Imaging with the 130pds

[RolandKol]

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 December 18, 2018 by RolandKol

[JohnSadlerAstro]

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

[serbiadarksky]

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

[Stub Mandrel]

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.

[serbiadarksky]

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

[cuivenion]

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.

[Susaron]

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. ????  

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.  

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

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

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.

[Susaron]

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 December 18, 2018 by Susaron

[Stu Wilson]

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 ?

[serbiadarksky]

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?

[cuivenion]

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.

[Stu Wilson]

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.

[JohnSadlerAstro]

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 December 18, 2018 by JohnSadlerAstro

[Susaron]

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.

[Susaron]

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.

[jjosefsen]

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..

[RolandKol]

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 December 19, 2018 by RolandKol

[Stub Mandrel]

Wrap your metal tube in a sheet of self-adhesive carbon fibre

[Adam J]

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

 

 

[Susaron]

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.

 

[Stub Mandrel]

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.

[serbiadarksky]

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

[Merlin66]

The Canon 1300D appears to have 4.3 micron pixels

http://www.everyothershot.com/pixel-pitch-canon-dslrs/

[serbiadarksky]

1 hour ago, Merlin66 said:

The Canon 1300D appears to have 4.3 micron pixels

http://www.everyothershot.com/pixel-pitch-canon-dslrs/

I knew it is 4.3 or 4.6 haha, just wasnt home to check or to google it 

[alacant]

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