178MM vs 174MM or...

[SAW]

Hi,

Already have the 178MM which gives me a full disc of the moon using my SW72ED but not with my Tak60Q. The 174MM would give me a full disc with the Tak but is it really going to be a better than my 178MM ? or I could just use the Tak reducer with my 178MM or just do a mosaic but I'm lazy 🙂 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

17 hours ago, SAW said:

Hi,

Already have the 178MM which gives me a full disc of the moon using my SW72ED but not with my Tak60Q. The 174MM would give me a full disc with the Tak but is it really going to be a better than my 178MM ? or I could just use the Tak reducer with my 178MM or just do a mosaic but I'm lazy 🙂 

I have both the ASI174MM and ASI178MM. The 174 has the larger surface area, but far fewer pixels, so you would lose resolution. I regularly make lunar mosaics with the 178MM and my C8, and 40-pane mosaics are actually quite easy to make with IMPPG to batch-process the panes, and MS-ICE to stitch the result. Having said that, I am looking at the ASI183MM for lunar work to reduce the number of panes needed, and to do full-disc solar imaging in a bigger scope than my APM 80mm F/6. The 183MM has the same size pixels as the 178mm, and would effectively replace the latter, as you can always just image a region of interest.

[wouterdhoye]

Hi,

I would not use the 174 on such a small scope. The fov is larger but the large pixels will significantly reduce resolution. I'd opt for a larger sensor camera with similar pixel size to the 178. Or use the 178 and make mosaic. If using a limtied amount of frames making a mosaic is not very difficult and can even be automated. Give it a try.

Clear skies,

Wouter.