Stefek

I asked the same question to Player One I got quick answer from MrWang as below -Their cooled cameras are well sealed and they should be OK for several years in respect of sensor chamber humidity -Their cameras do have a connection point for an external desiccant container should re-drying be required. The connection point is sealed with a rubber plug that is glued, however could be removed in order to connect an external desiccant container and re-dry. -External desiccant container will be made available in the future as an accessory for cameras and will be priced low. So that makes my question fully answered. One remark from me: I do have QHY and Touptek cameras and they also have re-drying by external container, so that the sensor is not exposed to dust if re-drying is required. The container , bag of desiccant and o-rings are delivered with cameras though.

Hi all Does anyone know whether there is a desiccant inside Poseidon-C camera, if so, can it and how be exchanged. Can't find this information anywhere

I usually run Esprit 80 , with autofocuser, 2600 camera, and 1kg heavy mini PC mounted, so all together around half of iOptron max specification. With only encoders with no additional guiding, I can make 5 or even 6 minutes frames. (did not try longer) Sometimes I also put Celestron C8 (2m FL) , which brings it up to almost 9 kg and still can make frames up to 120sec. with no wind) . So, from my experience with 2 different iOptron mounts , one can run them (for astrophotography) at 70% of max specified load. without any issues. I belong to "traditional" school thinking that the mount is the heart of the rig and for photography , it should not be used with more than 60% of specified total payload.

I had Rowan upgraded HEQ5 . Decent mount. Now i have GEM28 , (with encoder though). GEM28 is lighter, more modern design and is veery quiet (can't say that for HEQ5, even with Rowan. ) GEM connects reliably via both USB and and WiFi. iPolar is nice, it works, although I use NINA for polar alignment which is more accurate, so it is for me redundant. Can't comment on guiding performance as I do not guide with GEM28 (encoders do their job quite nicely). In summary , two similar mounts, but if I would be buying now, I would go for iOptron, because it is lighter, quieter and more modern.

Welcome Daniel/ Dobrodošao !

I have Regal 100. It is really solid nicely built 100mm FPL51 doublet. It comes with zoom eyepiece (22 -67x manification) . Eyepiece has the thread to put camera on. Focuser is not really built for astro use , but can serve the purpose. I managed to put 178 camera instead of eyepiece, just to try is it of any use for astrophoto in primary focus. As it is f/5.4 , it is reasonably fast . Unfortunately an erecting prism introduces some artifacts on the stars and it is doublet so CA will be there as you can see it on attached images. Leo triplet is just one hour, M100 is 2hours integration. Images are just with removed background, color calibrated and stretched , with a bit of curves. No any other processing. Could have focused a bit better with Bathinov and made artifacts less visible. Well, Regal will not make an APOD image, but it cold serve someone who want to turn it to the sky for fun. I believe that standard astro APO refractor is a better choice for dual use than spotting scope.

I had something very similar with SW Esprit. Happened suddenly when the temperature outside dropped below -5C. When I tried without focal reducer stars were looking OK, so I somewhat attribute it to the focal reducer. Did not try again at "normal" temperatures yet to confirm 100% that low temperature induces some issues with focal reducer.

Well , every task requires appropriate tools . I tried all 3 types. Have Altair fan cooled 178c, using it for planetary . Of course, fan can't cool it below ambient , but keeps the temperature at ambient or around. It does not add anything much to the image quality so I removed it. Was also using Nikon, after a while usb connector became a bit loose, had to add additional 9V power supply (DC/DC converter) , clip in filters are more expensive... removing IR filter expensive again cost something,... At the end, got myself proper cooled astro camera .... so again the tool for the task.

Have a look to iOptron GEM28 . Reasonable payload and very light.

If there is one main factor that matters in visual, it is perhaps the size. If there is such one factor in photography , than it is the mount . As mentioned by some people above, it is not a bad idea to allocate significant part of estimated starting budget to good mount and tripod. Underperforming mount can't be compensated by type of scope/camera. The type of objects and and the level of details you wish to see will determine the type of scope , although seeing is the limiting factor. The focal length in the range of 500-900 mm is perhaps a good start . Is it Newtonian or refractor , it depends. Newtonian is more bulky , requires collimation but for the same money you can get larger aperture . Refractor is the easiest to start with , but is more expensive. I am relatively new in this hobby , but started wrong way for a beginner. (SCT with 2m focal length , HEQ5 mount and small pixel "2600" type OSC camera ) . Evolved very quickly to iOptron CEM70 mount and Esprit 120mm triplet refractor with focal reducer. Of course, the budget is always the limit for most of us , but if I would be starting now and the budget would be sufficient I would start with: -The mount with 20-35 kg payload and good base (tripod, or pier) -100-130 mm triplet refractor (middle range like Esprit 100 or 120 or something in that class ) and focal reducer . Of course , APM LZOS or Takahashi or TEC would be better but is quite expensive -APS-C format OSC cooled camera ( like QHY26C or ASI2600 or Omegon veTEC571 or any other clone based on Sony IMX571 sensor) -Dual band filter like Optolong L-Extreme or Antlia 5nm Ha/OIII dual band That would let you start quickly with collecting good images and enable you to change the focus from your gear to yourself and learn image processing , which is more complex and requires more time and effort than collecting the data

If you really want avoid guiding by all means , then EC version is the way to go , Especially EC2 . If you plan to guide anyway , than I am not sure that an investment in EC will be justified, especially because iOptron EC mounts and PHD2 is not the happiest marriage . Of course it can work together (there is an option to "filter" PHD2 guiding commands ) , but at the end , you either guide or let encoders control the mount. I have small GEM 28EC , and can manage in ideal conditions few mmites frames at 2m FL, without guiding, so CEM120 EC2 will probably do far better. I would personally buy another scope or camera for the price difference between "plain" and EC version, because my CEM70 with Esprit120 , guides very nicely (seeing and wind are the limits).

Like with everything in life and especially in our hobby there is alway something new and expensive coming . However, the best things are for free if available, like dark sites. Narrowband (at least as I see it) are good in light pollution situation and they reveal the details in images that would be hard to see otherwise. There is price that we pay, part in it in money, part in other aspects of image (like the fidelity of colors , especially the stars) Still , filters of any kind are not the (full) replacement for really dark sites... BtW Ido have Antlia 3nm SHO set and am very happy with them. Did not try it on really bright stars yet though. few images at https://www.astrobin.com/users/Stefek/

Vlaiv, sorry for brevity of my post. I rarely do visual, so was writing exclusively from AP perspective.

I have Esprit 120 , with reducer it is kind of two scopes in one. Have also 50mm Askar. That covers FL range reasonably . Would like to have another one (100mm) though. Found myself in a situation that I have two mounts and two 2600 cameras . Would be nice to run RGB (with OSC) on one and narrowband on another at the same time. Unfortunately I sold my kidney😄 for a mono camera and 3nm filters, so have to wait until it grows again

Sometimes ASI174 mini, (very sensitive, but bit big pixel for 2m FL, so binning 2x2) sometimes Altair 178 which has smaller pixel but is less sensitive. If you'll be buying a guiding camera, my suggestion is buy "mini" version camera, with 1,25" body, as this gives you a lot of freedom for focusing with OAG

I have both ZWO and Celestron. Both of them have pros an cons. ZWO is thin/short and suited more for shorter FLs and systems with short back focus. Celestron is made for long FLs, it is large and rigid, with large prism . To fully benefit from it , a guiding camera with large sensor is required. I am using it with my Edge HD 800 and was never in situation that there was no suitable stars for guiding. Tried to use ZWO with Edge HD few times and it did not work every time. In short, for long FLs (around 2m and above) an OAG with large prism and sensitive camera with sensor size that matches the size of prism is the safest way to go

Somehow I am not fully convinced that the main motivation and drive to put satellites up there is "to provide high speed internet access to the poor and remote" , because poor will not automatically become rich enough to pay for it. Providing something to poor and remote is a good marketing pitch though.

Power and voltage rating looks OK, it should be OK. I had one of those generic (or should I call them cheap) ones for HEQ5. It fact HEQ5 does not need 5A, even 3 is more than enough for the mount itself. Those PSs come with different connectors (inner pin diameter of either 2.1 or 2.5 mm) , so be sure that it fits properly to the mount.

The most recent CMOS cameras generally do not suffer from amp glow , except maybe under some extreme conditions. Dithering combined with good stacking takes care about hot/cold pixels . So, all in all, darks are like holy water they do not harm , but do not help much either... I am not using them for both my IMX571 based cameras.

I do have GEM28EC as my second mount and with C8 Edge HD and OSC camera on , I can go unguided easily with 5min exposure at native 2m FL. As you say , you will be guiding anyway, investment into encoders is not really justified. I realized that this setup is a bit wind sensitive as it is very light all together. BtW there are "plain" non-EC versions of 28 and 26 mounts available. In fact, "plain" GEM28 or CEM26 is a clear winner on portability-price - payload ratio. However if this is going to be your main mount , I suggest you seriously consider CEM40 or GEM45. It would handle the weight easily, even if you add weight in the future, guiding with this load will be a piece of cake , and still very portable. Of course , Vixen is good , and whatever choice you make, it will not be wrong.

This is in fact Touptek camera, also sold under Omegon, Altair, Lacerta ,.....label. All of them using Touptek drivers (both native and ASCOM ) I have Omegon version, works perfectly with NINA, Sharpcap, but also with Stellarmate (INDI) .

Of course I was referring to the same chip. Otherwise comparing OSC vs. mono is difficult to make

On a pure fundamental level , there is difference between OSC and mono, that makes mono superior. That is spatial resolution. In the case of OSC, there is Bayer matrix of 2x2 pixels , out of which 2 are measuring for example G, one measures R and other B . Debayering process assigns other two colors to the pixel (so the pixel that was measuring G has to get R and B estimated for this pixel) . In the case of mono each pixel measures each color, no estimations there. Of course , the final image will get the same number of pixels , but the real color fidelity for mono will be on a single pixel level, where in OSC case the real fidelity will be on 2x2 pixels level. No filters or anything as a such would bridge that gap. How much would that affect the images we do is of course relative . Good very simplified comparison would be like watching 4K movie on standard HD tv and on 4K tv.

I first got OSC (IMX571) and dual band filter , and after I got also a mono version of the same chip . Each has pros and cons . OSC is easier to use but the processing is more demanding. It is also slower. Mono is more expensive, needs filters (as expensive as the camera itself) , but the processing is easier, and images are much better (at least in my case) . If announced 3-4 nm multi-band filters will perform well, the OSC image quality will come closer to mono. At the end of the day, it is personal preference and available budget. The best camera is the one that is used the most (someone more clever than me said once)

Yes, I have Esprit 120 and with guiding scope, filterwheel, autofocuser it is almost impossible to balance it only by moving counterweight on RA and shifting scope backward and forward , so that with disengaged RA and DEC , the scope stays in any position that you push it to. One need so called 3D balance , adding additional counterweights on DEC and also on RA .(i also have additional weight on RA, which I made by drilling the hole in my counterweight, made thread in it , and screwed in a bar with some weight on it . That additional bar is perpendicular to main counterweight shaft. My balancing sequence is: 1. put RA axis to horizontal position , and align the DEC axis so that scope stays horizontal. (only by moving the scope backward or forward) 2. Keeping that position will move counterweights so that it gets balanced along RA axis. 3. At that point I have the system balanced in horizontal position. Will move it to "home" position. I lock DEC and will move RA , if it does not stay , I rotate the counterweight with additional bar on it until RA stays wherever I put it. 4. Then I lock RA and if DEC does not stay where I push it, I would move DEC counterweight in or out until DEC stays whetever I put it. After all I just check whether it all stays wherever I push with both axes disengaged.