jinchuriki

38 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Then you'd be be making a mistake. There is no reason at all not to image at F11.  You simply need the right pixel size, or more precisely the right effective pixel size. (CCDs can be very effectively binned, CMOS less so.) There is more nonsense per square inch on the Hyperstar site than on any other website I've visited in astronomy. They write as if going from F11 to F2 had no consequences beyond speed of acquisition, which is laughable. Any idiot can point a short FL, fast F ratio scope at a tiny target and get an image in which the tiny target remains tiny and the S/N ratio of the image is excellent. But it will remain a widefield image of a tiny target, which is fine if that's what you wanted - but is it? And, as a widefield instrument, do you really expect a mass produced SCT with a massive focal reduction to produce images which compare with a well crafted fast astrograph? It simply won't, and its mechanical infrastructure is inadequate. A moving mirror focuser at F2? No thanks. Tilt and how to eliminate it?  All suggestions welcome. I don't say, 'Forget the Hyperstar' but I do say, 'Please, take a cold shower before swallowing the Hyperstar hype,' because that's what it is. 'Easy' imaging at F2? Everybody experienced in imaging, and that does mean everybody,  Knows that fast F ratios are very, very difficult to get into working order.

The subject to Google is 'F ratio Myth.' It's worth the effort. The image below, captured by Julian Shaw with my processing, was captured in about 7 hours at about F15 in a Barlowed 6 inch refractor.

 

Olly

 

That is correct, but that wasn't really the point of what I meant, obviously taking M104 with f/2 will give you a huge FOV, that is beautiful in its own way, but it really wasn't what I meant when I said I'll be imaging at f/2.

What I meant is that in most cases I will be using the f/2 to image, as that's the common FOV of the targets I like imaging. Regarding the hyperstar, you might be right, in my opinion any imaging is challenging in its own way, adding the f/2 into it, and you're dealing with an incredibly complex imaging system, it's not going to be a refractor, and I don't expect it to be a refractor, still, the amount of light you can gather with it is simply huge.

I had the chance to image with 2 friends of mine which uses the hyperstar, and yes it's not an easy set up, but I don't think it's as complex as people claim it to be.

1 hour ago, haitch said:

It's a great planetary/small dso scope visually.

I should add that mine is mounted on a Skywatcher AZ-EQ6 which seems to handle it well although if the tripod were extended fully I imagine it could get a bit wobbly but the mount head is solid enough to take it. A Gem would be my preferred option but given the capability of the some of the new CMOS cameras you should be able to get decent images with exposures too short too worry about tracking accuracy.

PS I know someone using a C14 & Hyperstar on an EQ6 and getting good results.

C14 on EQ6???? How is that even possible? The maximum payload is around 20kg, and the C14 tube itself is about 22kg, that makes no sense to me? Am I missing something?

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

Right, OK as you were quoting in $ I thought you were from the US. In which case I'd most certainly recommend the Mesu 200 mk 2, and definitely look into 10 Micron.

Yes, I did note the Hyperstar, if you can get it to work then good luck, but as in my previous post, once you *have* got it fettled, then leave it alone.

While equatorial forks can be good for imaging, they have to be designed and built from the ground up. The well-regarded Avalon M-Uno is a single arm fork. I have great doubts about putting an alt-az fork mount on a wedge as it's now working outside it's primary design.

Yeah I used $ cause I wanted to make it pretty much readable to most

I'll need to still consider that, I'm not even sure about shipping options available for me, but I'll give it a further look, thanks!

As for the wedge, I wouldn't say it's workink 'outside it's primary design', you can say the same about the hyperstar, but that's what it was built for. I don't know if the wedge is good/bad, but it 'should' work.

45 minutes ago, Ags said:

But... more scopes is more fun 😀

Trying to get 1 scope to do everything is a bit like trying to get 1 eyepiece to do everything.

Not sure I agree with that 😀

More scopes might be more fun, but it's also very expensive, as for the eyepiece analogy, I'd say it's only half true

20 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Hi @jinchuriki,

As others have said, in my experience a one size fits all scope is likely to leave you disappointed and frustrated. FWIW here is my experience with some of the options you are considering...

I previously owned a 10" Meade LX200 on a wedge - it was great for visual and planetary imaging, but just didn't cut it for DSO imaging. At the time I owned it I used a DSLR for DSO imaging with a separate guide scope. The drive mechanics of the LX200 were dreadful with huge periodic error and the accuary of polar alignment adjustment with the wedge left a lot to be desired. If you are considering imaging with a large SCT then whichever scope you get, be sure to spend as much if not more on a high quality equatorial mount, such as AP, Mesu, 10Micron.

I now own a classic C14 permanently mounted on an 12 year old AP1200GTO mount, permenently set up in a RoR observatory. As you mentioned in your opening comments, the C14 is HUGE and HEAVY, so much so that in my case it is only usable because it is permanently mounted. I've had it 3 years and have NEVER been able to mount it on my own as I need two hands to hold it in position and at least a third hand to release/tighten the dovetail mounting knobs. The first time I tried it I had my wife to help me and we nearly dropped the scope, so now I ask a friendly neighbour whenever I need to take it down, or set it up again, but it is something that I avoid and it hasn't been off the mount for 2 years...!! The thought of repeatedly setting up and breaking down the C14 on cold winter nights when my fingers are frozen to me seems a certain accident in the waiting....! I had no such problems with the fork mounted 10" Meade, so would think that the C11 is comparable, but the C14 is something else.....

My C14, being the classic version suffers from coma, so I only ever image DSOs with it using an Optec telecomressor lens (combined field flattener and focus reduced), which gives me an effective F7, which is great for most small targets, e.g. PNs, individual galaxies, etc., but still too small a FOV for any larger galaxies, or nebulae. For those I have a 4" APO (TSAPO100Q) piggybacked on the C14. I know that you said you'll use the Hyperstar with the C11/C14, but from everything I have read about them, this is not something that you'll want to chop and change if switching between visual, planetary and DSO as they take a fair bit of configuration to get them accurately set up - note I've never used one so this is just heresay on my part, but experience regularly collimating SCTs suggests that is likely a true statement.

The AP1200 mount is a beast and handles the C14 with the 4" APO piggybacked without breaking sweat, but please be assured that guiding a C14 even with a high quality mount remains a challenging experience. I now image with a QSI583wsg, so OAG with a Lodestar X2 and I would advise that an OAG is essential when imaging with anything the size of a C11, or larger and possibly even a C9.25, or C8.

I suggest you work out what are your main interests and get a couple of scopes to give you different options and a high quality mount to future proof you. It might also be worth waiting on a large SCT if you are thinking planetary, as both Jupiter and Saturn are very difficult targets from northern latitudes for the next few years, though Mars should be a reasonable target in the latter half of 2020 with it's opposition on 13 October 2020.

I hope this helps,

Geof

 

That's a lot for the comment, that really gave me a lot of information and thoughts!

So far I'm leaning towards the C11 with a hyperstar, might leave the C14 idea alone for the time being. Since DSO is my primary goal, I think that would give me great results for the time being, and I might just get a big dobsonian later on in the future if I feel like it.

9 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Start with the mount. I have my doubts about the CGX, as one of us here @Datalord had all kinds of woe with his and ended up buying one of the last two ASA DDM85s available (I have the other), a £12k mount. As you're in the US possibly a Paramount or AP might be a better bet, though over here the Mesu 200 (Note the Mesu is now in Mk2) is a firm favourite with 100 kg capacity and under £6k, as is the 10micron.

Regarding one 'scope for all? Don't try it as you'll spend more time chopping and changing between imaging and visual to do either effectively. The CPC1100 sounds a great 'scope for planetary visual and imaging, but forget about wedges, as you'll be laying yourself open to even more woe, @ollypenrice has a thing or two to say about those, as he has for Hyperstar. If you want a damn good imaging 'scope the TEC140FL ticks all the right boxes, and is made in the USA to boot.

With DSO imaging the fine tuning to get the best results is so finicky that once you've got everything playing nicely together LEAVE IT ALONE until you start seeing problems.

What camera are you planning on? This will affect the field of view, and the plate scale, which will also impact on how well you can guide, I assume that if you're planning to image with a SC that you'll be using an OAG, as mirror flop will (Not can) be a problem. Trying to get much below 1"/pixel is tricky and depends heavily on your seeing (Not sky darkness)

@gorann has started imaging with a 14" Meade, but his is on a damn good mount (Mesu 200 I thin), he may have something to say about long FL imaging

And just to show I'm not anti big aperture, I have an ODK12 incoming, but that's a relatively manageable 2040 mm FL and will go on the DDM85.

Thanks for the comment, but one thing you're missing about the SCT is the hyperstar in the equation, which would make the SCT f/2, I do not intent to try DSO imaging with f/11.

As for my location, I'm actually not from the US, I'm from greece, which could make the purchase much more expensive and hard to someone from the US for example, and I'm also not quite sure what would be available for me.

I currently own the ASI071MC and ASI224MC for guiding/planetary imaging.

Just to point out for the mount, were you referring to the CGX, or CGX-L? As it has a fairly big difference between the 55 LBS for CGX and 75 LBS for the CGX-L.

Thanks again, I do wish to hear about all the possibilites I have, as there's nothing better than learning from others mistakes  

2 minutes ago, haitch said:

I own a C11 & Hyperstar combo. Great scope that captures photons incredibly efficiently with the Hyperstar - do not underestimate f2: it captures light 12 times faster than f6.3. Think about it... a 4 minute exposure at f6.3 is equivalent to 20 seconds at f2.

No need for guiding or even particularly good polar alignment in fact it is possible to do deep sky imaging in alt az mode!

My Hyperstar is the mk3 but here is a Mk4 out now with even better specs for a bigger flat field and point sizes. Not cheap but well worth it in imo.

Yes I've heard that the C11 with hyperstar is a beast, I'm not worried about getting a C11 with hyperstar, but if I decide to get the CPC1100 with wedge, that is a concern to me, as I'm not really sure if that would be enough for long exposures, even though from what you state, that sounds like it could be good enough.

Do you also use the C11 for observing? If so, what do you think about it?

1 hour ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

I am not convinced by the notion of having one scope that does everytning. A C11 or C14 would be very nice for visual observing, and for planetary imaging.  But for deep-space imaging it would only be suitable for imaging small objects.  Unless you use the Hyperstar. 

I think you need two telescopes, one for visual & planetary, and another for deep space imaging.  Others may come along and advise you further.

I would also suggest that if you want to grab a scope and go outside for half an hour, a C14 is the last thing you want.

If you buy a used C11 you could sell it in the future with little loss.  I recently bought a used CPC800 + accessories which looked as good as new and represented a massive saving over the new price.  The potential saving would enable you to buy an imaging refractor and a grab'n go outfit.

Well as I stated before, whichever scope I'll use, it will probably be with a hyperstar, so DSO should be fairly great with either of them.

As for going out for half an hour, that probably won't happen, I rarely do that right now, and even if I were to want that, I could still do it with the refractor.

I've seen 1 option for second hand CPC1100 with wedge and hyperstar, that could save up a lot of money, but I don't know if that'll be good enough for DSO, do you know about it?

I did consider getting one scope for visual and one for planetary, but eventually that might just be more expensive than 1 good scope for both, I still don't know about that, but what I'm generally thinking in mind, is having that big purchase so I won't have to spend more on anything else in the future.

18 minutes ago, alan potts said:

Your header states how I started out One scope for everything, I have 7 now so it didn't work for me. I do feel though something like an 8 inch SC comes close, with the right eyepieces can give a decent wide field view, with shorter ones will give you nice planetary views and big enough to have some light grasp.

Alan

Which scopes do you have? That really comes down to what you chose and how far you went, even though you might be right

8 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

One telescope to do everything always results in significant compromise. Two telescopes, one for each area of interest mitigates this considerably and usually ends up cheaper in the long run.       😀

 

Possibly, but C11/C14 seems like a really great option for both visual and imaging to me, I might be wrong though, that's why I'm asking for advices

As for the price, I don't really think it will end up cheaper tbh, that really depends on what I end up choosing.

Thanks for the comments guys

Hello, I've had 2 setups so far, which are the Explore Scientific ED102 and Skywatcher 150p, both on EQ5 mount.

I really feel like I'm ready to take my gear up to the next level, and I really like both observing and imaging, the thing is I'm not really sure how far I'd like to go with this.

Since the EQ5 is not a very sturdy mount for imaging, I'd really like to upgrade it, and I'd also like to upgrade my aperture for both observing and imaging, the most suitable scope for that to me seems to be the celestron SCT so far, I believe with an SCT scope I'll be able to use it for both observing and imaging, the question is really how far I'd like to go with that.

Ideally, I'd say the C11 edge would do the best job for both worlds, it's a really nice scope, fairly big aperture, very sharp for imaging, and that will surely satisfy me.

The issue I'm having with that is I might want to upgrade again in the future, and anything bigger than the C11 is a lot of money....BUT, possibly instead of investing around 4000-6000$ for the C11, it might just be worth spending some more(the C14 edge with CGX-L is sold for 8700$)  and eventually getting the C14 edge, which will probably won't require me to upgrade my gear ever again. It is a thought that needs to be taken very seriously, both money-wise and size/weight-wise, it surely isn't an easy task, but spending 6000$ now, and in 2, 4, maybe even 6 years later spend another 8700$ feels like a waste to me.

A few very important things, first of all, I'm extremely aware of the C11 and obviously the C14 weight and size, it's HUGE AND HEAVY, but I've seen friends with both the C11 and C14, I've also set it up myself, and I don't think it's something I won't be able to handle, and at times, I could still always use my refractor for a small trip if I wanted to.

My imaging goal is mainly DSO, which is why I'm intrested in getting a hyperstar for whatever scope I'll purchase, obviously RASA is what comes to mind first, but since I'd also want to do planetary observing/imaging, I don't think the RASA setup will be very suitable for me, even though it's amazing for DSO.

So after all of this, do you guys have any suggestions for me? One of the reasons I'm coming with this now, is that I'm currently in a place which I can pretty much allow myself to do it, I got a great job, I don't have much responsibilities or bills to pay at the moment, so I can save up very nicely without having to worry all that much about spending such amount of money, which I really can't tell if that will be the case in the future. Thanks for the help.

2 minutes ago, John said:

I don't have the facility to film it I'm afraid. You turn the laser collimator slowly around 360 degrees, stopping every 90 degrees and marking the position of the laser dot on a piece of paper taped up around 30 feet from the laser unit. That shows you how far out the unit currently is. Then you pick a grub screw, hold the laser collimator in place in the V block and make an adjustment to the screw noting which way the laser dot moves - hopefully towards a spot at or near the centre of your 4 90 degree marks. The repeat the rotation, mark accordingly and adjust again as necessary. It is a bit trial and error I'm afraid.

That's a really nice explanation, I'll give it a try

Just now, mikeyj1 said:

  this might help?

Not really unfortunately, I've already seen any video I could find about that, but with no use, the thing is its possible that my collimator is faulty, so idk really if its just me and its the collimator, or both...

1 minute ago, bottletopburly said:

You just need to have the laser spin evenly around the polo mark  so irrelevant how far the laser is out of collimation  . 

Well the problem is no matter what I try its just not really working, the screws are not going to the direction they should.

1 minute ago, John said:

It needs to be at least that I feel. The further the laser dot is projected, the easier it is to see where it varies as you rotate the laser around it's axis and the more accurate the collimation is, when you achieve it. I try and get around 30 feet and when adjusting, try and get the laser dot to stay within a 10mm circle, or better if possible.

 

So if you insert the laser in the focus tube and spin it, how vast the gap should be? Do you mind filming a really short video showing that when you're free?

9 minutes ago, John said:

I use the "V-block" method as described here (my laser collimator is the same design as shown here):

http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/llcc/llcc.html

The laser unit is held in the machined housing with a rubber "O" ring type thing at one end and three grub screws that go through the housing press against the laser unit at the other end of it. On some models you need to remove a label to reveal the grub screws I believe. You might need to loosen one grub screw a little to allow adjustment to another. You need to remove the screw on battery cover section and spring from the end of the collimator to allow the last unit inside to be free to move as well.

It is a fiddly operation I agree and it can be more "miss than hit" at times.

 

Thanks, one important question, the laser doesn't need to be "10 feet away" to do it right? I'm not failing to do it because of the distance I'm trying I assume?..

Hello, I purchased a laser colliator but unfortunately I'm facing a problem, I knew that I need to collimate the laser before I purchsed it, and I got something just for that at home, so I thought it wouldn't be a problem, but for a reason I don't seem to be able to collimate the laser, at first the laser was a bit off, so I tried playing with the screws, but it just didn't really worked, no matter when I did the laser was just not going to the direction I needed it to.

A bigger problem is that after about 30 minutes of trying to collimate the laser, the screws worn out and it was just unusable, so I just used regular screws instead, it should work in theory, after all its only laser with screws that push it to whatever direction you need, the weird this is, when 1 specific screw is not screwed at all, the laser circle(when you spin the laser to check if its collimated) is not so big, but after screwing the screw(is that how you supposed to write it? o: the gap is widening, eventually, no matter really what I try, I just can't seem to manage to collimate it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong possibly? Hopefully someone will be able to help me and give me some advices.

Just one more thing, I know the long debate about laser vs cheshire, please spare replies such as "get a cheshire" or "you should've bought a cheshire" and so on, maybe its true, maybe I learned it the hard way, but its still not helping my situation, so thats just it, thanks a lot