Why an Edge HD might be a bad idea?

[TiffsAndAstro]

Looking for reasons why, at sometime in the far, far future, an Edge HD would be a terrible idea for astrophotography?

Yes will need better mount and oag or maybe that weird looking zwo 2 cameras for the price of 3 camera thing. 

But it looks like a good flexible scope with maybe Rasa conversion for just £1000 more ?

[Elp]

Id say once you've got the experience it'd be an excellent choice. I'd have one myself but I've stuck to the C6 and refuse to go any larger, as I'd likely have to go to the next class of mount too. Just note, SCTs tend to have a "mushy"/slightly soft view if you're used to refractor or camera lens optics.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Looking for reasons why, at sometime in the far, far future, an Edge HD would be a terrible idea for astrophotography?

Yes will need better mount and oag or maybe that weird looking zwo 2 cameras for the price of 3 camera thing. 

But it looks like a good flexible scope with maybe Rasa conversion for just £1000 more ?

The RASA isn't a conversion, it's a dedicated astrographic telescope. There is a Hyperstar conversion for the standard SCT, though.

In terms of what they do and how they do it, the standard SCT and RASA are at opposite ends of the scale, one long focal length and one short. The RASA 8, for instance, does not compete with an 8 inch SCT, it competes with a refractor of about 80mm, since both have comparable focal lengths.

The argument against the standard SCT for imaging is that you can usually reach the resolution limit of the seeing with a focal length of only about a metre. Pixels have become small enough to make this possible. This gives you the option of a far wider FOV for other targets while capturing all the detail you're ever likely to manage in anything.

Olly

[TiffsAndAstro]

Thanks both. Putting hyperstar on a edge hd gives me Rasa like speed and focal length though, so in theory I could switch between full focal length for galaxies, x 0.7 that with a reducer and then like f2 with 500mm ish with a hyperstar? 

I'm certain it won't be that simple as I've heard reference to mirror flop and other difficulties, but I'll look into those. Also cost but I'm ignoring that for now

[Elp]

It's one of the appeals for me, can use the scope visually too at native FL. The RASA however is built to do one thing, and typically do it very well. If you do decide on a RASA 8 in particular just make sure it doesnt suffer the optical quality issue, new stock in shops were returned to Celestron around two/three years ago and only earlier this year have been supplied back to them. Other size RASAs were unaffected. Just something to check on if buying used.

Described here:

 

 

 

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Thanks both. Putting hyperstar on a edge hd gives me Rasa like speed and focal length though, so in theory I could switch between full focal length for galaxies, x 0.7 that with a reducer and then like f2 with 500mm ish with a hyperstar? 

I'm certain it won't be that simple as I've heard reference to mirror flop and other difficulties, but I'll look into those. Also cost but I'm ignoring that for now

My experience of operating an F2 system - in this case the RASA 8 belonging to Paul Kummer, is that when you have it giving tilt-free, collimated images, you will want to touch  nothing, ever, under any circumstances!

You are not (believe me) going to say to yourself, 'Well, having spent nights under the stars and days on the bench with a tilt jig to get this close to right, I think I'll just tear it apart for a quick visual pop at the moon tonight.'  In my estimation, only a minority of users report success with the Hyperstar and, of those who do, none of them swaps back and forth between configurations.

Reality is a terrible thing.

lly

Edited May 27 by ollypenrice

[TiffsAndAstro]

4 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

My experience of operating an F2 system - in this case the RASA 8 belonging to Paul Kummer, is that when you have it giving tilt-free, collimated images, you will want to touch  nothing, ever, under any circumstances!

You are not (believe me) going to say to yourself, 'Well, having spent nights under the stars and days on the bench with a tilt jig to get this close to right, I think I'll just tear it apart for a quick visual pop at the moon tonight.'  In my estimation, only a minority of users report success with the Hyperstar and, of those who do, none of them swaps back and forth between configurations.

Reality is a terrible thing.

lly

Yeah I can imagine if I did ever get it spot on I'd probably buy a second one rather than even breathe near the first one.

I'm sure I'd ask more detailed advice if/when that time approaches.

Need more money and way more skills before that point.

[TiffsAndAstro]

31 minutes ago, Elp said:

It's one of the appeals for me, can use the scope visually too at native FL. The RASA however is built to do one thing, and typically do it very well. If you do decide on a RASA 8 in particular just make sure it doesnt suffer the optical quality issue, new stock in shops were returned to Celestron around two/three years ago and only earlier this year have been supplied back to them. Other size RASAs were unaffected. Just something to check on if buying used.

Described here:

 

 

 

I can't see me getting a Rasa 8, when I can get a similar result from a edge hd and hyper star. Never say never though and will have a look through your link now,very

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

I can't see me getting a Rasa 8, when I can get a similar result from a edge hd and hyper star.

Don't bank on that. The RASA is purpose built with a high success rate showing among users. The Hyperstar is more controversial.

Olly

[TiffsAndAstro]

28 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Don't bank on that. The RASA is purpose built with a high success rate showing among users. The Hyperstar is more controversial.

Olly

I didn't realise that, I obviously need more reading up on this ty

[Elp]

The HS for me doesn't produce a perfect flat field, but that's not what I bought it for. I got it to acquire target signal fast with its 6 inch aperture and compact scope volume for storage purposes. Sure you could use a large aperture Newtonian, but my SCT is far more configurable to how I want to use it per session, planetary, long FL for galaxies and small targets and wide field HS imaging, and I can use it visually at native.

[900SL]

The Edge HD is the more flexible choice. I would say however that you are a long way off from this at present.

A 2000mm fl scope, even reduced by 0.7, requires a considerable investment in mount and guiding set up. 

You would be dropping several thousand pounds for the Edge, mount and the rest

You may not be able to use the potential resolution due to seeing

James Lamb has the answers

 

 

[TiffsAndAstro]

11 minutes ago, 900SL said:

The Edge HD is the more flexible choice. I would say however that you are a long way off from this at present.

A 2000mm fl scope, even reduced by 0.7, requires a considerable investment in mount and guiding set up. 

You would be dropping several thousand pounds for the Edge, mount and the rest

You may not be able to use the potential resolution due to seeing

James Lamb has the answers

 

 

Yeah I like his videos. Not very flash but very very helpful.

Thing is, I agree I'm far from ready for it, but I'm probably even further than I think I am

Maybe I can get some stuff second hand, but if not I'm looking at at least £5k, probably nearer £10k. I won't be buying a Ferrari until I can at least change gears in my fiesta a bit better first

[Louis D]

18 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

I won't be buying a Ferrari until I can at least change gears in my fiesta a bit better first

The Ford Fiesta name is a blast from the past here.  They were discontinued in the US after the 2018 model year.  I never did see very many of them in Texas, despite the name sounding like it would have been a favorite among Hispanics, they tend to favor full sized pickup trucks to double as work vehicles.  The Ford Fusion was about as small as most Americans wanted to buy.  It has also long been discontinued in the US market.  Ford hasn't sold any sedans in the US since well before the Pandemic.

Edited May 28 by Louis D

[TiffsAndAstro]

5 minutes ago, Louis D said:

The Ford Fiesta name is a blast from the past here.  They were discontinued in the US after the 2018 model year.  I never did see very many of them in Texas, despite the name sounding like it would have a favorite among Hispanics, they tend to favor full sized pickup trucks to double as work vehicles.  The Ford Fusion was about as small as most Americans wanted to buy.  It has also long been discontinued in the US market.  Ford hasn't sold any sedans in the US since well before the Pandemic.

I'm amazed the fiesta ever existed in the USA. Vaguely similar, but smaller than a VW rabbit if you remember them?

I've never owned a fiesta, just Ferraris

I friend at uni early 90s had one and it was s£&f. Even so it carried a remarkable amount of duty free from across the channel

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, Louis D said:

The Ford Fiesta name is a blast from the past here.  They were discontinued in the US after the 2018 model year.  I never did see very many of them in Texas, despite the name sounding like it would have been a favorite among Hispanics, they tend to favor full sized pickup trucks to double as work vehicles.  The Ford Fusion was about as small as most Americans wanted to buy.  It has also long been discontinued in the US market.  Ford hasn't sold any sedans in the US since well before the Pandemic.

After a five week cycle tour down the west coast I hired an American Taunus which looked like our Ford Mondeo of the nineties. Then one day a stylish, but smaller, sedan pulled up alongside and I thought, 'That looks vaguely familiar.' Then I realized that it was a Jaguar XJ6, and that my 'Ford Mondeo' was a monster compared with the European Mondeo of similar shape but not size. Clearly my sense of scale had been 'Americanized' during my stay!

lly

[TiffsAndAstro]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

After a five week cycle tour down the west coast I hired an American Taunus which looked like our Ford Mondeo of the nineties. Then one day a stylish, but smaller, sedan pulled up alongside and I thought, 'That looks vaguely familiar.' Then I realized that it was a Jaguar XJ6, and that my 'Ford Mondeo' was a monster compared with the European Mondeo of similar shape but not size. Clearly my sense of scale had been 'Americanized' during my stay!

lly

Everything is bigger in the us of a

[Marvin Jenkins]

Ford Probe!!! Why? Anything with the word Probe in it, can only be medical.

Although I do have a newt called... Orion ST130 SP. Yes the SP stands for Space Probe.

I have probed the depths of our cosmos with this five inch newt. It continues to be my G and G scope despite having Probe written on it.

Marv

[Marvin Jenkins]

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

Ford Probe!!! Why? Anything with the word Probe in it, can only be medical.

'Probe...'  Now don't pretend you don't know why a car maker in search of a, shall we say, thrusting, name might choose Probe.  I remember my English Department being in hysterics when Ford introduced this name. They were making the media analysis part of our jobs too easy.

lly

Edited May 28 by ollypenrice

[Marvin Jenkins]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

'Probe...'  Now don't pretend you don't know why a car maker in search of a, shall we say, thrusting, name might choose Probe.  I remember my English Department being in hysterics when Ford introduced this name. They were making the media analysis part of our jobs too easy.

lly

But why a telescope? More importantly, why is my OTA an 'Equitorial'? as advertised on the shiny silver label.

[Louis D]

OMG, sorry to the OP for having derailed this thread.

[TiffsAndAstro]

14 minutes ago, Louis D said:

OMG, sorry to the OP for having derailed this thread.

I'm appalled. I'd never be guilty of such a thing myself.

[wimvb]

On 27/05/2024 at 22:17, 900SL said:

James Lamb has the answers

Some answers are lacking. The graph he made, has a gap between 1000 mm and 2000 mm (except for one sct at 1500 mm), and this is where Newtonians fit in. But those are missing in the review. The reviewer can't answer his own question, only compare refractors to (celestron) sct's.