skywatcher st 102 advice /tips

[shirva]

hi all,,have just purchased a st 102 to hook up to my eq3/2 synscan pro ,,,looking for tips on using both a philips spc flashed to a 900 and a canon eos 400d camera with a t ring,x2 barlows ect..i know going from posts to stick with the web cam for lunar /planetry imaging and the dslr for wide field deep sky..looking for all tips ,experiances you have setting up and using above equipment ,,,a chap called stan27 ? has had soon good images produced would be much appreciated. davy...cumbernauld ...scotland...

equipment

st 102, eq3/2 synscan pro

meade etx 80

203mm reflector eq3/2

canon eos 400d/// philips webcam/// usual laptop and software equipment

various x2 barlows/selection of eye piece's/

shed kitted out for astronomy

[shirva]

Wow..nobody has a startravel 102..

[fredster]

I use the 120 on the EQ3-2 (and AZ4). Also have a Canon 1000D which i haven't yet hooked up to the scope. From what i know (limited) there are some flaws in our setups. The Startravel isn't renowned for its colour correction, so expect blue halos on everything you image. But these can be suppressed later in Photoshop. The EQ3 is not the worlds best tracking EQ mount, so we can't expect huge long exposures. I've banked on getting images of 30-60seconds, and even then expect to throw half in the recycle bin.

As for the webcam, i have one of those two and also not used that either. I found very quickly the the Startravel was precisely the wrong telescope for lunar/planetary visual and imaging. So went out and bought a Maksutov (Skymax) for that purpose. Not to say you won't get anything but its very short focal length (fast focal ratio) and poor colour correction put it at a huge disadvantage for that work. The Skymax 127 makes a perfect compliment to the Startravel by the way and still sits nicely on the EQ3.

Hope that's not too depressing. Don't be depressed, i love my Startravel but have come to appreciate its greater attributes and leave alone the areas where it will struggle.

[Capricorn]

The problem is this:

The serious astro imagers use a refrector and an equitorial goto to get their images.

You have bought a refractor and an equitorial goto - sounds the same eh ?

They use an EQ6, you have an EQ3.

Imagers will put an ED80+CCD on their EQ6 and hope the mount is sufficent, you are putting 2-3 times as much weight on a substantially smaller mount.

Notice from this that they do not necessarily use DSLR's, at Sidmouth in the imaging tent all the systems had ccd's on them, not one DSLR as I can recall.

They can end up buying £1000 triplet apos, you have a 102 achro.

The goto is so that the mount can be controlled by a guide camera and system, you don't have that.

Optically the 102 is wide, not only will it give CA but at 102 and f/5 it will also give SA.

The focal length is too sort for planetary images, you will need a 5x barlow, but that will show up the CA on planets.

The SA may actually mean you could not get a sharp focus for things like Jupiter band detail.

I don't have an EQ3 but willing to bet that an ST102 and a DSLR are far too heavy, fair odds that the 102 on it's own, no DSLR, would be too heavy.

Another point to remember is that goto is to locate an object, locating does not mean track an object - that is why people buy guide cameras.

If the intention is to get some practise on the equipment you have before buying £2000-3000 of imaging equipment then fine, go ahead and practise.

Sorry, just this comes up many times and really astrophotography should be considered as a seperate area.

Really it would be good if one or two of the guys that are serious on AP would post a photo of their complete equipment then list the cost.

[fredster]

I don't have an EQ3 but willing to bet that an ST102 and a DSLR are far too heavy, fair odds that the 102 on it's own, no DSLR, would be too heavy.

Another point to remember is that goto is to locate an object, locating does not mean track an object - that is why people buy guide cameras.

EQ3 is fine with the ST102, takes it easily with capacity to spare, even with a DSLR on the back. I have no problems using the EQ3 with ST120.

[JamesF]

stan26 has put in a lot of time and effort to get decent DSO images from his ST102 and EQ3-2. There's a thread in the DIY section where he describes all the work he has done. It's not a simple path to follow, but possible if you're committed (or maybe you should be committed I'd really encourage you to find that thread and have a read.

You are going to have problems with planetary imaging. I tried and gave up pretty much as soon as I'd started. The scope just isn't up to giving the kind of magnification you need really. By all means have a go, but you can only really expect very small images.

The ST102 will be fine on the EQ3-2 though. I regularly use mine for imaging with a 127 Mak and webcam or DSLR and with a little care I've even used it for unguided webcam imaging with the ST120 though I'd not recommend that to anyone.

James

[shirva]

Many thanks guys I know from threads its not ideal set up..and as Stan has shown it can be done..this is a starting point for me and as funds and experience grows so will my equipment. Stan has contacted me a gave me direction..many thanks stan..what I think would be good is a tutorial section for this on the forum.I know it takes time and effort but would be nice if someone took a lead on this everybody was new to this at one stage

[astrostu]

I totally agree with you Davey it would be Awsome if someone started a how to thread with this modest set up... Although stan26 posts are very inspiring I must say. I've just purchased an st 80 and might be getting a 102 so I can have a go at dso imaging with my eq3. Have you had any success with your set up yet? Can't wait for these damn clouds to lift lol stu ~

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2