102 Mak as addition to 130p newton

[Vulisha]

Somehow I have not found thread like this, did find something remotely similar but not quite so. 

So as Mars opposition is closing in, and I have Heritage 130p, my planet views, are more than unsatisfactory since this telescope has only 650mm focal lenght. Even with barlow it does not get planets good views. 

Why this idea bumped me is because I saw on Youtube this guy and saw what he is doing with his small, noname MAK. And live views stunned me(turn to 1:50 for Jupiter), I would guess that visually would be better than through camera. But I was planing to shoot some small galaxy and nebula also with my DSLR. 

Would something like SW 102 mak be much better at planets, and small bright DSO objects, than my heritage 130p? Would less aperture affect views badly? I would prefer smaller scope-storage issues, that is why I got Heritage 130P instead of something bigger. Or would you recommend to extend to the 127 mak? Or not to waste my money?

 

[Nik271]

The aperture of your telescope is more then adequate for good views, actually a 127 Skymax is smaller. Granted a Mak has a very long focal length but if your telescope is well collimated you can get the same results with,  say a 3mm eyepiece or for more comfortable view 3x Barlow and 10mm EP.

Jupiter does not admit very high magnification, I would say about 170x for Jupiter and say 240x for Mars should be doable..

If your telescope is well collimated its aperture and atmospheric seeing are the determining factors of image resolution, not the particular design.

My advice is keep the money and invest it in a good eyepiece. 

[Vulisha]

And does Barlow quality have an effect? I have Celestron barlow - looks like this : https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32728812306.html 

I do have acceptable eyepieces but collimation is a problem  due to bad design of heritage spider (as seen in thread bellow) my secondary almost cannot be in perfect middle: 

 

 

[Coco]

My Skymax 127 @ 18mm does not show Mars,Jupiter or Saturn better than my 130 reflector @ 8mm  , pushing the Skymax past 10mm degrades the view, both are well collimated BTW.  Cool down is superior on the reflector whilst the Skymax sits nicely on my camera tripod with video head making it easier to lift from a cool garage and view between the clouds. You have a small Dob thats very portable,  If I was you I'd spend the money on a second hand fancy planetary eyepiece for your reflector..

 

 

[Nik271]

>And does Barlow quality have an effect? I have Celestron barlow - looks like this : https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32728812306.html 

A Barlow will have a small effect on the image but I think in your case the collimation is the real issue. In a fast scope like your F5 even a small deviation from the ideal alignment of the light path will be noticeable at higher magnification. I suspect that there may be a little flex in the tube which is  the downside to such a lightweight portable scope. 

Ultimately if you want high powered views and cannot fix the collimation then another scope is a solution. A Skymax 127 is a very capable scope (I have one) and its maximum magnification is about 200x, for some objects you can even go to 250x but the views become soft. They have good reputation and normally will not need any collimation. The widest view you can get from them is just over 1 degrees which is not bad. For wide angle views of extended DSO the Heritage will be better.

Just beware of the slippery path to bigger scopes: eventually I decided I needed even more resolution and got the Skymax 180. Now this is NOT a grab-and-go scope   

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Nik271

[billyharris72]

Agree with the above. I used to have both - of the two, the Newt was miles better on planets. The short focal length should not be a problem, since 5 inch f5 mirrors seem to be of invariably high quality. It should just be a matter of getting a suitable eyepiece (something about 4-5mm) or using a Barlow to get the required magnification. Don't be tempted to push too high - remember that, given typical seeing conditions (down to about 1 arc second), the human eye can resolve all accessible detail at somewhere between x60 and x120.

The other things to check are collimation and expectations.The images in that video look like processed "lucky images" to me. To get a visual view like that is a rarity.  Seeing conditions make a huge difference (though there are things you can do to minimise these a little). Making sure that the planets are at a high elevation (certainly over 30 degrees) is essential to a good view, though not possible every year (Mars is fine this year though). Other things I would check are that the scope has fully cooled, that you're not observing from a concrete or other radiative surface and that (if possible) you're not looking over buildings. Anything that radiates heat and causes convection will really mess up the view.

Stick with the Heritage though  - it's a fantastic little scope. Best of luck.

Billy.

[Vulisha]

Well it seems that decision is unanimous Keep good ol Heritage 130p an invest in other equipment (EP/camera). 

 

Thank you all on detailed input and on saving me some money

[vlaiv]

I would say it depends.

Mak102 can be very potent planetary scope. It is also very affordable and easy on the eyepieces. Mine gives very good image. Here are some images that I recorded with that scope:

It is not very expensive, and one might argue that if you want to get good 3-4mm eyepiece to achieve high magnification with 130p or 10mm + x3 barlow - you wont spend much more getting the whole scope.

 

[Vulisha]

Hi vlaiv! Nice to hear from you again

Those are impressive shots! You mind me asking what camera are those shots taken with? 

Yes maybe you are right there as well, good Tele Vue eyepiece would cost even more than this scope. But I plan to film planets as well. Do you think Mak would be better for camera performance as it would not require additional barlow to achive same target size? 

[RT65CB-SWL]

Below is an image of Montes Apenninus I took several years ago with my Meade ETX105, Meade 26mm Plossl, Beacon Hill Telescopes eyepiece projection unit; (E.P.U. or EPU); and a 2.1M/pixel digital compact camera.

 

<--- The E.P.U. or EPU is in the centre and in front of my 're-modded' ETX105.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Philip R

[vlaiv]

43 minutes ago, Vulisha said:

You mind me asking what camera are those shots taken with? 

Not at all - ASI178mmc - no use of barlow, just prime focus.

44 minutes ago, Vulisha said:

Do you think Mak would be better for camera performance as it would not require additional barlow to achive same target size? 

Actually, for imaging, probably the most important aspect of telescope is aperture. Most telescope designs are diffraction limited in the center of the field. Even largish central obstruction is not detrimental for imaging as its effects are corrected in usual processing step of sharpening (either wavelets or deconvolution).

Compare above image taken with 102mm of aperture and this one:

Which was taken with 130mm scope and apparently spherical mirror at F/6.9 (should be very poor for high power visual). Fact that it was spherical mirror did not seem to impact imaging results after sharpening.

Use of barlow lens really depends on wanted resolution (and with planetary imaging one will almost always aim for critical sampling - best resolution delivered by aperture) and pixel size.

If we aim for critical sampling then F/ratio required is really dictated by pixel size only (aperture size that is related to max level of detail is part of F/ratio and focal length and pixel size determine resolution - throw everything in the mix and you end up with formula for F/ratio depending on pixel size only).

If you decide to stick with 130p and have a go at planetary imaging - depending on pixel size, which can be 2.4um, 2.9um or 3.75um with most planetary cameras, you'll need:

F/9.4, F/11.4 or F/14.7

for critical sampling.

With F/5 scope, you'll need x2 barlow to get approximately first at F/10, x2.2 barlow to get approximately second F/ratio and x3 barlow to get approximately third ratio.

 

[nfotis]

In general, planetary observation/imaging seems to require more focal length than a large aperture.

Scopes like the Skymax 127 and 150 are quite popular for planets (the Skymax 180 is termed a 'planet killer', but it requires a mount HEQ5 class at least for good results).

For planetary imaging, most small sensor used (like the ASI290/462) try to reach an f/15 or so for ideal sampling (that depends on atmospheric quality of course).

N.F.

[Vulisha]

Ok so for theoretically same results on my 130/650 FL Heritage I would need ~2x barlow with same camera. 

That image of spherical is not bad at all, not good as your, but great compared to my results, although I do not have any dedicated planetary camera I have just APS-C DSLR and Logitech C270 and very very bad Svbony SV105 camera. That might create issues as well but i believe that collimation is issue number 1. 

So with DSLR (which is probably much better that two cams mentioned), that has pixel pitch of 4.29 µm I would need around 3.3X Barlow, but could get by with 3x? 

 

This is my best result so far, best by far. 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Vulisha

[vlaiv]

If you want to use DSLR to capture planets,

first thing to do would be to see how to record raw video instead of compressed video.

As far as I know - Magic Lantern enables you to record raw video. You need something like 640x480 for planets and hopefully your DSLR can do this (I think you need Canon for use with Magic Lantern).

Look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEXVvry2oiA

Or other videos on youtube that explain how to shoot raw video on your DSLR.

[Vulisha]

Yes I did that, I have canon with ML also there is "movie crop mode" that is also recommended when recording planets with DSLR that I have not tested yet. Unfortunately clouds just covered my Jupiter and Saturn and cannot test now.  This recording above was made with C270 if I remember correctly.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by Vulisha

[nfotis]

Note that programs like Backyard EOS and APT offer a live view video capture mode in EOS cameras.

If you zoom at 5x when shooting planets via these programs (in "thethered mode", the computer captures native sensor resolution (or so) while capturing uncompressed video, at approximately HD resolution. And you can control focus, exposure etc from your computer. That's a way to imitate the small sensors like ASI290.

Forget HD or even 4K video from a dSLR for planetary imaging, the planet will be too small for recording.

N.F.

Edited September 28, 2020 by nfotis

[Vulisha]

Here is some stuff from few nights ago, I would say it issomewhat improvement from before, mostly thanks to your advice. I think I missed the focus on Saturn a bit

But collimation is still an issue when I set Intrafocal colimation well, extrafocal is bad, and vice versa. Heritages 1 point spider is actually very inprecise, and also weight of balow and DSLR is flexing focuser.

For that I have ordered 3d printed part to support focuser, I do hope it will help. 

[happy-kat]

I have a william optics 6mm SPL I use with the heritage 130p it's great on Jupiter and I've a 1.6x barlow. Saw a Moon shadow transit with it.

I'd sort collimation and practice as good seeing and transparency influence what's managed.

How many frames are in your Jupiter shot?

[Vulisha]

This is 80 best out of 800.

Well visually it is pretty good for me as well, but cameras struggle. I hoped to get 3 way spider for 130p  but astroboot shipping out of UK is insane, and I was not able to find it on aliex 

[RT65CB-SWL]

52 minutes ago, Vulisha said:

This is 80 best out of 800.

Well visually it is pretty good for me as well, but cameras struggle. I hoped to get 3 way spider for 130p  but astroboot shipping out of UK is insane, and I was not able to find it on aliex 

Astroboot ship from Sweden and have done for a few years now. The P&P is a bit high for
low cost items. A few weeks ago I ordered an item and the P&P cost more than the item.

[Vulisha]

Really, but even shipping to Sweden is extremely high. For spider item is 9 pounds and shipping is 25 pounds. Inner cheapness inside me cannot give almost 3x item value for postage and it is relatively small item, it can fit in regular bubbly envelope. 

[happy-kat]

Have you taken a photo of the open end of your telescope square on and then reviewed that photo to see if the secondary strut is centered in line with the focuser?

Al's collimation aid is great to overlay on an image.

First link

The heritage is this telescope on the US and this is a very large thread of followers, use and projects.

Second link

Have a look at page 138 as that's got collimation with images

Edited October 2, 2020 by happy-kat

[Vulisha]

Thanks on the links. I have read most of cloudynights forum, that's where I got links for 3D printied parts  But I have not seen this Al's collimation help, or his thread, thanks a lot! 

[Vulisha]

Am I doing something Wrong here, and I have no idea what if I am but probably do. 

First I marked mirror As circular as I can get it:

Then I tried to center circle on primary to middle:

Then I moved primary to make collimation cap hole go to primary middle circle. 

 

Is this considered good collimation or should I match all circles in the middles exactly to match performance of  vlaivs 102 mak? 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Vulisha

[RT65CB-SWL]

21 minutes ago, Vulisha said:

Am I doing something Wrong here, and I have no idea what if I am but probably do. 

First I marked mirror As circular as I can get it:

Then I tried to center circle on primary to middle:

Then I moved primary to make collimation cap hole go to primary middle circle. 

 

Is this considered good collimation or should I match all circles in the middles exactly to match performance of  vlaivs 102 mak? 

The best star test is under the skies and use Polaris, as it hardly ever moves.
If you have perfect concentric rings, you are good to go. 

edit: I have just seen this posting/topic... 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Philip R