Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
Hi to everyone, I used to do some astrophotography in the past with a Celestron AVX and DSLR but after few month had to give up for several reasons, including light pollution (I'm living in zone 3 east London), and also working shifts. Now I want to start again, and this time more serious. I've been searching around for a couple of months to choose all the gear and I'm quite happy with the list so far although it's a bit over the price I planned at first.
I will get an William optics Z73 with his 50mm guide scope, a flattener/reducer 0.8, light pollution filter IDAS D2 and as camera I will use a Canon 600D modded and I will buy a ZWO 183MC Pro, after so much research, I'm very happy with the scale and framing I will get with this combo, but I'm starting to get confused with the mount.
My first idea was to go for an HEQ5 Pro, as my previous experience with the AVX has been awful, then I realized that the FLO, sells that mount with belt modification and also some cleaning and tuning if required, I heard that it's a big improvement over the stock one and the price it's ok, but another important factor for me it's portability. Unfortunately, my garden doesn't allow me to do much so I will need to carry around on trolley, for a km walk, I'm a strong person and been doing plenty of time with the AVX, so my confusion came recently when the iOptron mounts entered my radar. I start comparing the heq5 pro with belt, with the iOptron cem25EC and the CEM40 without encoders, and I'm so unsure of which to buy, the cem25 seem to be the equivalent of heq5 at least speaking of payload, but in some threads I read people saying it's a bit fragile so kind of remove it from the equation although the weight it's interesting for my situation, then the cem40, seem to be quite similar on weight to the heq5 but with higher payload and that's interesting too as I will buy a C11 at some point.
Now it will all come down to the accuracy of tracking I guess, how the heq5 and cem40 would compare on tracking and guiding? If the cem40 it's better, I would probably go with that since it holds more and would last longer as I don't plan to get anything bigger than a C11, but if the skywatcher it's better, I could decide to go for that, and when I move to a place with better garden then get a second mount with higher payload.
Apologise for the long post and my english.
Disclaimer for all: I am still a newbie so good chance this is a bad question, but I was hoping for an explanation anyway.
I've got a SkyWatcher 8" (1200mm FL) Dobsonian (manual, no GOTO). So far, I am mostly interested in visual and AP planets. I have recently started gradually upgrading my equipment. Got a ZWO ASI 224MC, and a TV Powermate 2.5x (hoping to get an HEQ5 mount soon too). Here is where the baffling happens. According to math, my scope's potential magnification is 400x (200mm aperture x2). Obviously that is supposed to be theoretical, true only for nights with perfect seeing, and in the past, using a typical 2x barlow and a 6mm plossl, I could touch that 400x (1200x2 /6 = 400) , and my mileage would vary according to seeing, so it verified the hypothesis. Along came my new equipment, the camera and the powermate. The maths for this produce a magnification of 491x (1200x2.5 / 6.1mm) which by far exceed the theoretical maximum. I was, however, able to produce the attached planetary pics, which I think are pretty decent for a manual dobsonian, considering I have still not fully mastered the art of stacking and processing, and the fact that they were taken from within the city (Thessaloniki, Greece). I have also noticed that visually, when using the Powermate and the 6mm eyepiece (500x zoom), it still looks as clear as, if not clearer than the common 2x barlow and 6mm eyepiece combo(400x). So I guess these are my questions:
1. When doing AP, is the maximum zoom we can use higher than for visual, because of stacking, or not?
2. Is there a chance that the TV Powermate can implicitly increase the theoretical max magnification, because of its superior quality?
3. Would adding a motorized mount, enhance the results I get, or have I pretty much reached the absolute max quality shots I can get with the specific OTA?
Thanks a lot in advance,
So i have had my fair share of visual astronomy with my 10 inch dob, But i am no looking forward into the realm of astrophotography. And i don't want to have into the jump into the deep end and by a $1,500 eq mount(yet) i was planning on getting a ed80 refactor and the camera i can get figured out. Is there any (good) budget mounts for dso? I was hoping to find a good mount for around $900.
Even though i want Budget mount(or a budget mount compared to a $1500 mount) i do not want to get rid of feature that would keep me from pulling my hair out.
Would it even be worth it?
Thanks in advanced!
I was referring to the http://www.telescope.com/Mounts-Tripods/Equatorial-Mounts-Tripods/Orion-Atlas-EQ-G-Computerized-GoTo-Telescope-Mount/pc/-1/c/2/sc/34/p/116277.uts
Looking forward to be able to see nebulae in color(of course after i process it and such)