Clarkey

WRT to 30%, yes I realise in theory it is just the same plus 10%. In reality I'm not sure the prices have dropped enough to compensate. Getting back to the question at hand, for the money you want to spend I would certainly look at the Newtonian route. F5 or F6 are pretty easy to collimate - only takes a couple minutes to check on set up. It's just another task on the tick list. I have just re-collimated my 200P from scratch (secondary removed) and it took 10 minutes to get it 'perfect'. I also have a Stella Lyra RC8 which I do like for imaging although it is F8. So far I have accepted the collimation as it is - OK but not perfect. I will collimate it in the summer when 'galaxy season' is over. Given the horror stories I hear about getting them set up right it might be in the 'Buy and Sell' section come the autumn!

I have not been around long enough to get involved in star camps yet. (Newbie imager). But you have now really sold it too me. I thought it would all dull and talking about astronomy. Gang fights and dob cannons - sounds great. 🤣

In theory yes, as you have the dual speed focuser and larger mirror. For a full frame camera it could be an issue, but with a 600D you should be fine. The advantage of a smaller mirror is more light in and better contrast for visual. As I said, I use a 200P with a Baader coma corrector and it is fine.

The only thing I have learned is that there is no right and wrong with processing. My favourite images have 'minimal' processing and muted colours - a sort of natural look. Many people seem to like more colour and processing. Just keep messing around until you get what you like. Best way to learn in my opinion. I seem to do about 6 versions of each image and I choose the one I like best (but I'm still not happy!)

I keep 2 10A transformers in a small Tupperware without issue. Should be ok although I guess it will depend a bit on the load.

There are plenty of 600D's available 2nd hand with low shutter counts for around £200. Astro modding will cost about another £75 (if you want to) at Cheap Astrophotgraphy. I have used my 600D with a 200P and it was fine. With a 150P it is probably a better pixel scale so should be ideal. I'm not sure if there are any issues with the back-focus distance with the 150P. I have to put the camera right into the draw tube to get focus - but it will do it. The 150P being slightly smaller may be a problem. Best check with owners.

Yes the 600D and the T3i are the same. I have a 600D and it is good for imaging although I don't use it much since moving over to an asi1600 mono.

If you can get one there is also something like the SW Explorer 150 PDS at F5. Slightly shorter FL and not quite the quality of the TS version but may be fine on pixel scale depending on the camera. Obviously it is quite a bit larger than the Z73 so the right mount will be important too. Just be aware of the 30% increase on imports - I got stung for this recently.

I am largely and imager rather than visual observer. However, I would agree with the option of a zoom eyepiece for visual. I have the Baader version with a Barlow plus a 2" low power 40mm eyepiece. This just saves a lot of eyepiece changing during a session.

I did the same switch for the same autofocus reason. I didn't think about using the standard sequence - I'll run some test shots with the different scopes and filters and store each as a sequence. Obvious really. I think age is catching up with me! Thanks for the tip.

This is pretty well my approach and I have had no issues. The only problem I have with NINA is that the flats for multi-filters seems to default to 50% of ADU regardless of what I choose. If anyone knows a way round this it would be good.

I always connect PHD2 and all the kit plus calibrate before 'handing it over' to NINA. It does not necessarily need to be guiding at this point. Providing you tick the 'start guiding' box on the sequence page, once you start running your sequence it will pick a star and guide. What I tend to do it get everything set up and slew to my target using NINA and plate solving. A this point I will usually manually start PHD guiding and run the guiding assistant (although neither is necessary if you are in a hurry). Once running NINA will start and stop PHD as required.

I have used NINA and PHD2 without issue - did you connect the devices in PHD2 before starting NINA?. I would suggest starting and calibrating PHD2 before getting NINA involved. I fact I normally start PHD2 guiding before getting NINA to control - as much as anything this allows the guiding to settle - I also use the predictive PEC in PHD2 and this gives it time to start guiding more accurately. Which version of PHD2 are you using? I have been using the last 'stable' release which has been fine. I recently downloaded the multi-star which is officially still a beta version so I do not know if this will cause any problems

I have an ASI 1600MM and I have the offset at 50 so that sounds about right. I am not sure specifically what the 'recommended' level is for the 533 though. To be honest as long as it not so high as to reduce the total dynamic range it is not too critical. I would suggest increasing it a little though to avoid any data loss.

Thanks - I'll definitely give it a go with some noisy data and see what happens.

No harm in giving it a go. I'm not sure, but it looks like it might only give an 8 bit output.

I have done the binning in software for each channel as you suggest, but not using PIPP. (I have downloaded it for trying planetry imaging at some point in the future but not used it yet). If it has a 'summing' function I might try it out. Affinity uses a number of algorithms but I could not see a huge reduction in noise. Thanks.

FWIW I have tried binning my ASI1600MM both in the camera and in software afterwards and I struggled to see any significant difference. Similarly using un-binned made very little difference to the image quality. Obviously, as the ZWO CMOS cameras average the 4 pixels when binning 2x2 there is no real advantage in 'speed'. It is a shame that they do not 'sum' the pixels in the camera - that would give a significant increase in data capture rate. Given the very low read noise of a CMOS sensor I have never really understood why this is not done? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me could explain....

Hello and Welcome to SGL. As masjstovel has said, there is not really a correct answer. Personally I would by the CC first and then modify the camera for two reasons. Firstly there are quite a few targets that will not need to pick up the extra Ha data and secondly, the coma will be evident in all your pictures unless very heavily cropped. You can still image DSO's without the modification, you might just need a little longer. Also, you can always add more data to your images later - you won't be able to do this if you buy the CC second as the star shapes will not match. With regards to the mount, what has been said is also true. However, if you have an EQ5 this is what you will need to use. You might need to keep your subs slightly shorter than ideal, but this should not be a major show-stopper. I just hope you don't live anywhere too windy!

I really like it. The dust gives it a great feel.

For the limited integration time that is a good result. Well done! I can't really help with the processing as I use Affinity. The only thing I would say is you can use layers to stretch the nebulosity more than the stars or use a star mask.

Thanks. Appreciated.

The APT dithering can be set to adjust the mount only for widefield imaging (I just randomly moves the mount slightly). This avoids the need for a program like PHD2. From the APT manual: "APT Dithering is special feature made to provide dithering when there is no guiding because your mount is high-end (ASA, 10Micron and etc.) or when you are using short focal length lens or telescope. APT Dithering uses a mount connection to make the needed random position changes between the exposures" If you go to the APT website you can download the manual and have a look at the functionality.

I think I saw some of the advice from Olly and Alicante - for some reason I thought this was for the SW Quattro. I think in a while I will be really looking at one of these when finance and financial manager (wife) approves. I quite like the idea of the Mn190 but the weight puts me off as I have to set up each night. This would be slightly easier to cart around.

How do you find collimating the F4? I have an F5 newt which is relatively easy, but I am lead to believe the F4's are much more tricky to get right? Having said that, I need to collimate my 8" RC which I am dreading😬