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.

Analysis Paralysis

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Analysis Paralysis

  1. Hi Carole, thank you. It's useful to hear what you think about the relative noise. I am probably going to buy new, so if the option of the belt being already present is available, it makes sense to buy it. Thanks Mark
  2. Thank you. Is this based on using both for visual and imaging?
  3. Thank you. I have my eye on a new heq5 pro with Rowan belt mod already built in for only £120 extra cost. Every time I look at astrosell, heq5 mounts are already sold or wanted! The resell value is always pretty high too, so buying new is less risky. My finger is hovering over the trigger! Bit like Davros, if you remember him! I think it is the high cost that is causing the finger to shake. But, I have a secondhand ED80, a Nikon D7000, knowledge of Photoshop and camera adapters etc. The mount and a lithium polymer battery are the missing links, but a hefty outlay. Thanks for your comments Mark
  4. Thank you. I would like to do both equally. I know some people say they prefer alt az for visual observation, but I can't see why visual observing with a goto, tracking eq mount would be difficult? Regarding the slewing, I am just a bit nervous that I'll wake the neighbours if I'm changing target frequently. I've seen a YouTube video of slewing with and without belt, and the belt really was whisper quiet whereas the worm gears sounded quite loud. Thanks Mark
  5. Hello, Does anyone have experience of using both these mounts for imaging? If yes, can you advise on which you think does the best job of accurate tracking and is the az eq5 gt quiet in its native form, i.e. doesn't need a Rowan belt mod? I was going to buy the heq5 pro with belt already installed, but now I see this other mount with az capabilities as well. I wonder if there has to be compromises in its performance somewhere? I would appreciate any thoughts. Thanks Mark
  6. Thank you all for your a answers especially you Billy for a particularly interesting reply. I currently have a secondhand 80 ed refractor and intend to use it for DSO imaging. But I also would like to do visual on doubles, planets and moon, and brighter DSO. I'd like to avoid 2 mounts. I am thinking of the heq5 pro with goto and WiFi control and Rowan belt mod for quiet accurate tracking. Given the cost of that lot, I'm looking for inclusivity of visual and imaging! I would like to add a 150 mm F12 or 180 mm F15 mak to the collection later on to compliment the 80 mm refractor. Again you can see I'm looking at visual and imaging with these choices ( although I am going to have a crack at the impossible task of trying the Mak at DSO too!). About 30 years ago I had a dark Star 8.75" dobsonian. I could never get on with having to push it around and view at same time especially as the magnification rises. For me, tracking is absolutely essential in my next choice! No doubt whatsoever. I want to observe rather than constantly battle to keep on target. But also options for astrophotography like we see now were way beyond most amateurs reach 30 years ago, so I fancy my hand at this now! Before I am too old to lug a mount around. Thanks Mark
  7. Please can I have your opinions on how easy/pleasant it is to use this mount for visual observation? I've heard some views that it is a pain? I'd like to do both visual and imaging. Thanks for any opinions Mark
  8. Wow! That image is fantastic. I wonder what aperture he used? I have seen a wonderful M51 taken with a Mak at F12, but I believe it was a 12 inch aperture, and I believe aperture is important, although I have seen very good 150 mm F12 M51 images, so I know it's possible. Mark
  9. I will have to download this. It looks useful!
  10. Hi. What would you say was a typical resolution limit for photography(arc seconds per pixel) in Midlands in UK? This would be useful in decision making. Thank you
  11. Thank you. One thing I did notice when I was playing around with the camera options in the website another poster provided, was when I selected the atik 420 with 8 micron pixel size, the image size of M51 looked much bigger. Would you be able to advise on other camera options? Thanks for the 150 mm f5 suggestion. I was kind of hoping I could combine visual superiority of mak for planetary with bigger images of DSO. I have seen some very good images of M51 taken with 150mm Maks. I am based in UK. With a heq5 using Rowan belt mod and good seeing, I wonder if - with the minimum sub time- it would be possible to achieve similar results with imaging, whilst being able to use the Mak for visual- i.e. having my cake and eating it! Thank you Mark
  12. Thank you. This may be what I'm after, but do you know how to see how much of the total image area is occupied by the image. I tried M51 but I can't tell if the whole black rectangle would be the image area or something else. Do you know? Thank you Mark
  13. Thank you. What I'm after is how much of my image would be covered by an object, let's take M51. Using 13' = 780" and 1.8 "/pixel, this would be 780/1.8 = approx 400 pixels. Assuming horizontal, this would be 400/4928*100% = approx 8% of horizontal image. So, on a 7.5 inch print it would be about 0.7 inch wide? Is this thinking correct? Mark
  14. Thank you. How would I obtain such very accurate tracking using the heq5 with belt mod? Can you think of an alternative way to get the equivalent larger image size without increasing focal ratio? I suppose I could zoom the image in Photoshop, but I suspect the detail would not be present to same degree. Thanks Mark
  15. Hi, I am trying to learn about AP. I understand that image size is dependent on pixel size on CCD and inversely proportional to focal length. Hope that's correct. I have. D7000 with 4.9 micron pixel size. Assuming I am limited to this CCD option, it seems to me that in order to increase image size I need longer focal length in order to reduce the arc seconds per pixel? So, let's use M51 as example. Am I right in thinking that with a 80mm ed with 0.87 FR, giving 522 mm FL, this would cover approx 10% of photo, but with say a 150 mm F12 mak, would cover about 35%? Assuming tracking was sufficient (heq5 with Rowan belt), would I get an good sharp image covering 1/3 of frame? I use mak as example, because I'd like to use it for planets but have a option for bigger DSO image size. I'm a newbie, so be gentle!! Thanks Mark
  16. What is your most memorable observing moment - the one memory that you will never forget?
  17. I think that an F15 mak dso challenge would be interesting, although the kind of people who own F15 Maks may,in general, prefer planetary imaging over dso. I did see a 180 mm F15 mak image of the trapezium and interestingly, due to underexposure - by accident- all 6 stars in trap were visible as well as some delicate nebulous structure. It was quite different to the normal lower f ratio images that tend to over expose the trap.
  18. Thanks Olly. My very basic understanding from what I've read, is that a lower f ratio makes it easier to get the correctly exposed image more quickly. The longer exposure times needed in the higher f ratio make guiding more critical and hence harder to achieve high quality. But not impossible in the hands of someone with the knowledge and right kit. Is that correct or nearly correct?
  19. Thanks for these wonderful images. I calculate F/9 focal ratio, is that correct? I'm wondering about F/15 in a 7 inch. Would you think the same results could be obtained in this case? Thanks Mark
  20. Hi, anyone with some good examples of DSO images they have taken using a mak? I would regard this as a real challenge given the high F ratio. Thanks Mark
  21. Yes, and 525 pretty good. Although, I can get it brand new for 250 more. Plus the older versions were 170 mm aperture, but don't know in this case. Thanks for this anyway. ? Mark
  22. Hi. When you say more refined, could you specify why? I know the heq5 has many good reviews. Also I have already bought a WiFi dongle for £50 for anticipated use in the heq5. So, the vixen would have to be much better. Also, I have seen wonderful images taken with the 80 mm ed / heq5 combo. Cheers Mark
  • Create New...

Important Information

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