MimasDeathStar

That’s not the lens of the phone it’ll be the eyepiece. Yes, I’m not sure it would be possible to track by hand. if you use PiPP before registax then it will line it up for you (and does a pretty good job). It’s not a substitute for tracking but it’s a lifesaver nonetheless.

One image is just a blur! I use the exact same Barlow it’s fine. im sure you know this but if shooting mars make sure you shoot video not photo, then stack in registax. There’s loads of guides out there, but very different to shooting moon 😀 Also I don’t think phone cameras actually shoot at 64mp - they normally interpolate the pixels to produce a higher quality (prob 16) mp picture using clever AI. So you’d want to stay away from these settings. My planetary camera is 2mp for example. For planetary small sensors and high sensitivity are your friend. edit; @wobblewing this video - (not mine) is a pretty good approximation of what it looks like although I think conditions are slightly better in the video than what I was dealing with but same ballpark

What’s it made for? Otherwise what?

I suppose it’s more of a philosophical question... I keep coming back to it, I just love the look of it, the heritage values, the idea of it. But I know on paper it probably won’t really compete with its contemporaries will it? I mean a sky max 127 would be a better lunar / planetary scope for half the price. An ed80 would (correct me if I’m wrong) probably be as sharp if not sharper, with as good, if not better contrast. And a more flexible FOV, and more versatility in its camera connections etc (and easier to mount). But still... Most if my astronomy is just visual for relaxation purposes so I value the quality of the view over say, the depth or wide field. I do a fair but of fuzzy hunting but I don’t mind chasing stuff at the limits of vision just for the fun of finding it. what do people think of these? Do they represent good value? Or are they purely niche? Honestly a sky max 127 doesn’t really appeal to me so maybe that tells me something!

I did take several short runs but was messing about with the exposure / gain combo each time so I didn’t want to risk stitching all the videos together as I wasn’t sure if it would make it better or worse. Also I spent that long messing I was beginning to worry about rotation. yes definitely playing with the clutches helped. I think holding the base between thumb and forefinger seems to be the technique that’s working best, But up/down is tricker as there’s still a bit of friction - it seems to want to “lean” a bit and then jump. But it’s not the end of the world. If I like it enough I’ll save up for some sort of motorised mount so I don’t mind working with what I’ve got at the mo. I’m really bowled over by the results so far.

What a difference a night makes! loosening the clutches and getting the balance near perfect made a huge difference, as did spending 10 mins getting the red dot finder as accurate as possible! Although I think if I keep doing this I may have to get a finder scope too as we’re getting into the territory where the RDF dot is too big to centre mars properly. watched a tutorial on wavelets - I think I’m a little clearer but struggled with the maths so I think I’ll have to keep coming back to that. Discovered an RGB Align button in Registax that totally transformed it so very pleased about that! Heritage 150p on tabletop base. 2 x barlow Svbony SV305 best 50% of 547 frames. Sharpcap, PIPP, Registax. thanks for looking, comments welcome.

Definitely Hale-Bopp. I was about 14 at the time. I'd never really taken much interest in the night sky but I remember standing in my driveway looking up and it was just... there! Brilliant.

First planetary image of any sort actually! So this has been a bit of a learning experience! I seemed to just blindly stumble through the programs I used, if anyone has any tips or guides for capturing or processing I'd be delighted to hear them! The one thing I do know is that I am using equipment that isn't ideal! However I thought I would have a crack and see what happened. I will admit that I am absolutely delighted by my modest results. Telescope: Skywatcher 150p on it's white turntable base (so many many reasons why this made it quite difficult! focusser, lack of tracking, lack of slow motion and so on, but the big aperture hopefully makes up for this a smidge) 2x Barlow; Yes this only makes it f10. Which isnt ideal. But because framing was so so difficult, I really think I'd struggle with a 3 or 5x at the moment. Svbony Sv305 camera; I took a bit of a gamble on this, cos it was cheap but its a Sony IMX290 sensor. I dont have anything to compare it to but I think it worked ok! Captured in Sharpcap (no idea if I used the right settings!) Clipped and tidied in PiPP (again no idea if I'm using it correctly!) Stacked in Registax (I seriously need to read a manual on how Registax works!) Thanks for looking

Cheaper laser collimators can be a bit of a lottery, and by cheaper I mean anything under about £75 which isn’t that cheap actually! They are better than Cheshire collimators in terms of convenience, but they aren’t any more accurate which is the main thing. The big challenge is that it’s quite difficult to find a laser that points dead straight, and that’s your issue! Telrads are nearly universally adored! But they’re quite big and not very pretty. I only use a 6x30 finder these days - but there’s a couple of techniques to learn to get the best out of them. Finders are a very personal thing. I’d have a play with yours first and see how you enjoy it. I wouldn’t rush out to buy new eyepieces for a while. The ones that come with the scope are fine honestly. But do get a cope of Turn Left At Orion. Definitely!

Great M27, could instantly relate to that view. M71 is one of my favourites weirdly, Took a long time to track it down in my old 70mm refractor - but its really handily placed so I knew exactly where it was. Its dead easy in my 6" now though - almost takes some of the fun out of it! M97 is my new fabled unicorn!

No, I’m afraid not. The kits nearly always contain filters and eyepieces that you probably won’t use so don’t actually represent good value. The celestron kits particularly are extremely over priced. BST starguiders are often recommended as “good budget eyepieces”. Personally I find this quite shocking as they are nearly £50 a piece but hey ho. Your scope will be relatively unforgiving on eyepieces so if nothing else something like this should be an aspirational target if nothing else. However - and this might seem controversial - I have never, and I mean never, heard or met anyone who wasn’t totally blown away by their first view of Saturn. And that’s true even if people that aren’t interested in planets as a rule. It may be worth investing some time in learning what views through the eyepiece of a scope look like to avoid potential disappointment. Have a go at M13, M27 and the moon next. If they don’t blow your socks off then...

Wow I’ve never seen that much detail on Mars although it is still definitely my favourite planet! Can’t wait for it to appear around the back of the house (a few weeks yet though!)

Hello all I'm not sure how to phrase this so please forgive me if it sounds like gibberish! I recently obtained a 150p flextube and had some great fun taking it to a reasonably rural location over the last couple of weeks. Having tried for some time, I finally managed to tick M51 off my list - twice in two sessions! The view on the second session was brilliant and I could quite easily make out the two little blobs that make it up. On the second session I had a go at trying to find M101. I didn't realise until after that this is quite a challenging target in even my 6" scope from relatively good (bortle 4 (maybe even 3) skies). Well it took me nearly 40 minutes but I eventually pinned it down using a straight line of 5 stars as a guide until I was 100% sure I was looking in exactly the right place. It felt pretty close to the limit of what I could see, but over the course of 15 mins it very slowly started to appear and went from a "suspected" to a "found". All in all I spent about half an hour at it before I took a quick sketch. It was a really weird experience. I would say that because it was at the limit of what I was able to detect it kept drifting in and out of existence and I had to be very patient and wait for a few secs or mins for it to reveal itself again. But it was definitely there. The unusual thing in this case was it felt like it was "moving" occasionally, almost like it was wobbling around. But one thing I very clearly remember that happened a few times was that while the central core remained more or less stable I would very occasionally experience something that I can only describe as someone taking that smudge and twisting it - like a whirlpool or when you add milk to a cup of tea and stir it. But it was so fleeting I couldn't decide whether I'd seen it or not or imagined it or whether it was an artefact. The whirlpool / stirred cup o' tea was also much bigger than the smaller fuzzy patch I was looking at. So I did a quick sketch and that was that. It was only when I came in for the night and searched for sketches and images that I realised that M101 is actually much bigger than I realised. Much bigger. Additionally it has fairly pronounced spiral arms. To me before this point it was just a name and a location on a map. When I looked on Stellarium I must admit I thought "thats what I saw" - that swirling cup of tea effect was probably the whole galaxy whereas I was just mostly seeing the central core but very occasionally seeing the whole thing. However having done some reading I'm led to believe this is fairly optimistic, I've seen sketches from 16" scopes that don't match the clarity of resolution I subsequently thought I had in those fleeting moments. So I suppose I'm asking is - for stuff at the limits of seeing, how do you know what you are seeing or not seeing? Having little or no knowledge of M101 before I viewed it I'm confident its not bias, but I'm also confident its unlikely I saw so much detail. So how do you know how much of your own eyes to trust? Particularly with objects that are pretty much "maybe there or not" to start with? Its certainly something that has stayed with me over the last week. Below are two sketches - the first is the one I did at the eyepiece. The second is a (slightly exaggerated) view of the "bigger swirlier thing" I thought I saw for a fraction of a second two or three times.

Thankyou - yes I think it is more or less manageable without glasses after all which is handy!

Thats interesting thanks, maybe I will stick with Hyperions then