Clarkey

Apologies, I thought you were looking to get a camera - not one you already had.

Hi, The only thing about this camera is the sensor is pretty small so will limit what you can see. Given you will be using a wide field scope, something a little bigger might be better?

The things we dream of........ One or two would be nice though. Great image despite the low elevation.

I assume this problem is occurring when it is below freezing? I have found with my mounts (specifically the HEQ5) that occasionally one of axis sticks slightly. I am pretty sure it is because the metal surfaces are very close together and a bit of condensation has got in and frozen. Normally I can just release the clutch and free it by hand - it then works fine. If yours rotates by hand with the clutch off, but still has the problem - the disassembly option may be your only choice.

I have the SW equivalent of this, and it is not a good guidescope. There is a lot of play in the focuser. I use an ST80 for guiding my RC8 and 115mm refractor which is much better. I have flipped between OAG's and guidescopes at longer focal lengths and come to the conclusion that I prefer the scope option. Firstly, even with an ASI290 I have sometimes struggled for guide stars - some areas of sky seem pretty devoid of them. Secondly, every time you have to turn the camera for better framing you need to re-calibrate PHD2. Have you considered using a standard 9x50 finder as a guidescope using the adaptor? Gives a longer FL and guides well: Astro Essentials Sky-Watcher 9x50 Finder to C Adapter | First Light Optics

That's normal. I'm not sure another reason would be acceptable🤣

I'll have two please.😄 Not sure SWMBO would approve.🙁

Works well until your meridian flip. Then you have to move the weight. As I leave my rig outside to remotely image while I am tucked up in bed, I have to keep it balanced.

I have to agree with this. I made the mistake of buying some poor power supplies (even though they claimed to be EU spec). I got a nasty shock from one and the other literally blew up when I plugged it in. I now use a 13.8V regulated supply, similar to the Nevada one sold by FLO. (I got it from a radio suppliers in the UK). The 13.8v is fine for all my kit and alleviates the risk of any slight voltage drops.

I think as an imaging starter / widefield scope it would be pretty good. The 80mm FPL53 doublets has been around for a long time and are good performers. This one has a R&P focuser and decent tube rings for attaching accessories so should be a solid buy. The SM kit I have is certainly good for the money. I used to have the Evostar DS PRO version from Skywatcher and it was excellent for imaging. This one is a slightly lower F ratio so there might be a small amount of false colour - but it should still give good results. You don't say what mount you have, but you will obviously 'need' a reasonable equatorial tracking mount for imaging purposes. I sold my ED80 - something I now regret. As well as imaging, they make great grab-and-go scopes.

I had a crack at this galaxy a few nights ago. Unfortunately, too much moon ruined most of the subs so I got rid of the data - it was that bad! Yours has come out much, much better. It's a nice target so I might try again without the light pollution😀.

Having spent hours and hours trying to get a decent image of C/2023 E3, I have finished with this. The background is still not good, but despite my efforts I cannot get it completely clean without losing comet detail. I might return to it at some time in the future - I am sure there is a better way to process this. (I did follow various guides, but the slight star trails remained regardless). If anyone knows of a fool-proof method of comet processing, please feel free to point me in the right direction. 83x30s subs with Rising Cam IMX571 OSC and 115mm triplet. Processed in PI and affinity.

OK found it. The adaptor is one of these: T2 Male Astronomical Telescope Adapter T2 Male Thread To M48X0.75mm NDE | eBay The outside thread is M48x0.75 and the inside is M42x0.75 (T2). The other end is M42x1 to attach to the camera. If you exclude the thread depth on the camera side, the depth is just under 6mm so should work. Alternately if you use the M48 connection it will not add any length to the imaging train as both threads will be used.

I found some on fleabay from China. I can't remember the exact specification, but I used them to put my M42 lenses on my astro camera. I'll check the size when I am at home, but I'm certain they add less than 7mm.

All mounts are different so it is not a question you can answer. Try different exposure times and find out. To be honest, if you can manage 1 minute unguided, that is probably enough.

I recently purchased the Starwave 115mm and I have been impressed with the optics. In theory the FPL53 in the Wave should be better, but I have not noticed any false colour with the Starwave which I believe is FPL51 - although I don't think it is quoted in the sales blurb. Overall, it seems pretty well made and good value for money. The only negative for me is the focuser is not as good as some. It is certainly useable, but there is a small amount of play in one axis. Using spacers, I am keeping the focuser racked in as far as possible to eliminate it - but I will probably get a replacement at some point. The dew shield was also slightly loose, but this was easily rectified by adjustment of the tension screws. I would suggest that the TS-photoline version is virtually identical optically and from experience their focusers can suffer from some movement too. For info, I have been using the standard Stella Lyra FF as I already had one and it works pretty well and saved a few ££'s over the 'official' one. StellaMira 2" Field Flattener with M48 Adapter | First Light Optics Have you considered a Ritchey-Cretien? Can be a bit tricky to collimate initially, but once dialled in they do not really move. Good value for aperture and FL. You would probably need a replacement focuser and a FF (for the RC6) - but still a lot of bang-for-your-buck. HTHs.

I used to set all my kit up and strip down on every use. Personally, I don't like the idea of using a cover - although I know plenty of people use them. However, I found I was wasting opportunities due to the time taken to set up. I now have an observatory with 2 imaging piers. However, even when imaging I have a rain alarm app on my phone and a rain sensor so I can go to bed in the knowledge my kit should be OK. I also have a PIR sensor for possible intruders. I never used to worry as my garden is well protected, but I got paranoid reading too many posts on here!

I would say if you can feel it, it is probably too much. Not a major issue in RA, but definitely for DEC.

Couldn't agree more. AP is very addictive. If you get hooked, you might as well get a bucket full of cash and throw it to the wind. Same effect.🤣

Looks like there are plenty of EOS M to M42. M48 versions certainly seem rare. You might just need an M48 to M42 adaptor as well. As @AstroNebulee says, ask FLO, I'm sure they will know.

As said above, you need a Canon T-ring such as this. Sky-Watcher DSLR-M48 Ring Adapter | First Light Optics

I don't see anything wrong with this method. This is similar to the Reego collimator method - but unfortunately it does not work with the 8" version as you cannot see the edge of the primary mirror. I use this: A Procedure for Collimating Ritchey-Chrétien and Other Cassegrain Telescopes (deepskyinstruments.com) However, I have modded the procedure slightly for my scope. As my primary seems to align very well with the focuser (which I believe is not always the case), I get the secondary perfectly aligned as this is relatively easy. Then I use the star test version in the DSI guide to get it spot on. It is a bit tricky, but once dialled in, it holds collimation very well. I typically do mine once per season. I think you need to develop the method that suits your scope. What I would say though is only do very small adjustments. It is very easy to overdo the changes and it is a pig to get back (trust me, I know). With any method, I would always recommend a star test. With regards the FL, the comments above are pertinent. With the RC8 I normally bin2 which gives a pixel scale of around 1.4" / pixel. This is about as good as my seeing will allow and also is within the tolerance of my mount which typically guides with an RMS of around 0.6 - 0.7". I also image with an 800mm refractor and in terms of resolution there is very little between them.

The dew shield is a standard 8" Astro Essentials one. The secondary heater is one I made from a row of resistors which wraps round the secondary holder. Seems to work quite well, albeit a bit DIY.

Just to add to the comments / advice above. I have the RC8 version and for the money, it is excellent in my opinion. I actually purchased a 115mm triplet with a view to replacing the RC8, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I am planning to put it on my HEQ5 with an OAG. Should just about be within the weight limit. I did replace the stock focuser with a BDS as it was not great and slipped slightly. With regards to the flats problem - I have never had an issue. I think the later models have a slightly longer baffle tube. As for dew, I do use a dew shield and I have a secondary heater. I'm not sure if they are actually needed as I have used them from day 1. Edit: Forgot to add - I think the flat field on the RC6 is smaller that the larger models. Although the illumination might be ok, you might want a flattener.

You need to consider your pixel scale too. Depending on your seeing locally it will limit your resolution. I have an RC8 which gives something like 0.7"/px with a 2600. So, unless you have exceptional skies, you will almost certainly be binning your data. I have an 800mm triplet and an RC8 - once you crop out the surrounding sky, both systems produce very similar results in terms of resolution. Below are two images taken with the RC8 and the 115mm triplet. Ignore the colour, but in terms of resolution there is very little difference.