Jonny_H

2 hours ago, PeterCPC said:

If you want to reduce noise the best way is to dither.

Thanks Peter,

I haven't plucked up the courage to dither yet but might give it a go in the next session.

I understand that more integration time will also help - but what exposure times are best (other than as long as possible). Are we talking 2+hours minimum ideally?

Hi all,

I saw an opportunity to get a few minutes in before the clouds came over so thought I would give M78 a go.

This is my third DSO attempt.

Camera gain 150. 10 x 300s lights, 10 x 300s darks, 60 flats and 60 bias. Stacked in APP and a bit of fiddling in PS and PI (Albeit badly!).

I know 50 mins isn't much but I still don't understand why my images look so 'grainy/noisy?  Also my calibration frames don't seem to be removing the hot and cold pixels.....not sure what I am doing wrong as I had the same issue with my NGC2023 image!? 🤔

I welcome any feedback/pointers.

Clear skies,

Jonny

31 minutes ago, KP82 said:

If you've already got a working 150PDS for imaging and you don't have unlimited budget, I don't quite understand why you will want to replace it with a frac of similar focal length (but less resolution due to smaller aperture). You won't gain anything from that.

My advice would be a shorter widefield frac instead of TSA120. Esprit 80 or various other 80mm f/6 triplets are good choices. If you must get a Tak, FSQ85 or maybe even wider FOA60 or FS60 will get my vote.

Thanks for the comments.

Not necessarily wanting to replace the 150. Just one of many, many options I am thinking about. 

Agree with the shorter widerfield frac views. I'm not going to rush into anything - just contemplating at the moment......again 

11 hours ago, JeremyS said:

I have all 3 and they are wonderful, but I don’t image with them.

For imaging, people seem to like the FSQ 106

I have just been looking at the FSQ 85 which is a tad easier on the wallet compared to the 106 and seems to have great reviews for AP.

The option with the 85 or similar - I would probably keep my 150pds as would give me a nice fov range between the two.

If I went down the route of a frac with a very similar fov to my 150 I would more than likely part with it.......then get a wider fov frac in the future! 😆 

10 minutes ago, JeremyS said:

I have all 3 and they are wonderful, but I don’t image with them.

For imaging, people seem to like the FSQ 106

So it is fair to say that you like Taks then?  May I ask what mount you use for yours?

Wow - I have just looked at the price of the FSQ106. Wont be buying that one just yet! The TSA 120 would be a big stretch! 

However - good things come to those that wait so if it is the better one to go for i could add it to the list! 

5 minutes ago, Stephenstargazer said:

Those are fantastic visual scopes, but the benefits of fluorite (contrast) may not repay for imaging. Should you not be looking at lower chromatic aberration from a triplet and matching flattener/reducer? All Taks are wonderfully light though. The imaging blokes will no doubt dive in and give better advice than I can!!

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you re: the fluorite doublets although I have heard of people using these for imaging with good results.

Albeit much more expensive that's why I added the 120 into the mix. Although I'm not sure my heq5 will be able to handle this scope?

54 minutes ago, Oldfort said:

Huge tracts of land

😆 brilliant film!

I used to be able to quote most of it - a few years back!

2 hours ago, rnobleeddy said:

I've got the 130PDS and 250PDS. It's been great on the 130PDS, haven't really got any good data from the 250PDS but I've not heard any reports that performance varies with aperture size.

Thanks for the response.

I can't imagine the 150 being too dissimilar to the 130 re: using the Baader.

2 hours ago, alacant said:

Hi

Yes. With Bresser's version of the 150.

The Baader cc didn't cover aps-c properly -astigmatism mainly-  so we went with the 4 element gpu. This has the advantage for us that it also gives corner to corner with our pn208, f3.9.

With the 533 however, you're using only a small fraction of the field of view so most ccs should be fine. You may just be ok without, correcting any imperfections in software with the distinct advantage of the light not traversing any glass en route to the sensor.

Cheers and HTH.

Thanks. I am seeing a bit of coma in my current images hence why I have started looking at cc's. You are right though about using software which is probably doable.

Hi all,

I am still contemplating on which refractor scope to go for. This mainly for imaging purposes. I had originally decided on a SW esprit 100ED however have since had a bit of a change in heart and decided to cancel the order and go back to the drawing board.

Just to rule out another set of options (or not) I wanted to get everyone's views on the tak ranges as per the subject field.

Bearing in mind that I have a belt modded HEQ5 Pro at present (if I can help it I don't really want anything heavier) which one or ones of the following would be suitable if any.

Appreciating that the weight of all three would be below the maximum payload of what the HEQ5 can handle when taking my other gear into account - would the length of the 100 and 120 be problematic?

 Interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,

Jon

7 minutes ago, rnobleeddy said:

No issues with the baader here. There's a review or a bunch of the coma correctors if you search Google (although I can't find it now ) but I haven't seen anyone particularly take offense to the baader once you factor in the price.

Thanks. Are you using your Baader on a 150PDS also?

2 hours ago, masjstovel said:

Thank you. They're shot with ASI1600MM Pro cooled. There are some minor stretching in lower left corner of the last image, but thats because of mirror-tilt/bad collimation i believe.

To be honest, i dont remember 100% why i didnt went for the MPCC, but i think it was some people saying it wasnt perfect for F/5 (150PDS) when i did my research. I believe it was that, but it was definately something about feedback regarding compitability that made me change my mind since i had the 150PDS.

Thank you. That is good to know. I will take a look 

13 hours ago, masjstovel said:

I've got the TS-Optics 2" 3-element MaxField Newtonian Coma Corrector for my 150PDS. I'm satisfied with it as the corners are not stretched in my opinion.

Couple of images shot with this corrector on a 150PDS: 

Lovely images. What camera did you use to capture these?

I will take a look at the TS CC.

What made you go forthe TS CC over say the Baader MPCC which seems to be very popular?

Hi all,

As above, for those that are using the 150PDS (or similar) - are you using a coma corrector when imaging?

I am using a 533mc pro and thinking about going down Baader MPCC route. Just keen to see what others are using and their experiences.

Thanks,

Jon

14 hours ago, Smithynova said:

I don't suppose you have any photos, struggling to visualise this!

Here you go:

First pic is of the ASIAir fixed to the standard SW finderscope shoe of my 150PDS.

The second pic shows the UNC bolt I referred to previously (the middle one with the philips head). Note that in the photo you can see I have bolted a vixen dovetail to the tube rings but that middle bolt is by standard threadside up through the rear tube ring.  

In the past (before I fitted the vixen dovetail) screwed the asiair to the thread  this using the bolt hole on the side of the asiair Which can be seen in the third pic.

Check to make sure that you have entered the correct details in to the synscan handset - longitude, latitude, altitude, dates etc.... there are apps that accurately give you this info based on your location. I used to use PolarFinder.

I will let others correct me but check the date format also as I believe it is the American format of mm/dd/yyyy.

55 minutes ago, Smithynova said:

I don't suppose you have any photos, struggling to visualise this!

I will take a couple of photos and post them up tomorrow for you. 

We have an area wide power cut at the moment (since 11am this morning 🙄) otherwise I would have done it now!

I put mine in either my finderscope shoe on my 150PDS or if I am using the shoe for other purposes I have screwed the asiair unit onto the spare UNC bolt that is thread-side up through the rear OTA tube ring (hoping that makes sense!)

33 minutes ago, callisto said:

I personally just use the wipes

Thanks callisto,

I have just given the scope a wipe down with baby wipes and then dried it.

Hopefully that will do the trick! 

29 minutes ago, callisto said:

Strange as it may seem, I use baby wipes to rub my scopes down and dry with paper towels

Ah of course - I should have thought. I have enough of them with twins! 🙂

Do you use any cleaning products with the wipes or literally just the wipes?

Hi all,

A bit of a random one - but i was fiddling with my 150PDS earlier this morning (as you do) 🙂 and noticed a musty smell on the outside of the OTA.

Inside smells 'normal' so it only seems to be the outside.

I have been imaging in recent times in the very cold weather so the scope is very cold and a little wet on the outside when finished for the night. However the scope comes inside and is left out (I don't tend to pack anything away during the imaging season) to fully dry.

Not sure if this is common but what does everyone do? Leave it? A light spray with a mild cleaner?

1 minute ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

I'm in the same boat - ordered a few weeks ago, and partly based the decision on the strength of the reputation of the esprit range. Thankfully bought through FLO, so have every confidence any issues with it will be rectified appropriately.

If it turns out to be a bad one though, might just exchange for that new triplet from Williams Optics...

Well let's hope we are one of the lucky ones! 

As you mentioned we have ordered from FLO so any issue will be promptly addressed.

My only concern is that by the time the scope arrives it will possibly be warmer weather (perhaps optimistic for the UK 😂) so the issue may not be as apparent for a while.

2 minutes ago, licho52 said:

If you're not lucky and request a replacement it might just turn out to be worse than original.

My story.  Wasted 2 months and tons of aggravation.  Sky Watcher point blank refused to fix it.

What was their rationale for not fixing it? Surely they didn't say it was 'normal'?

I ordered an Esprit 100ed a few days back from Flo. I have to say this I the first time I have read anything negative on the Esprits and as mentioned other images I have seen on here and other places have been flawless.

Perhaps a faulty batch/couple of scopes?

My confidence has been ever so slightly rattled but when mine arrives and has had its first light I will report back!

Hi all,

I received and fitted the belt mod today to my HEQ5 Pro. I had to have a couple of attempts at getting the belt tension right and to generally get everything in alignment but otherwise was a reasonably straight forward job. 

Having said that - I noticed that the RA gear when moving anti-clockwise there is a "rub" noise but oddly it isn't consistent to the rotation of the gear(s). 

Nothing appears to be rubbing and the belt is aligned, not skewing etc.... strangely though it doesn't "rub" when the gear moves in the opposite direction (clockwise). 

As everything appears to be working I am tempted to leave it but thought I would ask on here incase anyone has had/seen similar.

Thanks,

Jonny

11 hours ago, Celestron4 said:

I am currently having issues with my Celestron Nexstar 6 SCT. My collimation is a bit offend has led to odd shaped stars in my images of M42. I have tried to rectify the issue but am still not convinced its quite right. Should the shadow of the mirror (dark circle) move as you move the across the field of view or has something gone horribly wrong with my optics

I am also looking at getting a wider field telescope to allow me to image objects like IC1805 (Heart Nebula) without having to worry about musics for the time being. My budget isn't huge (ideally below £500). Are the Skywatcher Evostar 72ED /Evostar 80ED worth looking at or should I be looking at something else?

 

You will need to factor into the price the field flattener for either 72 or 80 for imaging.

I don't own either so will let those that do chime in, but from what I have read the 80 is the better buy.

That said, I don't think you will be disappointed with either as have read and seen very good results with both.