scotty38

This is true and I have done this too. As I mentioned I just use NINA 99% of the time and if it cannot find a target I fire up Stellarium pass the coordinates to NINA and then shut it down, sorted.

Thanks @vlaiv yes that helps it really does and just what I was looking for, much appreciated!

I can accept that the cem70 is "better" than an eq6 but when all is said and done it's still in the same league, the eq8 is a definite step up if you want heavier.

Thanks and yes maybe not the best question but you did sum it up with "We often say things like "You need to guide at half of our sampling rate"" as I think that's the basis of what I was asking. Given you essentially said guide as best as you can are you saying that due to seeing etc etc that even with a setup that "could" deliver 0.48" even if I can still only guide at 0.8" with binning in software later I could still make good use of the kit? Maybe not as good as it could be but not a complete and utter waste of time????? I'm purposely trying to give a bad example to try and make my point by the way 🙂

@vlaiv Let's say I did buy a Stellalyra 10" RC and used it with my QHY 294m, that would give me a resolution of 0.48"/pixel. If I intended binning later x3 or even x4 to give me either 1.43" or 1.91" do I still need to guide at 0.48" in the first instance? Apologies if this is a dim question but in my head I think I can make arguments both ways......

Dr Magnus Pyke, one for the oldies 🙂

It looks like it could be dust and would be dealt with by flat frames in a typical deep sky process but never having done planetary I'm not sure if the same is true, process wise anyway.

I did add "all things being equal" as you mentioned 130mm f6 versus 254mm f8. If we take 130mm as being fixed then f6, f8 etc etc won't make it faster, it'll only change the fov because the focal length has changed of course. That's what I was trying to say, maybe not very well I accept.

Agreed it's much more cost effective than a refractor no doubt but it's not a galaxy scope unlike the 10" RC at 2000mm, yes it's f8 but it's still 254mm so still plenty of aperture so it's not "fast" in those f ratio terms. This takes us back to my original question (I think) though actually as I got sidetracked with the speed question 🙂 🙂

Yes, if you're saying what I think you're saying then there are cheaper ways to achieve speed........ Let's park ultimate quality as my example probably wasn't at that point anyway.....

Hope I get this bit right at least but in telescopes focal ratio, f8, f6 etc only really impacts the field of view all other things being equal, it's the aperture that has the big impact on speed. I'm sure someone else will give you the warts and all but I think that's the gist of it.

Ok thanks so cost aside if I can operate it correctly if nothing else I have the speed to take advantage of. Has to be said that’s a high price to pay though as I’m not picking up on much else really yet plenty of folk have them and surely I can’t be the only one not on the top of a mountain 😀 thanks for the feedback Vlaiv, much appreciated!

What a setup! Reminds me of the dashboard of an Escort Rally car 🙂 🙂

Hi all I created this post as I don't mind admitting it still confuses me despite the best attempts of @vlaiv to educate me otherwise. I hope he doesn't mind but I stole part of one of his posts from another thread as this is what I want to speak about. You can all read what he has written below but here is my scenario. Let's say I wanted to buy a longer scope for imaging galaxies and let's say I decided upon a 10" RC, the carbon fibre truss version that FLO sells for roughly £3k. Let's also say that I recognise I need some serious mount/guiding to be in place so I also buy a 10 Micron GM2000. In actual fact the specific scope/mount don't matter you get the point because my question is that given I'm in the UK and at 10m above sea level, looking at Vlaiv's words is there really any point in me having a setup that will image at this level?

Ok fair enough, I imagined it doing funky stuff that could not be replicated from one session to the next but if that's not the case then great.....

Putting a polarising filter into the optical path you mean? Not a chance that's a good idea I'd say 🙂

I still think you should have a look at the Nevada on FLO's site. It seems to do all that this one does and is cheaper. In fact there is an Alinco on the site you link to that looks pretty much identical that is up for nearly £170

@MG01 I have NINA setup to use Stellarium and it works fine, as you say Stellarium is a bit heavy but I only use it for any object I can't find in NINA itself. I also use ASTAP for platesolving as it seems to generally be regarded as the best and fastest but you do need to download the databases but other than that it works just fine.

Run NINA etc on the scope PC (the Mele). I have one too and I save the images to the mele but I run the robocopy plugin in NINA and copy the images off to my NAS as they come in. Of course you could have them go to your observatory PC instead and do the live stacking there.

EZDenoise here too although on my aging machine it does take a while....

I "think" it's to do with how STF computes the stretch after the background removal so the image isn't actually noisier.

I don't mind admitting I am massively biased but give NINA a go, if you've not tried it you may well be surprised. It's very accomplished and any help you need, if you do try it, shout up 🙂

Thanks Malc, but no time to read it, just found a bucket of sand so off to melt it down into glass. Now if only I could remember where I left my notes on how to make Aluminium...... 🤣

I created a weather underground account and from there generated an API key but I don't recall if it ever really worked properly to be fair. Now I just use a powerbox or my cloudwatcher.

I'm at 53 degrees and my guiding was garbage so maybe this saves me looking for other reasons 🙂