Skywatcher 300pds neq6!

[laser_jock99]

I have found that In theory it's possible to leave the tube on the bar / rings and secure it on the puck......BUT..... this is a precarious operation with 25+ kg of tube balanced on a 4" puck so I usually secure the rings to the puck first then drop on the scope, I don't want to sound like an advert for Astrodevelopments here but they do a Losmondy rail clamp which works like a stop and helps to locate the rail and rings here even with the tube attached I find these a big help!

Glad to see I'm not the only person sucessfully running 12" Newtonian on an EQ6. Loading up I also find it easier to mount the scope rings first, then drop in the OTA. Stipping down is just a case of dropping out the dovetail bar. If you ever get a guide scope I have found it possible to make 10 minute subs. I tried 20 mins but there was too much flexure (maybe the big mirror was moving?)

Here's my rig in action!

[ajohnson]

Nice rig laser_jock, I have yet to try for longer exposures than 30 secs, the limit of my camera and about as good as I can polar align! The wish list includes illuminated reticule eyepieces to nail down PEC training and a rely neat looking remote timer for the camera that I have come across. I am a long way from convincing the other half I need an auto guider! I need to exhaust what I can achieve with the tools I have and I think I have a way to go yet!.

BTW how much of a difference does the coma corrector make, with the 300PDS I start to get coma maybe 70% toward the edge of the FOV, depending on the FOV of the EP I am using.

[laser_jock99]

Nice rig laser_jock, I have yet to try for longer exposures than 30 secs, the limit of my camera and about as good as I can polar align! The wish list includes illuminated reticule eyepieces to nail down PEC training and a rely neat looking remote timer for the camera that I have come across. I am a long way from convincing the other half I need an auto guider! I need to exhaust what I can achieve with the tools I have and I think I have a way to go yet!.

BTW how much of a difference does the coma corrector make, with the 300PDS I start to get coma maybe 70% toward the edge of the FOV, depending on the FOV of the EP I am using.

Full DSLR field without coma corrector

Full DSLR field with a coma corrector (Baader MPCC MkIII)

There is a difference - the stars at the edge are tighter with the corrector in place and collimation errors/focus are a little less obvious too.

BTW my 12" scope has been moved into it's permanent observatory now. I no longer have to man handle this leviathan around if I want to use it!

[neil phillips]

I've seen/used a 250P on EQ6 and in all honesty I wouldn't want to put a bigger scope on that mount. It will support it but I think you'll get a lot of vibration problems cos it'll be very sensitive to the slightest breeze. 12"ers tend to be dob mounted. They can of course go on much more substantial mounts but then you're into thousands of squids

eg: http://www.bisque.co...aramountMX.aspx

That may be true, but sometimes its good to live dangerously, Ill be putting a 300 p on a neq6 soon. Have you heard of John Hothersall.Surely the Orion 14" can not be lighter than the 300p

http://www.orionopti...astropics3.html

http://stargazerslou...turn-reprocess/

[Astro_Baby]

I had a 250 on an EQ6 and it was horrible. The thing is like a sail and in the lightest breeze or at the lightest rouch it wobbled all over the place making viewing not mich fun at all. theres no diffemce in an NEQ6 to an EQ6 apart from an extended weight bar and the saddle plate, mechanially its the same mount. Plus with any scope you have to factor in extras, a moonlite focuser will add 2 pinda of weight straIght away, chuck on a Stellarvue finder and thats another 2 pounds of weight, add ring rotater, dewshield etc and theres anothe few pounds and finally plug in a heavy EP like an Ethos or an ES 30mm and suddenly the scope isn't close to being overweight its badly undermounted.

You have to use a lightweight scope on a solid mount to realise how much of a pain an undermounted scope is.

No one ever moans about a mojunt being too stable and a solid mount or a scope thats adequately mounted is always nicer to use than a wibbly wobbly contraption....at least for me.

I daresay you can mount a 20" scope on an EQ3 but it wouldnt be a joy to use for observing.

[Dodge]

I had a 250 on an EQ6 and it was horrible.

I agree with this - on an equatorial mount, I find anything bigger than a 200mm Newt just too big to handle. I had a 250PDS on an NEQ6 and frankly it was a mistake. 10" or more means Dob mount for me.

[laser_jock99]

Is there a difference between using a 12" on an EQ6 for eyepiece observing vs imaging? I seem to get on fine (as witnessed by the long exposures above). During observing with an eyepiece are yuo constantly touching the tube? That would make it wobble for sure. The advantage of imaging I supose is you can set it up & then walk away and leave it alone.

[neil phillips]

Well Blue did state for observing and imaging with a 10" Orion too, So i am not sure this was just a visual question being asked by Blue. So i thought i would give my experiance with the imaging side to things. Yes of course astro baby, sometimes pushing things is not ideal. But in a world where many like me can not afford top equipment to image with. Does it mean its not advisable ? ( i would suggest my images and Johns and many others i know of, say yes it can be worthwhile and possibly advised ) I will give a extreme example of what i mean, and what can be important to me, ( and possibly others )

years back i put my 10" Orion on a vixen GP mount and wooden tripod. With a 5x barlow, shooting venus, everytime i stepped near the tripod the image on the screen moved off lol. So i had to move away a bit to capture, and watch where i stood to focus, is this ideal ? no of course not. Was it a joy to use ? ok thats a tricky question, I will have to say YES and heres why.

At the time i wanted to take decent planetary images of venus, i certainly could not at the time afford a beefy mount. But rather than give up, i waited untill the conditions were right to image venus with no wind, ( and also good seeing ) That morning i got one of the best images of venus i have taken. I was overjoyed. So it was a joy to use for me.

Not a joy to use in ideal terms, in a perfect world were i could afford a big mount. One where the slightest breeze or movement did indeed cause problems. But a joy to use from the point of view where i had just produced a decent planetary image of venus in uv light. And i had done it on a shoestring, and with equipment that many might have suggested was not possible, advisable, or much of a joy to use.

Take your pick. So the definition of a joy to use, could be different for different people, with different budgets, And different interests, The definition itself is hazy, and dare i say could be different for different people. I notice that you did say for you Astro baby. But you was also giving your views in relation to the thread i would have thought ?

Would i have advised this setup for someone who wanted only a visual instrument, one where using it more often, and with wind was important. Of course not, in that case i would point out the pitfalls.

But if someone said i will not be able to afford anything else, i dont mind waiting even for long periods of time, ( planetary imagers get used to waiting long periods of time to get a good image ) in the chance of imaging a nice planetary image.

I would have said yes its worth a try. As i knew from experiance it was indeed possible. So my reason for showing Johns images, and talking about my own experiances with imaging on a budget. was to say. Hey things are not as clear cut or defined as some seem to be suggesting here. And i firmly belive that i am afraid.

Is it advisable to cut corners ? no. Is it worth it for someone that can not afford top prices. And are willing to take the rough with the smooth, Most definately yes.

I agree the Orion 10" might be lighter than the 10" SW. But Johns 14" Orion is most likely heavier than the 12" Skywatcher. But its being advised possibly not to do that ?

Well i remember Johns saturn images last year. Wth this massive scope on the EQ6 And what i can say, they was some of the best images that were coming out of australia period. Truely world class.

If John would be asked about wind, i am sure he would say, i can not image in wind. But has that stopped him producing world class images. No, has he found this setup a joy to use ? I would have thought yes ? ( someone would have to ask him ) But a joy to use, not in the sense that wind is a problem. and possibly other issues, But in the sense that, this mount has enabled him to use a massive telescope on a cheap mount ( compared to say a EQ8 ) And done many many fine images.

world class images both in lunar and planetary, and deepsky. Truely a inspiration to others with similar goals, and without a bank account to match the enthusiasm for taking wonderful deepsky and planeray imagers

From that definition, i would have thought he was overjoyed with how this setup performed for him. Someone would have to ask him. But make sure you define the definition of a joy to use to him if you do. To make sure you get the correct answer.

I hope i have at least given good examples where its not always that easy to advise people. And sometimes things are not quite as clear cut, as seems to be being suggested for different situations.

Blue did mention imaging too. and i do not recall him saying he wasnt prepared to wait for windless nights. If he did. Then my comments would still apply to others that do not mind waiting to use there equipment, that may see comments on here from some, that seem to suggest its just outright ugly to attempt to.

I would like to finally say. I actually find my 10" Orion on windless nights actually pretty stable. I find the NEQ6 more than up to the job. But then i can still remember that excellent morning with venus, and those wobbly wooden legs. The 12" will be pushing it for sure. But im hopeing In comparsion to the vixen gp on wooden legs. It might actually be more in control than what i put that poor vixen through all those years ago. Johns images seem to suggest that indeed it should be. For the priorities that are important to me. Just like others have there own priorities. I do note Astrobaby you did say

I daresay you can mount a 20" scope on an EQ3 but it wouldnt be a joy to use for observing.

But Blue did also mention imaging. So I belive possibly that side should have been considered a bit. When advice is given

[neil phillips]

Is there a difference between using a 12" on an EQ6 for eyepiece observing vs imaging? I seem to get on fine (as witnessed by the long exposures above). During observing with an eyepiece are yuo constantly touching the tube? That would make it wobble for sure. The advantage of imaging I supose is you can set it up & then walk away and leave it alone.

To be honest i think this is a question that should go out to the visual folk, as its been a long time since i did that and really thought about what your asking. But i wouldnt have thought gently touching the eyepiece once in a while would cause too much of a problem. I could be wrong though ?

[RikM]

Reading through this thread again I think we may have lost the way a little bit. The original post was asking about getting better observations of galaxies / DSO!

For visual use a Dob mount is for most people much more comfortable to use than an EQ mounted Newtonian, because the eyepiece is always reachable. Aperture counts, but dark skies even more so. If your sky is truly dark then unless your mirror coatings are toast a 10"-12" probably won't show you vastly more than your 8". Knowing where to point it is obviously a help in finding these faint fuzzies so a red dot finder and a good star map will help with this. Or if observing is your goal, have a look at the SkyWatcer GoTo Dobs.

For planetary imaging, you can use a large Newtonian on an EQ mount because the individual exposures are so short. The (electronic) shutter isn't open for long enough for any wobbles / trailing to show. The stacking software can work wonders sifting through the junk frames to pick out the good ones.

For deep sky imaging aperture is largely irrelevant. Focal ratio (just like the f-stop setting on a camera) and exposure time are what determine image brightness. Deep sky objects are generally very faint so you need a fast f/ratio (low F number) and long exposures to be able to get good images. The larger the scope, generally the long the focal length so get more apparent magnification and see a smaller patch of sky. This is good for some things but not so good for others. Laser_Jock's North American Nebula pic for example, though the stars are mainly good and there is a bit of nebulosity, shows only a very tiny faint part of the nebula. It is a huge and bright thing that needs a short focal length to do it justice. Getting good results from a big scope is making life hard for yourself, when you could do a better job with a more manageable scope and long, more accurately tracked/guided exposures. It is very easy to think that bigger is better, when it simply isn't the case for the majority of deep sky imaging.

I would suggest you think about your main intention and chose the equipment that suits that. Visual / planetary AP / deepsky AP all have very different requirements.

[ajohnson]

Just to add to this, like Neil I have a limited budget, I went for the 12" / NEQ6 combo basically because the seller was getting rid of a damaged NEQ6 (which I have now restored) and the 12" Newt that came with it. My thinking then and now was that even if the 12" proves too big it can easily by traded for something more compact such as an 8" Newt or SCT. However, in dark skys this tube is giving me good / excellent views of DSOs and Comets which are the objects I like to go and I have become quite accustomed to setting it up now. True the mount is probably overloaded, but I can also get some reasonable shots using my Canon 350D with MPCC fitted (my thanks to Laser Jock for convincing me this was the right way to go). 8 months on I am still learning the limitations of my set-up, I could easily spend a small fortune on better sensors, different tubes and a whole guiding set-up. In time I may eventually go this route and if I do, for sure the 12" will need to be replaced by a smaller tube or I will need to look at the new EQ8 mount (not my first choice because even with a Land Rover to get me to those remote dark spots the NEQ6 is quite a lump to haul). To summarise for the money (less than £1000) I bought an NEQ6 and 12" Newt and had enough spare cash to get them both working well, I have had some great views of DSOs with the set-up visually and found that with even moderate exposures (30 - 90 secs) my old Canon 350D will capture some good images at ISO 800 (ISO 1600 is OK but the stackers don't clean up the extra noise as well) certainly enough for me to see more detail and has been pointed out here this imaging does require you to step away from the mount and not jump around (I'm certain this true for any long exposures).

[LeeB]

most of the issues with neq6 with a 12 inch is the weight of the ota, the skywatchers are very heavy. As an example my 10" OO with finder and upgraded focuser still only weighs just over 11KG I believe that's lighter than an 8 inch skywatcher. I had use of a 10" skywatcher and that was 5kg heavier. In short get an neq 6 and put an OO 12 on it. While wind will affect the setup more the weight would still only be similar to a skywatcher 10.

[ajohnson]

I think the Orion VX12 is about half the weight of the Skywatcher 300 PDS and about twice the price! This is the cost of quality, as of right now I have the basis of a decent set-up in the form of the EQ6, in all honesty I will probably off load the 12" for an 8 - 10" SCT or maybe do as one of my correspondents here has done and purchase a lighter newt for imaging. Actually I won't do that I don't have room for loads of scopes so it will be one general purpose scope. But while I'm waiting for the funds to build, the 12" is doing good service.

[laser_jock99]

A well balanced EQ6 is capable of supporting at least 35kg payload for imaging if used carefully. I'm currently using 7x 5kg counterweights on my system and still getting okay results. Ultimately a mount upgrade will be required but the EQ6 isn't broken yet! 300s single sub with 70kg total load on an EQ6

[moxican]

I am eyeballing this wersion of the above mentioned OTA since I have the NEQ6 already:

http://www.kwtelescope.com/telescopes/reflectors/sky-watcher-bkp-300-otaw-dual-speed.html

Under additional information says that it weights in at 18Kg, I am not sure what's that in imperial. Now I don't do observing almost at all (99%). I am doing astrophotography, both DSO and planetary, preferably planetary. As of now I am running a 10" Meade LX90 SCT on the NEQ6, and although the Meade weighs 14Kg, the mount does not even budge. Not to mention that when I image I have a side-by-side mounting on it with a Celestron 70 or 80ED, plus ASI120MC for guiding, plus Canon 450D maybe even a F6.3 focal reducer, so all together it comes to around 30Kg with 4 counterwights and it holds pretty nice.

I remember having this heavy SCT mounted on an older CG5 with an SPC900, although it sucked, but was a lot of fun.

So for this I think the mount should be sufficient. I did a lot of research too. I found out Mike Salway uses the same set up and his results are awesome:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/?mikesalway

I think the mount is more than capable of hauling the 12" Skywatcher OTA. If the contditions are windy I don't even bother going out to even observ as the wond moves it even if I set the Celestron 80ED on the NEQ6 by itself. It's just the way it is. When you are on a budget and have difficulties like this to pursue this hobby, the succes will only be more motivating.

I just figured I share my thoughts on the subject.

[Astro_Baby]

For visual observing you cant have a mount thats solid enough....doubly so if you are in a field rather than an obs. Visual means you are tweaking a focus knob, changing EPs, and you head may touch the scope at times. Tweaking that focus will cause a wobble in most scopes and while the scopes wobbling its tough to get focus. If your hampered by a scope thats acting as a sail as well and picking up wobbles from the breeze its even worse.

Until you have compared the viewing experience between a well mounted scope and an undermounted one you cant imagine the joy of overmounting or the misery of undermounting.

On an HEQ5 a Skywatcher 200 is perfectly usable but the TAL100 is a joy. The difference is the weight of the scope. A solidly mounted scope is worth an inch of aperture everytime in my book. Maybe more.

The Orion scopes are significantly lighter than Skywatchers ally tubed ones and the weight of hardware goes up dramatically at the 250. I can easily carry a 200 but a 250 is a struggle. It has all the attributes of awkward......big, bulky, heavy AND fragile. Those are a terrible combination to carry.........i had a 250 on an EQ6 and it was a misery to use even forgetting the carrying it around, it was third hand and I dont doubt its previous owners were selling for the same reasons as I eventually did. Out in a field it was awkward to be around, rotating it in its rings for visual was a struggle, the lightest breeze would make it vibrate and the merest breath of touch on the focuser would induce wobbles. Could YOU live it ? Maybe. Maybe you are less streesed, have a more phlegmatic character, perhaps are inexperienced and believe its the norm. Could I live it ? No way....it made a night under the stars a bane to be avoided rather than a boon to be grasped at. Selling on the 250 OTA told me a lot.....even though I hosed it out at a bargain price it took almost 6 months to sell....and that was to a guy who was converting it to a Dob mount as a grab and go !!!

look at ABS regularly and 250 and 300 tubes come up often. I wonder why ????

I dont do astro imaging so I am not competent to comment on the value of a large newt for imaging or to evaluate the pictures shown ( sorry guys I get my AP photo of the day from NASA and thats as far as I go with imaging ) but the AP gurus always say aperture isn't key in imaging so I would wonder why anyone would go the large newt route.

The sordid subject of coin came up in the thread " please sir can I have a larger mount" and as somone who is typically tight on the cash I am not knocking wanting to do it on the cheap. If Mammon rules your purse than why not have a smaller scope rather than an undermounted one. You AP folk are lucky when your skint, you can put up with taking more exposures and getting by without the latest in auto guiding and processing......spare a thought for your observing cousins who have no choce if they want to get good images other than by spending their inheritances on ever better glass. I have two kids who have to live on jam on toast every night and sleep in a cardboard box in middle of road so I can use Pentax EPs

[malc-c]

@LaserJoc

I've been having issues with rogue diffraction spikes on my 200P. I noticed on your image below that you to have a strange diffraction pattern around that bright star, yet your collimation seems spot on

[RikM]

@LaserJoc

I've been having issues with rogue diffraction spikes on my 200P. I noticed on your image below that you to have a strange diffraction pattern around that bright star, yet your collimation seems spot on

Diverging diffraction spikes like that generally means the spider vanes aren't parallel on opposite sides of the secondary.

[ajohnson]

Despite the fact that I love my 300 I'd have to agree with a number of Astro Baby's comments, it is a bit of sail on a windy night even when protected by the fence on my patio, it also travels with me to dark sky sites where it's light gathering capability really produces some fantastic results. But I have come across 3 people who have started off day one with the biggest scope they could find, usually a 250 or 300 and regretted. There are obviously more than this as the adverts selling these on usually say "used (pick a number below 10) times". A year after buying my NEQ6 with it's monster tube I'm still using it whenever I get the chance both visually and for AP, so the lunatic fringe still favours these tubes. I have added a video to You Tube showing my 300 on it's mount.