nfotis

I was initially interested in the Quark, but after reading all kinds of problems and inconsistencies from owners here and in other forums, I am leery of risking my money into one 😞 And it requires some real financial commitment - you need a 400mm scope (don't own one yet), a monochrome camera etc. - we are approaching 3k pounds with this set-up. N.F.

Hello here, and welcome (I am a newcomer, too, as everyone else was in the past 🙂 ) All camera brands offer nice introductory cameras and lenses. It's a matter of personal preference, really. Personally, as I was a film shooter decades ago, I settled on Canon SLRs and lenses (and I continue using my Canon lenses on my current Canon dSLRs). The big two brands in dSLR today are Canon and Nikon. Both companies offer very good cameras and lenses (of course, you get what you pay for), and there's a large used gear market for both of them. If you prefer mirrorless cameras, note that they have usually smaller batteries than their dSLR counterparts, and that may be a problem if you are shooting long exposures all night. Also, it seems that some astronomic software like Backyard EOS doesn't support most of the mirrorless models. Cheers, N.F.

If you are thinking about adding dual speed focuser, filter wheel, guider, camera etc, you may add quite a load to the OTA (I would add 3+ kg at the mass budget above the OTA) If you stay strictly observer, you can stay in the existing mass budget, but (in my opinion of course) a HEQ5 mount would be a nice platform for even larger scopes like the Skymax 150 and 180 and imaging. I understand that's a lot of set-up and weight and money to consider, though. Cheers, N.F.

Judging from specs only, the HEQ5 seems to be the minimum required. The NEQ6 seems to be an upgraded HEQ5, with belt driving (like the Rowan belt mod) and a more substantial tripod (using a pier later should raise the capacity and stability even more). The total weight is quite higher than the HEQ5, though. If you are thinking to do imaging, equatorial mounts are a prerequisite as far as I know. N.F.

The movie formats are a bit 'hidden' - you power up your camera, switch to video mode, then you press the 'Q' button for entering the video-centric options via the 'menu' button. https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART116408 More details about the options here: http://theherrintons.com/setting-canon-dslr-shoot-video/ Hope this helps, N.F.

If you have already a HEQ5, you should consider a Skymax 150 or even a 180 for planetary imaging, I think. N.F.

The whole system looks quite 'heavy duty', I wonder if this offers a queuing system for user requests in a batch pipeline? Eg. I submit a request for Jupiter in color, focusing, two minutes of stacking high resolution video, then release the observatory for the next request? N.F.

Don't feel bad, I am also still in the researching phase (preparing to order my first mount, I have settled on a HEQ5 for now). Astrophotography is also a very technical style of photography, lots of technique and equipment to master (especially on light-polluted places, it can be real challenging to discern the stars from the atmospheric glow). A Maksutov is a nice tool for planetary observation and imaging, because planets are quite bright even in city skies. You can try also the imaging mode on the link with the field of view I provided above. The Skymax 127 will give you a tight Moon shot with an APS-C camera like my Canon 80D (I uploaded a sample photo in my gallery). At 1500mm focal lens and f/12, it's a fine scope for Sun (with the required solar filter, of course!), Moon and you can discern the Jupiter and Saturn in a good day. The Skymax 150, at 1900mm focal distance requires a full frame dSLR if you want to shoot the whole Moon disk. The 2" diagonal/eyepiece etc are offered standard on the Skymax 150 and the "planet killer" Skymax 180, but these are not a requirement for enjoying imaging and observing (these are useful if you want to shoot images with large sensors). Cheers, N.F.

You can also use the eyepieces without glasses, you just move your head a bit (or the focuser) in order to get the image in focus. Regarding astrophotography, the Skymax is better suited for planetary targets (it has quite a narrow field of view for targets like nebulas). For wide-field imaging, a short refractor scope (or camera lens) would be preferable, and with higher light-gathering capability ('faster') N.F.

There are may eyepieces (I suppose that you mean this one with 'lenses'?) suitable for the Mak. I have read good things about the planetary Skywatcher eyepieces: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-eyepieces/sw-planetary-20277.html I would suggest you try the 7mm or 9mm versions, which should give you a good amount of magnification with the Skymax 127. (around 200x to 250x is OK, depending on seeing) If you want to check the amount of magnification with multiple eyepieces and the telescope, check this page: https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ The particular eyepiece series isn't in the drop-down menu, but you can enter it as a 'custom eyepiece' N.F.

Looks good, did you try the ALL-I video option? I hope that it made a difference when stacking. N.F.

Maybe a stupid idea, but why not use the Canon 400mm/5.6L lens instead? I think that it should play excellently with your Canon body, and I suspect that'll be a more general purpose lens? (I own that lens, and I plan to use it when I get my mount) N.F.

Even for imaging? That's heartening (I feel that's a bit at the limit, if you add a dual-speed focuser, an OAG and a camera/filters we are nearing 11 kg already). Maybe the Skymax 150 would be a more realistic scope, I don't know... Cheers, N.F.

At least on Canon dSLR, you can use the ALL-I option, which means essentially uncompressed HD video - that should offer quite an improvement compared to the typical setup. N.F.

Nice. Are you satisfied with the HEQ5 mount with the Mak 180 and focuser/camera on it? I am quite interested in that mount myself (own a used Mak 127 at the moment) N.F.

That sounds about 350 HD frames. I think that if you select ALL-I frames in the video encoding, you should get a much higher quality video (this is essentially uncrompressed HD video, which should be well suited to stacking?) N.F.

Nice. How many photos did you stack in order to get this result? Me, I am still limited to single shots due to a lack of a motor mount. N.F.

Nice, I will have to get a suitable eyepiece and try my phone as well (still shooting only full disk) N.F.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I was wondering if a HEQ5 mount is enough for imaging planets with the big Mak? I have the Skymax 127 already, and researching for a suitable mount with room to grow (note that I don't own a car, and I expect to carry the mount two floors to the terrace). N.F.

Intriguing, I think that's entering EQ3 territory by now? N.F.

All distributors are suffering from a demand spike and logistical problems these days. (I am focusing on a HEQ5 myself, but the availability isn't helping with the other stuff) N.F.

Apologies if it has been already answered, but what's the rationale behind the rebuilding of the tripod with aluminium legs? Lower weight? Or do you want more stiffness compared to the old tripod? Regards, N.F.

Interesting adaptor. How well does it work with the bigger Canon lenses like my 400mm/5.6L (and teleconverter)? Fortunately, the bigger lenses have their own tripod collars (I would't trust this small ring to bear the weight of my 70-200/2.8L IS, plus teleconverter). Any user experiences? This might be a VERY useful tool if I graduate from my Canon bodies to monochrome cooled cameras. N.F.