Buzzard75

Understandable. For that price, it is a bit expensive. As I've said, I got in early on the Kickstarter and am so thankful that I did. I got it for less than half what they're asking now and it was a good deal then. For 3000, you could certainly put together a great setup that would be more capable. This does have a few extra bells and whistles that aren't standard, but what that is worth depends on the individual. I would hope that in the future, equipment like this would come down in price so that it is more accessible to people.

There are a lot of variables. The focal length of telescope and eyepiece, aperture, seeing conditions, etc. and even the individual observer. As for scale, with my own equipment, I find that 150x is a good magnification that gives enough detail on Jupiter and Saturn's rings. If you increase magnification too much though, you'll start to lose detail as your seeing conditions begin to have more of an effect. Starizona has a great article on magnification and the various effects of all the variables. https://starizona.com/tutorial/understanding-magnification/ EDIT: And if you REALLY want to get into the details, there's another great article on Observing Theory. Note, the above magnification is specific for my equipment. Yours may differ. https://starizona.com/tutorial/observing-theory/

Pixel scale is basically how many arc seconds are contained in one pixel. There is a good bit of information and a calculator available here. http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

If you know where to look, what you're looking for and have decent skies, some globs can be seen with just a pair of 10x binoculars. If your eyes are really good and you have really dark skies, you might even be able to see them naked eye. Won't be much detail at lower magnification though. At 40x, it should be more than enough to see something like M13.

I just got notified by OPT (Sorry, @FLO, I live in the states) that mine is shipping. Keeping my fingers crossed for a good unit. Of course, considering what you all have posted, I would honestly be happy with any of them compared to what I've been using which is just a Canon kit lens.

I've done it, but wouldn't necessarily say it's a habit. If I happen to be out to specifically look at it and people look at me like I'm crazy, then I'll explain what I'm looking at. That usually does prompt some questions. I work in the aerospace industry so naturally I talk about space a lot at work. Generally those people are all interested in it so in that case I'll tell anyone within earshot if the ISS is passing over early in the morning or ask if someone saw the moon/Jupiter/etc. that morning.

My understanding is they had multiple prototypes in this last round that were being tested by team members and others in the field, all providing input on the final design. That in addition to their lab testing helped define the final configuration and components. It's also my understanding that what goes out next month for the beta will be the final configuration. The only thing that will be different between those that go out in June and those that go out in September will be the software that they're shipped with and the app, which can be and will be updated. If there's something wrong with it, mechanically speaking, it will be corrected. I think they're really planning on using the beta as more of a test of their software and control and less about the design of the telescope. Seems they've got that pretty much nailed down and won't be changing it. I'm really looking forward to getting mine and sharing with everyone.

This looks great! Unfortunately I only have a color camera and it's 6MP so I can't try it out, but this looks like a fantastic piece of software! Looking forward to see where the development goes!

That's how I've come to understand it myself. I've also always assumed that NV fell into the EEA category as there is a screen and electronics involved. I just don't see the differentiation between it and video astronomy.

It's interesting that you say that because I have read several visual observers claim exactly that. Their argument is that you're not actually looking at the object and you're just looking at an image of the object. I.e the photons aren't entering your eye and are rather being captured by an electronic sensor. I understand the point, but I personally think it's absurd because there are some observations you just can't make by only looking at an object for a fraction of a second. I say, you like what you like, I'll like what I like (which is all of it) and we should just support each other's interests as a community rather than 'poo pooing' something just because it's not what you're into. That's how you drive people away and keep them from getting interested in the field at all. We have people that come to our events that love the astrophotography work I do, some love looking at video of the planets, the sun or the moon on a computer screen, and we have some that just want to look through an eyepiece. We should be an all inclusive group and not speak poorly of or try to tear down another aspect of astronomy, as it's hard enough to get people interested in the night sky and take an active part in preserving it.

SkySafari, Star Walk and Stellarium are all really good. I tend to use SkySafari the most, but each has different features which you may prefer.

I backed the eVscope during their initial Kickstarter and can not wait to get my hands on it. I told my club several months ago about it and they were all extremely interested and some were contemplating purchasing their own, to which I urged caution. I'm continually getting asked when I expect to get it because they all want to check it out first before they drop a large stack of cash on one. When I went in, it was half what the expected retail was and it was a good deal. At retail price, you could build a similar system that would accomplish the same, but it would not be nearly as compact or portable. As I said in a previous post, is there anything revolutionary here? No, but the form factor is certainly new and somewhat unique. I think devices like this will make EEVA more accessible by taking out a lot of the effort in building your own system. Generally amateur astronomers are going to prefer building their own system, fine tuning each piece and identifying the best components for the job. The general public who just wants to go outside and look at cool stuff in the night sky on the other hand, they want simple and this is about as simple as something like this gets. I haven't been asked to be in the beta and I'm guessing all those invites have gone out. Had I been asked, I would be torn between wanting to get it early and be a beta tester or waiting to get the second production run with all the kinks worked out. In either case, I'm very excited about being able to share it with everyone in the club, guests at our events, seeing some cool stuff for myself and contributing to the citizen science campaigns.

He does a lot of talking, but doesn't really say a lot, if you know what I mean. I don't think he fully understands the construction of the RedCat, the differences between it and the original Petzval design (4-element/3-groups vs 4-element/2-groups) or the actual purpose of FPL-53 glass. The design of the RedCat appears to be very similar to Takahashi's and I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would say the same things he's said about them. I don't know what his background is, but I think there's a reason this person only has a fraction of the subscribers and why this video is three weeks old with only a few hundred views. I have a hard time believing he is a professional photographer of any sort because he states someone wouldn't use manual focus with an automatic focusing lens. That is just patently false. He made a few valid points, but the ones he made seemed somewhat petty to me. I honestly wouldn't put a lot faith in anything this person is saying.

We live along the coast of North Carolina in an area known as The Graveyard of the Atlantic. Some of our more notable landmarks are the series of lighthouses that dot our shores. It seemed appropriate that we incorporate one into our logo, but you may also notice, it is actually a telescope.

Steve, Thanks! I had heard that before and have a very basic understanding of why the Petzval design lends itself to photography rather than visual. I'm just thinking for minimalisms sake that a lens/scope that's amazing at photography and so-so at visual work is better than having to take one for each on travel. Especially when it will mostly be used as an AP scope rather than visual. Wondered if there were any diagonals that had a threaded nosepiece that could be removed with M56 or M48 threads or maybe fitted with an adapter. I assumed there was something out there already. I do see that WO is going to be making one or already has. There is a 1.25" erecting prism on their website, but I don't know if it's the same one they are showing in images of the scope.

Posted this on another thread, but I might get more visibility here. Trying to wrap my head around exactly what I would need to adapt both a Canon DSLR and and ZWO ASI178MC. The DSLR is easy as there are EOS T-mounts with M48 threads that give you the exact spacing required. What I can't quite suss out is the ZWO camera. The T2 ring on the ASI178MC, and the ASI178MC itself, has M42 threads. Would I just then need an M48 to M42 adapter? Would I need any spacers since I'm not using a filter wheel? Do I need to remove the T2 ring and attach the camera directly using a female-female adapter? No one has posted any close up pictures of the connections between the scope and such a camera yet or detailed exactly what they used. It's hard for me to visualize without one in my hand and know exactly what I need to get the correct spacing and I don't want to buy a bunch of extra parts that I don't need and I certainly don't want to wait until I get the scope only to find out everything I do need and have to wait even longer. With the ZWO T2 ring, the camera sensor is 12.5mm back from the face of the T2 ring, the WO M48 to M42 adapter is 7.2mm (Not sure this is correct as it just says this is the thickness, not the spacing). The mechanical drawing of the RedCat says the focal plane is 59.7mm behind the M48 threads. Doing the math, I would still need an additional 40mm (59.7-12.5-7.2=40) of spacing is that correct? EDIT: Oh, and the diagonal if I wanted to do a bit of visual. How exactly does that attach and does it require a special diagonal?

I'm fairly new to CCD/CMOS imaging here so I'm probably going to show my ignorance. Just trying to understand what I'm looking at. Assuming the bottom of the first distortion pattern is parallel to the ground. You rotate the camera 90 degrees counter clock wise so now the left edge of the sensor is parallel to the ground. Hence, the distortion pattern shifts sides of the sensor. Had the distortion remained on the same edge of the sensor pattern after rotation, you could then assume your sensor was off a bit and had some induced tilt on the camera. Correct?

As has been suggested, you could build your own solution. If you don't want to build your own, contact Kendrick with the measurements of your secondary and they may be able to make a suggestion in regards to their products. I had questions about my setup as well and they were very helpful. Not that you need it, but I can vouch for their products. I have one on my primary and secondary of my dob. I also have one for my Telrad and my eyepieces. They work really well.

I've read A LOT of Olly's posts. He certainly knows what he's talking about. My understanding from that is there's less total exposure time required for LRGB than OSC to achieve a similar end result because of the amount of data captured with each filter color with a mono is significantly more. Which is what I suspected the reasoning to be. However, I also gather there is more workflow involved with LRGB than OSC. You have to switch out filters, refocus if necessary, ensure your spacing is correct for each filter, etc. and then you also have a lot more frames that you have to work with and get processed and stacked properly, etc. So, I can take that 25% (arbitrary number) and put it toward capturing more OSC frames or I can put it towards the workflow of LRGB. I don't disagree that the LRGB image will come out significantly better, but I think OSC is easier and more "set it and forget it" which is what I'm after. Again, I'm not looking to be a professional. Everything I do is for me and mine and besides that, I'm still learning.

Would definitely get a cooled version. I'm comparing the ASI294MC Pro and the ASI183MC Pro now. I've looked at the specs and the 294 has a larger sensor and more well capacity, but it also has much larger pixels and lower resolution. It would appear however, that the 294 gives you a wider field of view. So pros and cons. Define very short focal length. Other than putting it in my dob for planetary and lunar, I would probably be looking at something with a focal length of 600mm or less.

I don't have a wheel and I don't have filters. Once a month we go out to our dark sky site with the club. Even if we're lucky and the skies are clear on that one particular night, I still may only have a couple of hours that I can actually capture anything. So I'm extremely limited on time. I understand that shooting with a mono and filters is obviously going to provide better results than OSC. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is how it can be faster. Can you shoot shorter exposures with mono than you need to with OSC (say 60 second exposures of R, G, and B each instead of 180 second OSC) or can you get away with 1/3 of the frames (20 or less frames each of R, G and B vs. 60 OSC)? That's the only way it could be faster.

I'm looking at the ZWO ASI183MC Pro, the QHY183C and the Altair Hypercam 183C V2. I'll be curious how you get on with the ZWO as I've seen what Trevor from Astro Backyard can do with the Hypercam. I'm going OSC because the time I have to image is extremely limited. I need to be able to capture as much data as I can in a few hours when I do have the opportunity. Going back out and doing the same object repeatedly just with another color filter on a mono cam is not an option for me. I'd never get a complete data set or very few complete data sets. I understand this is how the best images are achieved, but the images I'll be taking are just for me and to share on my club Facebook and Instagram pages. I'm not a professional by any stretch of the imagination. Still, I would like a better camera than the DSLR I already have. The only telescope I currently have is a dob and I use my DSLR and a barlow for doing planetary and lunar imaging. I have plans to get an equatorial mount and a refractor in the near future once I save up some funds. I thought that maybe I could buy the camera now, use it for planetary and lunar in my dob, and maybe borrow a mount and small refractor from my club, just to get used to the camera before I get my own setup. I intend to move from planetary and lunar into DSO's when I get my setup.

I brought up the processing of the images of the Stellina on the eVscope Kickstarter page a while ago. People were trying to compare the images saying that the Vaonis Stellina was better. No one seemed to catch on until recently when someone else pointed out the diffraction spikes. There could be some mounting device in the optical path that is causing them, but they still appear to be processed even to my untrained eye. Some don't seem to believe this type of scope will be good for outreach, but I disagree. You just have to be able to manage expectations of the public and explain the differences between a video astronomy/astrophotography setup and that of a standard telescope. Having this setup next to a large aperture dob or SCT and then a smaller reflector and refractor will really show the public what the capabilites of the different types of setups are and what to expect if they choose to get into the hobby. Everyone has seen the images of Hubble and these scopes in no way compare and that will be obvious to anyone who looks through them. What they do though, is show people the kinds of things that are really out there and continue to increase the interest in astronomy. And that is the whole point to public outreach. Educate, increase interest and inspire.