Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep34_banner.thumb.jpg.28dd32d9305c7de9b6591e6bf6600b27.jpg

Kyle Allen

Members
  • Content Count

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Excellent

About Kyle Allen

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Worcester
  1. Charles Messier himself only used a four inch telescope when he compiled his catalogue so your six inch will certainly show you all the Messier objects. He wouldn’t have had to contend with the light pollution issues we face though. The Moon certainly wouldn’t have helped last night - galaxies and nebulae can be rendered invisible by the slightest bit of light pollution. When the Moon is near full try looking at star clusters (plenty of them in the Messier catalogue) or planetary nebulae (you can tick off M27 and M57 pretty easily) since they cut through the light pollution more easily. And you’ve just inspired me to make a list of all the Messier objects I’ve observed - I’m sure I’ve still got a lot to tick off!
  2. This is what I use: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/guide-cameras/zwo-mini-finder-guider-asi120mm-bundle.html The images from the Zenithstar are very good but I do like the wider field of view that the Samyang offers. It’ll be interesting to compare the two together. I should receive the lens soon.
  3. Currently I use a William Optics Zenithstar 61 with my Star Adventurer (guided). It’s a good combination but I have just ordered a Samyang 135mm F2 lens after seeing the amazing images people have produced with it and the possibility of being able to capture multiple DSOs in the same frame! I wouldn’t put anything bigger than a Zenithstar 61 on a Star Adventurer. You will lose field of view because of the longer focal length but you won’t gain any extra resolution because the mount won’t guide accurately enough. Even with my set up, I downscale my images to sharpen them up. If you do decide to go for a small refractor rather than a fast lens, be sure to budget for a guide scope and camera.
  4. What did you like/not like about your old scope? For visual observing many people like the simplicity of a manual Dob (just place it down and you’re good to go) but only you can decide if GoTo is worth it to you. A 250PDS isn’t the best way to get started in astrophotography. A far easier route is to get a small refractor or a fast prime lens. EQ mounts just add unnecessary complexity to visual observing but are necessary for long exposure astrophotography.
  5. Hi, I use an 100D and Star Adventurer. That guide scope and camera is also the one that I use - it works perfectly fine. I’d recommend you get Sharpcap Pro (£10 I think) as it makes polar alignment so much easier - you can easily get it to within 1 arc-minute. The Star Adventurer won’t guide in Dec so a good polar alignment is necessary if you want to do longer subs. When guiding, try to balance the mount East side heavy. I find this makes a big difference to how well the mount responds to guide commands.
  6. Have a look at these: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/ovl-nirvana-es-uwa-82-ultrawide-eyepieces.html They seem very sharp to my eyes in my F6 scope and are very good value for money. There is a thread here that may be helpful to you for choosing a good selection of eyepieces:
  7. From home (Bortle class 5) I find above a 4mm exit pupil gives too washed out an image. So unless you’re at a very dark site, I agree with the above that a smaller scope would be better for M31.
  8. Probably not but I’d like to be proved wrong! The slightest amount of light pollution can make diffuse objects invisible. Also, consider that it is a very large object. To be able to frame it with your 10” Dob would likely mean using an eyepiece with a very large exit pupil which would look very washed out due to the light pollution. I imagine that large nebulae are best seen with smaller telescopes (from dark skies) because then you can get a wide field of view but with a smaller exit pupil which helps with contrast.
  9. Zooming in close, the right half looks fine but towards the left edge the stars seem to have a sort of flare coming off them. I’m no expert but could it possibly be coma? I’m sure someone here will know!
  10. Lovely image but the stars look big on the left side (like they are ever so slightly out of focus) compared to the right.
  11. Nice one! Uranus is easier than Neptune so you should have no problems finding it.
  12. You get to see 47 Tucanae though!
  13. A lot of astronomy equipment is out of stock at the moment unfortunately. Have you tried looking at used telescopes? Not much can go wrong with a simple Dob so there’s nothing to be too worried about provided the mirrors are in good condition.
  14. The Helix Nebula and Triangulum Galaxy are both large so their light is spread out over a bigger area. This makes them much harder to see than their magnitude would suggest. They are difficult to see visually even for some more experienced observers! Start with easier deep sky objects, such as star clusters, and use your longest focal length eyepiece first to locate them. Light pollution can make nebulae and galaxies impossible to see because they have a low surface brightness. Stars are points of light so they can cut through light pollution much more easily.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.