Science562h

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. 
 

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.

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 🚁

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  

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. 

22 hours ago, vlaiv said:

If you have both lens at 50mm and use them with same camera, then yes - 50mm F/1.8 lens will be faster even when stopped down to F/2.8.

Thank's. 

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. 

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.

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 ... 

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. 

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.  

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.

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.

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.

Looks great, tons of detail; the galaxies are pretty close too.

I plan on 100 lights x 20-30 sec, 20 darks & 20 bias; at 55mm & then fiddle, with the 75-300mm lens. 

Image. Galaxies M81 and M82. 55 mm widefield pretest; 20 lights x 10 sec, before tackling it. 2020. 

Here's mine. This is a first test for the Canon EF 75-300mm lens @ 75mm. I was hoping to, atleast keep 50%, out of 120 exposures but 5, 8 & 15 sec is just too long @ 75mm, on an SLT alt-azi mount. I have to drop back down to 18-"55mm" & max, at 8 sec for M42. Well, 20 sec is possible @ 55mm but the keep rate is too low. I need to be able to keep 50-60%. M42 is tricky, unlike M31, where I can snapoff 20-30 sec exposures and just keep the bulk. I'm not doing that though, with M42. I have to drop back to 55mm & I'm taking:

200 lights x 5 sec, ISO 800 ...  keep 50-90%

200 lights x 8 sec, ISO 800 ...  keep 50-60%

Stack 'em individually & then stack 'em together

Once it clears, I'm layering a-bit & doing, around 250 exposures @55mm:

50 lights x 3 sec

150 lights x 5 sec

50 lights x 8 sec

25 lights x 10 sec

25 lights x 20 sec

and just keep the good ones. All-in-all, 300-400 frames or so. Below is a 100 stack; 100 lights x 5-15 sec, ISO 800, using a 75-300mm lens @ 75mm. None were keepers. I just wasted 160 exposures, to find the SLT's 75mm limit.

Image. 75-300mm Canon lens test of the M42 Orion Nebula. Image resized to 614x480 JPEG. Canon T6 mounted on the SLT, no 'scope None of the 100 frames were keepers, at 75mm, using an SLT mount. 5, 8 & 15 sec is simply too long, using 75mm. They all have to be thrown out, even with a 2 star alignment to Betelgeuse & Rigel & then a synch to M42. The nebula is there & I was able to extract colros. Structure & hyrogen is present.  

How much weight does that EQ hold? Will it hold a full size 8" 203-1200mm DOB?

It's like that.

I'm starting DSO too, much fun. With GIMP, my little trick is, if I can't create a good black background to rid of light pollution, by layering & merging down, I go to "Colors," "Levels," and under All channels, I choose "Pick all black points for all channels," that's the black dropper. I then right click, what I want to clean up on the image, usually red. That gets rid of vingetting instantly. It allows for more curves. I blew out the core & colors but I got my colored spiral, that was the trade off. I do have elongation but this is a widefield test, not a best image possible.

My next test is 200 light frames x 30 sec, @ 55 mm, with an intervalometer, 20 darks & 20 bias. I'll probably throw out 40%, due to SATS, airplanes & elongation but my alt-az is good for 56%+ keepers overall. I simply have to shoot more.      

Image. M31 Andromeda Galaxy. Point & shoot widefield. Canon T6; 18-55mm, @ 55 mm; 50 Lights x 30 sec & 5 Darks, ISO 1600. GIMP & cropped to 670 x 480 JPEG. Celestron SLT alt-az mount. January, 2020. 

U see, what I did, to get color, to come out?

Did you finish the mosaic?

Those are superior images. They're better than the local confederate ASTRO club & observatory. 

Where's the color, did you desaturate & loose it? That's good data. I did 100 lights x 30 sec & 10 darks. 

Your Andromeda pic looks best.  

Image 1. Widefield of M45 Las Pleiades. No 'scope, just camera. Canon T6 18-55 mm. Celestron SLT mount. 10 light x 15 sec, 3 darks. Location B5 red zone. January 2020. 

Image 2. Widefield of M31 Andromeda Galaxy. No 'scope or flter, just camera. Canon T6 18-55 mm, 55 mm. 94 light x 15 sec, 11 darks. B5 red zone. January 2020. 

Image 3. Widefield of M31 Andromeda Galaxy cropped.  Settings from image 2. January 2020.

I'm going to try 20 & 30 sec exposures next, take a trip to the country. I'm surprised my alt-az mount didn't elongate my stars. I'm only supposed to be able, to do 5 sec exposures @ 55 mm, using the 500 rule. Other than that, I will have to zoom out to 18-35 mm or so, for 20-30 sec exposures. Any Tips?  

That's good. I captured 20 GB, worth of frames, with my Neximage 5, at 100-115 fps, with ROI. 1 min produced 6,900 frames, 2 min 15,000 frames. 

Image 1. Capturing planet Venus, with the Neximage 5, using a 127mm Maksutov-Cassegrain. O-III filter, at 115 fps, RGB32 & ROI. 2020. 

Here is an old sketch, during the Messier Observing Program. I noted, about 100 stars, with my 8" DOB. I used a dim red Orion key chain light, during this one.   

Image 1. Pencil sketch of M42, with 8 inch dobsonian classic; original & color inversion (B&W). Sketch 1 of 3. 2015, H.F.