ONIKKINEN

I have the TS 0.95 maxfield (i assume its the same) and wouldnt buy it again now that i have used it a bunch. I also have an APS-C sized sensor and there is noticeable coma left in the corners while stars are generally larger than they should be even at the image center. I would look for the TS GPU corrector. I dont have that myself but i dont see the same issues with images taken with one and most users recommend it so i will probably change to that some day.

I would guess them to be reflections between any glass surfaces in the camera side of things rather than something in your mirrors. You have the sensor itself, the sensor window, the filter, and several lenses in your coma corrector. The reflections could be between any of these so im not sure how i would troubleshoot this. You could try to figure out exactly which surface is responsible for this using the reflection/dust bunny tool: https://astronomy.tools/calculators/dust_reflection_calculator

Just a quick gradient removal, colour balancing and a stretch in Siril. Looks very red to me, shot in H-alpha? I dont know anything about shooting objects like this so dont know if its what its supposed to look like.

I have the OOUK VX8 and do find the optics very good for when it matters. Speaking of that, it probably doesn't matter that much for long exposure since tracking and seeing will mask the little differences between a decent mirror and a great mirror (that is you could have a lemon in a Skywatcher and there are no guarantees its decent although rare to get complete shaving mirrors). For planetary/lunar/visual sure but i dont think there would be a big difference for DSO. Other than the optics the telescope is not really a stable imaging platform in its stock form. I have replaced the secondary spider with a sturdier one and the focuser with a Baader diamond steeltrack. Now i find myself looking for new rings and a losmandy plate for scopeside and a vixen rail for topside accessories. The vixen plate and rings this scope is meant to mate with are quite short so this is less than ideal with the bendy and very light aluminum tube so having a longer losmandy to the mount and vixen on top combo would strengthen the tube nicely. Overall the price will be quite high at that point but then i dont think i could complain about anything in the scope... The CT8 would definitely be cheaper, but that one still has the same focuser and the same spider so i would personally want to upgrade those. The VX series is not great if you want to have a ready to go AP scope but its hard to beat the price, i got a 1/10 PV 0.991 strehl scope for 800e. Just the mirror could cost more than that in many cases so ill live with the modifications... I was thinking of buying something like this as well: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p5763_TS-Optics-8--f-4-5-ONTC-Carbon-Tube-Newtonian-telescope---fully-customizable.html That one has a certified good mirror and sturdy mechanics ready to go for AP. Add a focuser to that (does not have one) and you are in the 2300-2500e pricerange so quite expensive but much cheaper than the AG8 for sure. I think i would go for that one if my VX8 somehow gets destroyed or stolen or something else.

Light leaks, definitely. Since you mention moonlight its probably the moonlight that finds its way to the camera then. If its bright enough outside for you to see your own feet (always) your camera can definitely see this as well. And if leaks exist they will be in the darks. If your shooting location is not perfectly dark you will get light leaks through all sorts of gaps, especially on a newtonian. You have 4 main ways for light to get into the sensor: Front of scope, your cap is probably not light tight even if it appears that way. Back of scope, you have an open mirror in the back and if you dont block this somehow you will get light leaks through there. Actually you want to plug this during imaging as well (as long as the scope is cooled) unless you image from perfect darkness. Gaps between the focuser drawtube and the focuser body, these gaps must exist or your focuser cannot move and some light will find its way through. The fourth possibility would be your cameras tilt plate itself. It can have a little gap from which light could get through. Take the camera out and plug it somehow completley for darks (put it in a box or something), or they wont really work properly.

For planets and the Moon you would want to use a barlow anyway so the focus issue is no problem. If yours is the non go-to version then you will have to deal with drifting obviously. Planetary and Lunar is best done by shooting a video with very high framerates, which is something that DSLRs are not best suited for. I dont know if the 60D has an uninterpolated crop mode to shoot video with, but if it does you could use that. My 550D has a "movie crop mode" which takes a 480p area on the center of the sensor and records that to a video. This is usable because there is no pixel skipping involved. In other video modes like 1080p or even 4k or whatever you typically have pixel skipping where entire rows of pixels are just skipped for the recording. This makes the actual capture resolution very bad and pretty much unsuitable for planetary, and not that great for lunar. But for the Moon you can just shoot individual frames without the video recording hassle and either use those as your image or try to stack the individual frames. For stacking you should take as many as your patience can endure. Shoot away until the Moon has drifted to the edge and re-center. Obviously with the tracking dob would be much easier but no real reason you cant do this without the tracking base. You can also shoot planets this way, but your framerate will be terrible and so its not that great, but will get you started and some results. Although my image here was taken with a tracking mount, you could do the same with fast exposure times untracked, just takes fiddling around. This is the sort of image you could expect from a single shot Jupiter (i took this with the 550D and a VX8, cropped quite a bit): Its not the best image, but you can recognize it as Jupiter and a shadow of one of the moons on it. If you want to spend money on a proper planetary camera then there are many options to choose from, but all require the use of a computer or capture device of some sort to use them.

2'' barrel to T2 thread adapter would probably be easiest? Like this: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p200_TS-Optics-Focal-Adaptor-2-inch-to-T2.html Just clamp it in to the focuser as you would any other accessory and screw the other end to the camera.

Until a few years ago here in Finland it was mandatory for all motor vehicles to have lights on at all times when driving regardless of how bright it is outside, so there really was no situation where you can forget to put them on. The law was changed to lights only being mandatory for when its dark and now some cars have this kind of automatic daylight-headlight switch when it gets dark or just the good old lights on at all times for cars that dont have this feature. I dont know anyone who for some reason toggles off their lights for daytime and almost everyone just keeps them on if they dont have the automatic lights. The benefit in this is that you cant forget they are on, and you can notice when your lights are burnt in daytime (well the police can notice and remind you with a fine😁). Not that many negatives really, since if its bright enough outside to not need lights, its bright enough for the lights to not bother anyone.

The process takes around 90 minutes with several steps in between sometimes covering the camera for dark exposures and other times re-introducing the light panel so i am pretty sure it does go through various exposure lengths and does some calibration of its own too.

I'm pretty sure you could get away with using one of the 30mm F4 scopes for your setup: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/guide-cameras/astro-essentials-32mm-f4-mini-guide-scope.html

Some rotation after a meridian flip should be expected. If your polar alignment is less than perfect = which it almost always is, your DEC and RA are not perfectly 90 degrees from each other (also the case), your camera is not perfectly level etc you will have this kind of rotation. This looks pretty mild to me actually.

No clue, could be magic for all i know. The measurement process itself goes like this: Constant illumination on the sensor, i used a flat panel on my telescope. Then sharpcap chooses a small area on the sensor to do the measurements on and goes through all the gain values while taking exposures and measuring something? Really dont know how this works. The Rising Cam aliexpress store also reports similar values: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001359313736.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.0.0.6f047164JGhOx6&algo_pvid=88c7fc7f-59b2-4b58-9bdc-a75b08237944&algo_exp_id=88c7fc7f-59b2-4b58-9bdc-a75b08237944-0

Pixel orders from fits files can be read from many directions, and depending on which direction the frame is read the order can change. My camera is RGGB in most software that care about bayer matrix order but if i split the colour channels before debayering in some software it comes out as GRBG so both can be correct. I dont have the same camera as yours but from what i can gather the pixel orders would be similar, so try setting it to RGGB and GRBG and see which is right? Below is a fine artwork i made myself that maybe shows this better. If the pixels are read from top to bottom (and then change of row once all read) it comes out as RGGB, if from bottom to top it comes out as GRBG.

This is my Rising Cam ATR3CMOS26000KPA, or more commonly known as the Rising Cam IMX571 colour camera. Measured with sharpcap pro sensor analysis. I dont know what ToupTek (manufacturer for RisingCam products) does differently with their electronics compared to ZWO or QHY offerings but this is how it is with this particular camera. Could be an option for OP if the absolute lowest read noise is a must have with a decent sized sensor, this one being APS-C. Framerates are low, like with all IMX571 sensors so shooting in 8-bit mode might be needed. Of course if shooting in 8-bit mode you lose the low read noise in low gain values, so not sure if worth it. Below is the same analysis but in 8-bit mode.

The AZEQ6 has encoders on both axis, so you can loosen the clutches and manually move the scope around and have SynScan be aware of those movements. Not sure how useful this is to be honest but the feature is there. Compared to the EQ6R the altitude adjustment system is better, at least that's what i gather from reading user experiences. In the EQ6 you have this weird springloaded ratchet system looking bolt that many think is a pain to use and some have even stripped theirs and needed replacements, in the AZEQ6 the altitude adjustment system is completely different, and in my opinion quite smooth and easy to adjust. The AZEQ6 is also a tiny bit lighter, but that's about it. The main selling point in here would probably be the ability to use the mount in alt-az mode as well as eq mode. You can also mount a second scope in alt-az mode if you want to. So if you do enough visual to justify the price you may find the AZEQ6 better for your needs.

Doesn't seem to work with 32-bit files though.

Very interested in seeing the results in the end. Doesn't seem that difficult to do either, might have to look into doing this to my EQM35 whenever i have the time for it.

Smart phone cameras have pixels as small or smaller than 1 micron, so i think its safe to say the general trend of pixels getting smaller will continue, since daytime/normal photography needs and wants are what sensor manufacturers will focus most on. If read noise and other camera noise sources continue improving along pixel sizes i could imagine a 1 or 2 micron pixel camera to be quite convenient. You could BIN the camera to work at any resolution you want with a wide variety of scopes were this the case. PHD2_GuideLog_2021-09-02_005223.txt Since there are no others interested in sharing theirs, ill share mine. Note that this is not from the EQ3-2 but the EQM-35PRO which has a slightly improved RA axis (but the same DEC axis) and a steel tripod. I dont remember exactly what happened during this session but it was one of the last times i shot towards low declinations (this was M33 at dec 30). Payload was within advertised limits, so around 8.5kg/10kg. For what its worth FLO seems to have a more reasonable estimate of 7kg in imaging payload for the mount, although i would be wary of suggesting someone mount a 7kg imaging setup on this thing. I bet you've never seen periodic error in DECLINATION 😎. Well not really periodic error, but if you inspect the log you see it goes off on a trip somewhere after every dither in RA or any other anomaly in RA guiding. Total RMS of 1.37'' in RA and over 3'' in DEC, but short exposures can be used since DEC does whatever it wants anyway and wanders off occasionally. Unguided is not a wise choice since the P2P error in this case was 45''. So while its not good, it looks like a very wide 6 arcsec/pixel setup would not care about the hiccups. And the hiccups would probably not be as bad and declination would also be usable, so i do think it can work for very low resolution imaging just fine. But thats not really the point, the point is this thing is just a waste of money for someone who wants future proofing.

Did some tests with the new starnet compared to StarXterminator, i dont have the original starnet so wont be testing with that. This particular image is very noisy when stretched this far and so shows remaining artifacts very easily. Very pleased with how the new starnet reduced artifacts! Both run on the same 16bit stretched file. StarXterminator: Starnet V2: Its not artifact free, but very close. The brightest stars still have a background patch of blue behind them, but much better than with StarXterminator.

Thought i would mention that its not necessary for the single sub to look good, so you might be chasing something that doesn't need to be. Of course the data must be there somewhere and you have to have some sort of statistics to tell you the sub was decent (basic stuff, FWHM, number of stars, etc), but it doesn't have to be visible in a single exposure. Not a bad thing if the single sub looks good of course. Below are 2 example pictures, one single calibrated and stretched/colourbalanced 30s sub and an image consisting of several hours of subs exactly like this one or slightly worse (picked one at random from hundreds). I am not sure how many hours is in the stacked/processed shot but i think it is either 5 or 6 hours of only 30s exposures, its a work in progress for at least triple this time to wrestle the IFN cleanly out of the background... There is not even a hint of many of the smaller galaxies in the single sub, even the biggest ones are just a couple of pixels above noise. Never mind the IFN which only showed up in the negative version of a 2h stack and i could never guess that it existed in the single exposure. I am actually amazed myself that stacking somehow makes these structures come out from what looks like a mess of nothing at all, but i trust the technology in this case. Point is: Its not important for the single sub to look good if the data is there. Photons go in the camera, picture comes out in the end.

Wheel bolts tightened with a 1m extension as leverage "just in case" 🤣. Never getting that off cleanly again.

This thread was IMO never going to reach a conclusion that everyone agrees with. People have differing opinions and so give differing advice, isnt it up to the person asking the advice to decide what route to take through the jungle of forum posts? I fail to see how a cooled camera + lens + cheap mount is a better alternative to an HEQ5+200P,DS or maybe 150PDS. Example: 533MC + samyang 135 + AZGTI = around 2000e. Not usable for visual, not usable for planetary/lunar, not usable for medium or small DSO. Only usable for wide field, but very good for that. Mount and lens must be ditched when upgrading = half the money spent is gone. Example 2: HEQ5+cheap newtonian+Cheap DSLR + some coma corrector = also around 2000e. Usable for visual, usable for planetary, usable for almost all DSOs. Only the DSLR will be upgraded from these, and even that is not a must have upgrade. Worst case scenario is that the cheap synta newt has a lemon of a mirror and will have to be swapped, but tge most expensive and important part: the mount can stay. Will a beginner produce APODs with this? Of course not, but its a learning experience for anyone in the beginning. For what its worth most beginners can afford neither (from what i have seen), so some compromises will be made in both cases.

Looking at the site you see a picture of what looks like an ion thruster of some kind (blue sci-fi looking thing), which is a curious detail. Ion thrusters have inherently very low thrust so they will need days or weeks to accelerate to the few km/s needed to reach a final orbit after the initial push from the launcher. But gravity will give you 10 minutes tops, so not something that will be usable. Whatever small cubesat gets put into the projectile will still need to be about 50% chemical high thrust propellant (IE no ion stuff, solid or liquid propellant of some kind) to be fast enough to reach orbit. If this is somehow made to work so that only minor repairs are needed per launch + new projectile it could be cost efficient for very small satellites Edit:hmm, not sure where i got the ion thruster idea, cant find it anymore in the site😀.

"check the connections once the smoke clears out" is a saying mechanics tell as a joke(?) when learning. In mechanic school (for cars) we had test engines that were not going to be used for anything other than learning at school. Our teachers encouraged us to over tighten some bolts to see what happens and how easily, and then teach how to fix that destroyed thread. Most didn't need any special encouraging, but just accidentally broke some threads as there is really no way for someone to know how easily you can do that. I dont think there is any real way to learn mechanical skills without making all the mistakes one could make and so i will be wary of second hand kit that has a chance its been "improved".

This would be mine, and i still stand by this advice. Well its not really advice the way its said as a personal opinion but it works as advice in this context. I personally think 500eur is not enough for an astrophotography mount (= not tracker). In that thread looked like OP had started the path that i and many others took as beginners and tried to look for the cheapest solution available, which in my opinion leads to ruin more often than not. AZGTI, Star adventurer, SkyguiderPro are all over 500e with tripods and wedges and whatnot. Others had better out of the box ideas with DIY solutions in the end.