Clarkey

Normal night imaging then😁

I have to say I agree 100%. I have both and the older mono gives much better results than a newer OSC in my bortle 6 skies. I would also argue about OSC being easier to process. I find the strange colour gradients really tricky to calibrate out.

I might be a little late, but since my last post I have now added a 115mm triplet to my collection. I thought I would try the SM flattener with it to use its native FL (and to save a few hundred quid on a new one). I actually works pretty well. Certainly as well as some of the more expensive flatteners I have tried. I have not tried it on the F6 90mm, but I see no reason it would not give decent results. After all, F6 is right in the middle of its design range.

Do clouds count as reflection nebula if there is a full moon? If 'yes', then I'll be imaging them😃

I actually purchased one of these with the 0.8 reducer when I got my StellaMira 90mm Triplet (same as the TS). Unfortunately, I cannot tell you what it is like as I have never used it. I stuck with the 0.8 and never bothered to change.... Unfortunately, I have so few clear nights I tend to work on the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' theory.

I have a 12V version of this that seems to be OK. Given it is a sealed unit I cannot be 100% regards reliability, but the one I use works well. Topteng Waterproof DC 12V to 19V 8A Step-Up Power Supply Converter Voltage Regulator : Amazon.co.uk: Automotive You would have to wire your own plugs, but not too much of an issue if you can use a soldering iron.

It is certainly possible to image distant quasars. I was looking at some of my images looking for some very distant stuff (it is on a thread somewhere - but I can't find it). I found some quasars and they were in the billions of ly away.

The download seems to suggest the scales are different, as per the comments from @scotty38. "RA Guide Speed = 13.5 a-s/s, Dec Guide Speed = 1.5 a-s/s" If you have them set the same, there is obviously something else amiss. From memory PHD2 does the Dec axis first which would explain the lack of movement at 1.5 arc secs per pixel. EQMOD can be a bit quirky at times, so I would maybe try to re-enter the values again and see if this changes the values in PHD.

Assuming you are using Eqmod have you adjusted the pulse guiding rates? I think they default to 0.1 but need to be much higher. I think mine are set to 0.7.

Temperature change across a resistor?

At least they are being honest. Definitely less than 1 MW. Takes me back to the 'Star Wars' days of Mr Reagan.......

If you look really hard around the brightest stars there might be a tiny bit - but not enough to detract from the image. As @geeklee says - only you can decide if it is at an acceptable level. The star on the right of your image is genuinely very blue anyway - so this blue fringing is to be expected. Even with a triplet it looks similar. Below is a virtually identical image (albeit 'upside down') taken with a well corrected FPL-53 triplet. (To be honest mine really should be re-processed). I do not see a lot of difference.

I know it was one image only - but I am going to add two. The first is probably my best image (Hickson 44) - the second is my personal favourite (Iris nebula).

I have one for the RC8, although due to the GSO design of the RC8 you cannot use it to collimate the primary - something that I was made aware of after purchase! To be honest it is the most expensive LED light I have ever bought - with hindsight a homemade collimation cap with an LED in it would do the same and cost a LOT less. This is certainly an issue and one of my reasons for going down the RC8 route. I did consider a large newtonian - but the RC8 seemed a better choice. Not least because there was a lot of weight hanging off the side with the CC, filter wheel and camera. I use it on an AZ-EQ6, but it can be used on an HEQ5 so certainly more portable - I believe @vlaiv has this set up.

As a RC8 owner, I would say the RC8. Yes, you will probably need a new focuser - but the same will be needed for most 250mm Newtonians. I have put a Baader ST on mine which works well with the 90mm adaptor. The RC8 generally comes with a full top dovetail - I used mine with an ST80 to guide and it worked well. Also helped the balance slightly. I have changed to an OAG to reduce the overall weight, but the jury is still out on which works best. FWIW I have not needed any additional weights. Yes, it is at the end of the dovetail, but it is perfectly secure. I have a reducer, but I normally run at native focal length and bin the data. The reducer also reduces the image circle so this seemed a better option. I do have a reducer but rarely use it as it is just another potential cause of aberration. For the money I don't think anything else competes. Yes, collimation is a bit of a faff, but I don't think it is as bad as most people think. As long as you are methodical and do it slowly, it's not too bad. The only reason I will change it is for a large refractor - which is my intended next purchase. But it will be at least 2x the cost, if not more.

I object! ( But not about the £££ bit🤣) However, if you work out £ per image you are probably right..... Ok. I withdraw my injection.... You are right.

You could by a T-ring and a motor for the RA axis and this would give you a tracking mount you can put a DSLR on. You would probably be limited to relatively short subs and coma would be an issue away from the centre of the image. Another option would be to put the camera directly onto the mount with the RA motor and do some wide field images with your existing lenses. Certainly worth a try.

I would add that you are trying to image a very bright object with other bright stars just out of sight. Yes you could flock the whole tube and it might solve the problem, but in reality there are very few objects in the sky you are likely to get this issue with. I never had problems with reflections with my image train except when I imaged Alnitak. Personally I wouldn't worry too much unless you get the same problem with 'normal' areas of sky.

Firework just our of frame maybe? I assume there are no security lights nearby.

I think you need to decide on your priority - imaging or visual. For visual large aperture such as the 200P fits the bill quite well. I would add that a newtonian on a equatorial mount is not ideal as the eyepiece tends to get into some odd positions. Personally for visual I would look at an AZ mount and possible a slightly smaller scope - as you say the 200P is quite large to be considered portable. Any sort of imaging is a different proposition. Aperture is less important and a 200PDS on an HEQ5 is pushing it. A smaller newtonian or refractor would be better choice in my opinion. If you want a 'do-it-all' set up, it will be a compromise. Maybe a 130 or 150PDS or an 80mm doublet refractor? As for the mount, the general rule is get the best you can afford - it will pay dividends in the long run.

Just to add to the comment above, if you use the NINA flat wizard it will do your dark flats too. Just put the right number of subs in the 'Dark Flats' box. Once you have done your flats NINA will tell you to cover the scope.

Mine is the AR window - but all imaging is done using either an IR filter or NB filters - so IR can be ruled out. I have gone back over my darks and the offset is definitely wrong - so this could well be having a factor. I am in the process of re-creating all of the darks to see if this gives an improvement. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances my AP hobby is going to be put on hold for a while - so I am going to have to wait a while to see if I can sort this problem out.

Thanks again @ONIKKINENand @tomato, I really appreciate the help. I think I will go through all the settings again to make sure everything is as it should be - including the dark frames. I might just have to persevere a bit more. I only got an OSC as I thought it might be a bit easier.🤣 Should have stuck with mono. This seems quite normal for the RC8. I'm guessing it something to do with the secondary obstruction. FLAT_Lum_2021-02-12_08-01-47_-20.00_0.44s_2x2_139(1).fits

Only prior to the jamming incident. Because I could not get metal bearings of the right size at the time, I used some ceramic ones. I'm not sure whether these are more susceptible to damage from lateral forces? As I said above, there is no visual damage to photo. I took a screen print of the guiding trend last night to post on here, but for some reason when I came to paste it into the thread, it was no longer on the clipboard. In hindsight, I should have put the full logging on PHD2 so I could load the details. I do know the RA seems to be worse - but both axis are pretty bad. I've readjusted the backlash a number of times - both recently and many times in the past. I even took the belts off and drove the worm by hand to determine the point that it started to bind. From the backlash calculation it is about 500 milliseconds which is probably about 'normal' for an HEQ5 - or normal for mine.

I'll post them tomorrow when I am back at the PC. You have made me think though - the offset on the darks might be different, which will have an effect. (They were taken a while back and I might have altered the offset since) Don't take too much notice of the light pollution map. It claims I am B4 but 5 to 6 is more realistic. I think this image was when there was some moon, but I am careful to keep the moon as far away as possible. If the poor images are linked to the moon or light pollution, the camera is good as useless to me. I have imaged with a mono camera over a full moon (in RGB using the same scope) without too much problem. Why should this one be so bad?