Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Is anyone here using the TS Photon 6" F4 newtonian? I'm about to purchase it but I have some doubts and questions:

1- Does it hold collimation well, at least in a single session?

2- Is it impossible to balance in DEC due to its small dovetail or is it possible but harder?

3- Is the focuser rigid enough or does it introduce tilt?

4- Will collimating it be a nightmare?

5- I'm really picky when it comes to coma, should I expect some coma on edges even while using the Skywatcher Aplanatic F4 CC?

6- All in all, do you advice me to buy it or have some other option in the same price range.

Cheers!

Anthony

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Anthony

I am also looking at one for EAA

I have used the 8" version for several months in my observatory so have some experience.

People went on about collimation on the 8" I just think it was rough handling and not that good at collimating.

The one I used stayed in collimation for months in a fixed position, piggybacked to my main scope, in my observatory. The secondary was the most vulnerable because of the thin spider  so the 6" should be better because of the smaller diagonal and shorter spider arms but that's what you pay for having thin spider vanes.

I can see balance will be a problem depending on the camera used and I would say a small weight added to the back of the dovetail bar would be a good option, in my view better than a long springy SW/Vixen dovetail bar.

Focuser was good for the money I had no problem with it.

You are always going to get coma on a F4 newt even with a CC, maybe if you spent a few hundred more than the scope cost on a CC you may get rid of it. Visually you should not notice it if the objects you are looking at are interesting. Photography wise fix it in your processing.

As for should you get it, well there is nothing else at f4 at this price range, (other than the same scope under a different name) double that and you may get rid of the coma totally but that's a gamble.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RodAstro said:

Hi Anthony

I am also looking at one for EAA

I have used the 8" version for several months in my observatory so have some experience.

People went on about collimation on the 8" I just think it was rough handling and not that good at collimating.

The one I used stayed in collimation for months in a fixed position, piggybacked to my main scope, in my observatory. The secondary was the most vulnerable because of the thin spider  so the 6" should be better because of the smaller diagonal and shorter spider arms but that's what you pay for having thin spider vanes.

I can see balance will be a problem depending on the camera used and I would say a small weight added to the back of the dovetail bar would be a good option, in my view better than a long springy SW/Vixen dovetail bar.

Focuser was good for the money I had no problem with it.

You are always going to get coma on a F4 newt even with a CC, maybe if you spent a few hundred more than the scope cost on a CC you may get rid of it. Visually you should not notice it if the objects you are looking at are interesting. Photography wise fix it in your processing.

As for should you get it, well there is nothing else at f4 at this price range, (other than the same scope under a different name) double that and you may get rid of the coma totally but that's a gamble.  

Thanks for the info! I actually decided to go with the TS UNC 6 inch F4. which is a step above the photon. I own the Skywatcher F4 Aplanatic coma corrector, do you think it's good enough to eliminate coma in an F4? I really hate coma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Anthony

Thats nice.

I don't think you will remove the coma totally but you will do a very good job of it, I have used a Teleview Parracor and that cannot get rid of all the coma at F4.

I think you would be looking at a ASA reducer corrector or a Row Akerman unit both costing more than the scope and Sw coma corrector and having never used them I would not guarantee they would be perfect although images seem to show they do a good job but you don't know how much has been done with post processing. As I say for imaging you can remove the final bit of coma in your processing software.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By guydive
      Hey all,
      I'm considering the 250PDS. The main use is visual, and the second is EAA (I currently use a zwo183mm). 
      What I'm hesitant about is the primary focus. since It's mostly for visual, I'm wondering on how much back focus it has compared to the standard Skywatcher 10" dobsonians? with the standard dobsonias with the same optics and focuser you already need an extension tube for most eyepieces...
      Also, there's probably a "bigger" obstruction (bigger shadow on primary)? 
    • By cwinstone
      Hello, does anyone know if my imaging train looks correct, and if it does, why am i still getting these coma errors?
      Could it be incorrect backfocus? Searching the internet makes me think my dslr is 44mm, adding the t ring (even tried a 1mm spacer too) gets me to the required 55mm (assuming that's correct)
      I have no idea how to solve this and i feel like I'm just throwing money down the drain fighting this in vien. Help would be much appreciated.
      Skywacher Evostar 72ed
      Reducer rotator for 72ed (needs this for extra distance to achieve focus, the reducer and adapter alone doesn't allow for enough outwards travel)
      Reducer/corrector for ed72
      Canon eos 650d


    • By martinux
      Due to an unfortunate accident my SN10 primary mirror is broken. While it was an unwieldy beast and pretty much required a complete rebuild when I got it from the previous owner I really loved it.  
      My understanding, thanks to discussions between owners of this OTA, is that the SN10 used a spherical mirror. However Meade's representative did not wish to confirm this "proprietary information" after stating that they could not sell me a replacement. 
      So, I'm stuck with a bit of a quandary: do I roll the dice and attempt to get a spherical mirror constructed? (I doubt that non-parabolic mirrors are routinely manufactured and would probably come at a price-premium). I have read anecdotal discussions that the primaries are somehow "matched" to the schmitt correctors which, I must admit, makes no sense to me as I thought that a spherical mirror was manufactured with a uniform curvature. Thus, without more information, I'm thinking that this could be an expensive and ultimately unworkable solution. 
      Alternatively, do I cut my losses and replace it with something like a Skywatcher 250P?
      Any other suggestions? 

      Many thanks for taking the time to read this and for any advice you can render.
    • By starman-scott
      Hi, I have changed the focuser on my newtonian but its too short.
      I realise that I can just add an extension tube to it but I’m not sure if that is the best solution.
      I also seem to have have a stray light problem (I’m getting a hazy image on a 5mm eyepiece).
      A third problem is that I find it quite cumbersome that the focuser has to stick out so far (155mm+eyepiece).
      I wonder if I might solve the stay light problem by extending the main telescope tube instead of the focuser and therefore getting the eyepiece closer to the secondary. And also maintain more precision in the focuser by not extending it.
      As it stands the focuser would have to come out 265mm from the centre of the secondary mirror in order to focus. The secondary is 50mm wide. From primary to secondary is 950mm approx.. The primary is 200mm Thanks for reading. Any advice will be much appreciated.
       
    • By StarMich
      I'm aiming for the best possible field illumination for my Explore Scientific PN208 f/3.9 imaging newtonian. The scope is 5 years old now and while doing maintenance I wanted to do something about the design flaws as well.
       
      With the current secondary holder design it's impossible to center the mirror beneath the focuser. My question is: is this really an issue when the entire primary is visible? I read about optimal field illumination when the secondary is centered, but this isn't achievable with this telescope.
       
      I attached an image showing the (very bad aligned and already degrading) secondary at the moment. This is as far down as I can go, I would need to replace the holder screws with longer threads to go further but I don't know if it would make any difference for field illumination?
       
      Thanks in advance,
      Michael
       
       

×
×
  • 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.