Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Celestron EdgeHD 14" OTA on Skywatcher EQ6 Pro GOTO mount

MichaelBruno

By MichaelBruno
in Discussions - Mounts

Recommended Posts

MichaelBruno

MichaelBruno

Posted
Posted

I have a Skywatcher EQ6 Pro mount : currently with an 8" Orion Reflector. It's OK, but I just can't seem to see any details in galaxies.

They visually just look like white smudges.

Being at -27 Latitude, Andromeda never gets high in the sky :D

Having given up finding a lightweight (ie: Less than 25kg) 14" reflector anywhere in the world to fit on the EQ6 Pro, I am now looking at SCT's like the Celestron EdgeHD 14" OTA.

1. The 14" OTA weighs in at 21kg.

2. The EQ6 is rated for a 25kg payload.

3. The only additional weight I would add to the mount initially would be a Canon EOS550D, weighing less than 0.6kg.

Has anyone tried VISUAL or ASTRO-PHOTOGRAPHY using an EdgeHD 14" OTA on a EQ6?

Thanks for any guidance before I waste a lot of money...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply
RobH

RobH

Posted
Posted

You'd be pushing the EQ6 too hard for good imaging, and the 14 inch Edge is F11. That means that your tracking needs to be pretty well perfect, which it is unlikely to be with that combination.

Orion Optics (UK) do a 14 inch reflector which can be handled by an EQ6....JohnH does some spectacular images with his.

Cheers

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdstuart

mdstuart

Posted
Posted

I agree with the above, after looking at over 300 galaxies in a 10 inch and many in a 16 inch...and a few in a 20 inch my guess is you need a 36 inch scope to start on some of the very best like M51 to get to the same as a short CCD exposure picture using a 60mm refractor ..

But for me the WOW is actually being able with you own eyes to see something over 200 million light years away glowing down that eyepiece..In fact that to me is more rewarding than looking at an A3 image of say M106 but thats just me.

Mark

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
astroimpulse

astroimpulse

Posted
Posted

But for me the WOW is actually being able with you own eyes to see something over 200 million light years away glowing down that eyepiece.

Aint that the truth! Just seeing them, no matter what, is one hell of a buzz. Something you just want to share.

Although I'm building towards AP as it completely floats my boat.

OP: To get the detail you want I think AP is your only option. But you have the cash to get cracking (with what you've got) if you can afford a 14" beast :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riklaunim

riklaunim

Posted
Posted
I didnt know Skywatcher did Celestron clones, in Europe but not in the UK?

Only two German shops have them at the moment. They order them directly somewhere from Synta so they turn out cheaper :D You won't find them in the SkyWatcher catalogue for Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sixela

sixela

Posted
Posted

Celestron not packaging the C14 on CGEM means "you can't even expect to use it for visual observation well and we're scared it'll break the mount and cause customer returns".

Those companies are usually not squeamish about selling undermounted scopes :D.

Astrophotography rule #1: The mount is everything. Get a big mount, put a small scope on top. If you want to put a larger scope on top, get an even bigger mount.

In another thread, there was quite a thorough discussion about which focal lengths were really suitable for what, and why it doesn't really help to make it too large. I guess it's time for a repeat performance.

Just some food for thought (on why it's really not that interesting to have pixels spanning much less than 0.8" when you have 3" seeing): http://www.stanmooreastro.com/pixel_size.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

I have two EQ sixes in commercial use. They are good mounts for focal lengths up to a metre. Some poeple use them with focal lengths of up to 2 metres but I believe they lose a lot of subs. At the focal length of a C14 you would be lucky to keep one sub in fifty, to be honest. As Rob says, for a C14 you need a mount costing eight to ten times the price of an EQ6. It is not just weight. Long focal lengths 'magnify' everything, most notably tracking errors.

Anyway there would be an awful lot of galaxies that would not fit on the chip with a C14. And in visual use 14 inches is not enough. Only a couple opf dozen galaxies show real structure. I have a twenty inch and that isn't enough!

Still hung up on the idea that you need big aperture to image galaxies? For ones that are tiny on the sky, yes you do, but there are hundreds that you can image well with focal lengths between a metre and two metres.

In imaging aperture does not rule, but I don't think you are open to this idea...?

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sixela

sixela

Posted
Posted

I think it would be good --if indeed visual observation is his thing-- if the original poster would at least consider two scopes, i.e. one Dob (possibly on a platform) with enough aperture and another scope for photography well tailored to the objects he wants to image, rather than try to push a square peg through a round hole in several attempts.

It's going to be a lot cheaper than trying to combine the impossible into one scope/mount combination; it's a bit like trying to make a F1 race car suitable for taking the family on holidays.

Plus, once you have an astrophotography platform with autoguiding, you can actually observe while your other scope takes the subs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted
I think it would be good --if indeed visual observation is his thing-- if the original poster would at least consider two scopes, i.e. one Dob (possibly on a platform) with enough aperture and another scope for photography well tailored to the objects he wants to image, rather than try to push a square peg through a round hole in several attempts.

It's going to be a lot cheaper than trying to combine the impossible into one scope/mount combination; it's a bit like trying to make a F1 race car suitable for taking the family on holidays.

Plus, once you have an astrophotography platform with autoguiding, you can actually observe while your other scope takes the subs.

Exactly, which is what we do here.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

But for me the WOW is actually being able with you own eyes to see something over 200 million light years away glowing down that eyepiece..In fact that to me is more rewarding than looking at an A3 image of say M106 but thats just me.

Mark

Mark

Looking at an A3 image, yes I agree. But taking (or, more accurately, creating) your own image is, believe me, another matter entirely.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dixie

Dixie

Posted
Posted

As a C14 owner on a CGE and with an EQ6 the former is barely adequate for the big tube, good enough for webcam but really tough for deep sky imaging, whilst the latter is excellent value but in no way would I even try to put the C14 on it. It's surprising how the weight mounts up - ie telrad, diagonal, eyepiece, dew shield, crayford .... and that's just for visual.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

I agree with the above: A C11 Edge would be great on an EQ6 visually, and at the fastar end you could do deep sky imaging stuff (I suppose, have no experience myself). With a focal reducer (once available) you would get (half) decent deep sky results at the other end (but consider the MN190 for that kind of work).

Thus the ideal kit I would get for an EQ6 would be the C11 Edge for visual and planetary shots, and an MN190 for deep sky imaging. Adding a Dob for visual deep-sky clout would help. Again: you do not need aperture for deep sky, you need a fast focal ratio! It's the visual side that needs the aperture.

BTW the Skywatcher SCT clones are NOT EDGE-HD like (similar to Meade ACF) but classic SCTs, if I am right. Certainly interesting development, but not the kind of coma-free design you pay for with the EDGE-HDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted
Yes, SW SCT is the standard Celestron SCT, made in the same factory etc. ACD/HD/EDGE is more advanced and you have to pay more. Not always you have to do it, as sometimes standard SCT will meet your demands :)

Agreed, I am sorely tempted by the Skywatcher C11 clone. Would not want to put it on my Great Polaris mount however:eek:

That said, this thread is very much focused on imaging, so the hyperstar feature relevant to essential for deep sky imaging (would not like to do that with a C11 (even with focal reducer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobH

RobH

Posted
Posted
A C11 Edge would be great on an EQ6 visually, and at the fastar end you could do deep sky imaging stuff (I suppose, have no experience myself). With a focal reducer (once available) you would get (half) decent deep sky results at the other end (but consider the MN190 for that kind of work).

Comparing the SW Mak Newt to the 11 inch Edge makes no sense at all. They are a totally different beast.

The SW scope has a focal length of just over 1000mm, and a focal reduced 11 inch edge, almost 1800mm, so you would be using them for completely different targets.

To say that aperture doesn't matter in imaging is also incorrect. The longer the focal length, the more aperture you require in order to grab the really faint targets in a reasonable amount of time, plus the more aperture you have, the better the resolution.

I have a premium large apo, and on targets that suit its focal ratio and focal length, it is unbeatable, but for fainter, smaller targets, my old (not very flat field) 14 inch LX200 knocked spots off it.

Consequently, I will be getting one of the 11 inch Edge scopes, not to replace the TMB, but in addition, specifically for faint galaxies and planetary nebulae, where long focal length and good light grasp is needed.

Cheers

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.