parallaxerr

1 minute ago, Knighty2112 said:

Yes, it is a SW 200P-DS which apart from the focuser is the same as the 200P. That is indeed the ST120 to the left of it too.  

Thanks, I'm considering a 200P to go an the AYO with the ST120, it looks quite a lot larger than I'd imagined

Ooh Knighty is that a 200P and if so is that an ST120 to the left of it? Been trying to work out the difference in scale of these two today!

Congratulations on the purchase. There has been a lot of threads on manual Alt/Az mounts recently and between myself, @John (who I think purchased your Ercole) @Alan White, @DRT, @dobbie, @nightfisher and I dare say a few more I have forgotten, we came to the conclusion that other than the skytee, there is no other slo-mo man alt/az unless you spend a whole lot more, which you have done

I for one will be interested in how the AZ8 performs. I considered one for all of a few seconds before financial reality kicked in and went for an AYOII.

Looking at the specs, it would appear you'll have to try hard to find a scope that it can't cope with!

Manual Alt/Az fever strikes again!!!

Cracking image Ian, it really shows off the red response of your Fuji. I tried the same with my Nikon and the HH is barely visible.

As Nigel said, the stars are very well controlled and I actually like the second image, I'm finding I prefer the more subtle, less saturated colours.

Time seems to be a major factor for many, myself included and I do like how quick the alt/az setup is.

For me, the wedge was the cheapest option that may have the potential to improve my images. I started looking at cameras and OTAs, but the cost is prohibitive right now (side note - don't buy a Land Rover that is due a £1400 service!).

I'm hoping my wedge experiment doesn't add too much complexity, reading the manual suggests it "should" be a relatively easy affair with the All Star Polar Alignment. We'll see on the next clear night!

I've been looking at your setup recently Ken, you have a really nice scope and camera and you're already tied to a laptop. Do you see yourself going EQ in time, or do you feel the ease of Alt/Az setup outweighs the potential gains going EQ, regardless of funds becoming available?

21 minutes ago, schmeah said:

Has anyone seen the impressive imaging results with the TTS-160 Panther alt-az mount

Hi Derek, I just googled this. Very interesting indeed, there is mention of de-rotating alt/az setups earlier in the thread but I haven't seen mention of this mount before.

I'll reserve comment until I have had chance to try it, which will be a long time if the weather doesn't change soon!

Looks good Ken. Why is it that the cloudier weather makes us spend more on the hobby...which we can't do because of the clouds!?!?

I'm afraid I have been naughty today and fraternised with the enemy......I just bought a wedge

I'll get my coat now.

Which LP filter are you using Nige?

Another one of my theories turned on it's head!

A little more reading and I agree Ian, oversampled if anything.

So, given that I'm just over 2", which I understand is about as good as we can expect in the UK, am I right in saying the seeing has spread my stars out over a few pixels and there's room for improvement based on conditions?

Binned 50% in ST

This is how the smallest stars look up close...

1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

If your pixels are twice as big you can expose for twice as long, choose bigger targets!

Worng.. forgot the issue was rotation..

And there in lies the rub, rotation! Are you saying, for an eq mounted rig, with less than ideal resolution, you can lengthen exposure to allow photons to spill over to adjacent pixels?

5 minutes ago, The Admiral said:

I'm running at about 1.7"/pixel, when I'm using the focal length reducer/flattener, according to astronomy tools FoV calculator. The Dawes limit is supposedly 1.14". And of course, with a OSC camera the whole thing becomes complicated and is not what it seems, especially if the sensor has a low-pass filter in front of it. I'm not sure that one can afford to get too hung up about it. Not only that, but if you up the FL then you'll end up with fewer photons/pixel, which means longer integrated exposure times.

I don't think M33 is an easy target, and to me it always looks a bit fuzzy. I know it's relatively large but it isn't very bright. If you want something as 'clear' as https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/282951-m33-with-10-quattro-and-atik-383l/#comment-3096430, you'll need to remember that he's using a 10" f/4 (800mm FL) and presumably good seeing, rather better than we're accustomed to getting!

I'm still dubious about the 'necessity' of a modified camera, and I know I'm going against the tide here and no doubt there are many who'll argue the case, though it does rather depend on what sort of performance your unmodified camera has. And just what you want to image. Would an modified camera help with M33? Do you want to record exaggerated reds or natural colour?

Just my 2d. worth.

Ian

Funnily enough, a while ago I compared my camera to yours Ian as I remember you saying you had good red response. Mine is poor in comparison, by about 50% as I recall but I'll be sticking with it as I like the camera.

I have read posts along the same lines of yours stating that modding isn't necessary, but they've all been using circa 300s subs on eq's which helps.

All I know is that my attempt at the HH was poor. It was however at low alt and in polluted skies, which doesn't help. Might be one to save for a dark site session.

Makes sense Ken, the other images I'm looking at are EQ mounted with 5min subs so perhaps that's where the gains are.

I'm having no joy finding a Nikon astro-modding service in the UK so started looking at ready modded Canons but their pixel sizes are much larger than the Nikon so with my short scope I'd be massively undersampling. The only way to compensate is to go up in FL as far as I can see.

Looks like I'll be missing out on Ha until I can afford a new mount, scope & camera.

What's your pixel resolution?

Just wondering what resolution your setups are providing? Mine's at 2.04"/pixel and after looking at some other images of M33, in comparison to my recent attempt, I'm wondering if I'm undersampling and if barlowing x1.5 to bring it down to 1.3"/pixel would help release a little more detail?

Problem is by doing this, I'd be upping the FL to 582mm and FR to 8.8 so not sure if there's any gains to be made?

Edit: I guess this would take my coma corrector that's optimised for f-ratios f3.5 to f6 out of play.

3 hours ago, nightfisher said:

it seems 365 astronomy has this in stock

That's not the SW version. The one 365 Astronomy stock has been around for some time, touted as AZ5 and has mediocre reviews as discussed above. 

The first post has a picture of the SW version.

Bit of a thread revival, sorry guys!

Has anyone heard any more about the AZ5? I recently bought a new SkyWatcher scope from @FLO and the enclosed flyer had a picture of the AZ5 on it, so hopefully it's still in the pipeline.

I want an AZ for my ST120, would hate to buy an AZ4 then have this released!

Just looking in the exact same region for tonights target, specifically the Flaming Star. But like you say, camera sensitivity may be an issue.

Horsehead is still a tad late at night for me!

9 minutes ago, The Admiral said:

I think I prefer the first one.

I think I agree Ian. I am definitely a black background junkie! What an amazing swathe of stars!

I'd like to have a pop at the veil but not sure my camera has the required red response.

Well here it is, my final image of M33 for now. 6hrs 15mins of exposure taken over 3 nights, 28-30/11/2016 from Caerleon, S. Wales. All three sessions were between approximately 18:30-21:30 and 60°-70° alt, so medium light pollution.

Usual setup - William Optics Zenithstar 66SD, Celestron Nexstar SE, Nikon D3200.

750x30s subs, 50 flat & 50 dark flat, no darks. Stacked in DSS and processed in Start Tools with final colour tweaks made in Gimp.

I see a different  colours between 3 monitors and 2 mobile devices, so who knows which one is right!? I'm glad I added the final session as it's helped distinguish star colours in the spiral arms, after 4hrs they all still looked blue but now I see reds too and the core has a slightly warmer colour. All in all, very happy with the result from a very modest imaging setup!

8 hours ago, jimbo747 said:

This site doesn't work properly on my mobile. Every time I reply it tries to include a quote from parallaxer!

Yep, I get this all the time too. Quotes from others I mean, not myself!

Ken, that second image really is brilliant. I just got up close with it and the level of detail gives it some real depth.

I hit Triangulum again last night. I realise I need several nights of data now, to get good images, so I thought I'd use the last clear night to wrap up my M33 project. Total integration time is now 6hrs 15mins, if I see a detail increase like I did after the second imaging session, I'll be very happy!

Filter of some sort Ken?

17 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

That M33 is very nice, but I'd be tempted to reduce red across the board not just shadows as it is has a lot of bright and blue colour in the arms and taht change might make it sparkle even more.

 

I know what you mean Neil, I can play with colours all day and never quite know what's right. This little tweak seems to have made it pop a bit, a little more representative of other examples I've seen. Deleted the other images from last two posts as not to clutter up the thread.

I tried masking the stars in ST, but changes to the colour also affected M33.

Instead, I reduced the red channel luminosity in the shadows with GIMP, which I think has had the desired effect.

Quite pleased with this now. Not sure if adding any more data will help?...