Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

RikM

Members
  • Posts

    8,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

RikM last won the day on January 14 2013

RikM had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,583 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.rmastrophoto.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Gloucester, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have both Astronomik UHC and Oiii filters and honestly I couldn’t say which I prefer. I tend to use the UHC first as it Tends to show ‘more’ overall. Then I will switch to the Oiii to pick out ‘more detail’ in the interesting bits.
  2. Might sneak in and watch this one if I’m still welcome. I take it hecklers are not encouraged? 🤣
  3. I have the XW's from 5mm through to 20mm and love them. When I eventually get a quality 100-120mm refractor I will surely get a 3.5mm XW to go with it.
  4. That's exactly what we have done for the past few years and we feel it's now time for a change.
  5. I have to say I almost entirely disagree with your 'ultimate guide' for beginners! All the telescopes you 'recommend' are very small aperture and in the main come with lightweight unstable mounts that will do more to frustrate the user rather than give them a good start in observational astronomy. For visual observing, aperture counts. The larger the diameter of your objective, the more light you gather on deep space objects and the more resolution you have on solar system objects. For the budget conscious beginner, by far the best bang for your buck comes with a Dobsonian mounted Newtonian reflector. Not only does a 6" or 8" Newtonian give great views of all classes of astronomical object, but it has the added advantage of a very stable, intuitive, low maintenance mounting. As for advising against a reflecting telescope as they are 'hard to manage', this is plainly wrong. Would you advise someone against playing the guitar because you have to tune the strings? Just as you can get pitch-pipes to aid in tuning a musical instrument, so you can get a Cheshire eyepiece to aid in aligning the mirrors. It doesn't take more than a few seconds and is nothing to be scared of. For those wanting to make a start in astrophotography the advice of 'don't because it's difficult' isn't at all helpful. There are many wonderfully helpful and encouraging imagers at SGL who are more than happy to advise how to get started.
  6. I have a 127Mak and a 70mm refractor and the star shapes and planetary views are better in the little refractor. Okay, I'm comparing possibly a poor example of a Skymax with a very nice Televue Pronto, but for me the star shapes and contrast swing it heavily in favour of replacing the Mak with 100ED or maybe even a 120.
  7. I'll take a pic later but my travel kit is a TV Pronto in its case with 5, 7 & 14mm Pentax XW's a UHC filter and a Rigel QuickFinder. That sits okay on my Manfrotto photo tripod.
  8. Yes, I know that's what Phenix calls it but I can assure 100% it's not the same as a SkyWatcher EQ5. It's a very good budget mount.
  9. 'Lightweight' is relative. Yes, it's heavier than an EQ3-2 but still much lighter than an EQ5. I had both. It's still a perfectly good mount though
  10. No. It's not an EQ5. It looks like one of the lightweight budget heads sold with Phenix telescopes. I had one for while. They are basic but functional as long as you don't overload it. A genuine EQ5 is a much heavier, much sturdier piece of equipment.
  11. Wacom Intuos Pro 5 medium graphics tablet is great :) 

  12. This is the one you need for the SkyWatcher ED100 http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reducersflatteners/skywatcher-85x-reducerflattener-for-ed100.html The first one listed in your original post.
  13. I would be happy to try an XW14 / Delos14 comparison at SGL11 if anyone is bringing a Delos 14? The XW14 and XW20 aren't as flat as the shorter focal lengths but they still have phenomenal light throughput and I find them very comfortable to use.
  14. At the moment, I just take the extra time and only gather RGB. I stack each separately for colour and then deselect filter separation and stack the whole lot together for an L. I process as for normal LRGB described above, adding the colour in stages, boosting the saturation and reducing the noise each time. Seems the best compromise for me at the moment and I am satisfied with how the images are coming out. (The stars are a mess though, sorry )
×
×
  • 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.