Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
This will be my last image this season. The moon is all too bright atm, and astro darkness ends in a few days.
This image was a real challenge, both in acquisition and in processing. I haven't completely tamed the MN190 yet, collimation is still a bit off. Visually it looks ok, but when I start imaging, I get star shapes that suggest that collimation is still way out. First I thought that it might be the addition of an oag to the imaging train that was the cause of it all, but I've now come to the conclusion that it actually is collimation.
Anyways, the details:
MN190 on AZ-EQ6 ZWO ASI174MM-Cool at -20 C with ZWO filters Guiding was a mixture of ST80 guidescope, OAG (the new ZWO version), and finder guider (9x50) with PHD2 L. 92 x 2 minutes, gain 20, collected April 15 under a 70 % moon R, G: 30 x 4 minutes each, collected March 31 and during two nights in April B: 22 x 4 minutes, collected March 31 and during one night in April Processed in PixInsight
Larger version is here:
If anyone wants to have a go at LRGB processing, here's the raw data. Only crop and DBE applied. Have fun!
For first light for my new scope & focuser, I decided to revisit this small galaxy in Lynx.
SW Explorer MN190 on SW AZ-EQ6, with Pegasus Focuscube Camera: ZWO ASI174MM-Cool at -20 C, gain 20 Guiding: SW finderguider 9x50 with ASI120MM-S and PHD2 Software: INDI/Ekos for data capture, and PixInsight for processing Total integration time: 4.4 hrs
L: 36 x 120 s R: 24 x 180 s G: 20 x 180 s B: 19 x 180 s
(click on the image for a larger version)
I hadn't quite anticipated the extra weight on my mount, especially the weight combined with the larger distance. I couldn't balance the scope even with the extension bar and both weights, so I had to improvise with a few clamps. I couldn't add the extra weight from the ST80. I had to guide with my 9x50 finder, which I normally only use for polar alignment.
Also, today I noticed that the collimation still was a little off. It was WAAAY off when I unpacked the scope. The laser dot hit the primary about midway between the center dot and the edge. Collimation with the help of my barlowed laser put it quite close. Today I used a collimation cap to fine tune it.
I'm now residing to the fact that the second hand RC i bought was a lemon, and i need to move on instead of pulling my hear out. So i'm looking at the Skywatcher MN190 Vs CF Quattro 10" and just wanted to get peoples views on the 2 scopes. I know everone will have their own views and i probably wont get a resourding answer either way, but still interested to get peoples feedback.
Weight is not an issues as i have an EQ8, so weight can be discounted in the argument. Also cool down is not an issues as it will live permanently in my obs.
What i Like about MN190 : Flat field and no need for coma corrector or flattner, Pretty Fast at F5, Easy to fit a direct replacement Feather touch Focuser without opening the tube, good optics providing sharp refractor like perfoamance. Good for visual as well as imaging.
What I Like about the 10" Quattro : Very Fast @ F4 so great for Fickle british weather, Larger Aperture (10")
So i guess it comes down how much more detail would the 10" Quatto resolve over the MN190 for a given exposure length, lets say 600 secs. Is the 10" & F4 optics of the Quattro going to make a huge difference or will it be marginal ?
Also, when itcomes to collimation of the 2, which is likely to holid it collimation better ? Is the MN190 colllimated in the same way as a normal Netwtonian ?