New To AP.... end to spending?

[Liquid360]

Roughly a month ago I purchased a dream setup spending more money on this than any single endeavor in my life including my car. A month later and I have yet to take a single image due to focusing problems and adapter issues. Can't even focus visually as I await spending another grand on a solution by Starlight Instruments. I've researched these issues extensively and understand the nature of the problem, but the whole experience has been unpleasant at best. Making these kinds of purchases online vs in a brick n mortar has been hard and complicated. The spending has to stop at some point..... right? Heavy sigh. I mean in theory, once you have everything working properly the spending part ends....?

[swag72]

In my experience, the spending never seems to stop ........ just ask my husband :D

[johnrt]

The spending will stop when they prise my debit cards out of my cold dead fingers.......

[Liquid360]

So my options as I understand it are death and/or marriage?[emoji57]

[johnrt]

I have tried marriage, that hasn't worked - not quite so keen on the other option.

[Luke]

Once you have all the adapters, all that's left is to get the adapters for the adapters

[Davey-T]

Yes there's no end to the adapters or the spending.

Dave

[DaveS]

The spending stops when the money runs out.

[NickMorris]

Adaptors can certainly drive you crazy, what problems are you having?

It certainly does pay to buy from a vendor that is experienced in imaging and can advise before purchase of the relevant adaptors you may need.....

[Kropster]

The spending stops when the money runs out.

If only that was true!

[steppenwolf]

The spending only stops when you make that 'Eureka' discovery that equipment is only part of the imaging equation and that, especially here in the UK, the weather is a far more limiting factor than the gear you are hoping to use!! I know you are not in the UK so I fear that your purse probably has further than mine to go .....[emoji2]

Sent from my iPhone from somewhere dark .....

[ronin]

The spending stops when you realise that the limiting factor is not the equipment that you have, it is not having 5 or 10 years experience of producing images.

[Liquid360]

I realized at the onset that skill/experience was paramount for good images. With the hardware I purchased I knew that the images produced with this kit would refract my lack of skill and experience and not a result of my kit. Great images are made not bought (except in secondary markets)... beyond that I won't apologize for liking pretty things [emoji6]

I just believed that with the help of an experienced salesman I'd know exactly what the expense would be upfront vs expenditures ongoing.

[wxsatuser]

It's a mugs game........doh!

Off to buy another lens.......doh!

[cosmojaydee]

you have to adapt to the expenditure ,if the expenditure on adapters is not something you can adapt to , stop trying to adapt and increase the expenditure untill something goes pop

[Thalestris24]

Roughly a month ago I purchased a dream setup spending more money on this than any single endeavor in my life including my car. A month later and I have yet to take a single image due to focusing problems and adapter issues. Can't even focus visually as I await spending another grand on a solution by Starlight Instruments. I've researched these issues extensively and understand the nature of the problem, but the whole experience has been unpleasant at best. Making these kinds of purchases online vs in a brick n mortar has been hard and complicated. The spending has to stop at some point..... right? Heavy sigh. I mean in theory, once you have everything working properly the spending part ends....?

I'm getting very close to the limit of my ability to spend any more large lump sumps - I only have a state pension which is barely enough to live on...  So when the limit is reached that will be it for me. I'll just have to manage with what I've got! But living where I am, I'm rather limited, so what I have will probably be enough for getting average images - if I'm lucky!

Um, I don't understand when you say you have trouble focusing 'visually'. I mean, you are doing AP, right? Maybe you could explain why you need to spend another $1000? It sounds a lot when you already have all the basic imaging kit!

Louise

[Liquid360]

The problem when used for visual is that the CAA eats up back focus. Removing it requires yet another adapter to attach a diagonal which even requires a diagonal which instead of a barrel attaches straight to the back to create more back focus. Here's my ever increasing collection of adapters, connectors, reducer/extender, etc... I went into this wanting to be able to do everything the scope is capable of. Obviously I've gone into the "bad place". My issue is that I wasn't explained to up front and when will it end. It might seem irrational but I wanted to enjoy the scope visually before connecting all of the gear... get to know it a piece at a time. Am I being unreasonable to expect that all of this should've been explained during the purchases and not after?

These tiny metal rings run from $100 on up.

I'm getting very close to the limit of my ability to spend any more large lump sumps - I only have a state pension which is barely enough to live on... So when the limit is reached that will be it for me. I'll just have to manage with what I've got! But living where I am, I'm rather limited, so what I have will probably be enough for getting average images - if I'm lucky!

Um, I don't understand when you say you have trouble focusing 'visually'. I mean, you are doing AP, right? Maybe you could explain why you need to spend another $1000? It sounds a lot when you already have all the basic imaging kit!

Louise

[Thalestris24]

Yeah the cost of adapters and bits adds up though you only really need so many. I suppose visual and AP are different things. If you want to experience stuff visually it's often recommended to get a dob.  I personally don't think it's such a good idea to try and use a scope intended for AP for visual - and vice versa. I've been around long enough to appreciate that you can't expect sales folk to necessarily give the best advice. At the end of the day I reckon it's best to do your own research before spending lots of money - whatever you're buying. That probably isn't very helpful now, but instead of spending £1000 on an attachment you could get a dob instead. Then you can concentrate on getting your rig up and running for imaging   Just my opinion - see what others here say.

Louise

[Liquid360]

When initially shopping I found this article/review which sold me and says it best.

"I cannot count the number of posts on various forums where someone has opined that it is overkill to purchase these units for visual work. I think many prospective buyers go in other directions because of posts such as these, that usually boast the blessings of the triplet rather than the unnecessary weight and cost of the quadruplet. Yet there are many of us in the amateur community who, after many years of tolerance, treasure a flat field, a field devoid of those ridiculous and needless aberrations that the fast doublet or even the moderately fast triplet introduce into the optical train, hence, the eyes and mind. Speaking for myself, when I am under the black cloth patiently observing, I cannot tolerate those peculiarities that confuse my ability to distinguish whether an oblong or elongated object in frame is a comet or merely coma, field curvature, or astigmatism. Is that the only reason? I frankly am not certain how much simple aesthetics have to do with it. In any case, if the field of view is tainted with these issues, I tend not to keep that particular telescope."

From http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=866

Yeah the cost of adapters and bits adds up though you only really need so many. I suppose visual and AP are different things. If you want to experience stuff visually it's often recommended to get a dob. I personally don't think it's such a good idea to try and use a scope intended for AP for visual - and vice versa. I've been around long enough to appreciate that you can't expect sales folk to necessarily give the best advice. At the end of the day I reckon it's best to do your own research before spending lots of money - whatever you're buying. That probably isn't very helpful now, but instead of spending £1000 on an attachment you could get a dob instead. Then you can concentrate on getting your rig up and running for imaging Just my opinion - see what others here say.

Louise

[Thalestris24]

When initially shopping I found this article/review which sold me and says it best.

"I cannot count the number of posts on various forums where someone has opined that it is overkill to purchase these units for visual work. I think many prospective buyers go in other directions because of posts such as these, that usually boast the blessings of the triplet rather than the unnecessary weight and cost of the quadruplet. Yet there are many of us in the amateur community who, after many years of tolerance, treasure a flat field, a field devoid of those ridiculous and needless aberrations that the fast doublet or even the moderately fast triplet introduce into the optical train, hence, the eyes and mind. Speaking for myself, when I am under the black cloth patiently observing, I cannot tolerate those peculiarities that confuse my ability to distinguish whether an oblong or elongated object in frame is a comet or merely coma, field curvature, or astigmatism. Is that the only reason? I frankly am not certain how much simple aesthetics have to do with it. In any case, if the field of view is tainted with these issues, I tend not to keep that particular telescope."

From http://www.astromart.com/articles/article.asp?article_id=866

Yes but it costs! The quote doesn't suggest using the same actual scope for imaging. I've never done any visual. I have a budget 150pds for imaging. It has a ccd and a coma corrector with 2" lp filter. I never undo it all unless I have to. I've never even put an eyepiece in it. I see a better image of what the scope points at via the camera than I could ever get by eye. If I wanted to do visual I'd get myself a light bucket dob! Anyway, never mind flat fields - I believe you need lots of aperture to be able to appreciate things visually.

Louise

[Liquid360]

I wanted to do both and all signs point to it being a decent refractor for visual. There other factors at play and I won't go into it. Another quote...

In the opposite direction, with the 5-element 1.6x Extender Q, the scope can be transformed to an 850mm FL telescope at f8. That’s super kool. This configuration is what you would want to use if you were to visually observe planets or the moon. However, make no mistake that this is a wide field instrument, and you should not expect much in terms of planetary scale.

[Thalestris24]

Well a 5-element extender sounds very expensive, lol. I can only reiterate about doing your own research rather than relying on what amounts to sales blurb. As I say, I don't do visual but maybe you could post on the observing forums and/or have a look around and see what others like to use for visual and maybe ask what they think of your setup. Of course, what scope you personally might want for visual will depend on what targets you have in mind - solar system, dso, distant objects - all different requirements. Many objects you can't really see visually - they're often just too dim.

Louise

[wxsatuser]

Research research research............and then keep spending. 

[Liquid360]

Here's my setup

[ollypenrice]

The spending stops when the money runs out.

Isn't that rather an old fashioned idea? 

I think the main problem is that no one manufacturer makes a single integrated system and yet there are no industry standards governing the components (and, where there nearly are are, Takahashi ignore them...)

So why don't the serious manufacturers make their own robofocus accessories, their own adjusters for controlling chip spacings for their flatteners, their own guidescopes and brackets, etc? Why are we still bolting incompatible bits together in this absurdly ad-hoc way? Why do TEC telescopes speak of Pentax medium format film compatibility for their flatteners? What planet are they on? Film?

So a message to the manufacturers; We use CCD cameras which have various chip distances. We use electronic focus. We autoguide. We run dew heaters. Please design accordingly.

Olly