Vulisha

Polaris is on a vacation 😛 Well as I understand from posts before, with barlow to match F, and perfect dead centre collimation, 130 should be even better than 102 mak.

Am I doing something Wrong here, and I have no idea what if I am but probably do. First I marked mirror As circular as I can get it: Then I tried to center circle on primary to middle: Then I moved primary to make collimation cap hole go to primary middle circle. Is this considered good collimation or should I match all circles in the middles exactly to match performance of vlaivs 102 mak?

Thanks on the links. I have read most of cloudynights forum, that's where I got links for 3D printied parts But I have not seen this Al's collimation help, or his thread, thanks a lot!

Really, but even shipping to Sweden is extremely high. For spider item is 9 pounds and shipping is 25 pounds. Inner cheapness inside me cannot give almost 3x item value for postage and it is relatively small item, it can fit in regular bubbly envelope.

This is 80 best out of 800. Well visually it is pretty good for me as well, but cameras struggle. I hoped to get 3 way spider for 130p but astroboot shipping out of UK is insane, and I was not able to find it on aliex

Here is some stuff from few nights ago, I would say it issomewhat improvement from before, mostly thanks to your advice. I think I missed the focus on Saturn a bit But collimation is still an issue when I set Intrafocal colimation well, extrafocal is bad, and vice versa. Heritages 1 point spider is actually very inprecise, and also weight of balow and DSLR is flexing focuser. For that I have ordered 3d printed part to support focuser, I do hope it will help.

Yes I did that, I have canon with ML also there is "movie crop mode" that is also recommended when recording planets with DSLR that I have not tested yet. Unfortunately clouds just covered my Jupiter and Saturn and cannot test now. This recording above was made with C270 if I remember correctly.

Ok so for theoretically same results on my 130/650 FL Heritage I would need ~2x barlow with same camera. That image of spherical is not bad at all, not good as your, but great compared to my results, although I do not have any dedicated planetary camera I have just APS-C DSLR and Logitech C270 and very very bad Svbony SV105 camera. That might create issues as well but i believe that collimation is issue number 1. So with DSLR (which is probably much better that two cams mentioned), that has pixel pitch of 4.29 µm I would need around 3.3X Barlow, but could get by with 3x? This is my best result so far, best by far.

Hi vlaiv! Nice to hear from you again Those are impressive shots! You mind me asking what camera are those shots taken with? Yes maybe you are right there as well, good Tele Vue eyepiece would cost even more than this scope. But I plan to film planets as well. Do you think Mak would be better for camera performance as it would not require additional barlow to achive same target size?

Well it seems that decision is unanimous Keep good ol Heritage 130p an invest in other equipment (EP/camera). Thank you all on detailed input and on saving me some money

And does Barlow quality have an effect? I have Celestron barlow - looks like this : https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32728812306.html I do have acceptable eyepieces but collimation is a problem due to bad design of heritage spider (as seen in thread bellow) my secondary almost cannot be in perfect middle:

Somehow I have not found thread like this, did find something remotely similar but not quite so. So as Mars opposition is closing in, and I have Heritage 130p, my planet views, are more than unsatisfactory since this telescope has only 650mm focal lenght. Even with barlow it does not get planets good views. Why this idea bumped me is because I saw on Youtube this guy and saw what he is doing with his small, noname MAK. And live views stunned me(turn to 1:50 for Jupiter), I would guess that visually would be better than through camera. But I was planing to shoot some small galaxy and nebula also with my DSLR. Would something like SW 102 mak be much better at planets, and small bright DSO objects, than my heritage 130p? Would less aperture affect views badly? I would prefer smaller scope-storage issues, that is why I got Heritage 130P instead of something bigger. Or would you recommend to extend to the 127 mak? Or not to waste my money?

I am using cameras, EOS M and Logitech C270, as I don't see problems visually. Thanks on that link! While I did keep star in the center I did that due to FOV as I am also a little OCD. I did not know it affects colimation. Thanks! Not in my country, 130p is around 250 gbp and try explaining it to my wife... Thanks on the link, I found the item but shipping is 4x item price :O. I asked them is that a mistake, hopefully it is!

Yes, that is that telescope, it will not hold DSLR but small mirrorless eos m camera with aps-c sensor, 250g weight. I mesured it and on both axis distances are 61mm-59mm so it is misaligned by 1mm on each axis, I might be able to align it on holder axis, but problem is that it is spinning so it could be very very hard to extend it, other side is bending and that is adjustable by bending holder a bit. Could this be due that 1mm missaligment? Maybe if I buy PVC pipe, focuser and secondary holder to create custom non flextube? Anyone knows where can I buy spider(maybe even secondary 25mm for this one? ) for 130 telescope? Failed to find it on aliex, found only for 114/150/200 scopes. Scope has really good primary but rest of construction is bad except flextube

Ok I redid colimation and now on extrafocus I get nearly perfect result but Intrafocus is garbage but all in all better than it was... I believe without fixing this single spider stick, I won't be able to create better focus than this one. @inFINNity Deck It is flextube newtonian Skywatcher Heritage 130P and it really has only one spider. It is good because I can retract it and then I have prime focus on DSLR, but secondary holder is bad and focuser is complete garbage. I saw skywatcher made 150p version of this one, but unfortunately kept this bad focuser but at least they put tree way secondary holder now.

If is flextube newtonian. Oh I do not have Cheshire, I used only collimation cap. Will have to buy one then. Thanks on the tip! I will mesure my secondary but visually it looks fine.

Oooh thats the trick I did not know! Flip It I have laser collimator but I believe it is not good as it says collimation is fine. Ok, and any idea why is extra so different than intra? Could it be due to tube flex?

Hi I tried to capture mars/planets and some dso, but I am always blurry despite Bathinov saying it is in focus, so I did star test and it seemed a bit off and i recolimated and then did star test bellow, but it is still blurry. There is intra and extra focal images. Intra focal seems fine but extra seems still bit off, if I try to set it, then intra goes bad. Scope is Heritage 130p

Oh I didn't know 150p is out, I would have buy that in my time but it didn't existed. I see they did not fix focuser from 130p unfortunately But I see they fixed secondary mirror it is now 3 point fixed, that is great. Best thing about heritage series is that you can easily achieve any focal lenght for Mirrorless/webcam, you just need to shorten the tube until focus is achived(not extend it to the end), and extend it to the end for eyepieces. Great photos moon especially, but planets are good as well!

You need to modify it a little bit and buy different mount but most basic astrophotography is very possible, This is my heritage 130p with bad atmo and not a lot of work, with logitech c270 webcam and cheapest 3x barlow possible Moon is with phone from holder

In that price range i believe it is a best buy. If you can fit in few eyepieces, you can order cheap svbony 9mm(20 usd) and something around 30mm(20usd), also get one cheap barlow(celestron 2x is not expensive, you guessed it, around 20usd) also if you could fit in used EQ2(you could find one for 50usd)or even better eq3 mount it would be great to learn more about celestial coordinates, and ease up object following together with simple dob mount. Also cheap phone holder might be of interest to your son, so he can take some pictures(around 12 usd)

No no I am using both, sometimes lens, but mostly Heritage 130P, but I have set dew shield from inside, not outside since heritage has elliptical tube and this is my "dew shield", don't laugh https://imgur.com/ZFXcuFa I made it in 5 minutes because I noticed that if my body blocks light pollution well, and when I added tube I was frankly stunned with contrast difference as H130p has very short section in front. Vignetting could also possibly be due to "shadow cone" but it is definitely partially due to C adapter as well since C has diameter of 21.7mm and sensor is bit bigger(27.8mm in diagonal). But had to choose this adapter since it has smallest profile. I will update dew shield in time due with velcro and dark paper as I did with tube. It is good to know what size it should be, thanks! So I am on same upgrade path as you are I will look into this but do not plan to put much more effort to EQ2, if it had free motion DEC, then maybe I would, but like this I think EQ5 is better futureproof path. Although since I am in middle of home renovation, funds are not keen towards astronomy, so EQ5 might wait some more time, unless some really good offer comes by, and EQ2 will still zigzag, although much less thanks to you guys Here is one more work:

I was planing on using OnStep as it is massively supported and has a lot of features. But I will look into this one as well as I am having some issues with OnStep. I tried m81/82 but they were too high for my balcony, so i went to M101 Pinwheel, and indeed I got around 70% of good frames for 30 sec, I will try to go longer in upcoming days. But definitely targeting pole targets reduces zig zag a lot 73 frames,UHC, 30 sec, iso 6400(bit high) just stacked, no post processing. Vignetting is due cardboard "dew shield" that I made for use as Street lamp light polution protection, and EF-M to C adapter, but light pollution is reduced massively.

Yes I was thinking that too, eq5 could be great upgrade. It has full motion RA and DEX slow knobs, it has polarscope option, and in steel variant should be really sturdy Here is one more, leo tripplet 173x30s iso 3200(originally over 350 frames, more than half removed because of zig zag) and managed to perfect polar align

Well I will then try to fix something, I like portability of this mount, but probably will have to go to something like EQ5 Although, using some good tips like good polar alignment, balance and especially shorter expos i did manage to get some fun results in post processing with mobile phone(lightroom and snapseed): if I could fix mount enough to get 30s @ f5 it would be more than enough for me. 10 is max now then star trails get noticable. Thank you both very much on great tips and advices and guides!