New planetary imaging setup - suggestions

[tea drinker]

HI folks,

currently I have an Orion optics 8" f6 1/10 wave on a vixen GP mount. I am happy enough with some of the imaging I have achieved with it, but....... I always here so many great things about the C9.25 I might have to take the plunge!

What sort of improved imaging could I expect? I know my OO tend to start getting degraded with the 5x telextender, I'm thinking the longer focal C9 might hold a little better at same mag.

For the mount I am curious, Celestron sells the CAM mount with it as a bundle - is it any good? Or even much better than my GP?

The next step up GEM mount is pretty expensive...

Is it worth the significant extra expese of buying a separate mount?

As I often drive out of town with the scope all needs to be portable. would an NEQ5 hold this setup?

Is there any way of reducing the weight like using carbon fibre OTA?

Will be adding a crayford for finer focus.

Any thoughts folks?

totally random question = Has anyone ever removed the Celestron focus and cell for a lighter one?

[Bazzaar]

The C9.25 should be better for planetary imaging, the longer focal length being the main benefit. I would only go to a X3 barlow/tele extender, that gives you the same F ratio as with the OO but without pushing things as much. The C9.25 has a good track record for planetary work.

Which mount are you wanting to use? there isnt a NEQ5 is there? HEQ5 or NEQ6?

Regards

Barry

[tea drinker]

Yeah - meant the HEQ5 Barry. C9.25 would be ok on that with USB camera, barlow and heavier focusser?

Is there much diff between the HEQ5 and the Celestron mount?

I fugured the extra focal length and aperture would help over the OO 8".

[Bazzaar]

The HEQ5 and CAM are pretty much the same, and on paper should be able to carry what you are proposing to mount on it. You are at about 2/3 of their weight capacity. Now long exposure DSO imagers might baulk at that, they tend to want mounts well under their capacity on the grounds it minimises tracking errors. Shouldnt be an issue for visual and planetary imaging though.

[tea drinker]

Thanks for the info. I don't really see myself doing very long exposure stuff, right now I have lunar and planetary fever :-)

You have a HEQ5 yourself - is it synscan or do you plan to add it? Any feedback on how you find it longevity and quality wise?

[geoff_k]

Funnily enough, I was thinking about the 9.25 myself if I can ever afford it that is. I currently have an OO 250mm on an HEQ5 which is probably its limit. The OTA tube is quite thin but I once mounted a Skywatcher equivalent on it and it wasn't so happy.

I fitted a Synscan unit to the HEQ5 and it performs pretty well although it does have its idiosyncracies. I have a few too many obstructions where I live which can sometimes play havoc with choosing suitable stars for alignment. Like you, I'm not really into long-exposure imaging partly for that reason and the fact that I don't really have the cameras (or the patience) to do it justice.

I have bashed the mount about a bit but it seems to keep going with a bit of maintenance and occasional re-greasing.

I once had a short tube refractor and alignments seemed better with that than with the longer tube on the OO so that might be the same with the 9.25. Against that, image shift is a problem with Newts and SCTs as well as cool-down and dew prevention.

Always so much to consider but the 9.25 was good enough for that Damien Peach fellow and he seems to know a thing or two.

Geoff

[Bazzaar]

My HEQ5 is the non goto version, simple up/down/left/right handset, not sure if I'm going to up grade, if I do it will be for the remote control features not the goto. I got mine second hand 4 months ago, I think it had been stored in a damp shed for the previous three years, its been stripped down a few times to get things moving freely and smoothly and now works like a charm. Quality is adequate, they have put in the effort where its needed and cut corners where its not. For instance the inside of some of the aluminium cast parts have casting flaws, but the machining for the axles and bearings is good. The only thing I'm not happy about is there is a small wobble when its carrying the 200p, I think I've tracked it to the tripod, need to try some cross bracing. When its got the Skymax 150 onboard its no problem, had some excellent piccies of Saturn.

I would upgrade from my 200p to a C9.25 if I had the money.

[tea drinker]

Interesting - I have the meade LXD goto on my Vixen GP - I probably used go-to twice. I spend my time on easily spottable things, and enjoy hunting out other stuff.

But when it comes to buying somthing new it "has to have goto".

That's a weird decision on my part lol.

Wat's the diff between HEQ5 and the Pro version.... apart from a few quid?

Barry, I found my mount to tripod screw needed a good old tightening to reduce some wobble and inconsistencies. For you, don't know if there is too much play in the tripod legs?

[Mr Spock]

Just go to Google and type in C9.25 and you'll see the kind of images people are getting out of these.

Given that the atmospherics in this country limit the usability on large scopes the aperture of the C9.25 seems to be right on the ideal spot for best resolution.

I'm not sure what kind of mount you could get away with, but it's rock solid on the EQ6. It's almost a perfect combination for planetary work, either visual of imaging.

[jgs001]

I can't comment on the scope, but whilst the HEQ5 would hold the C9.25 and be under it's weight limit, I'm not sure I'd want to try imaging with it. The very long focal length still requires very accurate tracking for imaging, a little drift is ok, but it only takes a little to send your planetary target out of the FOV. IMHO, and from what I've found with my HEQ5, the same guidelines for the mount in Deep Sky or Lunar/Planetary hold true, the bigger the better. If you can, I'd suggest getting the EQ6 for the 9.25.

[Bazzaar]

That is wild exaggeration John, the HEQ5 is better than you are suggesting. I have imaged Saturn over dozens of nights this spring, some sessions lasting 90 minutes, I may have had to recentre Saturn two or three times in that period. For a typical imaging run of 6 minutes, the apparent drift of Saturn was not noticeable.

Barry

[jgs001]

Must be my setup then Barry... not sure why (maybe it's down to having to setup every time ??)... I normally get the planet drifting out of the FOV in no more than a few minutes, often times much less at longer focal lengths, and I'm nowhere near 50% of the load limit.

Sorry if that caused any confusion.

[beamish]

I must admit after I'd drift aligned my HEQ5 pro last year I had hardly any drift of Joop off the chip ( 640x480) at F30 ( approx 6m) over a half hour period

[tea drinker]

Must be my setup then Barry... not sure why (maybe it's down to having to setup every time ??)... I normally get the planet drifting out of the FOV in no more than a few minutes, often times much less at longer focal lengths, and I'm nowhere near 50% of the load limit.

Sorry if that caused any confusion.

Maybe your polar alignment is off, or your polar scope crosshair is not concentric. Sometimes I make a mess of the alignment and have to go back and spend another few minutes at it....

nice going beamish... will have to get my had around drifting

[beamish]

... will have to get my had around drifting

..so will I

just taken down the mount and ext off the pier for a bit of "summer maintenance" prior to the season start