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.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About nfotis

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Athens, Greece
  1. Windy situations are a challenge for all scopes at such focal distance. The HEQ5 mount can work even with a C9.25, if balanced well. N.F.
  2. I am intrigued by both PI books, but the cost of postage for the physical books is quite high. Maybe @FLO could try importing both titles? N.F.
  3. Due to their length, Newtonian scopes have a higher moment of inertia and these are more sensitive to wind etc. For these, I would halve the load capacity for the imaging load budget. N.F.
  4. If you plan on continuing with Canon lenses, the Samyang/Rokinon 135/2 and the Canon 200mm/2.8 are excellent lenses, and quite fast. N.F.
  5. I did use a video mounting plate for my HEQ5 mount, I had to grind the sides a bit with a Dremel wheel in order to fit (it was during a time of no availability of the vixen compatible dovetails). Similar to Manfrotto 501, I think. N.F.
  6. It's my understanding that the Az-Eq6 mount has a better design? N.F.
  7. I think that the 183 doesn't offer binning on sensor, you would need to do it via software. If you do 2x2 binning, that should add two bits of dynamic range (you accumulate four pixels instead of one) You may want to verify the field of view attained by your scope and various sensors before you decide (check "imaging mode") https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ This site offers also a CCD calculator for checking the ideal sampling on DSO imaging https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability Hope this helps, N.F.
  8. I think that their Maksutovs are built by Bosma, at least. N.F.
  9. All these different openings and adaptors make the hobby quite a headache, I have to admit. N.F.
  10. As far as I can understand, besides the paint and the branding, the only difference seems to be single or twin finder scope mounts? N.F.
  11. Forgot to mention this thread as well (quite intriguing reading). It isn't the same as the 533 (it has visible amp glow), and you will need to calibrate similarly as the 1600. But it looks like it has fatter pixels (if you don't care about the QHY sub-pixel mode), much deeper wells, etc., while losing a bit of resolution. The ideal would be to have a 533-like sensor in 4/3rds dimensions, but I suppose that Sony doesn't offer such an animal. Going to 2600 is a quite costly endeavour, because it involves larger filters and filter wheels, while the 294MM (or IMX492, if you prefer) should be a drop-in upgrade for 1600MM users. N.F.
  12. I have seen this detailed method, which seems quite analytic: http://www.deepskyinstruments.com/truerc/docs/DSI_Collimation_Procedure_Ver_1.0.pdf N.F.
  13. For planetary imaging, I would suggest no more than 2x Barlow with this scope. For observation, you may be happy with a 8mm to 10mm eyepiece, if the eye relief is adequate. N.F.
  14. This should work out okay, provided that you take care of balancing weights etc. N.F.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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