much else available that has not already been mentioned.

I’ll add the Tak TSA120!

More details have been released now. The VSD70SS in particular looks like a Tak FSQ-85 basher. Wonder if the VSD90 and 70 will push Tak into redesigning their FSQ range. 
 

https://www.vixen.co.jp/activity/cpplus2024/vsd70ss/

The SDP65 looks like a big upgrade of the FL55SS too. 
 

https://www.vixen.co.jp/activity/cpplus2024/sdp65ss/
 

Looks like we’re startIng to see highly corrected lenses on wide field scopes. Likely will be a higher premium for it though!

It looks like Vixen are going to release two more scopes following the introduction of the VSD90SS

https://www.vixen.co.jp/post/240216k-2/

In Japanese of course but it seems they will announce a VSD70SS and an SDP65SS. Very interesting. The few reviews I’ve read of the 90 are favourable and seem to correct for small pixel cameras to full frame as well as supporting a medium format imaging circle. FSQ106 prices though. 
 

Really interesting to see the specs of that two and where they pitch the price.

14 hours ago, GalaxyGael said:

Well, if nebulae and dust regions in wide to medium field are of interest, signal is key, and the case in particular for osc. 

Tak epsilons are among the easiest newts to collimate IMO and like Rasa, retain collimation long term. They are also almost impervious to temperature focus drift. My experience is with the steel tube epsilons, remarkable flat line hfr values all night long.

Any scope at f6 will reduce with 0.8x flattener to f4.8, whether 90mm f6 or the wide range of excellent 80mm f6 scopes.

Your fra400 can also be reduced to f3.9, just under 300 mm focal length and corrects out to aps c sensor size. Fast and wide, big chunky of sky. And it is smaller than the Rasa, so consider whether you lug it in and out for sessions, if that's matters to you. Unless the fov is a concern, can't see much better options than a reduced fra400 you already have really, apart from the f3.9 fsq85 with new reducer, but it's a big outlay for something very similar.

The TS 110flat f/4.8 is big and expensive, but slower than a reducer on your fra400, which might be the best option to see if wide field and speed is something that gives you the improvement you are testing the waters for?

The new reducer does t fix the aperture vignetting of inverse lighthouse beams on fsq85, nothing can formally as it's part and parcel of the optical design. It just shows more when reduced with modern sensors, but mitigated for narrow bandpass (3-5nm) NB imaging. The new 3 or 5 nm dual band filters might be good there if the star shapes matter, personal taste.

Ah, ok. Misunderstood you. I thought you meant there were native flat field f4.8 scopes. That TS110 looks interesting though if it corrects as well as it says. No, the reducer on the FRA doesn’t interest me. Although the stars are round, it bloats them even further so I’ll likely get an even softer image. I get this should be less of an issue than longer focal length galaxy type imaging but I see it and it bugs me 😆 So, if I’m staying refractor I would like something that has tighter, sharper stars. 
 

I think, I’m just about settled that a fast reflector is what will give me the results I want. Weight is a consideration for sure and I think the RASA is the upper limit. Worst case is two trips out but it’s literally just outside my door so should be fine. 

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Today a new dataset fell into my lap, Paul having captured 116x3 minutes on little Sh2-257, mostly to enhance our Orion-Monoceros widefield. It gave me a chance to study RASA resolution rather nicely, though. Here's the full field just given a basic stretch.

Now let's have a look at the Sharpless object itself in a very close crop to see what's there. I hope you'll be able to see this at full size, which is how I've posted it.

Olly

Quite amazing detail given how close the crop is! I suppose this is pre BlurXT too?

3 hours ago, GalaxyGael said:

Depends on your imaging preferences and how to tackle each night. Fsq85 is arguably easier overall if you get a good sample, but osc-only imaging as I do benefits from speed and wide-ish field. You get all the tones and colour NB does not, with the option of adding to it if you wish. But to be fair, it depends on the types or targets. For those focal lengths, are you nebulae in broadband, galaxy clusters, dust, or?

Both need setup time at the beginning. But fsq85 small star shape is fine with 2600mc with the 1.01x flattener. I know it's also perfect with 5.94um pixel full frame imx410. Extreme astigmatism comes from miscollimated fsq85 that shows more with small pixels, and that is more common than you think and takes a lot of time waiting for repair. With a good sample, assuming the focuser doesn't have slop, the fsq85 is very sharp. New reducer looks tempting, but the fsq85 with modern sensors is back focus sensitive, no way round that unless you go backwards in sensor tech and size. There are easier lens systems with in built flatteners around if that matters to you.

Now star shape....Rasa never appealed to me in that department, but it gives signal at the fl unmatched by almost nothing else. That matter to some, maybe you?

Fsq85 to me is worse. Cat eye bokeh from the virtual field stop of lens 3 in the stack that gives almond shaped out of focus stars and causes cracked stars, or inverse dark lighthouse beam effects in focus. These used to be hidden behind stumpy little 'newtonian-esque' spikes in older cc'd cameras with bigger pixels from the significant periodic texture of microlenses on the side that the light hits. With planar back side lit sensors, you'll see huge unavoidable dark beams that rotate around the frame, markedly pronounced with osc cameras in broadband where the stars are not suppressed like NB imaging. To me, it's worse than any system with diffraction, and from a scope where stars should be round. And it gets even worse if you do mosaics where they don't line up etc.....Do you need round stars? There are better apo out there for that. 

But, there are too many decent triplets with flatteners that work at f4.8 now, and even the 110mm flat field options that are almost identical to the AP 110gtx in design (can't say anything about execution). Esprit 100 is a great example of similar focal length, round stars and good sharpness tbh.

The FRA300 in a good sample is fantastic, very easy setup and the whole thing melts in to the background. Probably since it is small and tidy, but corrects 2600mc and larger.

But from my experience in bortle 6, and knowing others in bortle 4, osc imaging is better with fast optics. You're forced to use shorter subs (balancing zero gain options to use the whole full well capacity too), which takes care of stacking statistics, and you can get an image in broadband or NB in a single night.

To balance that, I quickly realised that fast optics tempted me to image the same duration as I used to, but get what F5/6/7 refractors could not in a sensible amount of time - depth. I'll caveat that by saying its not general, and big aperture, long focal length, big pixel systems are not so f-stop dependent. So a tak epsilon takes the same imaging time for me over a few nights after owning it for a while, but I see more because it can do that at a decent pixel scale with high snr. That's what happened with me, though...

Fsq85 is fantastic in NB, but you may get such good data that you realise you want more to complete an image given it's relative speed. For osc targets only your image quality preferences will dictate whether one winter night will be sufficient. It can be from f3.3 down to f2 though.

The fast mirror scopes have their limitations as you know, and paying for the stable collimation options is a hurt-once problem, but takes that nightly concern away. and some of the concerns you read about online are sample variation, but an OSC camera setup are a little less taxing on a focuser compared to the mono setup with additional components. Aperture resolution benefits at short FL are in the weeds, and I doubt you will see night and day differences sufficient to be swayed by that criterion alone.

Thanks for the informative, detailed reply. I guess my main interests at this focal length are nebulae, both in broadband and with a dual narrowband filter, and the dark dusty nebulae that have become more popular recently. As I write that, it’s  obvious I should prioritise signal over everything else. Especially, since I’m rarely collecting more than 4-6 hours on one target. Also, I notice I’m pushing my images too far when processing. The remedy to that is likely more integration time or something that collects signal faster. 
 

Interesting comments on the Tak star shapes. I was aware of the reverse lighthouse effect and it’s not something that bothers me in terms of an aberration or artefact (halos are my pet peeve). Hadn’t heard about cats eye bokeh though. Had a look online and see its inherent of the Petzval design. Is that what the new flattener was/is trying to correct?
 

I’m curious to hear of the other refractors that operate at f4.8 that you think are better than the FSQ-85. And those designed like the AP 110? (I’m in that lottery!).

I’ve learned that I’ll likely be a OSC man with dual narrowband filters. Tried the mono route and had so many unfinished images. I’ve also learned that weight and complexity of set up hinder me. Had an EQ6R and could never be bothered to take it out. Now have a Rainbow RST and with the Askar FRA400 I’ve never been so productive, albeit I feel I’m lacking something in my images.  

The comments here are largely pro RASA, or fast reflector of sorts. I think my main worry is that if the set up ends up being a nuisance I’ll give up. However, won’t know until I try. I think I’ll probably just sit on this until later in the year as come April the night will already be short. That gives me a chance to keep an eye on the market for a deal. 

10 hours ago, gorann said:

RASA any day! So much deeper and therefore you get more to show and more to find, including the occasional new finding. Will not happen with the Tak in a reasonable time. If you want refractor stars from a RASA just do BlurXT to get the shapes and then Unsharp Mask on the star layer to get the pinpoint look, although personally I am kind of soft on soft stars as they do not distract so much from the nice nebulosity you are looking for. Who are imaging to primarily image stars?

You certainty are prolific with it and produce cracking images! It’s not so much primarily imaging for stars. It’s the work involved getting them good enough and if the process would defeat me before I get to that point. 
 

I would love to see 6hrs on a range of targets from both scopes with comparable conditions to see what the difference in a final image would be. Maybe I should buy both and test 😂

11 minutes ago, GalaxyGael said:

There's a few epsilon 160s available in Europe right now just fyi ( but off topic a bit)

Not off topic at all! Where are they available? I’m on a waiting list at Kyoei in Japan, where the Tak gear is available quite a bit cheaper than Europe. Since I have to deal with customs wherever I order from it makes sense for me to order from there.