Jump to content

1564402927_Comet2021Banner.jpg.a8d9e102cd65f969b635e8061096d211.jpg

Recommended Posts

 For Deep-Sky AP of mostly galaxies (and nebulae), what'll give me the best results– a medium-weight 130 P-DS or a very lightweight wide-field WO Z61? I know the "best" telescope is one that doesn't just collect dust all day long, but I just can't figure it out. Supporting said telescope will be the SW HEQ5 PRO Synscan (with the Rowan Astronomy belt attached), which will be supported further by a autoguiding system, possibly a very lightweight CF 32mm refractor with a ZWO ASI 120mm Mini (Can't find the -S model in Japan). On the telescope'll be the Canon EOS 600D, quite a heavy beast IMO. 

 Instead of leaving it here, I'll say (just blurt out) everything I know about these seemingly-equal telescopes.

 The 130 P-DS, clocking in at F/5, will produce fantastic photos of Nebulae and Galaxies alike, although its aperture will slightly limit the galaxies it'll see. It seems this telescope does particularly well when it comes to imaging M81 or M51, and Nebulae like the Rosette. Its price-performance ratio is basically unbeatable, as it's only 250$ over here in Japan and it cranks out fantastic images. The only addition I'll need will be a F/5 SW-issued Coma Corrector; however, I don't need to worry as I'll be getting one from me mum in a few week's time.

 The William Optics Z61, which has a slightly higher F number of 5.9. It sports 2 lenses with FPL-53 elements in them, allowing for extremely high contrast images of nebulae like the Rosette, Orion, all that lot. I've previously asked a similar question, and I've been convinced by the answer that "I won't really be able to take images of galaxies other than M31, Andromeda, and M33, Triangulum. So why do I even have this as an option when I could just go with the cheaper 130 P-DS? Well because it's a wide field APO. Everything it supports, whether it be the design to the focuser, is just amazing, so much so I can't emphasise the emotion enough. 

  On Astrobin, I've checked out what kind of images these telescopes produce, and I encountered a problem– pretty much everyone was using everything but the 600D. They all used the fancy Mono-cooled CCDs like the ZWO ASI 1600MM Pro. 

 

Clear skies,

Leon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the Canon 60Da exclusively with my WOZ61, for widish fields, as you know OK for largish galaxies and nebulas, you need to factor in the WO dedicated flattener which adds considerably to the cost.

Given the choice I'd plump for the 130PDS for general astrophotography.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the flattener!

Anyhow, thanks you so much for the quick reply, it helps a lot!

Since I haven't gotten the Canon 600D yet, do you think now would be a good time to change my opinion?

A used 600D over here is only 160$, and I'm trying not to go beyond 250$.

 

Clear skies,

Leon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LR Watanabe said:

 For Deep-Sky AP of mostly galaxies (and nebulae), what'll give me the best results– a medium-weight 130 P-DS or a very lightweight wide-field WO Z61? I know the "best" telescope is one that doesn't just collect dust all day long, but I just can't figure it out. Supporting said telescope will be the SW HEQ5 PRO Synscan (with the Rowan Astronomy belt attached), which will be supported further by a autoguiding system, possibly a very lightweight CF 32mm refractor with a ZWO ASI 120mm Mini (Can't find the -S model in Japan). On the telescope'll be the Canon EOS 600D, quite a heavy beast IMO. 

 Instead of leaving it here, I'll say (just blurt out) everything I know about these seemingly-equal telescopes.

 The 130 P-DS, clocking in at F/5, will produce fantastic photos of Nebulae and Galaxies alike, although its aperture will slightly limit the galaxies it'll see. It seems this telescope does particularly well when it comes to imaging M81 or M51, and Nebulae like the Rosette. Its price-performance ratio is basically unbeatable, as it's only 250$ over here in Japan and it cranks out fantastic images. The only addition I'll need will be a F/5 SW-issued Coma Corrector; however, I don't need to worry as I'll be getting one from me mum in a few week's time.

 The William Optics Z61, which has a slightly higher F number of 5.9. It sports 2 lenses with FPL-53 elements in them, allowing for extremely high contrast images of nebulae like the Rosette, Orion, all that lot. I've previously asked a similar question, and I've been convinced by the answer that "I won't really be able to take images of galaxies other than M31, Andromeda, and M33, Triangulum. So why do I even have this as an option when I could just go with the cheaper 130 P-DS? Well because it's a wide field APO. Everything it supports, whether it be the design to the focuser, is just amazing, so much so I can't emphasise the emotion enough. 

  On Astrobin, I've checked out what kind of images these telescopes produce, and I encountered a problem– pretty much everyone was using everything but the 600D. They all used the fancy Mono-cooled CCDs like the ZWO ASI 1600MM Pro. 

 

Clear skies,

Leon.

These two scopes are a world apart to the point that I am considering the Z61 as a travel scope and while keeping my 130PDS in the observatory. The 130PDS can do well with galaxies as well as nebula, but it does require some modification to get the very best out of it.

I used to use the 550D in the 130PDS and it has the same sensor as the 600D so the results will be good and identical. Just not so good as dedicated cameras.

Have you considered a 80mm F6 refactor it may be a better balance for you.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.