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.

stargazine_ep24_banner.thumb.jpg.56e65b9c9549c15ed3f06e146fc5f5f1.jpg

Science562h

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

2 Followers

About Science562h

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Messier Observing & Astrophotography
  • Location
    Texas
  1. Check this out. The AVX is better, at everything. Celestron Advanced VX (2013 Release) vs. Skywatcher HEQ5 (2001 Release) All Star Polar Alignment: Yes No Latitude Range: 7'-77' (Wider) 10'-65' (Lower) 4' per sec (Faster) 3.4' per sec (800x) Nexstar+ (4+ Gen ahead) Synscan Integrated motors: Yes No Cable: USB Serial port RS-232 12 VDC, 3.5 A 11-15 VDC, 2 A 3 AUX ports NA Dual saddle compatible NA 18 lbs. tripod, with 2" steel legs (Better) 12 lbs. & 1.75" steel legs (Lighter & smaller) 17 lbs. mount head 21 lbs. 44"-64" height 38"-47" height or 40"-55" (Shorter) Celestron Skysync GPS Skywatcher GPS Notes 1. 2001 (Fall): First version of HEQ5 released. Tracking motors only. Rated payload for the HEQ5 was 15kg. The specs above are for the newest ugraded HEQ5s. 2. Not even the HEQ5's tripod is heavier, sturdier. There is a 6 lbs. difference & the legs are 2 in vs. 1.75 in. The real & more capable workhorse is the AVX. 3. The tracking issues were, with EQH5's first set of HCs. See, it's right there. During, that time, in 2001, I was working on the Orion Aircraft, made by Lockheed-Martin, as an aviation electrician. The Orion spaceshuttle was later renamed & built, also by Lockheed-Martin. that's, who the contract went to. It didn't go, to Space X. My instructors, back in 2001, were from NASA's flight control room.
  2. The AVX slews a-lot faster, 4° per sec, compared to 3.4 °; that's 360° to 306'°. Over the course of a night, the AVX will have finished its work, way before the HEQ5. The USB makes data transfer 1,000,000,000... times faster, which makes the AVX more efficient. "That is more work, faster." Anyway, Synscan is over 10 years old & the head 5+. It's got a 2 cent head & brain on it. It is electro-mechanically impossible, that the EQ5s are better & then by design. By design, the HEQ5 has cables all over the place, with less 'scope clearance. In contrast, the AVX, has superior cable management & the motors are nicely tucked away & covered. It's a secure & completed mount. It's a clean design, that passes QA, while the HEQ5 is monkey rigged, of which the EQ5 can be had, with just one RA motor, working, as a basic EQ. The HEQ5 does not pass QA. The EQ5s are just old base EQ models, with aftermarket motors available, like the EQ1 to EQ3-2, non-integrated electro-mechanical components. Integration is, "mixing in, the electro-mechanical component/s to the entire unit, as a whole, making it a one functional peice." - That's a degree in Science from Albany New York USA, the #1 rated state in technology & capital of NY USA. Look, at the ergonomics, "how the 'scope interacts, with you & the environment." The EQ5s wouldn't have even passed in aviation for 1970s technology. - That's upper level aviation & design from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in FL, USA. You 'ain't catching me upgradig to an EQ5; a person upgrades to an AVX.
  3. My understanding is, that the Celestron AVX: AVX is the modern model; already replaces the EQ5s, which means, it replaces the HEQ5. They are for different markets. The belt modification is available for the AVX. The HEQ5 uses the old Synscan hand controller, while the AVX's is 2 generations ahead (+ and USB) AVX wins, in everything electronic & also uses USB. EQ5 can't be better, when it doesn't win in anything electronic. It's still good but not better. AVX is moderrn & the future of, what the EQ5 used to be. EQ5 is too old, even if functional. I Helicopters
  4. Great video. One question, will my Celestron GPS Skysync work, with the AVX? I read, that people have had problems & needed a hand controller update. I don't 'wanna change mounts & have an immediate GPS issue. God, I hope it does. Reply appreciated. Nexstar+ SLT user
  5. The Yongnuo is very fast & I stopped it, to f/2.8. It's very sensitive, compared to the 18-55 mm zoom. The focus ring unfocuses, after about 5-7 exposures. You might have to refocus, every 5 or so; so, that you don't waste your time. Example, I left it snapping 100 pics of Orion, at 20 sec, ISO 800 & it didn't stay in focus past 5. Kinda upset, 'bout it, when I went to check. As for colors, I live in a bad pollution Bortle 6; it's ging to be different, under darker skies. Well, I hope I get better colors than this but then, with a 99% Moon & glow, I wasn't expecting much ... Image. M42 Orion Nebula. The Moon was, at 99% lumination and location Bortle 6. Camera: Canon Rebel T6, unmodded. Yongnuo lens test: 50 mm, at f/2.8, ISO 800 backyard test. 70 light, 20 dark and 30 Bias frames. 22, 30 sec subs in stack. Image cropped & resized to JPEG. SLT mount, DSS & GIMP. February 7, 2020.
  6. I'm entering the debate a bit late, checking on something. My simple question: So, is the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens better for widefield astrophotography than the standard 18-55mm f/5.6 zoom lens? I have been led to believe, that it is, due to, here it goes, "faster" focal ratio? It's been recommended, along with stepping it down to 2.8. Reply would be appreciated.
  7. Yeah, I have some experience, with the brand. I bought this set, like 7 years ago for a used $40 Power Seeker 130EQ, that only had 1 eyepiece. I didn't have EPs, at the time & needed something. The EPs are way more widefield than the Kellners. Lenses are real widefield for 1.25 in eyepieces. This set is extremely cheap but for the price, you get instant magnification & a functional viewing set. They are unbranded & intended for Celestron. This set is not, like the Orion & Apertura 25 mm Plossl though. I don't know, who makes them. Image 1. 4, 10 and 23 mm 62°eyepiece set. SVbony has a 72 series 34 mm 72° Super Wide Angle (SWA) eyepiece. This one is excellent & has the SVbony label on it. I use it, over the Orion Q70, when deep sky searching & looking, at entire fields, with a 12 in DOB. The view is outright amazing! I find it to be the clearest & most enjoyable overall EP in my set. This SVbony is an entirely different EP though for a different market. 2 inch SVBONY 72-Series 44x 34 mm 72° SWA 5-Element Full-Multicoat True Field of View= 1.63° Image 2. Third from left, 2 inch SVbony 34mm eyepiece. 2020.
  8. Ofcourse there are smaller mounts. Anyone know the AVX's mount weight? Mount weights: Advanced VX Mount (AVX) ... CG-5 EQ ... 2 inch steel CG-4 EQ ... 12.5 lbs. CG-3 EQ ... 7.4 lbs. CG-2 EQ ... 7.4 lbs. EQ-1 ...
  9. joe, I find it very odd, that you have a Takahashi & a cheap $100 range CG-4 mount. It doesn't have GOTO, slewing or autoguiding.
  10. I'm also thinking of upgrading to a 40 lbs. or so EQ. I don't see a hand controller. What about basic observing & GOTO independently? It looks, like that mount requires a cell 'phone or computer to slew. Never used that model, just Celestron & Orion.
  11. To not see M31, just from my own experience, a person would have to be in a Bortle 8 or worse location, with ver bad transperancy. Setting aside filters, moving to a dark site works much better than using filters alone. Bortle 5 & low altitude isn't a good combo because a B5's pollution is still too high. It's suburban or outer city. Yes, I view M31, trhough a fast Apertura 12 inch DOB f/4.9, it's amazing. Yes, better than an 8" Orion Skyquest. There is more sharpness/clarity. By comparison, an 8" would look blurrier & darker. Then again, the same can be said, when looking, though a 16 inch. I setup my 8" & 12", side by side, a few weeks ago & the 12" won. Well, to your question, I don't view, like that. Not low or, at 26x. I would say, not normal for observing. Borderline low for B5, pick different object. ASTRONOMERS' GOLDEN RULE: KEEP YOUR 'SCOPES HIGH & DRY, DARK. It's, like the goldielock's CHZ zone but for viewing.
  12. With M31 in the NW, I can do 20 sec & keep all of 'em but I have gotten, as high, as 30 sec, with 60% keepers. M42 is the same but 20 sec is the high sweet spot. Depending on tracking, it might go, as low as 8-15 sec. M33, believe it or not, the SLT can do 45 sec & 1 min. At 1:30, elongation. It just depends on alignment stars, I guess & backlash. I do wait for the motor to track for a few minutes first.
  13. I used an intervalometer this time & 1 star alignment to Rigel. Image. M42, M43 and Flame Nebula. 55mm widefield 131 stack of 20, 8 & 5 seconds frames, at ISO 800. SLT mount and intervalometer used. 2020.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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