Orion optics VX12 - standard 1/6 wave good enough?

[Flame Nebula]

Hi,

I'm considering this scope to go on a AZ-EQ6 for planetary imaging, and general observation, with a coma corrector. 

I'm interested in hearing from any users of the scope for planetary imaging, and whether you opted from 1/8 or 1/10 wave? Not 100% convinced that these would  make a noticeable difference, but if anyone has seen comparative images to show they do, that would be good. 

Thanks 

Mark 

[dweller25]

This may help…..

https://www.laughton.com/paul/rfo/obs/obs.html

This is the comparison from the above article, basically 1/8th wave and around 25% central obstruction could be all you need…….

 

Edited March 30 by dweller25

[Flame Nebula]

9 minutes ago, dweller25 said:

This may help…..

https://www.laughton.com/paul/rfo/obs/obs.html

This is a visual comparison from the above article, basically 1/8th wave and around 25% central obstruction is as good as you need…….

 

Thanks Dweller, 

Indeed, I can see subtle differences between 1/4 and 1/8, but no difference beyond. So, that would make it worth the 1/8 option, but I can save a few quid not getting 1/10. I've found a really good example of what this scope is capable of, with an image of Mars at it closest for 150 years. I found a lot of good images satisfying my criteria, but not Mars. But the one I eventually found was top drawer, you could even see Mons Olympus! Obviously, this doesn't mean I can repeat this, but it shows the potential, as it was on an EQ6, but I've also found a good one on SGL, and that was done in AZ mode on AZEQ6. Since, this scope is only 14kg and 'short' relatively, I think I could handle it. With an AZEQ6 mount, the options for general visual and planetary AP and DSO AP are tremendous. So, a serious contender I think! And all for significantly less than a new C9.25 OTA. Admittedly, I'll need a good coma corrector, around £250 but that's still 25%less than C9.25, and now I'm reasonably sure a 12" can compete with the C9.25, may be even the C11?! 

[dweller25]

Did you read the article ?
It explains why a Newtonian out performs a similar sized SCT.

Edited March 30 by dweller25

[dweller25]

There is a 10” and a 12” OO Newtonian in the SGL for sale section.

 

Edited March 30 by dweller25

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, dweller25 said:

There is a 10” and a 12” OO Newtonian in the SGL for sale section.

 

Thanks for letting me know, 

At the moment, I'm not ready to buy. Need to make sure my 'situation' at work is secure, and I think hopefully assuming the case, by September, I'll be starting to pull some triggers. But my first purchase is very likely to be the mount. I'll be able to test it out with my ed80 first. Then the main scope purchase. Still can't decide on a scope to fill gap between ed80/127mm mak and main scope. I might be able to stretch to a 4" StellaMira around £1K, but that could be acquired later. 

[John]

One of the things that Orion Optics are good at, as far as we know, is mirror production. So my approach would be to capitalize on that and get the best grade that I could. For peace of mind as much as anything 🙄

If you go for 1/6th wave you might as well go for a Skywatcher or GSO - I'm sure most of them are at least that good optically.

 

[Flame Nebula]

1 hour ago, John said:

One of the things that Orion Optics are good at, as far as we know, is mirror production. So my approach would be to capitalize on that and get the best grade that I could. For peace of mind as much as anything 🙄

If you go for 1/6th wave you might as well go for a Skywatcher or GSO - I'm sure most of them are at least that good optically.

 

Hi John 

I'm thinking also about the weight. The OO 12" F4 is only 14kg, and about 4' long, so I can probably handle it in terms of getting on/off mount. Whereas the Sky-Watcher 12" is, I understand, 25kg and an extra foot longer (based on f4.9). The weight of the OTA alone would be at the manufacturer's max loading for the AZ-EQ6 mount (that's not to say it wouldn't work, but certainly I wouldn't want to manoeuvre it😬😬. My mind goes back to when I used to carry 20L drums of water(so approx 20kg,wt), and how heavy that felt, but in that case I had a handle and a straight arm, and many years younger😏) 

But, you do make a good point, with respect to a small extra cost in terms of relatively small percentage of total cost. I believe you had a used 12" F5.3 OO (Dob version) , if memory serves (which it doesn't always, these days 😉). I seem to remember you were impressed with it?

Do you think the 12" would cover most visual needs, based on your experiences? 

Of course, there are stories about tube flexure, but I'm not sure if that would affect planetary AP and visual observation. Maybe extended dso AP where hours might be spent gathering data. Not sure on that. 

Thanks 

Mark 

Edited March 30 by Flame Nebula

[scarp15]

Personally and endorsing what John has said, I would plum for the 1/10PV wavefront, because otherwise there would be that; what if, particularly since Orion Optics UK after all provide this option. Having owned a VX14 and still use a VX8L, both having the 1/10PV wave mirrors, it does no harm to know that you have potentially got the best possible. Would like in time to perhaps have a VX 10 and would again be inclined towards 1/10PV mirrors.  

[Flame Nebula]

3 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Personally and endorsing what John has said, I would plum for the 1/10PV wavefront, because otherwise there would be that; what if, particularly since Orion Optics UK after all provide this option. Having owned a VX14 and still use a VX8L, both having the 1/10PV wave mirrors, it does no harm to know that you have potentially got the best possible. Would like in time to perhaps have a VX 10 and would again be inclined towards 1/10PV mirrors.  

Thanks Scarp. 

I think you and John have convinced me. 👍. I think partly, in a sort of analogous way, I started thinking "if I can handle and afford the VX12, and I'm getting the az-eq6 mount anyway which can handle it, am I going to be thinking" what if? ", when I'm using the VX10. I suspect I would. But, too late at that point. Because I've been carefully saving up money for nearly three years( thus avoiding any impact on family expenditure) and aiming for the best views of Jupiter in 2024/25, I want to get it right. Can't afford to lose money on resale etc, etc). Probably more info than you needed... 😂😂

[Stu]

Just as an observation @Flame Nebula you are putting a huge emphasis on getting it right first time based on ‘paper research’ and feedback from members here and elsewhere.

The trouble with that is that everyone is different, with different circumstances, eyesight, likes and dislikes, and you may find that your preferences in reality don’t match those of the people who are giving very good and well meaning advice. You are asking a huge number of questions about multiple topics, all of which are great and are stimulating some really good threads, but I can see that it is potentially becoming overwhelming.

I think there are some basics which make total sense for your aims such as the AZ-EQ6 mount, but personally if I were you I would be looking at buying used kit wherever possible and to be prepared to make some mistakes and shift kit on if it doesn’t suit your purposes. I guess I’m trying to gently say there is no substitute for putting in the hard yards of gaining experience in all aspects, including learning how to setup and use the kit, how to observe and image and process the results and plain and simple what you prefer. These things take time. I’ve been observing nearly 25 years and despite using some top end kit still haven’t knowingly seen The Pup for example. I’ve seen some newbies on here claim to have seen it first time but, cynic that I am, I doubt that; it takes time and experience to know what is an artefact/reflection/poor seeing and what is real. In terms of kit, I’ve bought and sold over fifty scopes and believe that I know what I like and enjoy now, but for instance still have ‘unfinished business’ with large dobs where I have by no means got the best out of the 16” I have.

So, personally I would switch my focus from trying to reach an end point in one fell swoop, to treating this more like a journey of discovery and see where it leads you. Buying good used kit is key to this as you can shift it on without losing anything much apart from a bit of shipping; treat it like renting if you like.

I hope that doesn’t all sound harsh, it is meant in  the most positive way I assure you.

Stu

 

[Flame Nebula]

10 minutes ago, Stu said:

Just as an observation @Flame Nebula you are putting a huge emphasis on getting it right first time based on ‘paper research’ and feedback from members here and elsewhere.

The trouble with that is that everyone is different, with different circumstances, eyesight, likes and dislikes, and you may find that your preferences in reality don’t match those of the people who are giving very good and well meaning advice. You are asking a huge number of questions about multiple topics, all of which are great and are stimulating some really good threads, but I can see that it is potentially becoming overwhelming.

I think there are some basics which make total sense for your aims such as the AZ-EQ6 mount, but personally if I were you I would be looking at buying used kit wherever possible and to be prepared to make some mistakes and shift kit on if it doesn’t suit your purposes. I guess I’m trying to gently say there is no substitute for putting in the hard yards of gaining experience in all aspects, including learning how to setup and use the kit, how to observe and image and process the results and plain and simple what you prefer. These things take time. I’ve been observing nearly 25 years and despite using some top end kit still haven’t knowingly seen The Pup for example. I’ve seen some newbies on here claim to have seen it first time but, cynic that I am, I doubt that; it takes time and experience to know what is an artefact/reflection/poor seeing and what is real. In terms of kit, I’ve bought and sold over fifty scopes and believe that I know what I like and enjoy now, but for instance still have ‘unfinished business’ with large dobs where I have by no means got the best out of the 16” I have.

So, personally I would switch my focus from trying to reach an end point in one fell swoop, to treating this more like a journey of discovery and see where it leads you. Buying good used kit is key to this as you can shift it on without losing anything much apart from a bit of shipping; treat it like renting if you like.

I hope that doesn’t all sound harsh, it is meant in  the most positive way I assure you.

Stu

 

Hi Stu, 

Yes, you offer wise words. Didn't sound harsh to me and is taken as intended. 😉

Not sure if many used VX12 will come up, that are easy to pick up and offer a tempting enough price differential from new. I think after a lot of research, this looks like it could (emphasis on could) achieve the planetary images I'm after. Of course, in Az mode, I'm sure it would be good for visual too, but I'm not ruling out something like a used SW120ED, based on many positive comments, to give me the refractor views I like. 

I'm getting there. 👍

Thanks

Mark 

[Space Hopper]

A VX12 F4 would be too much of a handful on an EQ mount, and i think you'd soon tire of it.

14kg may not sound that much, but you have to take into account the volume and sheer bulk of the thing.

I've owned my own VX 12 short tube a few years ago now, but on a dob mount. It was a big old scope. Not for the feint of heart in solid tube configuration.

It excelled at low power, rich field, wide angle views with good quality eyepieces. This was what i used it for.  I never used a CC.

And i never considered it a planetary scope as such. The VX had quite a big secondary, and with that aperture, was always too fussy with seeing conditions. My 5.5" refractor is a much better planetary performer,

and despite sometimes missing the aperture when looking at those fainter Messiers, i don't miss its bulk and humping it about.

If you do go down the road of imaging planets with a big newt, then i take my hat off to you. 

 

[Space Hopper]

Found a pic of my old VX12 on its Dob mount, after i'd put the DSC mod on it.

 

[Peter Drew]

Be aware of he difference between a 1/6 wave mirror surface and a 1/6 wavefront at the eyepiece. A 1/6 wave mirror will present at best a 1'3 wavefront image at the eyepiece.  On this basis, a 1/8 wave mirror would be preferable to achieve the 1'4 wavefront at the eyepiece to satisfy the Rayleigh criterion for a diffraction limited Newtonian telescope.       🙂

[rl]

42 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

 

 

 

43 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

A VX12 F4 would be too much of a handful on an EQ mount, and i think you'd soon tire of it.

14kg may not sound that much, but you have to take into account the volume and sheer bulk of the thing.

I've owned my own VX 12 short tube a few years ago now, but on a dob mount. It was a big old scope. Not for the feint of heart in solid tube configuration.

It excelled at low power, rich field, wide angle views with good quality eyepieces. This was what i used it for.  I never used a CC.

And I never considered it a planetary scope as such. The VX had quite a big secondary, and with that aperture, was always too fussy with seeing conditions. My 5.5" refractor is a much better planetary performer,

and despite sometimes missing the aperture when looking at those fainter Messiers, i don't miss its bulk and humping it about.

If you do go down the road of imaging planets with a big newt, then i take my hat off to you. 

 

I would have to agree with much of Spacehopper's  comments. I had a VX12 (and later a CT12) on an AZ-EQ6 and for me it just did'nt work. Extra counterweights and the extension bar were needed to achieve balance. The mount would slew but it always felt on the edge. The eyepiece can end up in some funky positions requiring the flexible talents of a contortionist and possibly a ladder..not conducive to the relaxed posture needed for concentrated study of fine detail. They do work better as dobs.

Where I might disagree is that I found the f/4 was no real hinderance to good planetary observations, in spite of the secondary obstruction. My scopes all had the 1/10 option and the detail they could resolve on a night of good seeing was remarkable. I've seen more detail compared to refractors of 5"-6" even if the image was not as "pretty" in terms of contrast

The 1/10 spec is a bit of an advertising thing...the check is done with a helium/neon laser source with a wavelength of 632 nanometres and as such is perfectly true. But your eyes are most sensitive at about 550 nanometres which equates more to 1/8 wavelength. They are still excellent mirrors though...I've had several.

Edited March 31 by rl

[Flame Nebula]

3 hours ago, Space Hopper said:

A VX12 F4 would be too much of a handful on an EQ mount, and i think you'd soon tire of it.

14kg may not sound that much, but you have to take into account the volume and sheer bulk of the thing.

I've owned my own VX 12 short tube a few years ago now, but on a dob mount. It was a big old scope. Not for the feint of heart in solid tube configuration.

It excelled at low power, rich field, wide angle views with good quality eyepieces. This was what i used it for.  I never used a CC.

And i never considered it a planetary scope as such. The VX had quite a big secondary, and with that aperture, was always too fussy with seeing conditions. My 5.5" refractor is a much better planetary performer,

and despite sometimes missing the aperture when looking at those fainter Messiers, i don't miss its bulk and humping it about.

If you do go down the road of imaging planets with a big newt, then i take my hat off to you. 

 

Thanks Space Hopper, 

This is indeed the dilemma. You could very well be right on this. I'm looking at your photo. Did your adaptation allow goto and tracking? 

Thanks 

Mark 

[Flame Nebula]

3 hours ago, rl said:

 

I would have to agree with much of Spacehopper's  comments. I had a VX12 (and later a CT12) on an AZ-EQ6 and for me it just did'nt work. Extra counterweights and the extension bar were needed to achieve balance. The mount would slew but it always felt on the edge. The eyepiece can end up in some funky positions requiring the flexible talents of a contortionist and possibly a ladder..not conducive to the relaxed posture needed for concentrated study of fine detail. They do work better as dobs.

Where I might disagree is that I found the f/4 was no real hinderance to good planetary observations, in spite of the secondary obstruction. My scopes all had the 1/10 option and the detail they could resolve on a night of good seeing was remarkable. I've seen more detail compared to refractors of 5"-6" even if the image was not as "pretty" in terms of contrast

The 1/10 spec is a bit of an advertising thing...the check is done with a helium/neon laser source with a wavelength of 632 nanometres and as such is perfectly true. But your eyes are most sensitive at about 550 nanometres which equates more to 1/8 wavelength. They are still excellent mirrors though...I've had several.

Hi rl, 

I had heard it was OK when in Az mode. Did you have problems even in this mode? 

I'm wondering if carrying it on a trolley, then connecting to the az-eq6 mount is an option that would make it easier to handle. 

Is it the length of the tube that you think caused it to be on the limit, because weight wise it is well within the load capacity that the mount is supposed to be capable of. 

Thanks 

Mark 

[rl]

50 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi rl, 

I had heard it was OK when in Az mode. Did you have problems even in this mode? 

I'm wondering if carrying it on a trolley, then connecting to the az-eq6 mount is an option that would make it easier to handle. 

Is it the length of the tube that you think caused it to be on the limit, because weight wise it is well within the load capacity that the mount is supposed to be capable of. 

Thanks 

Mark 

I used it as an equatorial. Never tried the alt-az mode. I would willingly defer to the experience of others on that one, but sooner or later you will want to try out your 12" for astrophotography on deep sky stuff for which it should excel if you don't mind the diffraction spikes

The OTA on its own is certainly well within the mount's stated capability ( I forget exactly, 20kg for visual?)

But you normally take a half to 2/3 of that number for photography. Add on a camera and a filter wheel, OAG and second camera for guiding and you are getting close.

I suppose there is no absolute right or wrong here as long as you are inside the 20kg limit but:

• It's not just weight but bending moment that comes into play here. The extra diameter of the 12" increases the weight* distance moment which calls for extra counterweights, or the same counterweights placed further out. I remember ending up with 4 by 5kg weights. Balance becomes more critical. the motors did track ok provided there was no wind but I always felt fast slewing was stressing things.
• The 12" scope is a bit of a sail. Not an issue maybe if you have an observatory (I don't). 
• The mirror and cell are quite heavy which pushes the OTA centre of gravity well down the tube. This results in the eyepiece end sitting quite high. I needed a ladder to reach the eyepiece at the Zenith. Less of a problem if you are using a camera; the camera can be permanently situated on the inside.
• It's a serious lump to take on and off the mount in the dark on a regular basis. Manageability is an important factor in how often the kit gets used. 
• Turning said lump in the cradles to get a better eyepiece position is possible but clumsy. Definatley a plus for refractors, or ALT-AZ mode.

It did work after a fashion but I found the AZ-EQ6 mount was a whole lot happier with an 8" scope plus full astrophotography kit. A 10" might be a reasonable compromise; there is one for sale on ABS at the moment.

I had an EQ8 mount for a while which was perfect for the 12" with full AP suite....but it was an absolutely backbreaking job to set it up and take it down each session.

Going back to your original point; I have always found the optical performance of OOUK 1/10 wave Newts to be excellent over several examples, and I don't regret paying the premium just to be sure that any optical issues will be down to other causes. Much better value secondhand.  It's the other factors that will make or break the success of your setup, in terms of what inconvenience you can live with.

Just one man's opinion..not sure it helps much! 

 

Edited March 31 by rl

[Flame Nebula]

14 minutes ago, rl said:

I used it as an equatorial. Never tried the alt-az mode. I would willingly defer to the experience of others on that one, but sooner or later you will want to try out your 12" for astrophotography on deep sky stuff for which it should excel if you don't mind the diffraction spikes

The OTA on its own is certainly well within the mount's stated capability ( I forget exactly, 20kg for visual?)

But you normally take a half to 2/3 of that number for photography. Add on a camera and a filter wheel, OAG and second camera for guiding and you are getting close.

I suppose there is no absolute right or wrong here as long as you are inside the 20kg limit but:

• It's not just weight but bending moment that comes into play here. The extra diameter of the 12" increases the weight* distance moment which calls for extra counterweights, or the same counterweights placed further out. I remember ending up with 4 by 5kg weights. Balance becomes more critical. the motors did track ok provided there was no wind but I always felt fast slewing was stressing things.
• The 12" scope is a bit of a sail. Not an issue maybe if you have an observatory (I don't). 
• The mirror and cell are quite heavy which pushes the OTA centre of gravity well down the tube. This results in the eyepiece end sitting quite high. I needed a ladder to reach the eyepiece at the Zenith. Less of a problem if you are using a camera; the camera can be permanently situated on the inside.
• It's a serious lump to take on and off the mount in the dark on a regular basis. Manageability is an important factor in how often the kit gets used. 
• Turning said lump in the cradles to get a better eyepiece position is possible but clumsy. Definatley a plus for refractors, or ALT-AZ mode.

It did work after a fashion but I found the AZ-EQ6 mount was a whole lot happier with an 8" scope plus full astrophotography kit. A 10" might be a reasonable compromise; there is one for sale on ABS at the moment.

I had an EQ8 mount for a while which was perfect for the 12" with full AP suite....but it was an absolutely backbreaking job to set it up and take it down each session.

Going back to your original point; I have always found the optical performance of OOUK 1/10 wave Newts to be excellent over several examples, and I don't regret paying the premium just to be sure that any optical issues will be down to other causes. Much better value secondhand.  It's the other factors that will make or break the success of your setup, in terms of what inconvenience you can live with.

Just one man's opinion..not sure it helps much! 

 

Thanks rl, 

You make some valuable points. As background, my prime reason for getting the scope is planetary AP, which it can do in Az mode(I found an excellent example of a photo of Mars with this scope and this mount, in Az mode which proves that ), and visual observation. Any dso AP would be with my ed80, for which this mount would be overkill😊, and rock solid. 

If orion optics sold this scope with a goto and tracking mount, I would seriously think of that option. Not sure the Sky-Watcher 300pds on a Dob mount, can match the image I found for Mars, for example, at least I have not seen that level of image yet. Doesn't mean they're not out there, but I've done a lot of searching, and only when the 12" SW scope has been on an EQ mount, have I found comparable images. 

So, I've no doubt this scope in Az mode would serve me for the intended use. HOWEVER, I am concerned about the mounting and dismounting. Sometimes, that can be awkward with much smaller scopes, if you can't get the mounting plate to cooperative and your holding the scope with one arm. This for me is the big concern now. If there is a way anyone knows to support the weight of this scope whilst mounting it, I'd me happy for them to share it. Otherwise I'll need to get to the gym! I can't find any videos of this scope being mounted. I did find one with a big aussie bloke mounting a 300pds onto an neq6 - 26kg! No way would I attempt that! I know how heavy that would feel in one arm! 14kg is something I think I could support for a short time. Emphasis on short! I don't want to be leaning forward with that weight either - recipe for back issues! 

Assuming, the mounting issue can be made easy,  I'm also aware of the much tighter demands on collimation needs  F4, although I had a reply from the person who took the Mars image I refer to, and he just used a star test whilst imaging train connected to laptop. No need for coma corrector for planetary AP. But for visual obs, I may need to get one, as I don't like coma and I can't see me only using a 12" newt for AP imaging only! 😊

Anyway, hope this gives you a better idea of the background. 

Either this or a second hand C11. But I'm put off by the issues I've heard from people saying the visual views in a C11 are not so good, and often beaten by 5" APOs, due to seeing or various reasons. It seems a waste to pay all that money for 11" you can't use for visual, if the seeing isn't perfect. I'm also thinking of getting a 5" apo, but I doubt it will beat a top class 1/10 wave 12" mirror, properly cooled and collimated. 🤔, which can do both planetary AP and visual, in Az mode. Having said that, it would be much easier to set up, and I like refractor views! So, I'm likely to get one of these, possibly used, at some point, funds allowing. 

Mark

[Stu]

@Flame Nebula another observation….. the standard advice for starting out in deep sky imaging is an ED80 on an HEQ5 mount. Reasons? It’s a great mount with more than enough capacity to hold and track the scope. The scope is optically decent and has a relatively short focal length and is physically small. All these things help it to track well; it doesn’t act like a sail in wind and guiding a short focal length is easier than guiding a long one. Starting with a large and complex scope which is harder to guide and needs collimation and also acts like a sail is hard!

Why do I mention this? Well, planetary imaging is a skill in itself, and there are many variables to control. Seeing conditions are important as is the collimation and cooling of the scope, not to mention the processing.

Now, to go from a standing start, to imaging with a 12” newt is a big ask in my book. You have many things to get right, so whilst you will likely get there eventually, I suspect it would be better from a learning perspective to start the process with a bomb proof scope so you learn the basics of imaging and processing, then step up to the larger scope so you already know the basics and can focus on the cooling, collimation and simple handling of the larger scope.

Perhaps a 5” apo might not be a bad place to start, the SM125 is a great option, and is lightweight and not too long but will still chuck up some decent images. Then move on up the scale to the 12” either directly or via an intermediate scope.

There’s a theme in my party pooping posts as I’m sure you can tell; just getting the best/top end kit to start with is not always the right path. I’ve seen more than one newbie throw thousands at really top end imaging kit with no idea how to use it, and we never saw an image out of them.

Start realistic, learn the ropes and move on up would be my advice.

[Elp]

I had a 130pds, a tiny scope in comparison to the vx12. If youd like to enjoy cumbersome handling when mounting and dismounting as well as when doing visual due to the eyepiece position adjusting constantly and the icing on the cake, the wind sail effect, by all means go for an even larger scope. Totally tongue in cheek of course, but if you don't have any experience with going larger I think you'll be in for a shock. Experience counts for everything in this hobby, and no amount of reading makes up for it. Obviously the flip side is if you don't take the plunge then how would you know. Sure they're fine scopes but the tripod better be extremely beefy as well as the mount, even more so if you plan on imaging with it which is why dobs are usually recommended for this size as well as the focal length considerations (longer FL, the more stable the setup generally needs to be, try imaging with different camera lens FLs handheld you'll soon see).

Edited March 31 by Elp

[Flame Nebula]

35 minutes ago, Stu said:

@Flame Nebula another observation….. the standard advice for starting out in deep sky imaging is an ED80 on an HEQ5 mount. Reasons? It’s a great mount with more than enough capacity to hold and track the scope. The scope is optically decent and has a relatively short focal length and is physically small. All these things help it to track well; it doesn’t act like a sail in wind and guiding a short focal length is easier than guiding a long one. Starting with a large and complex scope which is harder to guide and needs collimation and also acts like a sail is hard!

Why do I mention this? Well, planetary imaging is a skill in itself, and there are many variables to control. Seeing conditions are important as is the collimation and cooling of the scope, not to mention the processing.

Now, to go from a standing start, to imaging with a 12” newt is a big ask in my book. You have many things to get right, so whilst you will likely get there eventually, I suspect it would be better from a learning perspective to start the process with a bomb proof scope so you learn the basics of imaging and processing, then step up to the larger scope so you already know the basics and can focus on the cooling, collimation and simple handling of the larger scope.

Perhaps a 5” apo might not be a bad place to start, the SM125 is a great option, and is lightweight and not too long but will still chuck up some decent images. Then move on up the scale to the 12” either directly or via an intermediate scope.

There’s a theme in my party pooping posts as I’m sure you can tell; just getting the best/top end kit to start with is not always the right path. I’ve seen more than one newbie throw thousands at really top end imaging kit with no idea how to use it, and we never saw an image out of them.

Start realistic, learn the ropes and move on up would be my advice.

Hi Stu, 

I appreciate your words of warning, and deep down I know you're probably right. 😉

I think the choice of AZEQ6 mount is pretty solid,as it is effectively the centrepiece and future proofs heavier scopes. Of course, from what I've seen in astrobin (and I've looked at a lot of planetary images, as you can imagine), even the best 5" refractors don't match larger apertures. 

Another path would be to go down the SW 200pds, (8" F5) route, because that would bring me closer to experience what it might be like with a similar length scope to 300mm f4, but less diameter to hold and lighter at about 9kg. If I struggle with that, then..... 

It would also get me used to collimation etc. 

Plus, outlay for 200pds OTA is relatively low(£425,new,flo).

I'll give it serious consideration. 👍

Best wishes 

Mark 

 

[Stu]

46 minutes ago, Flame Nebula said:

Hi Stu, 

I appreciate your words of warning, and deep down I know you're probably right. 😉

I think the choice of AZEQ6 mount is pretty solid,as it is effectively the centrepiece and future proofs heavier scopes. Of course, from what I've seen in astrobin (and I've looked at a lot of planetary images, as you can imagine), even the best 5" refractors don't match larger apertures. 

Another path would be to go down the SW 200pds, (8" F5) route, because that would bring me closer to experience what it might be like with a similar length scope to 300mm f4, but less diameter to hold and lighter at about 9kg. If I struggle with that, then..... 

It would also get me used to collimation etc. 

Plus, outlay for 200pds OTA is relatively low(£425,new,flo).

I'll give it serious consideration. 👍

Best wishes 

Mark 

 

I guess my point is that there is a lot to learn! Don’t imagine you are going to walk into top notch planetary images straight away as it takes time and practise in all elements. I was just trying to indicate that if you start with a refractor, you KNOW that your collimation is good so you can just concentrate on capture and processing until you have perfected that, then move up to the larger scope with the additional complexity of collimation and greater seeing and cooling sensitivity. If you are trying to get all that right straight off the bat then it can be hard to know which bits are going wrong. You will potentially spend a lot of time getting the scope right and much less time actually imaging and getting data to process.

Others may disagree with me, and I’m a complete armchair imager ie I’ve never done proper imaging, only smartphone snaps but I’m on the forum a lot, and I read posts across the imaging areas too and so am familiar with many of the struggles! I’ll shut up now  

[Flame Nebula]

47 minutes ago, Stu said:

I guess my point is that there is a lot to learn! Don’t imagine you are going to walk into top notch planetary images straight away as it takes time and practise in all elements. I was just trying to indicate that if you start with a refractor, you KNOW that your collimation is good so you can just concentrate on capture and processing until you have perfected that, then move up to the larger scope with the additional complexity of collimation and greater seeing and cooling sensitivity. If you are trying to get all that right straight off the bat then it can be hard to know which bits are going wrong. You will potentially spend a lot of time getting the scope right and much less time actually imaging and getting data to process.

Others may disagree with me, and I’m a complete armchair imager ie I’ve never done proper imaging, only smartphone snaps but I’m on the forum a lot, and I read posts across the imaging areas too and so am familiar with many of the struggles! I’ll shut up now  

Thanks Stu, 

I already have a 80mm refractor, so I can practice with that, but I'm up for the challenge with AP, and think it'll be fun to do some collimation (especially the barlowed laser technique) or star test. 

The 8" Newtonian route may well be a wise intermediate step, so thanks for your words of warning 👍

Mark