Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Goto mounts.

Dre

By Dre
in Discussions - Mounts

Recommended Posts

E621Keith

E621Keith

Posted
Posted

It depends on the mount. Some mount will work well, others won't. It also depends on the GOTO system, some GOTO system works well, others won't.

You need to understand the only job of the GOTO system is for pointing the scope. Tracking accuracy and mount stability depends on the mechanical quality of the mount.

What is your budget? A HEQ5 is considered the minimum mount for AP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garethmob

garethmob

Posted
Posted

a goto is effectly just for finding the object, the mounts motor quailty will determine if theres any "star trailing" as above a HEQ5 is usally the minimum for astrophotography, also to get anything remotely more than 2 minuits per image guiding would have to be done (a seperate camera and scope attached to the imagering scope that follows a star and corrects for any movement out of place)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

Yes, vital not to confuse Go To with guiding. However, Go To is very useful for imaging because you can't be taking the camera on and off to find your object. (Flats can be messed up for one thing). Also, you are often imaging things that cannot be seen in any telescope. And you may want to slew to a bright star to refocus then quickly slew back again to continue the image. And, and, and...

I wouldn't want to image without GoTo but I wouldn't want to image without an autoguider either.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ant

Ant

Posted
Posted

I resisted GOTO for a long time - but after numerous nights in a row where I failed to even find the object I was after - I gave in...!

Best move I ever made. Now I can be setup, target located, focused and guiding within 15minutes. Last night that was literally the case. It was so quick in fact that I had to wait for it to get fully dark :)

I agree that the HEQ5 is pretty much a starting point (although I have seen good results from the EQ3/EQ5 with synscan upgrade), it is also not necessary to go bigger.

This is my HEQ5 with a 140mm refractor on it!

vixen_na_140_ssf_heq5.jpg

So whilst bigger is better - you don't HAVE to go bigger.

Ant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sparrow

Sparrow

Posted
Posted

Absolutely wouldn't be without goto. There are enough hurdles to overcome when imaging, without having to spend half the evening trying to find the target and get it in the field of view. Personally, I consider it an essential, not a luxury.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jasperuk

jasperuk

Posted
Posted

I was considering adding the goto to my 3-2 as i dont think i can afford the full eq5, its a bit of a pain looking for targets (DSO) expecially where as a well set up goto should at least get min in the right area.

I take some fairly good astroshots (not profesional like some on here but i like em) even with the eq3-2 i think the point is its easier with the eq5, i am also using BACKYARD EOS and my Canon 550D at the moment so i decide my target set my delay so i can get out of the area to avoid shaking the scope with my big feet and ask it to take as many shots as i need. I only return when its done watching the laptop shots come through on screen from a safe distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cath

Cath

Posted
Posted

Definitely don't try using the Celestron Nexstar SE mounts!

I was doing a test last night to work out if it was worth getting a wedge for my mount (to convert it to EQ mode) and very quickly decided it wouldn't help what so ever. A wedge would mostly remove the field rotation but I'd still be left with the backlash problem.

Attached piccy is an 8min exposure without a wedge so their was obviously going to be field rotation, but the backlash is pretty terrible with these alt/azm mounts.

Oh to be able to afford a HEQ6!

post-32860-133877752189_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

I (did) do wonder about "wedges" too. LOL. Be content with the *virtues* of Alt-Azimuth? The Azimuth bearings of many / most Alt-Azimuth mounts do seem to be optimised to work in the horizontal plane though? The software may work, but... :o

Aside: Video Astronomy works well with Alt-Azimuth - Though (lots of short frames) might be the antithesis(?) of Deep Sky imaging. But, eventually I weakened - Bought an HEQ5. Mostly for it's (reliable) load-bearing capacity... Thus far! :blob10:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gooseholla

gooseholla

Posted
Posted

If you get one set up accurately, then for 10 or so minutes it is fine - ALT AZ that is. I wouldn't be doing deep sky objects, but for planets and moon it would be fine. However, the ALT AZ really come into their own for quick visual finding and short tracking. Definately not for photography. EQ will be okay, if they are a good quality one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
garethmob

garethmob

Posted
Posted

the wedge works fine with my kson? although i'll be honest last 4 pics iv taken were with the kson just as a tripod and the astrotrac on a dovetail onto it. but i did take a sort of decent pic of andromedia, could it be the build quailty of the alt azimuth that causes it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.