Tease me and excite me :-)

[Daf Vinci]

Nope, nothing explicit going on. Lol

Just wondering what sort of images are possible with a Skywatcher 200p & EQ5 with synscan hooked up to an dslr?

Thanks in advance,

Dafz.

[cosmojaydee]

Hi there, as it stands the 200p isn't a viable scope for AP , to make it viable the primary mirror would need moving up the tube to get focus, so I've heard 

[Steve Ward]

All these are with a 200P .... http://www.astrobin.com/search/?search_type=0&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&page=1&q=skywatcher%20200p&camera_type=any&camera_type=0&camera_type=1&camera_type=2&camera_type=3&camera_type=4&camera_type=5&telescope_type=any&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=22#page_anchor

[cosmojaydee]

Are they with a 200p or a 200pds ? if they are with a 200p I stand corrected 

[rowan46]

if you are going to use an eq5 for imaging you would be better off with a smaller scope the 130pds  would be better. The eq5 will hold a 200p for visual but its overloaded for imaging. the pics referenced were on a heq5 which is a somewhat bigger and better mount for imaging. by all acounts the 200 is a struggle even  for a heq5 with the slightest wind losing subs. its possible on an eq5 but its not a very efficient mount for photography especially when its overloaded. Imagers tend to work on 1/2 the capacity of the mount as being optimal with high end mounts taking up to 3/4 of their stated load capacity. the eq5 isn't high end

[Steve Ward]

Modified search to 200P + EQ5 ... http://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=200p+eq5&search_type=0&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&telescope_type=any&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=22&camera_type=any&camera_type=0&camera_type=1&camera_type=2&camera_type=3&camera_type=4&camera_type=5

[sidelight]

Hi, very over processed from a couple of years ago, but taken with a 200P an EQ5 (with shoestring adapter to dual motors), a modified finder scope as a guider, a coma corrector and a 450d (unmodded at that time). I did have to move the mirror up the tube slightly to get focus.

http://astrob.in/64337/0/

I have dropped to a 130PDS as the 200P was like a sail and I had to throw away about 30% of my subs with the lightest breeze, but its possible to get images (and to be honest I learnt an awful lot getting that, my first setup to work).

Cheers

Ross

[ronin]

If you do not have the scope yet then as said or implied there can be problems with achieving focus with a DSLR. Most it seems have a problem however equally if someone does get it to focus they do not post a question here. So the forum tends to get the "failures".

The standard focuser generally holds the camera too far back.

So be aware of this before you drop a DSLR on and wonder what the problem is.

The blurb say you can attach a DSLR for AP, it doesn't say that the attached DSLR will be positioned correctly at the focal plane.

One question is: Is there a difference between using a 2" T-ring adaptor and a 1.25" T-ring adaptor ?

This may be worth finding out as a T-ring costs a lot less then a different focuser.

[Daf Vinci]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. Definite food for thought so to speak. Much appreciated :-)

[Daf Vinci]

Steve ward - That link to AstroBin is phenomenal. Or should that be Astronomical :-)

[Tommohawk]

Bit late - I just saw this whilst looking for something else on 200P.

As I understand is the problem is that with some set-ups, you cant get close enough to focus with a DSLR. Hence the low profile focusser on the PDS.

However, I have a fairly standard set-up on my 200p - see sig - and reach focus with about 12mm in hand. As mentioned above maybe the focusser dia make the difference - I have 2".