Clarkey

I would add that this is true for running on a mains supply. If you are running on a battery supply, you might want to increase this to reduce the power consumed.

How are you powering the mount? SW mounts do seem a bit fickle about voltages.

As @Elp states the 224 is a capable camera and many planetary imagers still use it. The smaller pixels on the 678 may mean you don't really need a barlow with the Mak - so the savings on the that will slightly offset the camera cost. At the end of the day there are so many options.... Just to confuse things more here is a good summary of the ZWO range. Might be worth a read: Agena AstroProducts Guide to ZWO Astronomy Cameras

I think the main comment I would make is to get your guiding and dithering set up as a priority. The data here looks pretty good, but for a relatively noisy DSLR you will always struggle a bit without dithering. There is very little evidence of walking noise which suggests your polar alignment and tracking is good too. With dithering enabled I suspect you would get a very good rendition of this without too much more integration time (depending on your skies etc).

Without guiding you are always going to be oversampling at 1000mm FL. Your tracking needs to be about half your image resolution which is certainly not going to be the case with a large newt on an HEQ5. Realistically you will be doing well if you can get anywhere near 2" per pixel. I image with a AZ-EQ6 and I will aim for about 1" per pixel with guiding and good seeing . Typically it is normally nearer 1.5" depending on the quality of the images in terms of FWHM of the stars. If you bin you data you will get a faster system that will help alleviate some of the tracking errors and help with shorter exposures. Depending on where you are good seeing is not common is the UK so the pixel scale is a bit irrelevant in terms of seeing when you are not even guiding.

I would say for planetary a laptop. You can use it for the capture and processing using standard windows software. It would not need to be anything too fancy as long as it has an SSD drive with USB 3 for high frame rates. A reasonable second hand one would be fine. I use a Lenovo S340 pentium and it is fine. The benefit of the ASIAIR is when you want to power/guide/capture in a single package. Then it would be worth considering.

I think the 55.6 looks best but not perfect. What does it look like in colour? I am just wondering whether there is some minor CA effect. If you could try it at a single frequency with a filter (or show a colour image) it might give a better idea. Edit: looking back at my ED80 images, this is not much worse than mine with a slightly smaller sensor. Also the 'smear' was mainly the blue halo so caused by CA. Maybe the best option is not to look too closely😁

Maybe take a dark image and see if there are hot pixels in this area. It does look very regular for hot pixels though. I am still using a darks library that is at least a couple of years old and it still seems to work fine.

Surely Taks have their own branded green dew heaters. The look of that scope has been ruined by a clunky black band.🤣 Ok I admit it - Tak envy🙁

I find there is a bit of an obsession these days about removing stars. They are what is in the sky, why remove them? I usually leave then in (maybe less stretched) as I find it can look completely unnatural without them. Well done on the mosaic though - I can't see the join so that must be good!

I think the Mak option would be a good one for planetary and lunar. The closed tube would be quite robust for transportation and the long FL would suit too. To be honest the mount is more likely to be an issue for transportation. The only real -ve of a Mak is the limited FOV. If you get bored with the planets and moon there is less flexibility when compared with the heritage range. I don't think the ST refractor is good, not only for the FL, but the low F ratio will give lots of CA on bright objects such as planets.

I would agree that if you can get a cheap CCD then go for it. I started with a DSLR and they are a good entry into AP. Also second hand you are not going to lose much if you upgrade later. FWIW I have a modified Canon 600D that I was about to sell. Probably wanting more than £250 though, but it does include a whole load of other stuff (cases, 3 lenses, m48 and m42 T-rings, wireless intervalometer, remote, batteries, CLS filter, dummy battery, memory card etc). PM me if you are interested.

Thinking about it, the rejection only works with dithering. However, even if you could manually dither a little, even in one axis it would allow the rejection to work. Personally I use Astro Pixel Processor but it's quite costly.

My climbing kit greatly exceeds my talent much in the same way my 130p exceeds my astronomy skills. Maybe not quite the same consequences🤣 Hot pixels are difficult to avoid really - the best option is dithering. If you use a decent stacking algorithm you should be able to negate the hot pixels though.

I think this^ is the most important. Given your set up without guiding I would suggest 30 second exposures is probably about right. However, given the very low exposure time this is a good result. M27 has quite a high surface brightness which certainly helps. If you have more time, you will be able to stretch the data a bit more without introducing too much noise.

That's just showing off🤣 But seriously, I am a bit like you. I have tried various options but come to the conclusion the refractors are the simplest option. I am in the process of building a back garden observatory which will house 3 refractors across two mounts and a variety of focal lengths from 910 to 180mm. Given the number of clear nights in Cumbria that should be enough. I have looked at the RASA option and it might still happen one day. Just need to sell the kids.....😀

You could consider something like this in the bags: Fifth Gear 2 x 1kg Silica Gel Car Dehumidifier, Dry Air, Reusable Moisture Absorber Bag, Automotive Dehumidifier, Keep Windows Fog-Free. Prevents Condensation and Mold, Includes 2 x Anti Slip Mat : Amazon.co.uk: Home & Kitchen I used to use something similar for putting a tent away if it was damp. You can just chuck them in the microwave for a few minutes to re-charge them. I have not used them for astro gear as mine just comes in the back door, but I am sure they would help.

Agreed. Used mine with an FMA 180 and works well.

Either would work fine with your scope. The small f4 scopes are fine for shorter focal length imaging and are small and light - and if you focus them as in daylight as Elp suggests they are fine. The larger 50mm scope will give more scope for longer FL imaging later, but you might need a larger mount (assuming it is being used with the SA 2i)

Can I ask why? On a separate point, have you mounted both on an heq5? I had a similar dual rig on an AZ-EQ6 and it was on the weight limit. Admittedly I had a hefty bar, two dual saddles including an alignment one plus a mini PC and powerbox. Still looks like a lot though.

Don't ask me. 2D printing is a struggle for me🤣

As a 'promoter' of the SM90 I'm glad you like it. Personally I don't find the two rotators an issue. Apart from set up I only use the end one. You can use the 'notches' on the focuser to approximately measure the angle to move. There are 14 of them which equates to about 25 degrees per notch.

Ok, I'll put one in the mix.... Very similar to the @powerlord picture above in terms of location, but less widefield and in SHO. Slightly unusually there was more SII signal in a lot of the area compared with OIII which gives the SHO rendition a rather colourful appearance. A lobster, bubble and lagoon (small northern one), all in the same picture. Where else could you get this😆 Taken over two- and a-bit nights (12th, 13th and 16th of September) during a fullish moon using a StellaMira 90mm triplet at F4.8. and ASI160mm pro. Total integration was around 14 hours, with an extra half an hour of RGB for the stars.

I think we can assume the corrector is OK (I had one from a bad batch and it was very poor. After being optically checked along with the telescope it was changed by FLO). I might be worth putting one or more of your subs online to have a look at. Even allowing for manufacturing tolerances I think and extra 3mm should be more than enough. Also are you certain you are using the right spacers? (I'm not trying to be insulting - but just to rule it out).

What you are describing does not sound like a backlash issue to me. If you speed up or slow down the mount in theory total backlash should remain constant. A few seconds delay at high speed is unlikely to be backlash also. Providing the motors react instantly, it sounds more like something is slipping in the drive train. Can you move the scope when the mount is stationary? Assuming the clutches do not slip it sounds like a gear wheel slipping or something similar.