Clarkey

I have the f4 version which is similar. Although it is good I did need to buy a new coma corrector as the Baader mpcc did not really work well at f4. Also, the focuser slipped so this was replaced too. Eventually this was near to £1000 with a couple of other bits so not such good value. However, it does deliver good photo's.

As you have discovered there is a bit of an issue with halos on bright stars with the zwo EFW so I limit the use to darker objects where the optical speed is an advantage.

I am using my ASI1600 with the original ZWO filters. Despite some of the usual issues with this combination the limiting factor is still me. Personally, I would go for the larger field of view - especially as you are already using  the 36mm filters. I have the 31mm and I think I would need to replace the filters and the camera to use the larger sensor - although as yet I have not checked. You could go mad and get a colour camera and then you have 2 imaging rigs!

On 03/01/2022 at 14:34, powerlord said:

Used Ha to reduce, but impossible to get rid off.

I am having similar halo problems with my f4 photon. I think it is the reflection between the sensor and the filter. I have decided to avoid bright stars! Oh, I also brought a Stellamira 90mm triplet to make me feel better😄

First light for the 90mm last night. From the early results this looks like a great 'investment'.

This was about 8 hours of HaLRGB with the 1600mm pro. Quite a bit of high cloud during the red capture so maybe not as sharp as it might be. Also, looks to be a bit of sensor tilt in one corner.

I can only image to the south from my garden which is unfortunate. Like the original post I am officially B5-6 but in reality due to the direct LP it is probably higher. Although there is a normal background lighting, there is a local business who feel the need to light up the whole sky (involves hitting golf balls). Sometimes it appears that golfers play all night!!

8 minutes ago, Ande said:

Hi Martyn, and welcome to SGL. A little bit of advice……. Take your wallet down the garden, and bury it as deeply as you can. Do NOT mark the spot. You’ll thank me later 😉

It's OK, he has not mentioned astrophotography yet. If you do, go down the garden and bury your hopes and dreams of a secure financial future. 🤣

Welcome to the forum Martyn and enjoy your astro journey.

I think that it all depends on what you want to image. The ED80 is a wide field scope and good for nebulae. The larger reflectors are good for planetary or galaxy imaging. In terms of colour correction, the ED scopes are ok, but you will get some CA. The reflectors will give good images but will be more 'faff'. I would say the MN190 is somewhere between but does have dew issues and is heavy. For visual use I would say they are all ok but that depends on where you set up and the amount of carrying needed. As a general rule the greater aperture favours visual use.

As stated there are other options. A small triplet APO would be better for imaging (at a price) or a different doublet. Personally I would not try to get a scope to do both. The 200pds can be picked up dirt cheap on the used market which is good for visual and with a new focuser can be used for imaging small DSO's. Add this to an ED80 or similar and it would be a good starting point.

At the end of the day there a loads of options. Look at my signature and you will see what I mean! I'm still deciding🤣

As you can see from my signature I have a range of scopes and I have imaged with all of them. Personally if I was starting out I would go with a refractor for ease of use. AP is hard enough without the complexities of newtonians. My first set up was the SW ED80 with and HEQ5 which was very good. I have now upgraded to the 90mm triplet - but I am still waiting to assess the difference. One day the sky will clear..... The refractors are limited in FL, but at longer FL you will need to bin anyway so you will loose some of the benefit. Also, the lower FL is more forgiving and allows widefield images of nebulae. Having said this, the RC8 is a great galaxy scope - but does need a bit more work to the get the results.

As most will tell you. Spend the money on the mount. Personally I find the AZ-EQ6 perfectly adequate but it does need regular fettling to keep it going well. Similarly the HEQ5 is good enough up to about 1000mm FL.

At the end of the day, the better the mount the easier it will be. (Cheaper options work - but are a pain in backside). After that choose your scope based on what you want to image.

19 hours ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

I read that this collimation device isn't good for the 8" StellaLyra .. is it OK for the 6"

You are right about is not being used for the 8" - but this is for the RC only. Due to the way the baffles are set up you cannot see the edges of the primary mirror to align correctly. I use the LED collimator on my RC8 for the secondary alignment only and a star test for the primary. Seems to work quite well for me.

FWIW the LED collimator is good for Newtonian reflectors.

There is a 150p and mount on Astro buy and sell. It's £250 but with a mount and extras:

www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=181083

or this one for £175

www.astrobuysell.com/uk/propview.php?view=181030

The Andy Warhol of AP😁

For an F5 130 PDS you could collimate with a collimation cap and not a lot else. If you have the choice of a cheshire or laser, I would opt for the cheshire. Cheap lasers do work (I have used them) but they do need collimating themselves.

I have been using the LED collimator for collimating my RC8 and found it works very well for getting the secondary aligned. I then alight the primary with a cheshire. (The LED collimator will not work with the Stella Lyra RC8 due to the baffle arrangement). I then do a star test and adjust the primary in line with the DSI collimation guide. This is usually pretty close but you can repeat the secondary collimation and star test again to get it 'perfect'. I would add that this suggests the alignment of my focuser and primary mirror are very good which may not be the case on all RC's. FWIW the LED collimator is pretty good for Newtonians too.

Just to add - this is the worlds most expensive LED light. A collimation cap with an LED light in it would serve the same purpose equally well.

Just to add a little balance to this discussion (not to start an argument), I have got a number of ZWO products and they have not been a problem at all. I probably have more problems with scopes and mounts than the camera's. Scopes need upgrading / altering from new - this is pretty standard unless you buy premium products. Similarly, every 6 months my mounts need fettling to keep them working properly. To me this is just part of the 'game', particularly with AP. The ZWO kit I have just works.

Great for only your second image. Excellent!

1 hour ago, edarter said:

How did you do that? produce a star mask

In effect. Using an intensity mask to reduce the stars only and then blend the layers together. You can also use a starnet starless image and mix it with a full star image. Also works quite well and hides a lot of the 'damage' done by starnet.

On 16/12/2021 at 17:39, dazzystar said:

What rechargeable battery packs would you guys recommend I look at?

It will depend a bit on how long you are needing to run it for. It would be worth calculating the total load and multiplying this by the required run time to give you an idea. Also,if you start adding dew heaters these will add a bit.

When running my full AP rig over night I use a 100 Ah leisure battery in a purpose made case. It is overkill but works well.

Assuming you are using this for imaging, the more you reduce the effective FL the more you will reduce the imaging area. Also, below about 0.8 you will probably struggle to find anything decent. You might be better picking up a second hand ED72 or ED80 with flattener. There is an ED80 with flattener for £350 on ABS now which may be an option? To me £350 for this is a bargain.

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

astrophotographers will pay what it takes.

That's why we are all poor😭

Looks good. I think the Baader will be fine with the f5.👍

36 minutes ago, Knight of Clear Skies said:

doubles the saturation signal level

And the price😁

2 hours ago, Adam J said:

Depending on which filters you removed when you modified the 600D then you may actually already have an effective UV/IR cut in place. 

I'll have to try the mono camera and see how it fares. It was not a full spectrum modification so it might be blocking the blue as you suggest.

I have realised the single sub above is through an l-extreme so not very representative!

The top graph looks more like a software glitch or a calibration issue. 180mm or 162 it should still guide, it will just under-compensate. The more accurate FL will just give you better guide accuracy.

20 hours ago, Adam J said:

maybe you can share from images

I don't have much as I have only had the scope a short while. At the moment I have only used it with a Canon 600D. This attached image is a low res jpeg, but it is all I have on this PC. I have also included a single sub from another image. Looking closely there is some blue colour in the sub, but this is in part due to the spacing needing to be better. I guess if I was being really picky there is a little blue bloat - but maybe I am used to cheap glass!

LIGHT__2021-12-02_04-45-24__300.00s_1x1__800_FMA180.cr2

I have been reading this thread with interest, in particular related to the blue bloat issue. I have got an fma180 and I have not really noticed a significant amount of false colour. Yes there is a very small amount if you look hard, but it easy to remove in processing. I'm not sure about the need for additional filters to deal with it.

Just my opinion. Maybe I just have a 'good' example.