nfotis

I feel that going above APS size sensors is cost prohibitive for most people: larger scopes (with larger corrected image circle), large (pricey) filters and filter wheels etc. For me, the maximum would be a sensor like the IMX571 (or a 4/3rds sensor like the IMX492). Above that level, the equipment becomes too specialized, and you have to mess with tilt adapters etc. But what do I know...? N.F.

Very nice 👍 Trouble is, I can't justify such pricey filters for me (I am still at the research stage). N.F.

I suggest that you check with QHY, their 294mono camera is cheaper than the ZWO version, and it includes dew heater etc as well. All accounts point to a big improvement compared to the 1600 sensor. N.F.

If I understand correctly, this is a new design? Only time will show if it's reliable enough for such a large amount of money. I guess that the tri-pier is a necessity for this heavy mount. N.F..

By the way, I noticed that it's unusual to see 2" eyepieces lower than 32mm or so. If I want higher magnification, I am forced to go the 1.25" route. It's not practical to make a high magnification 2" eyepiece? N.F.

If this has the SCT visual back, you just attach a 2" dual speed focuser, like the TS Crayford focuser. You do the rough focus with the standard focuser, and fine tuning with the dual speed one. https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p781_TS-Optics-2--Dual-Speed-Crayford-Focuser-with-SC-thread-connection.html N.F.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks great 👍 N.F.

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.

It's my understanding that the Az-Eq6 mount has a better design? N.F.

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.

I think that their Maksutovs are built by Bosma, at least. N.F.

All these different openings and adaptors make the hobby quite a headache, I have to admit. N.F.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This should work out okay, provided that you take care of balancing weights etc. N.F.

No problem for 36mm filters, obviously (if you are using a filter wheel) N.F.

Yes, there are 294mm monochrome editions being delivered. The QHY model offers also an unbinned mode, where each subpixel is available separately, going from 14-bit 11 Mpixel to 12-bit 46 Mpixel. Note that the sensor is the IMX492 https://www.qhyccd.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=94&id=9 https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi294mm-pro N.F.

You may be interested in the ZWO and QHY 294mm models? These could be considered a big upgrade of the 1600mm, and you keep everything else the same (filter wheel etc) Monochrome APS sensors like the 2600mm are expected to be quite pricey, and will necessitate larger filters and filter wheel etc. N.F.

I think that the screws are M2x4mm or so, easy to find replacements if needed. N.F.