Mandy D

I check my focus using liveview on the DSLR, then I take a photo and zoom right in to check, but I'm never happy with the view on the camera's screen. It is only when I finally get the images onto my PC and check them on a 4k monitor that I can be sure of what I have. Are you suggesting that I focus the camera as well as I can, shoot 150 frames or so, then re-focus slightly off from where I was and repeat until I have several sets of images for stacking? Thanks for your help. This RC seems to be hyper-critical on focussing compared to the Newt.

You're welcome. There used to be a nice restaurant on the shores of Loch Ness near Fort William, if memory serves me right. Lovely views over the loch and good food.

I was going to suggest the Cairngorms National Park, then I thought I'd do a quick web search and found this: https://www.visitscotland.com/blog/stargazing/inverness-highlands-stargazing/ I hope it helps. I remember driving back through Glen Coe on New Year's Eve many years ago on a cloudless night. We stopped and stared up at Orion until it grew too cold to stand around any longer. I have never in my life seen so many stars in Orion! If you can get across there sometime or onto Skye it is well worth while!

What city are you in or near? Someone on here might be able to help with use of equipment.

Awesome! What a beautiful Nebula. Really nice work.

My first DSO was M42. Manual Dob, Skywatcher 250PX, single exposure with Nikon D3200, no tracking. Hence, really not very good. I was just happy to get an image.

Oh, OK. I'll take look. Thanks.

I'm not spending at the moment, just getting to grips with the kit I have and processing with anything that is free. But, eventually, I will have a look at investing in software. Thanks for the heads up. I'll definitely have another chat with you when the time comes.

Another attempt on the Moon using my RC6, just because I love this telescope so much. Thankfully I got it focussed a bit better than last time and the sky was that bit clearer, so I think my final image is much better than last time. Telescope: iOptron RC6 Camera: Nikon D3200 Mount: Hercules A-Z Exposure: 1/160s, ISO-100, F/9 Frames: Best 50% of 155 Processing: PIPP for cropping and ranking, AS!3 for stacking, GIMP for final processing, sharpening and de-noise

Wow! That is awesome! I really need to get a bit more experience in all of this.

My iOptron RC6 pointing at Jupiter from an urban location.

Obviously, we get the same here in the rural Peak District along with cycles equipped with badly aimed gigawatt front lamps, often strobing. How they can see where they are going, I have no idea. Then, there is a lovely spot with clear views all around where I park and set up the telescope at the roadside. Despite the fact there is plenty of vacant space, inevitably someone always has to pull up right behind me, switch off their engine and sit there with their headlamps still on. I usually have to go and politely ask them to turn their lights off. So far everyone has been happy to do so.

I said in my other thread today that I would probably not re-process my latest Moon image as it was not focussed as sharp as I would like, yet somehow I could not resist playing with it further and although I am still not entirely happy with the sharpness, I thought I would post the re-worked version which appears to show some of the mineral deposits on the Lunar surface. There is still scope for learning and much improvement here, but this is the first time I have attempted this.

I saw that!

Thank you. It really is a big improvement and is ideal for current circumstances. Thank you for delivering it to my door. It was a pleasure meeting you. I've put my first photo of Mars up, which was taken using the mount. https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/399834-mars-with-an-rc6-dslr/#comment-4289675

Yes, sure. I was on Rother Valley Optics' waiting list for one of these scopes for several months, when I got a call from Adam to tell me that one had become available, but it was not exactly brand new because it had been out for review by a magazine. He never said which one at the time, but I could have it at a discounted price. Of course, I jumped at the opportunity and picked it up the same day. A couple of months later, I saw a review in Sky at Night Magazine (link below) and wondered if it might be one and the same. Then I noticed something rather odd about the one in the photograph. The mount for the finderscope was fitted back to front, so a finder could not actually be fitted. When I checked mine, it was exactly the same. If you look carefully at all the photos that show the shoe, you will see the notch is in the wrong place. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/reviews/telescopes/ioptron-photron-rc6-ritchey-chretien/

Thank you! I'm very, very pleased with this scope. It is the very one that Sky at Night Magazine had for review, so quite special to me. Everything that is wrong with that image is entirely down to me and hopefully it will be better next time.

I made my first attempt on Mars last night. The planet was low in the sky and only just above the rooftops, so not great conditions. I used my Nikon D3200 at prime focus of an iOptron RC6, which gave me a wholly inadequate focal length for such a small planet. I stacked the best 20% of 231 images and then scaled it up by 50% so that I could actually see it. This is the final result I achieved.

Thanks, Stu. I have an AZ-EQ5GT already, but where I live it is currently impractical to use which is why I bought the Dob and now the Hercules mount. When I am able to drive again, I will be out in the Peak District with the EQ5. Originally, I was going to put the RC6 on it, but I see no reason why the 200P should not have a ride on it. Although this setup is heavier than the 200P, I find it much easier to carry to my local observing site, even fully set up. I doubt I could do that with the EQ5 and am not prepared to make multiple trips for security reasons.

From what I can gather, the later versions are somewhat improved over early samples and feature full disc plastic bearings for a smoother action. This mount, in my opinion, still has a long way to go before it reaches the levels expected of a "proper" astro-mount. I would like to see proper gears with a more suitable ratio rather than the current timing belt drive and the locking screws desperately need sorting. On the positive side it is very stiff and sturdy for a small mount with vibrations being rapidly damped. Thank you for the kind comment on my image!

@Ratlet, @Stu Following on from the Hercules mount discussion, to avoid cluttering up the other thread, here is an image of the Moon from last night using the RC6 and D3200 on the Hercules AZ mount and Skywatcher 2" tripod. It is certainly not the best or clearest image I've ever taken, but it was so much easier working with this setup, especially compared to using a Dob for imaging. The photo is a stack of the best 190 images from a total of 480. Unfortunately, I was shooting with the settings on my camera for the 200P at f/5.9 whilst using the RC6 at f/9! Hence the images came out very dark, but I was too busy playing with the mount to give the photography the attention it deserved. I have been advised by those who know far more than I do to use the 200P for lunar and planetary imaging rather than the RC6, but I wanted to test the mount and was comfortable with photographing the Moon. The RC6 is such a lovely little scope and now it is well mounted such a joy to work with, that I will likely continue using it even when I may have other scopes that are better suited to the job. Given that the images from last night are not quite as well focussed as they could be and were very dark, I probably will not look at processing them further than this and will accept it as a lesson in what not to do! Obviously, any advice is welcome as always. So, how did the Hercules mount perform? Overall, I was very happy with it. As mentioned previously, there are a couple of quite serious niggles that the manufacturer really should address. First, the belt drive system does not allow the locking mechanism to solidly lock the mount axes when necessary. Second, the locking screws bear directly onto the rotating shafts, thus the potential for damage and wear. Third, the ratio used with the handwheels makes movement rather faster than it should be and it can be quite hard work raising the scope in this way - push and nudge like a Dob can become the order of the day. A final niggle was that the azimuth control worked backwards, i.e. clockwise rotation of the handwheel moved the scope anti-clockwise! In use, I found it to be really straightforward with all the controls coming readily to hand without even having to look at the mount. The movements were quite smooth and when it was locked, focussing did not induce crazy vibrations in the scope and any that did occur were damped very quickly. For it's size and cost I was quite impressed. This mount might not be to everyone's taste and there are far better out there, but given the low price I paid for it and the fact that it was going on a sturdy tripod I already had to carry a small scope made it a great choice for me.

Yes! Having just spent the last two hours imaging the Moon, Jupiter and Mars with my RC6 mounted on one, I can confirm that it works quite well and is a lot easier to use than the Dobsonian mount on my 200P. Surprisinngly little wobble and reasonably smooth operation. Could be better, but overall definitely worth having for me.

I've put it on my 2" Skywatcher tripod using the custom adapter I machined out of aluminium and mounted my RC6 on it and pointed it at some distant hills. It seems to be pretty solid and the scope doesn't wobble too much when focussing. I don't like the way the locking screws work. They just bear directly on the shafts and because of the belt drives don't lock the mount solid. You can still wobble it if you try. For what I am going to use it for (planetary and lunar imaging) it should be OK. It takes the weight of the RC6 and a DSLR quite well. If you nudge it like a Dob it is quite smooth in action and the handwheels work, but the gearing is a lot faster than I'd like. I'm hoping to catch the Moon or Jupiter tonight to see how well it works. I'll report back if I get anywhere.

A new second-hand Hercules AZ belt drive mount for my RC6.

My Samyang 800mm cost £135 new, whereas my 300mm f/4 Nikon prime lens was around £1200 new. I've just done a quick weight comparison and reckon the mirror lens is around half the weight of the 300mm. Samyang lenses do get sold under other brand names, but I cannot recall which ones. Mirror lenses are not popular with photographers because of the unusual donut shaped bokeh, soft contrast due to a large central obstruction, fixed wide aperture and manual focus. However, for astro-photography they can be quite good. They can be a little tricky to focus and take a while to cool. I find the results poor until they reach ambient temperature, but telescopes are pretty much the same. The nice thing with mirror lenses is how compact they are due to the folded optical design. My 800mm is only 145mm long including the Nikon mount and 110mm in diameter.