nfotis

Quite interesting for my Canon L lenses, I have to admit... But first, I'll have to get a real mount/tripod. N.F.

I suggest you check with the field of view calculator, to get an idea of how the various targets will appear on it (I got one, used, and planning to get a mount - it seems that the minimum would be a HEQ5 for it) https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ Regards, N.F.

Erm, I thought that the Skymax 127 and 150 are rated at f/12? I have read many coflicting stories about the aperture/secondary, it seems that there were different models. Some claim a smaller aperture, some claim the correct aperture, give or take one mm, etc. N.F.

Didn't know about this model. Waiting for your impressions. Looks a little darker (and lighter) than the Skymax, judging from specs. N.F.

It's my impression that from Skymax 150 and above you get 2" eyepieces. Why not go for the Skymax 150 instead of the 127? Or even the 180? 🙂 N.F.

I am a newcomer (just bought a used Skymax 127, planning to buy a mount as well), but this little scope is lots of fun and quite portable. Check for the field of view attained with the Skymax 127 in the classic calculator: https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ With a 24mm eyepiece, you get the moon disk filling your view. With a 7mm eyepiece (58 degrees) you should be able to see Jupiter as a disk (214x magnification) If you want larger views, the Skymax 150 offers a nice focal length, at the same f-ratio (I have to admit, I am tempted to try the Skymax 180, maybe with a HEQ5 mount) N.F.

Yes, sticker shock is a definite reaction when discussing solar imaging. The Daystar Quark is the cheapest approach, as far as I can understand, if you want to image in H-a (and it's quite fiddly, with complaints about QC variations from users). Up to a 102mm refractor you can avoid the costly ERF filter and use only a UV/IR rejection filter in front of the Quark, as far as I understand the situation. Also, you will get a deep red view, you will need a monochrome camera in order to be able to discern stuff (and colorize later the B&W image). You can emulate a coronagraph with the help of an image processing tool (you overexpose the Sun disk, in order to get the prominences, then you remove automagically the white-washed parts of the disk) N.F.

Many EF-S lenses (especially the wide-angle ones) have the rear element too close to the sensor/film plane, and the mirror of a full frame camera would jam into the lens. Hence the decision of Canon to design the EF-S mount in a way that doesn't permit these lenses being mounted on film and full frame bodies. The mirrorless series have no mirror to hit the lens, you just need an adapter to cover the flange distance difference. N.F.

I guess so. And usually the Sun is visible most days here. I just have to go in stages, first a small Mak, then a mount, then learn the ropes of camera shooting with the Mak and an dSLR, then a dedicated camera, then a 400mm refractor, then the Quark (the pain of my credit card will be less intense...) Cheers, N.F.

On a Mak? (just curious, as I expect to receive a used Skymax 127 with an OAG ring) N.F.

I am in a similar situation (but without a car). So, I may test the waters with a Mak 127 first (on a camera tripod). If you wish to move around and loading/unloading the mount/tripod in the boot, I would avoid going heavier than the HEQ5 - this seems to be the practical limit for a single person to carry (if I remember correctly, the mount is around 16 kg, the tripod adds 10 more, not counting the counterweights). In the EQ6, the mount alone is above 25 kg, I think. Are you sure that your Sony can't be 'persuaded' to give you a RAW file without being pre-processed?

Interesting. What does happen if you use 12-bit images instead? Do you get any perceptible difference? N.F.

What happens if I want to shoot the Sun in daylight? Polaris isn't visible, nor stars for alignment. N.F.

Nice video, I stumbled upon it from a Greek forum, and I appreciated the humor and execution. Subscribed to the Youtube channel already (and saw other videos as well). Much appreciate the time and effort gone into this. N.F.

I am tempted by the Quark, because here in Athens the light pollution is really bad. Adding a 400mm refractor should be a good combination with it for full solar disk images (with the 4.2x Barlow embedded). N.F.

You don't mention the camera brand you are using. At least, Canon offers the Digital Picture Professional (DPP) free of charge (you can just download the latest version, after you enter the serial number of the camera body). RAW format offers a huge amount of processing latitude compared to a JPEG file, I think that you will be pleasantly surprised by the capabilities it offers you. N.F.

Nice result. Were you using JPEG images, or CR2 files? N.F.

I am at a similar situation (minus a car, in a light-polluted city). As a Canon shooter, I have used up to a 400mm lens (plus a 1.4x teleconverter) for shooting the Moon, but I wanted more reach. So, I arranged for a Skywatcher Maksutov 127 (Skymax series), to reach for a full moon disk on a tripod. Next stage, I am thinking about a HEQ5 Pro mount for the Mak, and adding a planetary camera and a better eyepiece. From this, I might proceed to the Skymax 180 - the light pollution is so bad here in Athens that barely we discern some planets and Polaris. So, DSO isn't in the cards at the moment for me. N.F.

Thinking aloud: What if you want to do solar imaging? Polaris isn't visible in such a situation, so: how do you align an equatorial mount during the daylight? N.F.

Waiting for a used Skymax 127 myself, judging from the field of view calculators online it should be usable with Jupiter and Saturn (probably needs a high magnification eyepiece for getting a large enough view, less than 9mm I guess). The 150 model gives a bit more reach before the jump to the 180 model (which I *may* jump later). N.F.

Hello there, as a Canon dSLR shooter I would suggest that you enable the "ALL-I" option in video shooting, this way you get an uncompressed video stream which might be more suitable for stacking (I think that various programs offer a good amount of control over this camera, like APT (Astro Photography Tool), if you can live with their complex user interface. A dedicated planetary camera with a smaller sensor should offer a much tighter crop (I think that using the full frame sensor requires a 2" viewing train instead of the typical 1.25" ) Cheers, N.F.