Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Science562h

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

1 Follower

About Science562h

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Messier Observing & Astrophotography
  • Location
    Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

767 profile views
  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
  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
  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.
  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 ...
  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°eyepiec
  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, tho
  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

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.