Refractor or reflector help.

[Ray Mondo]

33 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Different image, but this is a single frame (just a teeny bit over-exposed, this one, but you want as much dynamic range as you can get):

and this is what a collection of frames ended up as:

 

By taking lots of images, picking the best and averaging them out it's possible to remove much of the noise from the image.  Filters can then be applied to undo some of the effects of atmospheric distortion and make the image sharper.  If the noise weren't removed first, you'd be sharpening that as well, which never looks good

James

Excellent examples thanks. 

What would the image look like through the telescope then as the first image looks quite soft. 

[pipnina]

1 minute ago, Ray Mondo said:

What would the image look like through the telescope then as the first image looks quite soft. 

In visual observing, your eyes will often see the moon and planets in brief moments of clarity. Typically there will be a lot of air currents that distort your view by minor amounts (i.e. think heat rising from a hot road) and the sharpness of the object will vary. Some amazing nights have very little of this and you get beautiful steady air, others are not so good and you see nothing but simmering. If the atmosphere were not present, images of the planets would not require half as many images (might still use multiple to reduce noise).

[Stub Mandrel]

6 minutes ago, pipnina said:

In visual observing, your eyes will often see the moon and planets in brief moments of clarity. Typically there will be a lot of air currents that distort your view by minor amounts (i.e. think heat rising from a hot road) and the sharpness of the object will vary. Some amazing nights have very little of this and you get beautiful steady air, others are not so good and you see nothing but simmering. If the atmosphere were not present, images of the planets would not require half as many images (might still use multiple to reduce noise).

As Pip says, also, the eye is able to see a far greater range of contrast, making the visual image look more like the second photo.

[JamesF]

Quite so.  On a really good night it can feel like you could just reach out and touch it.

James

[Ray Mondo]

8 hours ago, pipnina said:

In visual observing, your eyes will often see the moon and planets in brief moments of clarity. Typically there will be a lot of air currents that distort your view by minor amounts (i.e. think heat rising from a hot road) and the sharpness of the object will vary. Some amazing nights have very little of this and you get beautiful steady air, others are not so good and you see nothing but simmering. If the atmosphere were not present, images of the planets would not require half as many images (might still use multiple to reduce noise).

Thanks for your help. 

What a pain the atmosphere is ?

[Cosmic Geoff]

13 hours ago, Ray Mondo said:

Hello again, this is the scope I think I will get. A few people on here have mentioned the 127 Maks and I think it will have more chance of getting used as it seems very portable and easy to store when not in use. I know it’s not great for DSOs but I will have fun finding the smudges. https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/skywatcher-skymax-127-azgti-telescope.html#tab-3

If im making a mistake or you think there is a better scope for the money please let me know. 

A sound choice. Nobody ever complains of buying a bad Mak.

None of the astro scopes made in China and imported via the US are likely to get any cheaper. Trade war alert. 

If the wifi feature is not as great as you thought, you can add a handset later.   Dew shield - if you are a tightwad, you can make one out of a bit of cardboard, or camping mat. Moon filter - I never use one.

I note in passing that I have the Celestron version of this Mak.  If you have a spare hour, check the relative number of "Nexstar problem" and 'Synscan problem" help queries in this forum.?

The image below is included to show you what a 127mm Mak can do (Mars near opposition). The direct view is rarely this good - this is processed from a video using Registax. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Cosmic Geoff

[Ray Mondo]

21 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

A sound choice. Nobody ever complains of buying a bad Mak.

None of the astro scopes made in China and imported via the US are likely to get any cheaper. Trade war alert. 

If the wifi feature is not as great as you thought, you can add a handset later.   Dew shield - if you are a tightwad, you can make one out of a bit of cardboard, or camping mat. Moon filter - I never use one.

I note in passing that I have the Celestron version of this Mak.  If you have a spare hour, check the relative number of "Nexstar problem" and 'Synscan problem" help queries in this forum.?

The image below is included to show you what a 127mm Mak can do (Mars near opposition). The direct view is rarely this good - this is processed from a video using Registax. 

Thanks for the help and tips. I am a bit of a tight wad ?.  The image of Mars is good and a bit larger than I would expect to see from the 127 Mak. What camera did you use?

[Stub Mandrel]

28 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

If you have a spare hour, check the relative number of "Nexstar problem" and 'Synscan problem" help queries in this forum.?

Save me an hour...

There are ~990 Nexstar Problem hits and ~1400 Synscan problem hits, but that's almost the exact ratio of all mentions of Nexstar (10,000) to Synscan (13,500).

That suggests  more people own Synscan than Nexstar and the problems are in the same proportions.

I assume you are suggesting one is more reliable than  the other but I can't tell which one without reading a large number of postings!

[Cosmic Geoff]

9 minutes ago, Ray Mondo said:

What camera did you use?

The Mars image above was taken with a ZWO ASI120MC camera and ZWO atmosphere dispersion corrector. It's a popular camera with serious performance.

[Ray Mondo]

39 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

The Mars image above was taken with a ZWO ASI120MC camera and ZWO atmosphere dispersion corrector. It's a popular camera with serious performance.

Thanks Geoff, It’s not too expensive either. I have a small Sony A6000 that I was going to use as my DSLR will probably be too heavy for the GTI motor. 

[Ray Mondo]

45 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Save me an hour...

There are ~990 Nexstar Problem hits and ~1400 Synscan problem hits, but that's almost the exact ratio of all mentions of Nexstar (10,000) to Synscan (13,500).

That suggests  more people own Synscan than Nexstar and the problems are in the same proportions.

I assume you are suggesting one is more reliable than  the other but I can't tell which one without reading a large number of postings!

Blimey!! I hope the GTI is better. It does have freedom find which allows the user to move the scope without the motor. 

[Stub Mandrel]

31 minutes ago, Ray Mondo said:

Blimey!! I hope the GTI is better. It does have freedom find which allows the user to move the scope without the motor. 

That search doesn't mean every hit is a problem with a mount, it is just that the words are in the same post.

[Ray Mondo]

Can anyone tell me if the Bresser brand of Maks would be a better telescope? They seem a lot more expensive but is the cost justified? I know they are German which is normally a good thing. I know Synta make products for most of the major brands but I keep seeing Bresser pop up when searching for Maks. 

Thanks

[Cosmic Geoff]

3 hours ago, Ray Mondo said:

Can anyone tell me if the Bresser brand of Maks would be a better telescope? They seem a lot more expensive but is the cost justified? I know they are German which is normally a good thing. I know Synta make products for most of the major brands but I keep seeing Bresser pop up when searching for Maks. 

Thanks

Bresser have a Chinese manufacturing partner.

BTW, by 'problem' with Nexstar and Synscan, I was principally thinking of users being unable to figure out cryptic operating instructions of unfamiliar equipment, not actual faults.  

[Ray Mondo]

4 hours ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

Bresser have a Chinese manufacturing partner.

BTW, by 'problem' with Nexstar and Synscan, I was principally thinking of users being unable to figure out cryptic operating instructions of unfamiliar equipment, not actual faults.  

No problem thanks. I like figuring things out myself anyway, I like the challenge. Instructions are for wimps ?, I will probably be on that forum in December ?

[pipnina]

1 minute ago, Ray Mondo said:

Instructions are for wimps ?

I'd prepare for a lot of bashing your head against a wall with that mentality! ?

[Ray Mondo]

36 minutes ago, pipnina said:

I'd prepare for a lot of bashing your head against a wall with that mentality! ?

I’ll be the one bashing my head against the wall with the instructions in my hands ☺️

[Ray Mondo]

Hello again,

does anyone know if you can change anything for the SW mak 127 to use 2” eyepieces?

Thanks

 

 

[JamesF]

2 minutes ago, Ray Mondo said:

Hello again,

does anyone know if you can change anything for the SW mak 127 to use 2” eyepieces?

Thanks

It's entirely possible you could get an adapter to take the OTA to an SCT fitting and then fit an SCT-style 2" diagonal.  I have a nagging feeling that had actually been done on my own 127 Mak when I bought it, but it was so long ago now that I can't be certain.

James

[JamesF]

Just had a search on this site and found references to either the arrangement I suggested, or alternatively going to the SCT fitting, then adding an SCT (2") visual back, and then a standard 2" diagonal.

James

[Ray Mondo]

3 minutes ago, JamesF said:

It's entirely possible you could get an adapter to take the OTA to an SCT fitting and then fit an SCT-style 2" diagonal.  I have a nagging feeling that had actually been done on my own 127 Mak when I bought it, but it was so long ago now that I can't be certain.

James

Thanks James,

so im looking for a SCT 2” diagonal and and adapter to fit a mak. 

[JamesF]

2 minutes ago, Ray Mondo said:

Thanks James,

so im looking for a SCT 2” diagonal and and adapter to fit a mak. 

I'd say so.  If you start a new thread with a more directly-related subject asking for details I'd have thought someone would be able to point you at exactly the bits you need.

James

[Ray Mondo]

Just now, JamesF said:

I'd say so.  If you start a new thread with a more directly-related subject asking for details I'd have thought someone would be able to point you at exactly the bits you need.

James

Thanks James,

Ive just found some info you and others have posted on another thread and it seems that it’s a waste of money going down the 2” route anyway. 

 

[JamesF]

Ah, well, if it won't achieve what you wanted it to achieve then I guess you've saved yourself some cash

James

[Louis D]

22 minutes ago, Ray Mondo said:

Thanks James,

Ive just found some info you and others have posted on another thread and it seems that it’s a waste of money going down the 2” route anyway. 

 

I've gone down that route, and it works fine except for some oval reflections off the rear port when bright stars pass by the edge of it.  See my post here.  I don't recommend using an SCT diagonal because there won't be enough clearance with the focuser knob.  The 2" visual back pushes the diagonal back far enough it won't collide with the knob.  It's still so tight that I have to insert the diagonal retention screws after screwing on the visual back.

Here's a couple of photos of my 2" 127 Mak setup with a decloaked 40mm Meade 5000 SWA and 2" refractor style diagonal: