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_30_second_exp_2.thumb.jpg.7719b6f2fbecda044d407d8aba503777.jpg

Russe

Imaging with the 130pds

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, serbiadarksky said:

Well, I respect your words, but I have been told several times that EQ5 and 130PDS can work perfectly for imaging.

It does not work perfectly on my NEQ6 :)
I guess, it more depends on the skills/experience, Light Pollution,  Weather permission to experiment and if you have a minimalistic equipment, like small guiding scope, small cameras and etc, matching mount loading limits and the Light Pollution in your area...
And with a better mount, you will have better chances to set everything up faster.

Edited by RolandKol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I hope you get on well with your choice! :) One thing I will say about the EQ5-It looks waay better than any other EQ mount on the market! ;) 

John

Share this post


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

It does not work perfectly on my NEQ6 :)
I guess, it more depends on the skills/experience, Light Pollution,  Weather permission to experiment and if you have a minimalistic equipment, like small guiding scope, small cameras and etc, matching mount loading limits and the Light Pollution in your area...
And with a better mount, you will have better chances to set everything up faster.

I mean the "perfectly" in terms of weight.

About my LP? 21 sqm here in garden, Bortle 4 to be more precise :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, serbiadarksky said:
9 hours ago, cuivenion said:

It all depends on your budget and what equipment you already have. People have got good results with the EQ5 and similar mounts, but the lower the quality of the mount the harder it is. For visual the EQ5 and 130PDS are well matched but for AP a HEQ5 will be a real step up, I've used both mounts and I'd definitely go for the HEQ5 if you can.

Well, I respect your words, but I have been told several times that EQ5 and 130PDS can work perfectly for imaging.

Absolutely true, but the HEQ5 does make it easier to get results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Absolutely true, but the HEQ5 does make it easier to get results.

I know.If i get the bucls I will deff go for the heq5 if not eq6r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, serbiadarksky said:

I know.If i get the bucls I will deff go for the heq5 if not eq6r

The EQ6-R Pro is my realistic dream mount ?. Please don't take what I said as discouragement, good luck with your imaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

Hi,

My first data this year! I cant believe its been so long, but finally I'm back to imaging again! ? The NEQ6 worked a dream, an average of around 1" total RMS over the night, for 4 hours! I was able to keep around 80% of the frames, too. 

NGC2403, A difficult target that's probably a NASA copy-paste of M33. ???? :D 

130PDS on NEQ6, Guided with ASI120MC and 50mm finder

1000d, 200sec subs at ISO 800, 3hr 30mins

DSS, PHD2, GIMP Star Tools

It's a really exciting area of the sky, loads of galaxies and some beautiful colour contrasting binaries. The processing is pretty awful, but there was a really large gradient on each side of the image that was a big pain to remove and took most of the colour with it. :( 

FInal2.thumb.jpg.0a8e07d20755555a0226042690f183d5.jpg

I put picture alongside some 100x100 crops to highlight all the little fuzzies.

GalaxyImage.thumb.jpg.57f271269495f09bfc19bcaf50a9a661.jpg

And then compiled them into a table, because the weather was bad. ;) (Square brackets are my data, SIMBAD and the NED are disappointingly incomplete)

GalaxyTable.thumb.png.73acd7061ad88789af1012decfeb06b1.png

It's a testament to the miraculous abilities of the 130PDS that I could catch a magnitude 19.4 active galaxy with very newbish processing, a bad camera and a complete lack of experience over the 12 months. 

Clear skies!

John

A new objective for the big list.

Anyway I am waiting for the QHY 550M to shot small galaxies and faint planetaries with the SW130PDS, but this result is tempting me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, serbiadarksky said:

I know.If i get the bucls I will deff go for the heq5 if not eq6r

Think on the AZEQ5 as well is the one I use.

Edited by Susaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Susaron said:

A new objective for the big list.

Anyway I am waiting for the QHY 550M to shot small galaxies and faint planetaries with the SW130PDS, but this result is tempting me.

Im gonna have a shot at that with my QHY8L on SW200P next clear night.

Love the colours ?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cuivenion said:

The EQ6-R Pro is my realistic dream mount ?. Please don't take what I said as discouragement, good luck with your imaging.

Well than you say that the 130PDS and the EQ5 can be totally ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, serbiadarksky said:

Well than you say that the 130PDS and the EQ5 can be totally ok?

Totally OK, no. Possible to image with, yes. Some people have got good results with the EQ5 and even the EQ3-2, but its easier to get good results the better the mount is. The tracking is better and you end up throwing away less subs. A better mount means you get better images quicker. Thats why we all want the best one we can get, and I want an EQ6-R.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Totally OK, no. Possible to image with, yes. Some people have got good results with the EQ5 and even the EQ3-2, but its easier to get good results the better the mount is. The tracking is better and you end up throwing away less subs. A better mount means you get better images quicker. Thats why we all want the best one we can get, and I want an EQ6-R.

Got to admit I missed out the neq5 and grabbed a bargain neq6pro about 18 months ago.

It broke the bank for a while but what a mount.

After going to EQMOD too I don't think you'd get much more without doubling or trebling your budget.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Im gonna have a shot at that with my QHY8L on SW200P next clear night.

Love the colours ?

Thanks! :) 

I'll keep a look out for that, I'm interested to see what it will look like with more resolution!

5 hours ago, Susaron said:

A new objective for the big list.

Anyway I am waiting for the QHY 550M to shot small galaxies and faint planetaries with the SW130PDS, but this result is tempting me. 

Eyy, its about time the galaxy gets some attention, searches suggest its not a common target! ?

A word of warning--you'll need long subs, as it does have a low surface brightness--mine were too short really and found that teasing out the arms was quite a challenge. :) 

Thanks for the likes, kind words and encouragement! :) 

John

Edited by JohnSadlerAstro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

Thanks! :) 

I'll keep a look out for that, I'm interested to see what it will look like with more resolution!

Eyy, its about time the galaxy gets some attention, searches suggest its not a common target! ?

A word of warning--you'll need long subs, as it does have a low surface brightness--mine were too short really and found that teasing out the arms was quite a challenge. :) 

Thanks for the likes, kind words and encouragement! :) 

John

The long subs is the reason why I will buy the qhy, it is cooled and the pixel 3.5 promises good resolution coupled witb the sw130 or even the sw200.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One additional comment guys.

I asked for a quotation to TS to mood the metal tube to CF, and they answer me a couple of things. First that in order to achive similar strength the thickness should be around 7mm and therefore the rings won´t be the same, and second the cost, as according to them is not a standard tube, the cost of the equivalent CF tube would be around 700 Eur. 

Don´t you think is this madness?

Cheers.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

One additional comment guys.

I asked for a quotation to TS to mood the metal tube to CF, and they answer me a couple of things. First that in order to achive similar strength the thickness should be around 7mm and therefore the rings won´t be the same, and second the cost, as according to them is not a standard tube, the cost of the equivalent CF tube would be around 700 Eur. 

Don´t you think is this madness?

Cheers.

Might as well get one of their delicious UNC/ONTC newts for that price..

Share this post


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

One additional comment guys.

I asked for a quotation to TS to mood the metal tube to CF, and they answer me a couple of things. First that in order to achive similar strength the thickness should be around 7mm and therefore the rings won´t be the same, and second the cost, as according to them is not a standard tube, the cost of the equivalent CF tube would be around 700 Eur. 

Don´t you think is this madness?

Cheers.

SW 8" Quatro CF was almost the same price!!! :) Insane! 

Edited by RolandKol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2018 at 11:53, serbiadarksky said:

Well, I respect your words, but I have been told several times that EQ5 and 130PDS can work perfectly for imaging.

Depends on what camera your using. Smaller the pixels the harder it is to track. SO..I suspect that some people who find it works perfectly well for them are probably using a large pixel camera such as a 450D (5.2um) , a 1000D (5.7um) a 6D (6.54um)....etc.

On the other hand with a ASI1600mm pro and 3.8um pixels, pushes a unmodified HEQ5pro and your better off with belt mods if you want to consistently get round stars.

Adam

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Adam J said:

Depends on what camera your using. Smaller the pixels the harder it is to track. SO..I suspect that some people who find it works perfectly well for them are probably using a large pixel camera such as a 450D (5.2um) , a 1000D (5.7um) a 6D (6.54um)....etc.

On the other hand with a ASI1600mm pro and 3.8um pixels, pushes a unmodified HEQ5pro and your better off with belt mods if you want to consistently get round stars.

Adam

 

 

And even an azeq6, a colleague moved from a canon 550 to the asi1600mm and he inmediately noted in the elongated stars. He had to tweak phd2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resolution of the HEQ5 and EQ6 is the same at 0.144 arc-seconds.

The difference between the two mounts is really only the payload, not their accuracy or precision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Depends on what camera your using. Smaller the pixels the harder it is to track. SO..I suspect that some people who find it works perfectly well for them are probably using a large pixel camera such as a 450D (5.2um) , a 1000D (5.7um) a 6D (6.54um)....etc.

On the other hand with a ASI1600mm pro and 3.8um pixels, pushes a unmodified HEQ5pro and your better off with belt mods if you want to consistently get round stars.

Adam

 

 

I use a 1300D, 4.3 or 4.6um, I dont really know

Share this post


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

better off with belt mods if you want to consistently get round stars.

Hi. Good advice:)

Another way I've found is to use an OAG with PHD2's PPEC. 

HTH

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 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.
    • By Rhushikesh-Canisminor
      Posting in this forum after too long!
      One of the first attempts at taking photos of the moon.
      All photos taken using skywatcher 90mm refractor with eq2 mount, Nikon DSLR and 2x Barlow here and there.
      No exposure.
      Basic editing in cellphone.
      Thank you! Suggestions highly appreciated!




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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