Imaging with a Starfield 102 - thoughts?

[mistuk]

I'm in the market for a new refractor - and would love one scope to do everything (wouldn't we all!) - I like to do some visual, but also want to do some Astro-imaging too...

What's the Starfield 102 like for imaging? Is it hard to get the back focus right? Considering paring it with a ZWO 533MC.........  Tempted by the Askar FRA400 and the petzval design, but not sure what visual would be like with that scope.

Any thoughts?

[Elp]

It's generally straight forward, but I'd check your framing. I don't use it too often for imaging as it doesn't frame a lot of emission nebulae very well without having to mosaic.

Visually it's great.

You also need the appropriate mount and tripod due to the size and moment force it can apply, may also need a pier extension so it can point close to zenith without hitting the tripod.

 

 

[mistuk]

14 minutes ago, Elp said:

It's generally straight forward, but I'd check your framing. I don't use it too often for imaging as it doesn't frame a lot of emission nebulae very well without having to mosaic.

Visually it's great.

You also need the appropriate mount and tripod due to the size and moment force it can apply, may also need a pier extension so it can point close to zenith without hitting the tripod.

 

 

Thanks - it'll be on an AM5 with a pier extension

[CraigT82]

Have a look at  @WolfieGlos Starfield 102 images in the deep sky imaging section. They’re beauts! 

[Elp]

13 minutes ago, mistuk said:

Thanks - it'll be on an AM5 with a pier extension

Am5 will work fine, I use it with my hem15.

[Clarkey]

I'll add my tuppence worth. I have a 115mm triplet (Starwave). If I was limited to one scope only for visual and imaging, it would be this. Marginally more expensive than the Starfield, but very good in my opinion.

[smashing]

So I've just got mine recently, build quality is good and I love the focuser compared to my old one.

With the adjustable 0.8 field flattener reducer (yes it does screw in) I get a good field of view for the 2600mc pro and can mosaic if I need...I think there is a 0.6 as well.

I think my rotator needs tightening slightly but that's the only thing I don't like...sits on the HEQ5 ok.

I need to spend a bit more time dialling in the back focus but stars look good. Image below of the first target 

I wanted something a bit bigger than my old scope with a robust focuser that did cost the earth and this ticked those boxes.

 

[WolfieGlos]

7 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

Have a look at  @WolfieGlos Starfield 102 images in the deep sky imaging section. They’re beauts! 

Thank you Craig, appreciate that  

Yep, the Starfield is a great scope, I really recommend it, although I've not used it for observing. I'm using mine with the 585mc currently (so a tiny FOV), but I will be upgrading to a 2600mc later this year.

Mr Spock did a comparison on SGL, which you can find here: 

 

8 hours ago, Elp said:

I don't use it too often for imaging as it doesn't frame a lot of emission nebulae very well without having to mosaic.

I've seen you say that elsewhere Elp, and I find the opposite to be true (although with a 533mc, I'd agree with you). Personally, I prefer the extra reach of the 102ED for some of the smaller nebula, like say M27, or some of the larger galaxies like M101. For me, I've found that it sits in the middle ground giving a good reach for nebulae, galaxies and also globular clusters. I found my Evostar 72ED too short for those, and even that didn't even frame the Veil or NaN without having to mosaic. Really, you'd be looking at a Redcat or SY135 for those. Ultimately, it depends what the OP want's to image I guess  

@mistuk check out AstronomyTools here https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/?fov[]=10469||3258||0.8|1|0&fov[]=10469||3106||0.8|1|0&fov[]=9551||3258||0.8|1|0&fov[]=9551||3106||0.8|1|0&messier=45 for framing of common Messier objects - that link contains the FRA400 vs the Starfield 102. You can also load other objects (say IC434 for the Horsehead) and see what suits you best.

One thing's for sure; whatever scope you choose, you will, in time, want a new one with either a shorter or longer reach! 🤣

Edited September 16 by WolfieGlos

[Elp]

35 minutes ago, WolfieGlos said:

Ultimately, it depends what the OP want's to image I guess

Usually this is what I always ask. No doubt if I had a full frame camera (or larger than my usual 183/294, not sure it can full frame illuminate) it would seem more useful, but from my perspective, I have other options so the SF102 sees less use. I bought it for a medium FL reach, but I also have a C6 which gives longer reach and more aperture, so another reason I don't use the SF so much.

Choice has to be made based on potential targets, camera(s) at disposal and how they frame up. I don't particularly like mosaicing and prefer to frame fully with shorter FL optics, opportunities to image are already few and far between without making it more difficult for oneself to have to plan additional sessions.

The scope itself is excellent, I just don't use it that much for imaging myself because of the options I have available.

Edited September 16 by Elp

[mistuk]

Thanks everyone. Food for thought!!