Couple more Newtonian questions

[TiffsAndAstro]

4 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

There is a big jump in mount price when you go beyond a 5kg mount payload, particularly for AZ mounts, so I'd recommend trying to decide whether you need to make this jump before investing in kit.

 

Yeah I noticed

Juwei-17 is a big risk for £800 but it seems ideal. Or a second hand hem15 or am3 maybe.

Need to get funds first though so plenty time to consider my options

 

[Elp]

The thing you have to ask yourself is what are you trying to achieve via a scope not much larger or longer in FL compared to what you have currently.

[Ratlet]

For what it is worth this was one of the first astrophotos I took with my 130pds and a 533 sensor.  No coma corrector.  At least I think it is.  Been a while since I used it.

[TiffsAndAstro]

27 minutes ago, Elp said:

The thing you have to ask yourself is what are you trying to achieve via a scope not much larger or longer in FL compared to what you have currently.

Faster light gathering. Possible more sharpness.

Also a world of pain fiddling and fettling

"Forever Mount" first though I think.

Edited Monday at 15:56 by TiffsAndAstro

[TiffsAndAstro]

16 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

For what it is worth this was one of the first astrophotos I took with my 130pds and a 533 sensor.  No coma corrector.  At least I think it is.  Been a while since I used it.

Can't say I see any coma. Maybe some slightly odd shaped stars from collimation?

Is that Stephan's quintet top right? It's my new favourite galaxy group

Edited Monday at 15:51 by TiffsAndAstro

[Ratlet]

50 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Can't say I see any coma. Maybe some slightly odd shaped stars from collimation?

Is that Stephan's quintet top right? It's my new favourite galaxy group

It is indeed along with the much closer Deerlick Cluster.  It is a big reason that I'm getting a flattener for the 102ED.  Not the greatest image ever taken, but I love the framing as there are two totally different groups of interacting galaxies and the more you look the more galaxies you seein the background.

[TiffsAndAstro]

17 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

It is indeed along with the much closer Deerlick Cluster.  It is a big reason that I'm getting a flattener for the 102ED.  Not the greatest image ever taken, but I love the framing as there are two totally different groups of interacting galaxies and the more you look the more galaxies you seein the background.

Stephans quintet just looks ridiculously not real. And yet it is

Also first time I've heard of deerlick cluster. It's very cool, but it's not as cool (and small ) as Stephens quintet

Edited Monday at 17:01 by TiffsAndAstro

[AstroMuni]

21 hours ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

Possible more sharpness.

Have you got an automatic focuser? If not get that first and you should see a lot more sharper images. And these days many images have been tweaked by reducing the stars so what you see seems sharper.

Edited Tuesday at 13:09 by AstroMuni

[TiffsAndAstro]

41 minutes ago, AstroMuni said:

Have you got an automatic focuser? If not get that first and you should see a lot more sharper images. And these days many images have been tweaked by reducing the stars so what you see seems sharper.

yeah i think i'm going to at least have to try deconvolution in siril. 

also the Gemini EAF on Ali Express seems a bargain at £60 and i could re-use it on another scope in future. Its a little more involved to fit to a 72ed as the axel/spindel is too short. not impossible though. 

[TiffsAndAstro]

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-quattro-f4/sky-watcher-quattro-150p-f4-newtonian-modified-aplanatic-super-coma-corrector.html

F3.45 6" some sort of improved roller bearing focuser? 

Seems a lot of light gathering for £500 + some stuff like a fan etc ?

[900SL]

On 23/09/2024 at 18:49, TiffsAndAstro said:

Faster light gathering. Possible more sharpness.

Also a world of pain fiddling and fettling

"Forever Mount" first though I think.

Get a better mount and stop Jonesing for a newt. You've clearly figured this out already

[TiffsAndAstro]

1 hour ago, 900SL said:

Get a better mount and stop Jonesing for a newt. You've clearly figured this out already

I need to plan ahead. Don't want to buy my next mount only to find out it's not ideal for a subsequent scope I get.

[ONIKKINEN]

Speaking of mounts and newtonians, i made the mistake of attempting to make an EQM-35 work with an 8'' newtonian. While it technically does have the load capacity to handle the scope, in practice it was borderline unworkable. Dont make the same mistake, you will not enjoy using a newtonian with a flimsy mount. Its actually just a miserable experience and chances are you will end up hating newtonians if you do so.

So i do agree with @900SL , figure out what mount fits your budget in the near future and match the scope based on that. I would recommend not exceeding 50% of the stated imaging load capacity of any typical mass produced mount with newtonians, which means you'd probably want a mount in the EQ5 class at minimum, HEQ5 probably a better idea still (with a 6'' newt). The problem with a newtonian is not only that of weight, its also the length and bulk of the scope which places the weight further from the center of mass, which taxes the mount a lot more than just the weight would suggest.

[TiffsAndAstro]

2 hours ago, 900SL said:

Get a better mount and stop Jonesing for a newt. You've clearly figured this out already

Also I'm not 100% sold on newts. Was looking at Flo's recent post on Stella RC delivery etc. if a decent flattener reducer is available they might be less hard work than a newt. Maybe. 

I'd ideally like an edge hd with 0.63 reducer flattener and a hyper star, it seems a very very flexible system. But also has issues. And ludicrous costs.

Big refractor, then? Well they're mahoosive and can also have issues and cost like an edge hd or even worse.

At least with cars I can be a pita with dealers/ sales people and kick the tyres. Not so much with astro, and prices aren't too disimilar

I think that's the main reason for all my questions. No other option I can see except ask here and stand on others' shoulders. Sorry

Edited Wednesday at 13:46 by TiffsAndAstro

[TiffsAndAstro]

18 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Speaking of mounts and newtonians, i made the mistake of attempting to make an EQM-35 work with an 8'' newtonian. While it technically does have the load capacity to handle the scope, in practice it was borderline unworkable. Dont make the same mistake, you will not enjoy using a newtonian with a flimsy mount. Its actually just a miserable experience and chances are you will end up hating newtonians if you do so.

So i do agree with @900SL , figure out what mount fits your budget in the near future and match the scope based on that. I would recommend not exceeding 50% of the stated imaging load capacity of any typical mass produced mount with newtonians, which means you'd probably want a mount in the EQ5 class at minimum, HEQ5 probably a better idea still (with a 6'' newt). The problem with a newtonian is not only that of weight, its also the length and bulk of the scope which places the weight further from the center of mass, which taxes the mount a lot more than just the weight would suggest.

I've been looking at mounts and eqm35 seemed a possibility, but like you say, under mounting is a term (phrase?) I see a lot and I'm sure it's for a reason. 

On a side note, I saw a video last night of someone with an obsie and a 10 micron £10k mount. GPS adon thing, more wires than a rats nest in a sphegetti factory. Image at the end of video was worse than mine. So I felt sorted of happy

Then I saw chucks video of his copy of MY  blue/yellow Cygnus wall nasa apod winner and almost cried, lol.

Also, seems strain wave mounts aren't particularly better than worm drive, except in weight and payload ratio. And lack of balance needed.

SW mounts lightness is really really appealing though.

6" newt about 6kgs, sundries say another 2kg max. That's barely under am3 payload. Anything beyond an am3 hybrid is very expensive

Juwei-17 might be my only hope, Oni-wan , but I'm rather dubious

Edited Wednesday at 13:58 by TiffsAndAstro

[Elp]

From my experience, pretty much every second scope I've acquired has been sold on. I don't particularly like long FL imaging, the equipment is much larger, heavier and harder to store (takes up more space). So also think about that.

[TiffsAndAstro]

3 minutes ago, Elp said:

From my experience, pretty much every second scope I've acquired has been sold on. I don't particularly like long FL imaging, the equipment is much larger, heavier and harder to store (takes up more space). So also think about that.

Apart from galaxies (except m31 M33) I think my current scope/fov is too much lol .

Going from my current 400mm to maybe 600mm isn't a deal breaker if my aperture (almost) doubles.

I really just like edge hd (in theory) because it does say 2000mm F10,  1200mm f6 and 400mm f2. Having said that I think I'd only change it's configuration twice a year summer galaxies/winter nebula. And like £3500 for all the bits to do that

[Elp]

That 200mm difference isn't that large, the aperture as you say should make a difference, but when I tested my 370mm refractor against my 1000mm reduced C6, the signal was better in my Z61 (as I would expect having used a number of reducers and optics, the signal is compressed onto a smaller pixel area so will generate a higher pixel response in that small area, kind of how the Hyperstar works), pretty much the same duration, same location, same camera and filters. Even rescaled the images to same pixel size, the Z61 was brighter. But, the C6 if given more time would resolve more detail, but is it enough to justify the higher additional cost of equipment, I'm not so sure. That's my take anyway.

[Elp]

Here's the comparison if you're interested:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/421623-what-are-the-pitfalls-of-combining-a-scope-with-a-non-purpose-designed-reducer/?do=findComment&comment=4483053

 

[TiffsAndAstro]

2 minutes ago, Elp said:

That 200mm difference isn't that large, the aperture as you say should make a difference, but when I tested my 370mm refractor against my 1000mm reduced C6, the signal was better in my Z61 (as I would expect having used a number of reducers and optics, the signal is compressed onto a smaller pixel area so will generate a higher pixel response in that small area, kind of how the Hyperstar works), pretty much the same duration, same location, same camera and filters. Even rescaled the images to same pixel size, the Z61 was brighter. But, the C6 if given more time would resolve more detail, but is it enough to justify the higher additional cost of equipment, I'm not so sure. That's my take anyway.

That's really not what I'd expect and would be disappointed I think. So I really appreciate the info.

As you might be able to tell, I'm far from certain what to do, except a beefier mount will be required almost whatever I decide.

I really want to try and avoid replacing whatever mount I get next whatever scope I then get subsequently. 

[PeterC65]

I deliberated for well over a year before upgrading to the Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ5 mount, but now that I have it, I'm very pleased with it and I can't see me changing mounts again. What I like about it is:

• It's not spectacularly expensive (actually one of the least expensive 5kg plus AZ GOTO mounts).
• It's light enough to pick up and carry outside, even with my 72mm refractor fitted (though not with the 6" Newtonian).
• I can mount two scopes in AZ mode, each up to 15kg, although I don't use the full capacity.
• It's rock solid and shows no sign of keeling over.
• If I ever feel the need, it can be converted to EQ mode.

 

[TiffsAndAstro]

8 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I deliberated for well over a year before upgrading to the Sky-Watcher AZ-EQ5 mount, but now that I have it, I'm very pleased with it and I can't see me changing mounts again. What I like about it is:

• It's not spectacularly expensive (actually one of the least expensive 5kg plus AZ GOTO mounts).
• It's light enough to pick up and carry outside, even with my 72mm refractor fitted (though not with the 6" Newtonian).
• I can mount two scopes in AZ mode, each up to 15kg, although I don't use the full capacity.
• It's rock solid and shows no sign of keeling over.
• If I ever feel the need, it can be converted to EQ mode.

 

atm i think my choice is something like this (though ill never use an az mode) or a juwei-17. very few reviews of either, but i'd trust your skywatcher a lot more

[PeterC65]

9 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

atm i think my choice is something like this (though ill never use an az mode) or a juwei-17. very few reviews of either, but i'd trust your skywatcher a lot more

If you definitely don't need AZ mode then you'd be better going for a HEQ5 as they are less expensive. Worth bearing in mind though that a HEQ5 with the Rowan belt mod is about the same price as the AZ-EQ5 which comes as standard with a belt drive.

[TiffsAndAstro]

13 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

If you definitely don't need AZ mode then you'd be better going for a HEQ5 as they are less expensive. Worth bearing in mind though that a HEQ5 with the Rowan belt mod is about the same price as the AZ-EQ5 which comes as standard with a belt drive.

I've seen the term rowan belt mod on forums and videos, but not looked any closer.

I'm really not keen on dissembling a brand new mount inorder to fix it

Also sw QA seems lacking,  so not keen to buy from them again, but maybe no choice

Also, for £300 more, could get their new 100i strain wave mounts. Fairly sure it has strain wave on both axis unlike am3?

Edited Wednesday at 15:41 by TiffsAndAstro

[AstroMuni]

10 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

you'd be better going for a HEQ5 as they are less expensive

I agree. When I was choosing to buy a mount, the HEQ5 seemed to be the best bang for the buck. Its on the heavier side for carrying around as a travel mount but for the purpose of lugging from home to the end of the garden, its perfectly dooable (atm 🙂 )