Rich Shore

Thanks for your reply Adam,

I can’t say I’ve noticed them before, the camera is about 2-3 months old, this was the second time I’ve used it so far too. Might drop them a message and see what they recommend.

Hello everyone,

I have been noticing on my new ZWO ASI183 MC camera some strong vertical lines. Very concerned with what they could be. These are noticeable at all exposures and gains.

anyone have any ideas what this could be? (See attached photo)

Many Thanks

Good morning everyone,

I am looking into purchasing a ZWO camera within the coming weeks, and as a result of my telescope vantage point being approx 20meters up the garden WIFI seems to be the smartest move.

ZWO have created the ASiair Pro, which on paper looks amazing, but no one seems to talk about its WIFI range... so any users out there use it at 20meters?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Clear Skies

Rich

21 hours ago, iapa said:

I should qualify that I am a beginner at this, started about 5 years ago - lots of learning to absorb yet.

Many others know a hell of a lot more than me.

There is a difference between using an f4.9 for daylight and astroimiging.

For imaging f4 is generally regarded as being "quite" fast; roughly speaking that is on par with the 150PDS and 200P reflectors you started asking about, but a different field of view.

 Refractors, e.g. Skywatcher Equinox Pro ED80 have an f-ratio of around f6/f7 - others are available at a cost

I have a couple of x2 for my Canon DSLRs which I used with a 75-400??? I think to give me a longer focal length, but also a higher f-ration ("slower")

When imaging with a DSLR on a guided mount there are a couple of guides such as the "rules" of 400/500/600

For rule of 500, basically it is :

Shutter Speed = 500 / (FL * CF)
FL the focal length expressed in mm and CF is your sensor’s crop factor, i.e., the ratio between the size of a full frame sensor and yours.
Common crop factors, CF, for different types of camera are:

• 1 for full frame cameras;
• 1.6 (1.5) for Canon (Nikon) APS-C cameras;
• 2 for micro four thirds cameras;
• 2.7 or higher for compact cameras with a 1″-type sensor or smaller.

It just gives you an idea of where to start with your exoiuser. Not hard and fast/guaranted

I did manage "reasonable"results with the 400 rule on a camera tripod (no controlled mount) - before I found that there is a whole range o them.

To reiterate earlier comment

Research, Research, Research

And get Steve's Every Photon Counts

Invaluable

 

It arrived this morning, looking forward to a good read.

17 hours ago, iapa said:

Now we are in a different world.

A basic refractor has two lenses, rather than mirrors.

One reason that they are more expensive than reflectors, particularly as you go upmarket is the glass that is used.

If you remember secondary school physics, for any convex lens light of different frequencies refracts at a different angle.

This means that the main colours you are looking at (R,G &  come to focus at different points. This is chromatic aberration.

To correct this you have rather expensive glass design to allow the focal points to get nearer to each other. You can also have a third lens which can help this as well.

You would not want to consider a 200mm refractor, unless you won Euromillions jackpot as several rollovers

Having said this, a refractor has, generally, a smaller aperture - less light to get to the camera sensor, but also a wider view. 

If you wanted to image a large target, say, the Andromeda galaxy, you would not be able to fit all of it into the field of view os the 200P-DS, but a refractor, say, 72-80mm should allow you to capture the full galaxy.

On option you might want to consider is something the the Star Adventurer; a lightweight mount that could fit onto a normal camera tripod ( again the beefier the better for stability) and sue existing DSLR and longer focal length lenses.

That would minimise your initial outlay £200-300 I think. A 400mm would do Andromeda quite nicely I expect.

A good tool is a Field of View calculator, one is available from the First Light Optics site - http://astronomy.tools/

 That would give you an idea of what you could see/image with a variety of lenses/OTAs/cameras etc.

Sounds interesting, I will have to look more into it, using glass I must admit would be something I'm more used to.

I have ordered a Skywatcher adventurer pro for my dslr and 70-200mm lens which should hopefully get some good wide field. Although I also have a 500mm I used for sports, however its pretty slow at f4.9.

5 hours ago, Erling G-P said:

The Andromeda Galaxy almost fits within the view of a 200 PDS and a 'crop-sensor' DSLR, if you frame it diagonally.  I took the pic below with a Nikon D7000 (unmodded) and a 200PDS.  Had I used a full frame DSLR, it would fit nicely.  A dedicated astro camera with smaller sensor would of course be a different story, but do note that The Andromeda galaxy is the only one this big, followed by the smaller M33.  All the other ones in the northern hemisphere are much smaller.

Fantastic image! For the time being I would be using my Nikon D800, but in time I will look into an astro cam to capture those alpha emissions.

2 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

 

 

 

Hello and welcome to SGL

Have you considered a refractor ?

A refractor with a good reputation, especially for those on a budget is a SW 80 Ed. Keep a look out in the SGL sales page and you may see a good AP scope come up at sensible money.

Hope this helps 

 

 

 

Hello,

I have had a little look into refractors, however they do seem more expensive than reflectors.

Another reason is that I have heard that reflectors absorb more light? Knowing my previous experience with photography gear and lenses, my first scope will be a stepping stone to higher end scopes in the future as my skills grow. I am very keen to shoot the night sky especially with the vast amount of spare time we all currently have, but I have learnt I need to research much more and save a little more. 

Looking forward to properly joining the community and sharing my future photos

4 hours ago, iapa said:

Can I say - STOP.

Start with a budget;  

Increase your budget by 10%. Have a cup of coffee, or wine, to calm your nerves, and increase by another 10%.

Research, research and research!!!!

Spend most of the budget on the mount.

Questions: do you mean 200P, or the 200P-DS?

They are not the same; the formers is primarily for viewing, the latter is designed for imaging with eye pieces.

So, the 150P-DS and 200P-DS are specifically designed for imaging, the 200P is not.

So, as an example the focus point to the 200P is somewhere inside the focus tube to bring focus to the eye piece which fits inside.

A DSLR had a fixed distance between the sensor and the front of the body. Around 55mm, that means that the sensor is some distance from the focal point.

On the '-DS' models, what they did was move the primary mirror further forward (closer to the secondary mirror) which brings the focal point further away from the secondary, effectively a point outside the focus tube.

This allows use of adapters for cameras, to allow a "nose piece" to be added (fits in the focus tube).

BTW, the 200P does NOT have 10:1 focus, it is single ratio. The 200P-DS has 10:1.

The F4 Quattro is a much "faster" scope, but also requires a better level of collimation. I managed to get my hands on 10" F4 Quattro, carbon fibre. It's gorgeous. I also spent several months getting the collimation about right; it was preowned..

Ultimately, any of the above OTAs mentioned above will need a coma corrector to reduce the distortion caused by the optic towards the edge.

I think you should start with something more substantial than the HEQ5 if you are putting a 200P-DS on it - it can be a massive sail. I upgraded from an AVX to CGEM-DX due to the combined weight of focus motors, spacers, filter wheel, guide scope etc.

 

Thank you for your knowledge, very helpful.

I have decided that my budget is currently not high enough, as you say another 10% would be a good start.

The two original scopes I was looking into was the 200P, or the 150P-DS as a result to a similar price range with the EQ5 pro as a bundle on FLO.

However as you say, after some more digging on Skywatchers website, the P-DS models would far better suit my needs, or even the quattro if I can gather the funds.

Coma corrector is something I'm also looking into.

1 hour ago, JoshHopk said:

Hi Richard,

If you're wanting to do deep sky AP, a HEQ5 is usually considered a minimum, as previous replies have mentioned. The 200P is quite large and will be a bit of a sail in the wind, (not good for long exposures). The 150P-DS was designed with AP in mind, and it'll be easier to focus using a DSLR, and even a dedicated astro cam, if ever you get one. Both scopes are f/5, so the 200P's larger aperture won't make a difference, so long as you use longer exposure times.

Josh

Very helpful, thank you for your help. I will go for a HEQ5 and aim for a 150P-DS scope

Ok, thank you for the advice. HEQ5 would be my budget at the moment but will keep and eye out for a good second hand one.

Hello everyone,

I looking for first time buyer advice...

I have been a landscape photographer for over 15 years and have been obsessed with night time photography. However, I would like to follow a childhood dream of owning a telescope and photographing the wonders the universe holds.

My dilemma is, do I go for maximum light capabilities, or focus control? I have reduced my choices to the Skywatcher 200P, or the Skywatcher 150P-DS, both with a EQ5-PRO.

My past experience tells me I should be going for maximum light input of the 200P to reduce chance of noise, but the 150P-DS has a duel speed 10:1 ratio focuser.

Any advice would be greatly received. 

All the best

Richard Shore