Plantary Nebula LX200 14"

[ZS1RA]

A Meade LX200 14" SCT has become available on the used market near me. I am considering the purchase but have a question that I am hoping to get answered here.

My main area of interest is imaging Planetary Nebula and Galaxies, would this setup be any good for it?

TIA for any input and advice

[callisto]

I found a little write up on it here 👍  https://astronomy.com/-/media/import/files/pdf/0/5/a/0305_meade_14_lx200gps.pdf

 

Mark

[Craney]

Hello,

A good resource in terms of suitability is to look on  www.astrobin.com .  Select a medium small planetary  ( like the Eskimo nebula)  and check out the results from imagers all around the World.   You will see what telescope / camera combinations give the better results.   

Take note of the camera.     Mono  ( narrow band filters)   tend to yield more detail and structure, but the newer CMOS OSC paired with L-Extreme type  filters are pushing them close.

Also note the  'integration' time.   Long exposures  or many short ones combined are going to test the tracking / accuracy of your set up .... especially with such a long focal length.

In terms of my own experience.   Good tracking capabilities are very important as well as matching the right pixel size to this focal length.   

Also consider the FOV.   Trying to get any detail on some of these little devils requires a very narrow FOV.   That could mean a lack of suitable guide stars if you are using an OAG, and your stacking program might need more stars in the frame  to register before it works its magic.  (With narrow-band you are also cutting the light levels from the stars in the FOV as well.)

I have failed on the Crab Nebula several times when trying to get that impressive landscape format, margin to margin image...... only to have most of my subs rejected.

It certainly is a challenge, but very fascinating especially when you see the variety  and beauty of objects available

 

Sean.

[nfotis]

A good idea would be to check with the field of view calculator in https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/

Select "Imaging Mode", your scope and the camera/sensor you plan using in order to check framing with various targets.

The IMX571 sensor in cameras like the ASI2600 should be a good match for this scope

N.F.

 

[garryblueboy]

Will it permanently be set up as it’s a very heavy set up to put up and down every night 

[ZS1RA]

On 27/08/2021 at 21:37, garryblueboy said:

Will it permanently be set up as it’s a very heavy set up to put up and down every night 

Will be semi permanent, taken down in the rainy season.

[Cosmic Geoff]

I have been going through my collection of Plantary Nebula images, taken as the opportunities arose with two telescopes, a CPC800 8" f10 SCT and a 102mm f5 achronat, and a ASI224MC planetary camera.   I wondered which was in fact the best tool for the job, as some planetary nebulae are very small.  

In general the SCT images have blurred stars (if they have any stars at all) while the 102mm images have a wider field, generally include some stars which look sharper, and since there are stars in the image I can usually attempt a live-stack.  I have not checked exhaustively, but the exposures should be shorter with the f5.

In short it looks like the 102mm f5 is the better tool for the job, and a better match of seconds of arc vs pixels.

I intend to continue the Planetary Nebula imaging, concentrating on the use of the small refractor.

I wonder if the OP bought the big Meade?

[ZS1RA]

On 05/09/2021 at 22:00, Cosmic Geoff said:

I have been going through my collection of Plantary Nebula images, taken as the opportunities arose with two telescopes, a CPC800 8" f10 SCT and a 102mm f5 achronat, and a ASI224MC planetary camera.   I wondered which was in fact the best tool for the job, as some planetary nebulae are very small.  

In general the SCT images have blurred stars (if they have any stars at all) while the 102mm images have a wider field, generally include some stars which look sharper, and since there are stars in the image I can usually attempt a live-stack.  I have not checked exhaustively, but the exposures should be shorter with the f5.

In short it looks like the 102mm f5 is the better tool for the job, and a better match of seconds of arc vs pixels.

I intend to continue the Planetary Nebula imaging, concentrating on the use of the small refractor.

I wonder if the OP bought the big Meade?

Hi,

Thanks for your response. I eventually decided to put the purchase on hold. I will continue using my 8” EdgeHD for now and at a later stage buy a 14” EdgeHD.

[kirkster501]

I’ve had one of those scopes. Brilliant scope but very, VERY heavy has mentioned earlier and HUGE. You will need a serious mount for it. Unless you have dark skies it is completely wasted and you can achieve the same with a C925.  On that basis I sold it.
 

Guiding at that 3m plus focal length is very challenging, let me warn you. 
 

https://skastro.net/meade-14-acf/