Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_terminator_challenge_winners.thumb.jpg.6becf44442bc7105be59da91b2bee295.jpg

Russe

Imaging with the 130pds

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

Could be that ZWO is no longer accepting customer orders because they stopped production, and above batch was ordered by TS some time ago.

Anyway, if you want that camera, I guess it's worth checking again after 9 days if it's in stock, or as suggested above - look at other vendors offerings.

Oh I cant afford it right now, its more something that is on my wish list for 6 months time if I can still get hold of one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Adam J said:

Have you tried 1000's of 5-10 second exposures at high gain with this?

Noooo :) that would generate far too much data, im already running low on storage space as it is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For galaxy hunting with the 130PDS I am waiting for the QHY550M cooled, but it seems to be QHY dedicates more time to make big sensors than to this small camera. ☹️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello everyone, i'm trying to get back to using the 130pds as i was struggling to get it collimated. this week i gave the no tools collimation a try and it looks better, but i don't know much about it.

could someone please check if the collimation is ok in this picture?

Single__0022_ISO800_8s__59C.thumb.JPG.5975b2e5c8e3e320e9b5e460f7c540cb.JPG

 

thanks a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to check the collimation is to look at a defocussed star.  If the rings are all concentric and the width all round is even then the collimation is OK.

Something like this.  (N.B. The bite out of the star was before I had my focusser shortened, so ignore that).  

 

Defocussed star ist light 130PDS.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Atreta said:

hello everyone, i'm trying to get back to using the 130pds as i was struggling to get it collimated. this week i gave the no tools collimation a try and it looks better, but i don't know much about it.

could someone please check if the collimation is ok in this picture?

thanks a lot.

As Carole said,  de-focused star will show all the collimation problems.

Try keeping it in the center of the frame as you do not use Coma Corrector and even the perfect Collimation will look Off if your star will be on the corner or even halfway.

So if you will target a rich star field, central de-focused stars are the ones you need to look at and ignore the ones close/midway to the corners.

Your 8 sec sub has slightly prolonged stars even in the middle.

If you were guiding, - you probably had the tilt of the camera in the focuser, - or guiding was very bad, which I doubt.

So also, keep an eye how you place the camera in, -  it has to be stiff and have no play towards any direction.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, carastro said:

The best way to check the collimation is to look at a defocussed star.  If the rings are all concentric and the width all round is even then the collimation is OK.

Something like this.  (N.B. The bite out of the star was before I had my focusser shortened, so ignore that).  

 

Defocussed star ist light 130PDS.jpg

Are all 130's like this is you don't shave a bit off the focuser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, matt_baker said:

Are all 130's like this is you don't shave a bit off the focuser?

Yep, all Newtonians will have this shadow with Focuser fully in.

I had to circumcise mine also... Not difficult at all, but I cannot use scope for visual after.

Please note, not all cameras are focused on the same spot, - so if you are lucky enough and your camera is focused with focuser Out, your images may not suffer from the shadow at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, RolandKol said:

 

I had to circumcise mine also...

Ouch... :D  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey, I think I've got my next scope sorted... I currently have a 90mm f/10 refractor so I think the two would make a good pairing.

 

Out of curiosity, if I can afford the 200PDS should I go for that over the 130 or are there other things to consider than how much light will be collected? Same focal ratio. I guess one thing to consider is that when adding a coma corrector into the mix you're throwing another £100 on top of the scope price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Startinez said:

Crikey, I think I've got my next scope sorted... I currently have a 90mm f/10 refractor so I think the two would make a good pairing.

 

Out of curiosity, if I can afford the 200PDS should I go for that over the 130 or are there other things to consider than how much light will be collected? Same focal ratio. I guess one thing to consider is that when adding a coma corrector into the mix you're throwing another £100 on top of the scope price.

The 200pds? Hmmm nope :) 

It's the weight and bulk you have to consider (its heavy when loaded up), and it will catch the wind like a sail. It's easier to just get more out of shorter focal length by using a camera with smaller pixels (as long as you don't over sample the resloving power of the optics).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to say that the 200 cant make a good image (because it can). But the difficulty is in a different ball park compared to the 130.

Plus your choice of targets would be limited by the fov available from a 1 metre focal length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, thanks for the explanation. I guess it's narrowed down to 1 then! ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, carastro said:

The best way to check the collimation is to look at a defocussed star.  If the rings are all concentric and the width all round is even then the collimation is OK.

Something like this.  (N.B. The bite out of the star was before I had my focusser shortened, so ignore that).  

 

Defocussed star ist light 130PDS.jpg

Thanks for the reply,  Carole.  I only get an image like that one way of the focuser, i don't if I'm explaining it right. If i move the focuser inwards to become out of focus, i get an image just like that one you showed, but if i move it outwards i get a different one. I'll try to take a picture tonight and post again. 

13 hours ago, RolandKol said:

As Carole said,  de-focused star will show all the collimation problems.

Try keeping it in the center of the frame as you do not use Coma Corrector and even the perfect Collimation will look Off if your star will be on the corner or even halfway.

So if you will target a rich star field, central de-focused stars are the ones you need to look at and ignore the ones close/midway to the corners.

Your 8 sec sub has slightly prolonged stars even in the middle.

If you were guiding, - you probably had the tilt of the camera in the focuser, - or guiding was very bad, which I doubt.

So also, keep an eye how you place the camera in, -  it has to be stiff and have no play towards any direction.

 

 

Thanks for replying,  yes, guiding was off when i took this one. I'll try to get the camera square with the focuser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to ordering an AZ GTI shortly for my 90 mak, may order a 130pds as well. 130p is supplied in a bundle so the pds version isn't that much heavier and I will only be using a zwo120 so will still be under weight limit of the mount and the mount can now be used in eq mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Has anyone managed to find something like 2" Baader ClickClock or any other 2" eyepiece clamp which would enable to achieve Focus using Canon or ASI1600?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick 2 hour pop at M51, no proper calibration though so its a bit on the rough side. Also had a bit of flex somewhere, but I will track that down and eliminate it.

(taken with the ASI178MM cool)

Group1_80.thumb.jpg.1f06153f4a11fe29af221c8c7819c0df.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uranium235 said:

Just a quick 2 hour pop at M51, no proper calibration though so its a bit on the rough side. Also had a bit of flex somewhere, but I will track that down and eliminate it.

(taken with the ASI178MM cool)

Group1_80.thumb.jpg.1f06153f4a11fe29af221c8c7819c0df.jpg

I would like to see this with color anytime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uranium235 said:

Just a quick 2 hour pop at M51, no proper calibration though so its a bit on the rough side. Also had a bit of flex somewhere, but I will track that down and eliminate it.

(taken with the ASI178MM cool)

Group1_80.thumb.jpg.1f06153f4a11fe29af221c8c7819c0df.jpg

Uranium it's good to so you're still here in this thread after all these years. Honestly mate I chuckle at one of your earliest comments regarding Skywatcher paying this thread commission for uptick in 130PDS sales...more like paying you commission! I think your images are the reason that a large number of us landed on this scope, and to this day I am beside myself to understand how you pull such amazing data off a cheap imaging newt mounted to an EQ6. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, JP50515 said:

Uranium it's good to so you're still here in this thread after all these years. Honestly mate I chuckle at one of your earliest comments regarding Skywatcher paying this thread commission for uptick in 130PDS sales...more like paying you commission! I think your images are the reason that a large number of us landed on this scope, and to this day I am beside myself to understand how you pull such amazing data off a cheap imaging newt mounted to an EQ6. 

I can agree with this for sure. 

One of the reasons I got a 130P-DS was seeing a few of Uranium's images and thought there's no way such a cheap scope could grab stuff like that.

I'm more of a lurker and don't post too much but here's my latest M81 M82 pic here. I can post acquisition if people want but it's late aha. 

I also need to use APT for dithering because I'm hating this raining noise

Autosave005_DBE_DBE_tiffv1.2.jpg

Edited by matt_baker
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, matt_baker said:

I can agree with this for sure. 

One of the reasons I got a 130P-DS was seeing a few of Uranium's images and thought there's no way such a cheap scope could grab stuff like that.

I'm more of a lurker and don't post too much but here's my latest M81 M82 pic here. I can post acquisition if people want but it's late aha. 

I also need to use APT for dithering because I'm hating this raining noise

Autosave005_DBE_DBE_tiffv1.2.jpg

This is impressive. Can you post acquisition data and processing please? 

I'm using a Nikon D5100 on my 130PDS/HEQ5 and would love to achieve the colours you've pulled out. I've just started experimenting with dithering and so far so good but stretching in PS is pulling out too much noise. I'm impatient for results as well which doesn't help

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BigRD said:

I'm using a Nikon D5100 on my 130PDS/HEQ5 and would love to achieve the colours you've pulled out. I've just started experimenting with dithering and so far so good but stretching in PS is pulling out too much noise. I'm impatient for results as well which doesn't help

If you purchase Noels Actions for PS there are a couple of good noise reduction actions in it.

Dave

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, JP50515 said:

Uranium it's good to so you're still here in this thread after all these years. Honestly mate I chuckle at one of your earliest comments regarding Skywatcher paying this thread commission for uptick in 130PDS sales...more like paying you commission! I think your images are the reason that a large number of us landed on this scope, and to this day I am beside myself to understand how you pull such amazing data off a cheap imaging newt mounted to an EQ6. 

 

21 hours ago, matt_baker said:

I can agree with this for sure. 

One of the reasons I got a 130P-DS was seeing a few of Uranium's images and thought there's no way such a cheap scope could grab stuff like that.

 

Thanks guys :)

But we have to take a number of things into consideration if you want to get the best out of it.

Starting off with the mount, the 130 is quite light so it never bothers an NEQ6 (not even close...lol).

Secondly there is the camera, that is were the magic happens - which as we all know can only be achieved with a mono (yes... there, i said the M word :D ) CCD or the one of the recent crop of cooled CMOS cameras because you need very low noise to get good data. This point would need a lot of consideration in regard to sensor size and/or pixel size, and what you want to image.

Then, its the 130pds - probably the simplest way to deliver photons to the sensor..... no fancy-dan glass required  (barring the coma corrector) - just a couple of small mirrors... its as uncomplicated as it can be :)

Lastly, its guiding, choice of target, framing and mosaic planning and total integration time.

But at the moment, its my only telescope - so its going to get used a lot, especially now I've got it bagging galaxies with some decent detail. With the ASI178 though, ive found it takes a 100+ short(ish) subs to get a very clean image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2019 at 15:27, BigRD said:

This is impressive. Can you post acquisition data and processing please? 

I'm using a Nikon D5100 on my 130PDS/HEQ5 and would love to achieve the colours you've pulled out. I've just started experimenting with dithering and so far so good but stretching in PS is pulling out too much noise. I'm impatient for results as well which doesn't help

Cheers

I used 45x180s exposures along with 20 darks, flats, bias frames

DSS for stacking

I did use PixInsight for post-processing however since changing from PS, as it helps loads. So unfortunately I can't help you there but I know Trevor from AstroBackyard does really good photoshop processing tutorials.

If you would like to know how I went about processing in PixInsight, then just ask :)

As Dave said, Noel's actions will help greatly and it is worth the investment 100%

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Andy Cole
      Hi all
      I'm a newbie here but not totally new to astronomy. I've had a telescope since I was a teenager (over 30 years!) and only ever had 1 telescope - a Tasco 40x40mm reflector. I expect members my age are familiar with it - thin and white with a thin metal tripod and a push and pull focuser.  It's still functional at more than 30 years old although the thread on the eyepiece is worn so the eyepiece falls off regularly! I've only ever used it to look at the moon, Jupiter and Saturn and that's always been good enough for me.  Now I have been thinking of getting a new scope. I have a very limited budget and so I am wondering whether I will get any significant improvements on what I can see.
      My earliest memories of the Tasco from childhood were that I could see the rings of Saturn as a line across the circle of the planet.  Having rekindled my interest in the last few years, I have started to use it again, and nowadays, when Saturn is visible, I can clearly see the rings 'as a ring' and the gap between the planet and the rings, which I don't remember seeing as a kid. 
      Vieing Jupiter I can usually see about 4 moons.
      I've heard that the Skywatcher Heritage 130P Dobsonian is a good 'budget' telescope, and great for casual use, which is what appeals to me most.  I don't want a telescope with complicated setup or one that takes up a lot of space.  TheSkywatcher seems to fit the bill, and it also fits my very limited budget.
      What I am most interested to find out is whill I get an improved view of the things I have already experienced?  I have read some reviews that describe what you can see with this scope and it sounds like it's pretty much what I can already see. And it's maximum 65x magnification doesn't seem like much better than the Tasco's 40x. But will the wider aperture make a bigger difference than the magnification?
      I'm also interested to know if I could use this scope for basic astrophotography - I have numerous cameras - phone cameras, compacts and DSLR's (photohraphy is my main hobby).  I'm not talking about hour long exposures of dark sky objects, just what can be seen easily through this scope.
      I'd love to know what people's opinions are, especially if you own or have used this scope.  I'm also interested to hear recommendations for other scopes, but please remember I have limited budget and space.  I know that an 8" or more is better and I would love one but they are just too expensive and too large for me.
      Cheers
      Andy
    • By Mark Daniels
      Been looking for neat solution to taking small scope abroad using my stuff and not paying out for a dedicated set up. 
      Have a skywatcher finder which with a barlow and 90 * gives good results. I was looking at an Orion mini eq tabletop tripod but hard to get hold of. 
      Play a bit of music in a band and have a few microphone stands so got to work with a hack saw. 
      I used a mic holder as in photo they are about £3 and cut the holder part off and filed flat. Drilled hole through to accept large camera thread (£3 screw bolt)
      this allows shortened micstand to fit to the alt az mount. (Mic stand 15 of ebay. )
      the dovetail was expensive as i wanted green and got from germany £30 with couier the white finder bracket from tring harrisons £6
      so thats £60 but if i went for black dovetail less than £40  seeing i had mic stand already quite a cheap solition
      the stand is very stable and provided the telescope is moved clockwise when rotating freehand the threads stay tight  with the fine controls either direction works well
      overall wiegt is bit over 3 kg and will fit in a standard aluminium camera case 
      hope this if useful 
      Mark👍
       







    • By Lachlan
      Hi everyone, 
      as the title suggests, I've noticed that the RA axis of my HEQ5 pro mount has some give. I don't notice it while the clutch is unlocked, but it's very obvious with a locked RA clutch. Any suggestions on what could be causing it/what adjustments need to be made? 
      Thanks 
    • By Saj_37uk
      Looking for the 2" low profile extension tube that is provided with most of the skywatcher scopes. I have a used 190MN that didn't come with the extension tube and need it to get accurate focus. 
       
      I believe Orion scopes may have one too.
    • By fifeskies
      The weights from my NEQ6 are beginning to look scruffy.
      Is there a good colour match car type spray that anyone would recommend for sprucing them up.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.