What am I missing?

[Demonperformer]

OK, people who know me could write reams in answer to that question, but specifically on this occasion ...

I don't understand my celestron neximager.

I do understand that it has severe limitations in only being able to go to 1/5 second shutter exposures and having a fairly small chip, and so I am not going to get the Horsehead Nebula [or even the rest of M42] from my front garden.

However, it will image the moons of Jupiter at mag 6 [no surface detail, you understand, just points of light]. They show up on the preview screen great. So why, when I turn the telescope from doing that straight to Albireo [mags 3 & 5], on the same settings that have captured these moons, is it incapable of seeing it? I know it is a Lunar and Planetary imager and Albireo is neither a moon nor a planet. But the imager doesn't know that. Surely, all it knows is that a certain amount of light is arriving on its chip. And if Albireo is mags 3 & 5 compared to mag 6, that should mean more light and so a better image???? What does it know that I don't?

So, is there anyone out there who can explain to me what I am missing, 'cos it's driving me bonkers.

Thanks.

DP

[Ant]

This is going to sound awfully blunt... Apologies in advance.

If you have captured the moons of jupiter but cannot "see" the double star Albireo - you haven't managed to get it on the chip...

I used to have an immense issue in getting the object I wanted located on the chip. Many a night I gave up without actually getting what I wanted onto the chip.

When looking at a known object on the laptop screen (like jupiter) make sure that the finder is SPOT ON. Then move and centre Albireo on the cross hairs - I find that shining a torch onto the finder objective (not straight down, but sideways) illuminates the cross hairs and enables me to centre things perfectly.

This might help...

Good Luck

Ant

[Demonperformer]

Ant

Many thanks for this ... makes sense that it is me rather than the imager.

Maybe I will try a few easier [i.e brighter], albeit less impressive, doubles and get some practice. Always did want to run before I could walk.

It seems to me that you came straight to the point, and therefore almost by definition were not being blunt:)

Thanks again.

DP