How often should you collimate your scope?

[bingevader]

I think I must just be very lucky then.

I check my dob every now and again, it very rarely needs anything doing to it, at most, a little tweak.

More often than not, I'm un-collimating it in order to re-collimate it.

It doesn't travel far, but has been the same even after longer trips.

It did a 130 mile round trip with out any worries.

Do I really need to check it each time?

I'd be more inclined to say, collimate it when you need to.

But as always, each to his own. 

The decision, ultimately, is yours.

As long as you are finding your observing sessions rewarding, there's no right or wrong answer.

Adopt the level of collimating you feel appropriate to yourself and your 'scope.

[DRT]

Another way to think of this is whether or not you could tell by looking at a star field through the eyepiece if your scope was slightly off collimation. I don't think I could.

Could those who know more than I do please explain what material differences there are between a perfectly collimated reflector and one that is slightly out of line?

[alan potts]

People, me included worry about such things like collimation. I was having kittens at just the thought of it on my SC when I bought it, now I don't even think about it on any of my scopes, it takes very little time if you have the correct tools and is nowhere near as hard as you think, also I am not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, if I can do it anyone can.

Alan

[laser_jock99]

Could those who know more than I do please explain what material differences there are between a perfectly collimated reflector and one that is slightly out of line?

Well collimated.........

.......vs badly collimated

Same scope, same camera, same subject- but before I brought a Howie Glatter 2" Laser Collimator.

[DRT]

I can clearly see the difference between those two images, but we then have to move on to the difference between what the eye sees and what a camera (and a whole load of technological stuff) sees through a telescope.

I asked this question from the point of view of an observer who sees almost everything in a fuzzy greyscale.

Could it be that collimation is infinately more important to an imager than it is to an observer?

[Moonshane]

It is for sure Derek. Collimation matters most for visual at higher magnification on high contrast targets e.g. Planets. If you solely observe fuzzy dsos at low power then less so.

BUT why not just do it?

[DRT]

It is for sure Derek. Collimation matters most for visual at higher magnification on high contrast targets e.g. Planets. If you solely observe fuzzy dsos at low power then less so.

BUT why not just do it?

I agree, Shane. But my point is more about whether or not we should worry about it.

I am still learning this game but am now confident about my ability to collimate a Dob/Newt. I get the heebie jeebeez at the prospect of collimating my CPC1100 or C6. Do they need collimating? I have no idea and I am scared to try.

When I see a newbie post here about collimation I always relate it to my own experience. Experienced people saying "it's easy, do it every time" has little meaning to me, and I suspect others.

[Moonshane]

Basically my advice which is relayed in my notes several times is never worry about it or miss a session because of it. If the views are sharp and contrasty there's little to be concerned with :0)

Newton collimation is easy although I know next to nothing about sct/mak collimation

[DRT]

Basically my advice which is relayed in my notes several times is never worry about it or miss a session because of it.

[Charic]

I agree, Shane. But my point is more about whether or not we should worry about it.

I am still learning this game but am now confident about my ability to collimate a Dob/Newt. I get the heebie jeebeez at the prospect of collimating my CPC1100 or C6. Do they need collimating? I have no idea and I am scared to try.

When I see a newbie post here about collimation I always relate it to my own experience. Experienced people saying "it's easy, do it every time" has little meaning to me, and I suspect others.

Its only a matter of time before one becomes  "experienced"  It can take an hour,  a Day or longer. It really depends on how comfortable you feel about your ability to carry out the task in hand. My Skyliner was stripped as soon as it arrived, in order to rectify a small issue, but also to allow me to see how it all bolts together? That was my first experience with the Sky-watcher.  If you're cautious about everything, you wont break anything. The task ( here we go -  little meaning ? ) is simple enough. Like anything you do in life, once you have done it once or twice, you will become masterful at it.

The problem I think most  folk have is understanding the theory of collimation, and the correct order in which the task is carried out.  Every Newtonian can only be collimated to the users specification. There is no de-facto 100% reliable way of setting this specification, that ensures 100% collimation, with a perfectly aligned mirror, either central or off-set.  Its a user preference, and when it looks right, it generally is.  It would be really nice, yes, if there is someone to look over your shoulder at the first attempt,  but thoroughly understanding the procedure helps prior to making any adjustments.  There are many documents and videos available that presents the procedure. Everyone mentions Astro Baby as a guide to collimation. Its a good guide and worked for me. But there are others too. Have a good read of the .pdf that Moonshane provides, then check out a few videos.  Your telescope is an optical tool, one that requires some basic skills to setup and use. Trust me, once the theory, procedure of adjustment and the final  clear/sharp image pops into view, you will wonder what all the fuss was about, and  sooner than later, you too,  will  be advising others, that " If I can do it! So can you attitude?   You will now be 'Expert'