licho52

It's geometry and there are 2 ways of dealing with it: EQ mount or rotator. This setup has none, so it's down to the small sensor and cropping.

Celestron branded camera and dew shield/cable management suggests upscale electronic scope.

Go with Noctua if you use long FL.

The more straightforward approach is to upgrade to 10" or 12" RC with FF sensor if you're worried about narrower FoV. It'd have almost 2x(10) or 3x(12) the light gathering power plus extra resolution. Running 2 x 8" is more trouble than it's worth and you'd need 2 cameras.

The half-weight for astrography rule-of-thumb is not terrible and it sort of accounts for blunders and inexperience of newbies but I'm imaging with EQ6-r at its 20kg rated weight without issues. Would it be better to have EQ8? Sure, but it's not a deal-breaker.

The reviews will come from either people who have bought it already (they will love it and gush) or YouTuber Reviewers who get this stuff from Sharpstar to review (they will love it and gush). But yeah, it will be fun to watch them do flips trying to hide any glaring problems..

Yeah I'd say EQ8/RC10 and AsiAir is just a mismatch.

What you write makes no sense, what bet are you placing? Is it a business bet, are you investing in EAA device production? And why the unnecessary ad-hominem?

People will pay that in a heartbeat if it gets them that AB IOTD. Being completely serious here. They already use 24" Planewaves, buy farms in Namibia etc etc. just to get that badge.

I was reflecting on systems like SeeStar and I have a feeling that in 3 years they will be obsolete and end up in the attic or the recycling bin. Disposable toy that will often be bought for kids, like microscopes, and said kids, instead of becoming Ed Hubbles of our era, shall inevitably discard it after a session or two in order to immerse themselves in the worlds of Minecraft / TikTok. Nothing against this device, but it(along with other such gadgets) have DISPOSABLE written all over them. I think it will take still quite a few years before such systems truly deliver on their promise.

Based on threads like this and on CN I come to a conclusion that SCT really do a disservice to reflectors and tend to put people off working with reflecting telescopes. I don't have any personal experience with SCT(I guess I am not losing much) but, based on the experience I do have, I know that a properly handled 10" Newtonian or Ritchey-Chretien would beat any 130mm refractor handily.

Yes because mosaics are fundamentally and dramatically turning down the speed of your setup. On one hand people fall over themselves to get f/2 and whatever hyperultraspeed setups, on the other they casually mention doing mosaics with them, which are an absolute slog to capture, normalize and process. Mosaics are evil and should be avoided by anyone who has limited time/clear sky which is most people. To answer OP's question, it should work very well, I'd recommend drizzling 2x because you'll be undersampled.

I have used both and Mini is significantly slower in platesolving and other operations, however if you just set it for capture then it doesn't make a lot of difference. It works very well overall.

If you care about RGB and color reproduction then Redcat.

I am really not sure about this idea, I'm either missing something or it doesn't work the way you think.

The image seems very low-res? The stars are huge. What scope was it taken with?

Perhaps they tweaked the optics in the latter batches but the first wave of FMA180 was poor to say the least.

They are decent, and I didn't have suitable bahtinov mask for it at that time so the focus was approximate and so was the backfocus. I wish I had more opportunities to use it / fiddle with. It's vastly superior to FMA180 which has HORRID chromatic aberration. Another one here:

I haven't put it into much use as I prefer long FLs but here's an example of a picture I took with it last year. It was done with an APS-C camera so the field is quite wide.

I think it's worth doing and I have done with some star fields in the galaxy disk like Cas. It's a very clean Ha signal without the O-window, especially with light pollution and/or moon. First I'd look in classifieds where 1.25 Ha filters may pop up for a much friendlier price.

I did the ghetto dumbell thing for a while but these were smaller and easier to store and transport. The 2 weights basically covered the weight of a Redcat+Asiair with 2600MC and a zwo filter drawer.

I have it and it works, however I bought 2 so I have 2 counterweights for my setup.

That Quattro 150P is an absolute sleeper telescope, flying under the radar yet so compact, light, fast and versatile. Very promising result, I bet it's a beast in narrowband too.

I think it's not that simple. What matters most is QE which in 585 is higher and noise which is a bit higher per area in 585. The rest is sampling which can be taken care of by binning or otherwise resampling in postprocessing. I wouldn't take pixel size as a detriment for AP, in fact in some cases it can be an advantage. For example, smaller pixel size in 585MC can be attractive in wide-field APOs (like Redcat) where it lowers the sampling from 3.13 to 2.2, but also in certain applications like shooting small planetary nebulas and globular clusters with mid-FL OTAs like the ever popular f/4 Newtonians. Excellent for lucky imaging techniques too. I am a big fan of such amazing affordable sensor. I wish they were available when I was starting out. PS I used to own 533MC so I know that camera well and now I own a 585MC as my 3rd camera in addition to 2600MM/MC combo.

533 is often misunderstood, it has a few things going for it, like lowish (but not low by any means!) price and clean sensor that doesn't need much calibration and hides hideous corners from cheap optics well because it barely covers the middle of the image circle. That said a tiny square sensor is absolute anathema to serious photography. The 585MC at its cheap price is absolutely amazing. It does tiny sensor right - gives you less area but it's actual usable area to make a worthwhile picture with proper format. It doesn't really need cooling. After you exhaust the 585MC, step up to 2600MC. If you think it's expensive, ok, wait with the upgrade.