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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss.thumb.jpg.5b348d6a5e7f27bdcb79e9356b7fc03b.jpg

Uranium235

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6,948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by Uranium235

  1. It is entirely possible to get rho ophiuchi from the UK you just need a dark, unobstructed location, and pick your nights well (no fuzzy skies). Now is a good time for it. But you have to stay up well late for it...lol Actually, I'm thinking of getting yet another of these lenses since my new home has such a limited window of opportunity I would need to cram in as much data as possible in just 3 hours... and the only way to do that is to go superfast.
  2. It also depends on the bandwidth of the filter. A standard Baader 7nm filter is fine in my experience, however a 3nm Astrodon would be more inefficient. A 12nm Astronomik on the other hand would fare better. But hey, youre at f2!! so a slight loss in transmission is no big deal at that speed.
  3. There ya go... M87 jet from the 130: Crop
  4. Just working on it now mate (its been a while since I last got out). But.... ive just checked the first sub (240s) and bingo... its there!! my first (intentional) jet! I'll leave the camera running for an hour or two - just for the sake of nose reduction - and hoovering up some background fuzzies. Im getting a few unexpected bumps in RA guiding though, no idea why becuase there is absolutely no wind our there tonight.
  5. You have some degree of control over the rotation (prior to attaching camera) by simply taking out the screws on the tilt adjuster and rotating it in portions of 120deg, if you get it close, the rest of the camera orientation is finished by tweaking up the tightness of the extention rings (not too tight though... dont want to bind them). Its kinda arbitrary, but Ive never failed to get the camera landsacpe or portrait with it (in repect to the focuser). Collimation is done simply by removing the corrector (it screws out). Or... if you have a short cheshire in your box you can just leave the CC in, attach an EP holder to the M48 thread and off you go... but I do stress that it needs to be a short cheshire - otherwise you will hear the glorious sound of metal on glass... not good!
  6. Have you checked if the jet correct? If it is - im impressed! Jets are something i've been trying to capture for years...lol. I dont think I have a close up of that galaxy in my archive, so I'll have to get some fresh data while i still can. It might be worth me getting the 178 on that for some close-up action... and possibly enhance the jet slightly with some creative layer masking in Ps.
  7. Just had a bit of a brainwave..... in future get a couple of dumbell weights and hang (or place) them on the accessory try/leg spreader, that would provide a bit more protection. Or maybe a way to anchor the tripod?
  8. Sounds awful mate.... that must have been some gust of wind! Ive never heard of an NEQ5 being blown over before. To look on the bright side, the 130 isnt an expensive bit of kit to replace and your camera was not damaged. Just think what it would be like to have a nice APO and CCD camera hit the floor!... ouch!
  9. Hmmm, tried to get some more of that background dust to appear - but it blew up the stars slightly. Might be worth taking it down the LLRGB+SMI route, that would take about 3 hours though
  10. Exactly what I would have said The 1600mm and KAF8300 have roughly the same sized sensors, so it should work (with a little tweaking to get the flattest field possible). The 1600 is cheaper, so that will allow extra headroom for a couple of filters etc if the budget is around 1k ish. Get a Ha filter first, that will do the most for you (well... in about 2 months when the MW swings back around). Even so, the resolution with the 1600 is 1.2" p/p - which is still pretty damn high, but not so high as to exceed the resolving power of the telescope aperture (~0.9"). The 178 is best used either as a galaxy buster on the 130, or if you want a larger FOV - mount it on something like a Samyang 135mm f2 or the 200mm Canon EF lens. The 178 with a 135mm lens: And the 178 with a 130pds: Massively different FOV sizes there.
  11. Thanks guys But we have to take a number of things into consideration if you want to get the best out of it. Starting off with the mount, the 130 is quite light so it never bothers an NEQ6 (not even close...lol). Secondly there is the camera, that is were the magic happens - which as we all know can only be achieved with a mono (yes... there, i said the M word ) CCD or the one of the recent crop of cooled CMOS cameras because you need very low noise to get good data. This point would need a lot of consideration in regard to sensor size and/or pixel size, and what you want to image. Then, its the 130pds - probably the simplest way to deliver photons to the sensor..... no fancy-dan glass required (barring the coma corrector) - just a couple of small mirrors... its as uncomplicated as it can be Lastly, its guiding, choice of target, framing and mosaic planning and total integration time. But at the moment, its my only telescope - so its going to get used a lot, especially now I've got it bagging galaxies with some decent detail. With the ASI178 though, ive found it takes a 100+ short(ish) subs to get a very clean image.
  12. Just a quick 2 hour pop at M51, no proper calibration though so its a bit on the rough side. Also had a bit of flex somewhere, but I will track that down and eliminate it. (taken with the ASI178MM cool)
  13. The first two are Ha, the third is luminance
  14. Heart nebula with the ASI178MM cool: (50x240) Belt/Sword Bubble to Cave (25x240)
  15. Not to say that the 200 cant make a good image (because it can). But the difficulty is in a different ball park compared to the 130. Plus your choice of targets would be limited by the fov available from a 1 metre focal length.
  16. The 200pds? Hmmm nope It's the weight and bulk you have to consider (its heavy when loaded up), and it will catch the wind like a sail. It's easier to just get more out of shorter focal length by using a camera with smaller pixels (as long as you don't over sample the resloving power of the optics).
  17. Already done mate, it's in the getting started with imaging sub forum (since its am option that would be great for beginners as well). https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/333381-imaging-with-the-samyang-135mm-f2/
  18. ^^ Now... that is a tough target! Nice one Quite right, it allows to go for stuff that with an ordinary f5 imaging scope, would be a bit of a slog.
  19. I did mine very, very carefully What I did was to sit the whole thing vertically, so the back of the camera is on a flat surface and the lens is pointing upwards. Then tighten up the bolts one by one until the barely make contact... just until you feel the smallest amount of resistance. They neednt be done up tight - the guidescope ring is just there to stop the lens flopping about under its own weight and compressing the bayonet adaptor (even though any movement is tiny, its enough to upset an f2 field). The 3d printed bracket looks like a good solution to that (I would probably add felt to the rings), but I would also want the camera braced.
  20. Just noticed the camera in those pics... see the reinforcement/support added to the camera itself? That is exactly what I did with the Atik 383L+ so both lens and camera are supported - when operating at f2 any compression of the bayonet adaptor will cause tilt in the field, so its best to take all potential strain out of that weak spot. Getting all four corners perfect is the first essential step if youre thinking about putting a mosaic together. Probably not an issue with a light DSLR, but if youre sicking a big CCD or FW on it - then support will be required.
  21. @Alien 13 @Knight of Clear Skies Now moved
  22. I'm out at work at the moment, so I'll move it later or tomorrow morn
  23. Is that a 683WSG? I never managed to get a bayonet adaptor short enough due to the ridiculous backfocus requirement of the camera...lol.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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