Mars 18th Oct

[neil phillips]

Stella lyra CC 7.3 F12 QHY462 Baarder UV IR Cut ZWO ADC SW EQ5 PRO Mount resampled

Edited October 19, 2022 by neil phillips

[Space Cowboy]

Very nice natural images Neil. How are you finding the comparison between the 2 scopes?

 

[neil phillips]

2 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

Very nice natural images Neil. How are you finding the comparison between the 2 scopes?

 

Hi Stuart. Ultimately the bigger scope is better. However the small 7.3 optics on the Classical cassegrain. are absolutely superb. On Lunar for example. I would say the detail is very very sharp. You get to see a highly fine sharpened image. Its noticeable how sharp the fine lunar detail is, even live. And even under iffy seeing. being portable it's a much easier setup 

[Space Cowboy]

1 hour ago, neil phillips said:

Hi Stuart. Ultimately the bigger scope is better. However the small 7.3 optics on the Classical cassegrain. are absolutely superb. On Lunar for example. I would say the detail is very very sharp. You get to see a highly fine sharpened image. Its noticeable how sharp the fine lunar detail is, even live. And even under iffy seeing. being portable it's a much easier setup 

Certainly can't ignore the ease of use factor. 👍

[Kon]

Very nice details.

[geoflewis]

Very nice Neil and good to see yours, after the struggle I had with mine.

[neil phillips]

Cheers Kon

[neil phillips]

1 hour ago, geoflewis said:

Very nice Neil and good to see yours, after the struggle I had with mine.

Trust me I struggled Geof. Smaller scopes tend to make worse diffraction effects. And it was bad real bad. Still noticeable of course. But not quite as offensive. I was just surprised how much detail the little scope pulled out. Did some star testing too. And it's held collimation I did months ago. Which I am happy about. I can honestly say it might produce the best star test. of any telescope I have ever owned, i think. including Newtonians SCTs Maksutov cassegrains refractors. I don't know what magic GSO put into these. But it works. The atmosphere was playing havoc with the tests. But I did enough at different sizes and both sides of focus to tell. I wouldn't want to touch it. It would likely get worse. It's very tight. One example taken after Mars at correct sampling

 

[geoflewis]

2 hours ago, neil phillips said:

One example taken after Mars at correct sampling

Well that's not too shabby at all.....

[markse68]

Nice image as always Neil and good confirmation of what I was seeing at the ep- I couldn't see it in detail but there was a noticeable brightening top and bottom of the disk. Must have been Hellas and and the north polar clouds 👍

Mark

[neil phillips]

1 hour ago, markse68 said:

Nice image as always Neil and good confirmation of what I was seeing at the ep- I couldn't see it in detail but there was a noticeable brightening top and bottom of the disk. Must have been Hellas and and the north polar clouds 👍

Mark

Thanks Mark. And yes those would be some of the standout features on small Mars visually. Quite a difficult target visually

[Pete Presland]

Very nicely captured Neil, plenty of detail visible there.