Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

A couple of questions about SynScan and Celestron goto

The Warthog

Recommended Posts

The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
Posted

Actually, this may be only one question. With a SynScan set up, do you use reference stars and then let the computer figure out where things are for you, or do you have to mess with a lot of polar alignment first? I bleieve Celestron CG5 goes the reference star route, right?

I'm noticing that the CG5 and the SynScan EQ5 are about the same price over here, but the Celestron seems to have a much bigger database, which may be worth the extra 50 bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kaptain Klevtsov

Kaptain Klevtsov

Posted
Posted

As I understand it (yeah right!) the two systems that are out there work in two different ways. One system works on a GEM, the other on an Alt. Az. mount.

The Alt. Az. mount ones can guess the position of everything by getting you to input the positions of two bright things in the sky - planets or stars, it makes no difference. The software then works out what two things are exactly so far apart and calculates everything based on that information.

The other (GEM) way round is to tell the software where one to three objects are for calibration of the start position. With the GEM system you do need to get the polar alignment as close as possible for it to work well.

The difference between the two systems is that the Al. Az. tracks in two axes, whereas the GEM version only tracks in one.

Kaptain Klevtsov

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted

The Celestron database is indeed bigger than the Synscan one and whilst many of the objects aren't visible in my 10" scope anyway having gone from a CG5-GT to and EQ6 Pro I really miss the 'Named Objects' part of the Celestron database. For example, looking for the Veil Nebula in the Celestron is easy, go to Named Objects and pick 'Veil Nebula'. On the Synscan side of things you need to know which NGC numbers make up the Veil (6960, 6992, 6995 I think...?)...

Both the CG5-GT and EQ6 Pro/Synscan set up use a similar method for setting up, in my case a visual polar alignment through the borehole (the EQ6 has a polar scope but not the CG5) then a 3 star align for the EQ6 or a 2 star align (with up to 4 calibration stars) on the CG5.

I miss the 2 star align with calibration stars as well...

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted

The 3 star align is pretty good if you're careful which stars you choose (i.e. not too close to the horizon, as different in RA and Dec as possible and starting with a star near the meridian). For me going to a Synscan based system was like going back to the older version of the CG5-GT's handset (but without any of the, ahem, technical difficulties experienced by many). My goto's using synscan are, best as I can tell, pretty much as good as the CG5 gave me but not quite...

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whippy

Whippy

Posted
Posted

WH, I think the CG5 has slightly better axis bearings inside than the EQ5, but I'm not sure about the noise factor which is it's one big downfall. You may want to bear that in mind. All I ever did with my CG5 was to get Polaris in the middle of the borehole where the polarscope should be and that's good enough, you don't need to be super close for it to work.

One thing I found was that when you're doing your star alignment, I found it works loads better if you choose your stars a fair distance apart. For example I would choose Arcturus, Deneb and Almach ATM rather than say Vega, Deneb and Altair which are fairly close together. I've yet to use my EQ6 but from what I've seen, they're fairly similar (as they should be coming from the same manufacturer!). For me, as long as my chosen target is within the view of a 20mm plossl, then it's accurate enough.

Tony..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazOC

GazOC

Posted
Posted

Align with Polaris yes, but my Celestron handset wouldn't let me use it as a align star or calib star.

Thats because it should 'know' where Polaris is already based on the polar align. By aligning on Polaris you shouldn't be telling it anything new. :D

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.