SynScan EQ6 vs. Losmandy

[multiweb]

Hi Guys, first time poster here and nooby. Love the site and some of the photos taken here are quite amazing :thumbsup:.

I'm gathering some info as I'm on the market for a new EQ mount. I intend to do deepsky photography, nebulaes, wide field also to start with. I read glowing reviews and saw some fantastic photos taken on Losmandy mounts. I also checked out the SynScan EQ6. I'm going to spend a fair bit of money on a good mount but I can't decide which way to go so I'd really apreciate some feedback. Here goes my dilemna:

For roughly the same amount of Money do I get a smaller Losmandy EM8 or a larger heavier SynScan EQ6. I reckon I'll load around 10kg to 15kg on the mount. I want to do autoguiding with PHD Guiding so I guess I'll need to feedback the guiding info to the mount via a Laptop USB to RS232 cable which I already have setup and tested on manual guiding on a small goto azimutal Celestron GOTO mount via the hand controller.

On one end, the losmany is a real good mount at a price. On the other end the EQ6 is popular (but is it good) and can hold a larger load so I have room to grow for the future.

Now forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is it ok to assume that an "average" EQ mount will perfom as well as a precise EQ mount if both autoguided? If that's the case I'd be inclined to go with the EQ6. (not saying it is "average"). Autoguiding a losmandy might then be an overkill and not really better than guiding the EQ6? Unless I'm missing something and there's more to it?

What do you reckon?:help:

[citivolus]

I do not have, nor have I used, either of the mounts in question, but my interpretation of the recent consensus seems to be that the one that guides the best will be the one with the least backlash and smoothest periodic error, regardless of its magnitude, within reason of course. As such, it is entirely possible for an EQ6 to outperform a GM8, if you had a "good" EQ6 and a "bad" GM8. I can not address the likelyhood of getting a good mount of either model, though.

[multiweb]

Thanks for your feedback mate. I do hope there aren't any "bad" GM8.
I'd be pulling my hair out. :eyepop:

Losmandy gear is supposedly difficult to get and there's a waiting list on deliveries as it is my understanding they manufacture only limited quantities every year, and that's world-wide.

The EQ6 though is mostly available off the shelf (made and assembled in China mostly), so my feeling is it's the popular and cheaper alternative. I have no doubt the finish doesn't even comes close to Losmandy stuff but I hope the gears and mechanic are pretty close so I can get decent and smooth tracking to start with when I autoguide.

As far backslash goes it is only an issue when you reverse RA or DEC, for aligning right? Would PEC affect tracking enough for autoguiding not being able to compensate? In other words, tracking that is not smooth enough or jerky via mechanical problems would show up even with an auto guiding software doing the corrections?

[citivolus]

Actually, I think backlash is less of a problem than I made it out to be, as when guiding at 1x, the gear slop shouldn't come into play because the drive direction never actually reverses.

[h0ughy]

OK I will step in here - I have both. if you want something relatively cheap and hassle free then get toe EQ6, but if you want better quality then get a G11. I love both. usethe search button at the topright and go for it

[mick pinner]

if your serious about quality then there is no comparison get the G11.

[multiweb]

G11 is way out of my budget. I'm comparing the EQ6 to GM8 at this stage.

[g__day]

Also consider the Vixen Sphinx Deluxe - which has carrying capacity (15 Kgs) like a GM-8, excellent pointing, tracking and PEC, but costs around $2,500 vs the $4,000 for the GM-8 plus Gemini.

Wait for more replies too before you decide.

Critical questions you need to ask include:

1) how heavy a load do you wish to use - this affects you choice of mounts.

2) how longer images due you wish to take - a rig that can handle a heavy load for a 20 minute shot is alot more demanding than a righ that handles a modest load for 5 minutes. What parameters will you operate within?

[multiweb]

Thanks for that g__day. I'm looking at 10-15kg max. Exposure between 1 min and 5 min using a Canon 40D. I spent this week-end in the blue mountains with some mates and did some shots with a 6 year old Nikon Coolpix 995 piggy backed on a Takahashi EM-200. It made me realise how important good tracking is as I compared shots from the same camera and settings on other mounts. The sharpness of details the pictures was very different (on M42). So I think the bottom line is to get the best mount I can afford for my budget and Losmandy it is. I'll start widefield, then invest in some decent optics later down the road.

[g__day]

I think the Losmandy GM-8 has the same carrying capacity and tracking and PE as a Sphinx Deluxe, I did a thread reviewing goto mounts awhile ago:

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=8135&highlight=data

Personally if two mounts have the same performance and one is almost half the price of the other I'd be interested in it. Search for comparisions of the Sphinx Deluxe and the GM-8.

[Peter Ward]

There was an excellent John Walker advert out some time ago.
You want to take home something you want to drink or rather pay for?

Chinese mounts will remind you time and again why they didn't cost that much.

Brands like Losmandy, Takahishi and Astro-Physics don't cost the $ simply because of some weird status or branding. They are simply built to much higher tolerances, and, work well....for years....

It's like comparing a Hyuandai to a BMW M5....why be shocked when the beemer leaves you in its wake?

If you want to have a bit of fun and don't take astro imaging seriously, get the EQ5/6 .

If you want to take cutting edge images/get published/ win awards...well a 120mm achromat on an EQ6 probably won't cut it.

Cheers
Peter

[g__day]

Peter,

Be very interested in your views of the Vixen's (Atlux and Sphinx Deluxe) which I guess compete against Losmandy's G11 and GM-8 respectively. Do you have firms views on these mounts pluses and minuses?

Secondly do you feel the EQ 5/6 have a good re-sale value? I would guess many folk start astro-imaging on a EQ5/6 platform before they trade up, so do these mounts hold their value reasonably is a key question?

Lastly if folk are into high end scotches may I strongly recommend Langulavin (16 year old malt) Oban (14 y.o. malt) or Dalwhinnie (12 y.o. malt) as supremely good examples. But above all of these is a Tasmanian scotch from the Lark Distillery at constitution dock, Hobart, it is simply an amazing scotch!

Cheers!

[allan gould]

There is a used G11 plus Gemini going for ~$3500 at ATS at the moment. This would be a great buy.

[multiweb]

I know. I just bought it! :thumbsup:

[allan gould]

Well done - you wont regret it.

[theodog]

Good one,

In the end it comes down to what others recomend.

Beware of advice from people with vested interests.;)

Cheers Jeff

[Aster]

Can't agree with that at all, Peter. Although my first EQ6 was a dog. The exchange one was, as you would say a chinese mount. Maybe I have some advantage as my background is engineering and I am not a bad handyman, even if I say so myself, but I would put my present EQ6 up against any of your Losmandys etc. for smoothness and steadyness of operation.

Your weakest part on any of your modern EQ mounts is the point where your scope is attached to the EQ head, dovetail and tube rings .
Precision machining and high quality bearings do very little, accept increase the manufactures bank balance, to the smooth running of the EQ mount. Smooth running, average tolerance, is only required in RA.

To make my point. My EQ6 carries about 45kg total weight. 250mm F6 newtonian, in cardboard forma tube, plus 80mm guidescope and counterweights for DEC. and RA.

By offsetting one counterweight in RA by 6mm, with locks undone, the scope will slowly swing around the RA axis. Much less required to do the same thing in DEC.

To achieve that I took the mount appart, totally. Cleaned, removed burrs, casting sand etc. Used good quality grease, reassembled and adjusted parts as they should be. Surprised with the machining tolerances, more than adequate, even the bearings. We are not running at 1000RPM.

Didn't use the standard tube rings. Made myself a wooden saddle, like a cradle. Tube is sitting on 2 radiuses, lined with carpet, 400mm apart, held down with 2 straps. Dove tail is bolted to the bottom of the cradle. Vibration reduced by at least 60%.

EQ head is pier mounted, on a concrete block, which makes it more than twice as solid as tripod mounted.

My setup for DSI is as good as any other, except GOto, although my home made setting circles are more then adequate to locate most objects in the night sky, costing more than twice that much.

With a bit of thought and knowledge even a, as you say "chinese mount", can take award winning astronomical images with the right camera and experienced hands.

[multiweb]

I think this thread is catching fire. Maybe too much Johnnie Walker.:)

I appreciate your feedback Aster but it sounds like you are far more experienced than the average user when it comes to pulling and putting things back together.

The machining manufacturing process in the losmandy mounts probably justifies the pricing. They are precision machinery. I mean time is money right? If you think of cast parts in most other mounts?

But I have no doubt you'd get very good result with an EQ6. In my case I'm not really after carrying huge weights either but after very precise tracking and getting a very good mount is "money in the bank".

I'm not experienced enough to know what a good mount is versus an average one so I went on to check a lot of photos on the web from different users, equipment, etc... So I did a visual comparison I guess, keeping in mind what cameras they used also to be fair. And invariably, the crispest sharpest ones had the word "Losmandy" in the specs somewhere. So that's telling me something...

[Aster]

As I said, "I may have an advantage..." I just dislike general statements like, example... "this costs $6000 so it has to be better than the one which costs $3500" and this one is made in such and such country therefor it is crap.

[theodog]

I can not agree more Aster.

And this from a Losmandy and Port man.:lol:

Cheers Jeff

[multiweb]

I hear you Aster. It's all good :thumbsup:
I drive a Hyundai too. They're not that bad actually. My second car is also a Hyundai (no joke). Maybe I'll redeem myself getting the G11? ;)

[Peter Ward]

Alex...

" Precision machining and high quality bearings do very little, accept increase the manufactures bank balance" ???!!! Are you serious?

The EQ6 is excellent value for money, but last time I looked it wasn't loaded with:

Centreless ground precision worms,
Fully machined, anodized, brush finished T6 aluminium parts
Precision bearing mounted 1.25" stainless shafts and a servo
(ie stepperless) drive.....you think this comes for free?

G-11's typically return +/-5 arc secs periodic error, G-8's about 9 arc sec.
The multi alignment star pointing routine on the Gemini servo drive will land an object on a KAF0402 sized chip after a 150 degree slew

The small sample of EQ6's I've tested ran at about +/- 50 arc sec....and landing on a chip after a 150 degree slew? ...give me a break....then you spent how much time ripping apart your EQ6, de-burring, re-greasing etc to get adequate performance, but dismiss the time and effort as you handy in the workshop.

I have to say if was a car, I'd be taking it back to the manufacturer.

By the way, I have no problem with Chinese, Mongolian, Slovenian or any other type of mount.....I am simply saying its often a case of the right tool for the job....sure you can buy the plastic RJ11 crimper for $5..but after you've crimped a couple of dozen connectors the $45 metal version starts to look pretty good.

Take is easy
Peter

[Peter Ward]

Hello Group,

Somewhere in this interesting thread someone asked what I thought of Vixen etc.

O.K. so here's my current GEM pecking order, taking into account cost vis tracking accuracy and payload.

Paramount PME, Losmandy Titan, AP1200, AP900, Taka EM400, Taka EM200,
Losmandy G-11, Vixen Atlux, Vixen GP-DX, Losmandy G-8, Taka EM20, Taka EM10/11, Vixen Sphinx, EQ6, EQ5 (and Synta equivalents).

But, hey this is a very subjective call and I think some of these mounts are not made anymore..

Then again...what would I know...

Cheers
Peter

[multiweb]

Go to agree with that one.

[Bassnut]

Alex, you got that seriously wrong. Precision engineering is THE difference.

Ive owned an LX90, G11 and PME. Huge difference between them all.

Fred

[multiweb]

Amazing photos on your website!

[Peter Ward]

As usual Fred got to the guts of the matter in one sentence..

The first 80% any monkey can do....the last 3-4% takes some finesse..

[Aster]

:)

Used to have a 12.5" F6 mounted on a home made EQ mount. Consisted of 20mm welded steel plates , a couple of self aligning 75mm dia. plumber block bearings in RA. 50mm shaft for DEC. running in self lube bronze bushes with hand control slow motion. Ra was driven by a ala Texerau ribbon sector drive. After 1.5 hours I had to rewind. Deep space photography with exacta slr body, knife edge focuser, electronic control 2 buttons for RA made by a PM linesman. Offaxis guiding with spiderweb eyepiece. Star images after 45 minutes exposure on negative were pinpoints. Developed and printed on 10"x8" kodak paper and star images still pin points.

No stacking, no Photoshop etc. just the original raw image.

The Point I am trying to make is "WHERE IS THE PRECISSION"

[dugnsuz]

Woo-Hoo...I'm on the list!!!!:lol:
Doug:thumbsup:

[avandonk]

I have managed to get very good tracking, lack of backlash etc on both a HEQ5 and EQ6 as they both have belt drives and much beefier stepper motors that eliminate the spur cut gearboxs. I think that these gearboxes are what let them down.

My first mount a HEQ5 had random 'microjumps' that only showed up at long focal lengths ie 1800mm. I replaced the motors and gearboxes with Astromeccanica motors with belt drives. The difference was amazing.

I am Happy with my EQ6 with belt drives and Mel Bartels system (see pic below). But I should have bit the bullet and gone for a 'quality' mount from day one in hindsight.

At least the cheaper mounts give you experience and if you are really still keen just simply upgrade as then you should have some idea of what you need rather than what you want.

Here is a pic of Omega Centauri taken with the Tal200k at 1800mm f/9 on the EQ6.
http://avandonkbl.bigblog.com.au/data/2/13839/image/OCL6496020071017145329.jpg


Bert

[Peter Ward]

Alex,

Film is a no brainer compared to CCD's that show both I/R and UV aberrations (invisible to film stock) and on the most part have to be enlarged 4x more than film to get a 8x10 print.

I'd like to see some examples of what your system is producing.

Any links?

Cheers
Peter

[Bassnut]

ummm, I dont see the term "PE" or even more important,"non periodic error", without them ,your pissing upwind :D. On the other hand, if you got pin point stars with a SINGLE 45min exposure, 1/ your in the wrong job, you should be making mounts. 2/ if you can make them that good at less than $20K youd be a very rich man in a very short amount of time 3/ I would grovel in the mud, apologising profusely.

gimme PE stats

[multiweb]

Thanks for your feedback. I'm glad I bit the bullet earlier than later.

[iceman]

I'm sure most of us would love to get high end gear first time around, and avoid the costly exercise of buying budget gear first and eventually spending more to upgrade later on.

But then there's others who simply can't afford to buy the high end gear. An EQ6 might be all they need and for the price, it's not a bad mount.

I carry 50kg on my EQ6 (25kg OTA + 25kg counterweights) and it does the job for long focal length planetary imaging. For deep space stuff, as long as I'm guiding it tracks fine for short focal length stuff.

And for people who aren't even considering putting a camera on the end of their telescope, they certainly wouldn't need to spend more than they need to on a mount that carries their telescope with enough capacity. If that's an HEQ5 or an EQ6, that's a good buy in my opinion.

Me, I'd love to get a high end mount. I just can't afford it so I have to work with what I've got.

[Peter Ward]

Hello Group,

The link below is not by any stretch my finest work...but shows what it is I am trying to get across.

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/m8ap155.jpg

The stars are dots. Not comets. Not elongated. Just circular dots to the edge of the frame. The Fl was an un-challenging 1100mm or so.

At 3000mm it gets a whole lot harder....

Cheers
Peter

[timelord]

Gooday Aster,any chance of a photo of your wooden cradle assembly and rin mods?

[Bassnut]

WOW , holy cow, thats awesome. Nice image Peter.

(post it in the "Deep sky" image area)

Fred

[g__day]

Interesting call Peter - I would have guessed the Atlux sits between the old NJP and the much cheaper G11. Out of the box PE is supposed to be +/- 3 arc seconds which seems correct to me. I have heard the Tak's have the best machining for their price range, follwed by the Vixens then the Losmandy gear (again in their price range).

PS peter amazing shot - was it a $10K CCD on a $18K Paramount with a $10K apo or an even more expensive RCOS?

[multiweb]

Hi Mike, I totally agree with you but I figured very early in the process that you don't need to mount big diameters or heavy scopes to start with astro-photos. As a matter of fact I was surprised to see most people even favouring smaller refractors and spending more money on mounts and CCD cameras.

I think the thread got lost between "bearing heavy weights and good tracking". I had the choice between a light weight Losmandy GM-8 and a heavier duty EQ6. I chose the Losmandy because tracking was more important to me than bearing heavier scopes. I'd rather compromise in scope diameter and not sacrifice tracking.

Within the same budget something's gotta give so on that point I totally agree with you. But still I'll get the best mount that I can then worry about what I can carry on it later even if I start with a "coke bottle" as my mates say.

[montewilson]

It is true, the Vixen site says the PE is +/- 3" but, with PE. Whereas the Tak will do less than 5" with no PE. Actually there is no PE option on any Tak I know of.

None the less the fundamentals of the Atlux seem to be very good.

[Peter Ward]

Monty,

Sorry...I think quoting +/-3 arc sec with PEC is like saying I can see 20:20 with my glasses on. ...but doesn't really tell me how well I can see. ( I recall Meade tried the same trick)

The Vixen Altux is an *excellent* mount.

But it doesn't run at +/- 3 raw. It also costs around $US5000 and (best guess) would cost $US600 to ship to Oz....$A7200 with GST?

The M8 pic was mainly gathered on a G-11/AP155. I did the H-alpha much later (complete with fishing line for diffraction spikes...duh...what was I thinking...) with, and you guessed it, the AP bolted to a very expensive RCOS14/PME...that I use more for faint fuzzies eg:

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/m83lucy.jpg

But, hey, at 1100mm or so, tracking with a self guiding camera is not really an issue.

I also suspect I am being mis-understood here.

All I am saying is most stuff that costs not a lot of $, because it is built to price.

You might get lucky and end up with Herbie the VW....then again no.....

If something is built to a sepcification, gosh, it costs more...but then you have have every right to front the manufacturer if it doesn't perform as advertised.

Cheers
Peter

[g__day]

Peter,

Love to play with the gear you get! Yes the landed cost of a new Atlux is around $7,200 - but the newest model is delayed and I hear the Starbook it uses is a flashy toy compared to the older SkySensor2000-PC. I would say PE raw is 6-9 arc secs on the Atlux - give me more time to master PEMPro and I'll soon know what before and after is like!

My major beef with the Atlux is its manuals only tell you a good 1/3 of what you need to know - if they re-wrote it or appended what is really needed to set this up and operate it to its fullest capability - I think most folk would be pleased. I love the way I can wake it up, slew to one star and check its spot on - it ifs more that 5 arc minutes out I re-sync, then the rest of my slews seem almost dead centre of chip at 2300m focal length. From power on to imaging is about 5 minutes - and most of that is calibrating PHD! Also they could have done a much better job revealing the SkySensor2000-PC capabilites with better drivers and ASCOM APIs. Not even half of what it can do is revealed via the LX200 emulator it most frequently deploys to.

I think a really level base, good initial GPS co-ordinates for a permanent pier, top quality dovetails (e.g. Robyn Cassidy or Losmandy), setting the motor type relative to load and good polar alignment if you want PEC are all essential to getting the most from this mount. Mind you the mount tracks brilliant on a 3 star align if you're within about 30 degrees of the SCP and set polar unaligned mode (which runs both motors to compensate and account for the air's refractive index by position). So its easy for a first year amateur to start to handle! Mind you its heavy - making the EQ6 look light!

It would be great to see side by side reviews of the mid-to high range mounts. Experienced folk comparing the Paramount and the Tak EM-500, the AstroPhysics 900 vs the Losmandy Titan vs Mountain Instrument 2500, all the way down to the humble CG5.

Brilliant M8 - I think the RCOS 14" goes with the PME as a brilliant couple. How heavy is the 155mm APO btw?

[Aster]

I shouldn't be doing this, doesn't do my blood pressure any good. :(

Go to the library, pick up the book How to make a Telescope by Jean Texereau. Read the chapter on Sector Ribbon Drive. If you then understand the principle of that drive come back and tell me where PE comes into consideration. No offence meant. But I go back 40 years in AMATEUR Astronomy of mirror making, instrument making and deep space photography. CCD imaging is totally new to me. Taking photos of DSO's is old hat.

A few of us old blokes who read, not post, IceInSpace at times are rolling on the floor laughing at the some of the statements made re preccission euipment and that you can't do award winning work without spending tens of thoudsand of dollars.

Anyway enough, I am out of this thread.

[Aster]

If attached thumbnail doesn't explain it enough let me know and I will try to get a close up of the cradle by itself.

[Aster]

Just one more comment before I shut up.

To everyone who is so concerned about PE, precission and Chinese made Equipment, take a deep breath and then go and have a look at Mike Salways Lunar/Planetary and His START of DSO Photographs.

Then come back and tell me that you need $10000 worth of precission equipment to take award winning astro photos.

[multiweb]

Hi Aster, thanks for the pic. That's a huge scope. Do you have a couple of photos of nebulaes to share with your current rig? Just want to check what kind of objects you can take photos of with a large diameter?

[Dennis]

Hi Alexander

Nice to hear about your experiences and see a photo of your rig – both are quite impressive. Not too happy to hear about your blood pressure though – take it easy, :( we’re a friendly bunch here all doing the same thing and trying to help each other by sharing our experiences; whether long or short; correct and sometimes not so correct; often wise but occasionally naïve!:)

Anyhow, I have dabbled both in 35mm film and CCD astrophotography; not as an accomplished practitioner, more as a recreational amateur, for enjoyment and at times, relaxation. The demands on my mount, skills and technique were noticeably increased when I migrated from 35mm film DSO photography to CCD DSO imaging.

I used to attach my Pentax 35mm film camera to my 200mm F9 cassegrainian. Using an off axis guider (with built in x3 Barlow), I was able to keep a guide star centred in the (small) inner square of a 9mm illuminated cross hair guiding eyepiece and achieve round stars (mostly) through making manual guiding corrections on a Vixen GPDX mount. This was done by eyeballing the guide star in the reticule and pressing the Up/Down Left/Right motor movement buttons at a guide rate of x2 sidereal to keep the star confined in the square. Generally, a 30 minute session wasn’t too demanding, but once I headed into 45 and 60 min territory, boy it was tough work!

When I replaced the 35mm film camera with a CCD camera this technique proved impossible – I just could not get un-trailed stars using this set up. I would estimate that the CCD camera was some 3 to 4 times more sensitive to guiding corrections than 35mm film. I know that a few here, such as Scott (Adler) and Paul (Mayo) have manually guided DSLR’s, but very few have the will power and stamina to do that these days, so they resort to auto guiding.

Cheers

Dennis

PS – I know you are intimately familiar with much of the above re film photography, but I have included my experiences for those readers who will never experience film astro photography, as the digital age is well and truly here.

[Aster]

Hi Dennis,

When this years comet rekindled my interest and I started to dabble with the DSI Pro, then started to stack a few images etc. my Wife said, THAT IS CHEATING. :)

I remember sitting on top of a 6 foot stepladder, eyeballing the dim star in the OAG, trying to see if I have to push the dome a bit more, in the process nearly falling of the stepladder. Or dozing of after a hard days work and spoiling 30 min of guiding. Hmmmm, was that the time when we were True AMATEURS ??? Couldn't purchase equipment we wanted here, importing was out of the questions for most of us. So we looked at the pictures in the astro magazines and tried to make them ourselfs.

Only looked at a stack of old black/white photos with some visitors the other day and they couldn't believe that we did things like that 30 odd years ago. Couldn't get over how sharp and clear the images were with home made equipment and without automatic guiding :)

Anyway, nice to see that there still are some around who have done it the old way.

[Aster]

If you go to the Deep Space forum and search for Aster you will find a couple of feeble attempts. Totally new field to me, CCD imaging.

[iceman]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but my DSO stuff is a long, long way from being award winning. I'm not even in the same ballpark/country.

But you only need to look at Gary Hill's, Scott Alders and Eric (EzyStyles) (as 3 examples) of very good (and award winning in the case of Gary) DSO photography on a budget.

[Bassnut]

Aster

OK, I get it, yes manual guiding is truly a purist approach, your a patient man ;-), and of cause this way is capable of award winning results.

Sorry for the confusion, we were on different pages. Autoguiding is a whole different world of pain.

Fred

[Domol]

Guys,
this has been a great tread, i love a good old fashion punchup!:lol::lol:
I've learnt alot about mounts in a very short time
answer is.......each to thier own... everyone wins!
thanks

[Peter Ward]

This thread is almost going in circles.

Alex's argument reminds me of an old gag...guy goes to a tailor and is fitted with the worst cut suit ever. Goes back to the tailor, who gets him to contort something like Quazimodo to make the suit fit. Guy leaves the tailor shop. Couple sees this poor bugger limping down the street, "Oh look at that poor cripple she says". " Yes he replies, but sure is a nice suit!"

Images that show elongated stars, noise, weird colour, and poor saturation might give some people a warm and fuzzy feeling (and hey this is good) but can be a little ho-hum for those wanting to push the envelope.

And it gets harder to avoid all of the above as you extend the focal length.

Deep Sky Imaging at 3000+ mm is downright demanding. But so far I haven't found a $1299 system that cuts the mustard...but am always on the lookout for excellent work that makes the suit fit.

Cheers
Peter

[avandonk]

Peter here are a few that are 'tailor made' and subsequently beaten into shape.

All at a really really unchallenging 300mm FL with a DSLR on an EQ6. All are at full size but not full quality.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/avandonk1/CAR_C+HA_HDR.jpg

http://avandonkbl.bigblog.com.au/data/2/13839/image/RHOL6485320071017070558.jpg

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~fmlee/LMC_moshdr.jpg


Bert

[theodog]

Just to add some fuel to the 'cost of success' arguement. These images were taken by year 8,9 and 10 kids at the school where I work none of which had any experience in imaging. They were imaged with the Faulkes telescope at Siding Spring Obs.

I think they are very good.

I hate to think of the cost of the instruments they used.:scared:

Auto every thing does help:D.

[Aster]

How many Mike Salways are there :)

Didn't you win a Award for Planetary imaging or was that another Mike Salway ?

And I said, " look at the START of his DSO imaging "

[Aster]

:)

No worries, I am just an old fashioned grumpy old bloke, who thinks that a lot of todays so called Amateurs are Not.

If it boils down to purchasing more and more semi-professional equipment the term Amateur does not come into it any more.

As to autoguiding, ask me next year

[Peter Ward]

Mike Salway does indeed do excellent planetary work but the required equipment and techniques are *entirely* different to long focal length Deep Sky imaging....which was still is my point...and my apologies if this was not made clear.

Bert held up some good examples, but at FL 300mm? Hardly a tracking challenge (but, sorry, the stars are square. Please compare them to those here:

http://www.atscope.com.au/halpha/etaf35sigma.jpg )

Also at 300mm...but admittedly not in colour..yet...

When I say push the (deep sky) envelope I can think of no better practitioner in Oz than Martin Pugh.

http://www.martinpughastrophotography.id.a u/images/NGC6726_75pct.jpg

Now that's what I'm taking about!

Cheers
Peter

[jase]

Interesting Peter. I don't think I'd rank the Losmandy Titan 2nd on the list. Don't get me wrong, its a nice mount, I had a C11 on it for sometime and it was "hit and miss" at 2800 focal length so doubt it would handle a 12.5" RC very well. I think I'd probably sell mine and go with an AP1200 or if feasible a PME. I recall you were operating the HGM200 with an RC for sometime. This is a different beast to the Titan of today as I understand it.

This thread clearly indicates a "horses for courses" principle. Ask yourself what you want to achieve in this hobby. Be realistic when entering the imaging realm. Use equipment that will meets your goals. Be it a 50mm lens mounted on a little GEM or a 24" RC on a eq. fork. The type of equipment you use does not determine if you're a professional or an amateur. Its what you do with the collected data that distinguishes this.

[Peter Ward]

Jase,

I wouldn't take "the list" too seriouslyhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/images/icons/icon7.gif

Also it depends how old the Titan is. The current crop have changed to Phosphor bronze worms and there have been a few other tech changes. I understand the last production batch had +/- 3 arc sec raw PE as a result....

That said for heavier payloads, I would in fact pick an AP1200 any day. While it is priced a good deal more it is physically larger and will indeed hold significantly more telescope and return a similar level of tracking performance.

Steve Crouch is using my old HGM200 these days and getting some great results from it....in fact I miss some aspects like being able to track for hours past the zenith which the PME can't do.

But I agree entirely, with the "horses for courses" summary. You'd be nuts to think a PME is required to adequately point a 50mm camera lens when an EQ3 would easily to the same job.

Cheers
Peter

[theodog]

Two memories come to mind,
1. Working with Scott Alder in 1985 developing 2415 in D11, in a tent in the Warrumbulgles NP, looking for a supernova.
2. Enlarging B&W images onto large (20x24 I think) using the bath tub as a developing tray.



"Only looked at a stack of old black/white photos with some visitors the other day and they couldn't believe that we did things like that 30 odd years ago. Couldn't get over how sharp and clear the images were with home made equipment and without automatic guiding :)" Aster

Yep those were the days.

[montewilson]

WRT the poll....

A Takahashi telescope on a Tasco mount will give a poor result.

A Tasco telescope on a Takahashi mount will give a much better result.

Never skimp on the mount, if you do, everything else will become irrelevant.

[tornado33]

Ahh yes, Jeff I remember doing that "bush processing" Making the most of the gear that was available at the time. And to think the images I have sent in to IIS have all been taken on the same "ancient" gear, most of which was purchased in the 1980's.

Regarding dear v cheap mounts, the double whammy is economy of scale. A Hyaundai is so much cheaper than a Bimmer not just because it is a cheaper design, but far more of them are made for each Bimmer. Just imagine if, say as many paramount ME's were made as Hyaundai Excels. They would be made in a huge fully automated factory, by the thousands each week, and thus would probably only cost $1000 or $2000 to buy. If as many SBIG 11's were made as canon 400D's, again, they would not cost much more then a 400D.

Of course, Astrophotography, though a great hobby, isnt one that everyone does, so there will never ever be a demand for high end gear in great numbers, so it will always have to be expensively priced to be viable to build.

On mounts, if I had enough money for a SBIG 11 with the Adaptive Optics, Id get that and still use my existing mount, accurate tracking now not necessary as the AO can make far more corrections than any mount. All the mount has to do is track within the range of the AO's corrections.
Scott

[Zuts]

I also would be curious how a long focal length scope, say a C9.25, nearly 2.5 meters would go on a

EQ6, with good PE
Using an STL11000M with on axis guiding and adaptive optics

The EQ6 can certainly handle the load of a C9.25 plus one camera and with all that good SBIG gear to guide would there be any significant difference with a high range mount, say losmandy or tak?

By significant what, no difference, 1%, 10% ....
Paul

[Peter Ward]

Paul posted a good question.

Provided you can get a bright enough guide star, I suspect there would be very little difference. Guide adaptively virtually none...corrections every 1/10th of a second can tame most systems (though a systematic drift will indeed show)

Sadly nature is rarely so kind. Plus if you want to drop narrow-band filter in place, expect corrections once every 10 seconds, maybe....

Given I get to image so rarely, I rather not leave things to chance in seeking excellent results but if you want to dabble and have a bit of fun the point is probably moot at best.

Cheers
Peter

[ballaratdragons]

I have noticed over the last 12 months, with the rapidly expanding interest in Imaging, and the amount of software, cameras, mounts, etc available nowdays, I regularly see people Imaging waaaayyyy beyond the gear's capability.

It doesn't always come down to 'who's got the best mount, camera etc. It comes down to 'who has done thier best with what they've got'.

Constantly I see images better than what the users available gear should be able to do!

To me, that is Gold. And to be applauded!
I would hate to see the day come when Imaging wasn't fun for some because they don't think they have the best gear.
Crikeys, I'm still using a clapped out Toucam and I'm having a ball!!!! :lol:

Even if we did ALL have ME mounts and 18" RC's and robotics etc etc, it would still come down to the user. Having all top shelf gear doesn't mean you'll get great images. It isn't automatic. Recently (and pleasingly) it is the user outdoing their equipment :thumbsup:

Keep pushing your gear, folks! You are doing great :)
NASA is Jealous :rofl:

[Aster]

Paul

Can't tell you how the EQ6 would compare to a Losmandy with the gear you mention.

But I can tell you how much weight a EQ6 can handle, the head mounted on a pier, for DSO imaging.

EQ6, none GoTO, will carry a 300mm dia. CardBoard Forma Tube 1650mm long with a 250mm F6 (1500mm) primary. Usual 8x50 finder GSO low profile 10:1 focuser with Skywatcher Focus Motor attached. An old 80mm Unitron Spotting Scope, converted, with 3xbarlow for future auto guiding. Tube balance weights. All held on a wooden saddle which is attached to the head by a standard 400mm long dovetail. Total weight with camera attached is 18.7kg. Couterweights are extra.

After drift aligning I was able to achieve 2.5min unguided exposures. Enlarging the image on a 17" Samsung 730Bf monitor to the point were the star images deteriorated I could just make out the start of tracking error in RA.

After 4 min it became obvious that one had to alter the handcontroll to get some control over the speed in RA. After dropping the handcontrol a couple of times in the dark I am down to 30sec. without getting any drift in RA.

Good excuse to either get my electronics mate to alter the thing, or update the EQ6 mount to a GoTO version, which is supposed to have higher torque stepper motors anyway.

Hope this goes somewhere near to answering your question.

[jjjnettie]

That's a spot on observation Ken.
Doing the best you can with what you have, and enjoying it.
I've had a ball doing the "impossible", imaging with an old DV camcorder through the Dob. And I got published to boot.

[avandonk]

Peter if you saw square stars the full image was 2.2 meters across!

Quote "Bert held up some good examples, but at FL 300mm? Hardly a tracking challenge (but, sorry, the stars are square etc "

I did say really really unchallenging at a focal length of 300mm. I was having a lend of you! Sorry about the tardiness in reply but it was not really important to me to reply to in haste, to such a poorly thought out post.

Sad that you jump to such facile conclusions. Sadder still that you don't actually comprehend what others are saying let alone take it on board.

Bert

[Peter Ward]

Bert,

The stars in your Eta image (taken at 300mm) are square. They look square on my PC, Toshiba laptop and MacBook Pro. They look square if I download the image from Sydney or San Francisco (my current locale, the Napa Zinfandel is not too bad ;) )

There is a reason for this....which I can only glean you don't get either...
or should we move onto Nyquist sampling and Bayer matrices?

By the way, at 14mm a wooden pole tracks quite well, particularly when using 15 micron pixels.

How about you shoot the same object using an EQ6 at 3000 mm (or so), a few hours would be nice. Then we can start comparing apples with apples.

Take is easy
Peter

[avandonk]

Peter I assume you are quoting knowledge of the Nyquist theorem. I am impressed!

I shall try the wooden pole! It would be far more constructive than communicating with you.

bye

[ving]

hmm... holden rodeo vs lotus elise... the los doesnt carry as much apparently but the build quaility is better, the eq6 is a work horse but the quallity isnt quite as high...

that doesnt help at all :P

[Peter Ward]

Bert,

Nyquist sampling is the bare minimum...but you knew that ;-)

But I digress...and I'm sorry... I still can't see the point you are trying to make.

If it was in jest...then yes I missed it.

My position is straightforward. IMHO Tracking accuracy (for deep sky imaging) needs to get *considerably* better as you increase focal length.

If you disagree...then so be it. Keep posting your best image examples, I'll post mine and I'm sure people can decide for themselves which way they want to go...

For those newbies who are looking to purchase their (often limited, and hard earned) equipment dollars and still achieve high signal, low noise, deep sky images with tight, round stars, I say (and it would seem a good percentage of others) spending the $ on the mount is a good investment....

'nuff said

Peter

[avandonk]

peter you are pompous. But you knew that!

What is wrong with my LMC mosaic? Square stars too gritty!
Here again 2.4MB

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~fmlee/LMC_moshdr.jpg

Do better!



Bert

[leon]

Hmmm, very interesting thread, I will just read.

Leon

[wasyoungonce]

Time to subscribe to this thread;)

[Geoff45]

Great thread! Lots of heat! However, I have to say that the stars are square. To me this indicates that:
1 The guiding is good. The light from the star is pretty much focused on a single pixel.
2 The scope is not properly matched to the camera. You need the Airy disc to cover enough pixels to give a round star.
Geoff

[Prickly]

The G11 is a great mount but too pricey for many people I suspect. My view is that it should be about getting the best result with what you can afford. Theres always a more expensive mount out there.

On the topic of winning awards - if the only way to win an award is to use high end equipment then I would have to question what it is that is being awarded? Unfortunately however, often this may be the case. I think it sends a bad message though to those who may choose to submit images using cheaper equipment. (why even bother if high end equipment always wins?) To me it should be about the processing and what is being achieved with the equipment being used. Perhaps there needs to be some thought about how to compare apples with apples (different categories of awards other than based just on types of objects?).

Dont get me wrong - some of those who buy expensive equipment are really excellent at imaging, but they need to be kept on their toes and people using cheaper equipment (even achromats on chinese mounts) encouraged.

[leon]

Prickly, I reckon you nailed it and i agree, this thread is pointless, if it is going to be a bickering secession between the very experienced. :whistle:

Not that i mind a good discussion, ;) I feel too that some will be discouraged in submitting there work because it dosn't come up to standard.

Leon :thumbsup:

[Aster]

Prickly, That was my point many messages ago. No insult or anything else towards Peter, great images and all that, But how can he even start to compare his images taken with his semi professional gear to the average amateur on this side.

I mean, his quote, " I will post mine and you post yours let the viewer decide " is in my opinion getting a bit childish. Naturally His images have to be better, otherwise what a waste. The more experienced amateur on this side would love to have Peters equipment, I am sure. But this, my images are better then yours is ludicrous.

[mick pinner]

Spot on Alexander. What really gets me going is the way some people throw around all these obscure theorums that try to prove that they are smarter than the next guy, (see earlier posts), and because of this they must be better astrophotographers.
IIS is an amateur forum l assume formed to help us newbies (as we all were once) increase our knowledge and if wanted our photographic skills.
l love Peter Wards images and a lot of others peoples too but this forum in itself is not an imaging competition, we look or at least l do, at the pics submitted and relating them to the gear used judge them on that.
Are Peters images spectacular when compared to his gear? l don't know.
Are EzyStyles images spectacular with his gear? you bet your a**e they are, how do l know? because l can relate to the gear and other images taken with similar gear, and let it not be forgotten these two probably have about a 30 year gap in experience. l use Eric as an example only and could have used many others, hope Eric dosen't mind.
Many of us didn't know a thing about astrophotography 2 years ago and l for one am more than happy with my progress as other are no doubt happy with theirs Ken, Barb & Dave as examples, if those that think their knowledge is superior want to banter amongst themselves fine but do it privately please, this is l think still an amateur forum.

[Peter Ward]

Indeed this thread seems to have lost its point...i.e how does a EQ stack up against a Losmandy G-11/8 ?

For short focal length imaging (up to say about 1200mm) an EQ6/5 will work well. In skilled hands extremely well.

The Losmandy product costs more, and performs better. Question is: how much better? The answer lies on the sort of imaging you want to do.

Web/Cam planetary work. Admittedly very long FL, but really only the seeing matters with fast frame rates at that image scale.

Short focal length imaging. Tracking can be very loose, and is often hidden in the camera pixel size.

For long focal length deep sky imaging (2500mm plus) IMHO tracking accuracy really matters.....for this I am considered pompous?.... aye currumba...but no matter, I'll just go back to trying to hack out a few more images when time permits.

Cheers
Peter

[mick pinner]

Pompous? l don't think so, you are spot on.
lf l may ask a question about something that has not been mentioned yet, l find that the f/l of the guide scope if one is being used as opposed to an OAG has a great bearing on tracking accuracy, any thoughts?

[Aster]

Mick, If I may, 35 years ago when I started in deep space photography I was told, by the then amateur experts, that 2x the focal length of the instrument used for taken photos is a must.

My instrument in them days was a 12.5" F6 Reflector. Guiding was done offaxis with a 12mm plus 2.5x Barlow. Any movement was detected and corrected before it was picked up by the mainscope.

Someone from IIS saw some of my old black/white prints from that time, not so long ago, and their first comment was on the pin point images of the stars. Guiding and good focus.

[Dennis]

Peter, having read your posts, my pomposity meter has yet to register a reading - not even a flicker so far!

I have enjoyed the discussion and like others, have learned much.

Cheers

Dennis

[Peter Ward]

Mick,

Guider FL only needs to be a good proportion eg 75% of the main OTA.

Even less if you are using an autoguider. I have used just a 250mm lens to accurately guide a 1200mm scope.... This is due to the fact many autoguiders make sub-pixel corrections.

More of a problem is differential flexure which may become apparent after just 5 minutes of guiding with long FL system.

Have a good one
Peter

[Zuts]

Peter,

Since this also seems to be a Q&A thread :)

When I drift align for imaging through my FL 480mm D 80mm scope i use it to do the drift aligning. I use a 9mm reticle which gives me roughly 50 mag and if i am not too lazy do a second round of drift aligning with a barlow.

My EQ6 manual says to drift align properly i need around 300 mag, but clearly this is a big ask for a small scope.

If i drift align through the barlow is this good enough, is non barlowed good enough given my imaging focal length, i only want 5 to 15 minute subs at most and generally guide through a 70mm achro using PHD.

Thanks Paul

[Prickly]

Most photos I see arent at 2.5m focal length. Sure you need good tracking at that focal length and a G11 would deliver - even then though perhaps it might be pretty tricky I would have thought (what scope and f ratio by the way - would that be getting heavy for even a G11??).

For what its worth Ive seen some great photos with Eq6s and VC200Ls (1.8m focal length).

Adding an autoguider to a Eq6 will have a big impact on a Eq6s performance still at a much lesser cost than a G11 which may suit some people. Have a friend who tells me his Eq6 pro has quite gradual changes in periodic error and autoguides well. If my scope were just an ED80 I would find it hard to justify the cost of a G11.

Personal views only.

[Prickly]

By the way since we are posting images I did a quick search on Eq6 and VC200L and found this chaps images. Little details provided but I think taken at 1.8m fl. Pretty good.

http://picasaweb.google.com/espeluznante33

Also found this on guiding at 2.5m focal length (yes I guess you could use a 10inch SCT at f10 - slow but certainly ok on a G11).
"
If reducing the guiding focal length seems counterintuitive, consider that
for a long focal length the limiting factor in the ST4's guiding is the
seeing limit. For example, at 2500mm each ST4 error unit is only 1/4 of an
arcsecond, and a seeing error of only 2.5 arcseconds will cause an "E"
indication. If the seeing is 3 arcseconds (fairly common) just the seeing
errors will cause continual "E" indications on both axes. In effect you are
trying to make the ST4 guide to a finer resolution than the seeing will
allow, which is not only useless but makes it harder for the ST4 to
recognize and respond to drive-generated errors. If you cut the guiding
focal length in half (with a reducer) then each error unit will be 0.5
arcseconds, still plenty of accuracy to achieve all the resolution the
seeing will allow, but without generating E's all the time."

I havent even tried to calculate it all out to check but my gut feeling is that while possible on a great night it might be hard at the best of times to guide at 2.5m fl. Couldnt find any examples of shots at 2.5m fl with an Eq6.

Cheers
David

[Hagar]

WOOOW, I'm tired ready this, but isn't it great to see such a wealth of knowledge and for it to be readilly available to us mear beginners in this wonderful pastime. It looked like the hackles went up for a while but the teeth weren't exposed. Sometimes to get to the bottom of a subject a little heat can make the difference. Great to read, great to learn and at times comical.
Thanks
Doug

[Prickly]

In the end we can all understand why anyone would like a G11. Ive no doubt the chap who bought one will be thrilled. But an Eq6 is still very nice too and not to be underestimated.

Another example of what can be done at quite high focal length of 1.8m with a modded Eq6.

http://qhyccd.com/ccdbbs/index.php?PHPSESSID=33297f3666ae4cf 9b05af671ad21e766&topic=309.msg1871

I suspect there are others out there with Eq6s looking on who are quietly watching on aware of their great potential. Terry B from this site has posted images using a VC200L (what a great scope) on an Eq6.

Cheers,
David

[Comet Hunter]

I've found this discussion very interesting! I'm currently debating the EQ6 vs G11 issue myself. While I know the issues both sides are presenting, it often helps to hear others point them out to keep things in perspective.:)

I know I'm better off getting the best mount I can - and eventually I will! All this time in acquiring my new gear I've intended on a G11 (atleast), however, recently things have changed slightly and I find myself considering the EQ6/EQMOD route. I've come very close to pulling the trigger either way on a number of occasions - I just wanna get out there!! I've even found myself in times of weakness looking at Titans/AP mach1's, 900, 1200's etc!!!:doh:Yeah, I know, how can you go from a EQ6 to a AP? Same way I went from a 80ED piggybacked on my LX to a FSQ/ST2k I suppose!.... It's all Jase' fault!! :whistle:

Ultimately for me, it's a matter of either risking it and getting out there now with a EQ6 that I 'may' be happy with and clock some time up and upgrade later to a Losmandy, or, wait a little while longer and to do it right/better/easier(??) the first time round with the G11, knowing I'll probably have an easier/happier time with it:scared3:. Given the time/investment I've had this paperweight sitting on my desk for so far, another month or three wont hurt!:screwy: I just need to fight these impulses to go the quick route!!

[jase]

You'll thank me later Andrew. Trust me.;)

:lol: Was trying to avoid re-entering this thread as it seems to have been bantered around a little too long and ultimately the poll is conclusive. Get a quality mount, the best you can afford. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't overlook image processing software and skills folks. As Ken indicates, having great equipment doesn't automatically mean you'll produce great images. As you advance, you'll soon realise that acquiring the data at the telescope is only a small percentage of producing a great image. The real work begins extracting the most from the data you've obtained. If you can't image process, your imaging equipment investment will be wasted.

Know the tools and more importantly when to use them.

[multiweb]

Hi all, thanks a lot for all the feedback. Just one thing I thought I'd point out as a lot of the info I was asking in the original post got lost in the heat of the thread.

I've asked: "Am I better off getting a Losmandy G-8 or an EQ6 for roughly the same price" which I believe was around the $2.5k ball park. My argument was that I'd rather go lighter with better tracking than being able to handle more load with not so good tracking. This thread went on into comparing an EQ6 to a G-11.

I heard a lot of people saying you just can't afford a G-11 first time. Hey, I'm in the same boat. Who's got $5k+ to put in a mount first time? Not me.
The only reason I got the G-11 is that it was for sale second hand with Gemini and I'm stoked I got it. Tha wasn't part of the plan.

Now you guys are comparing something that's worth $5-6k to something that's worth $2.5k. If I wanted to bear heavy load of course I'd get the EQ6 for my budget.

As far as the mount goes only time will tell and I'll make sure I'll post some photos when I'm all up and running, weather permitting. I also heard you have to do the best you can with what you've got. And I will. I just got lucky to get a G-11 when I wasn't even contemplating the idea of getting one. It's Xmas now! :thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

FYI....Current price of G-11's with dual axis drive and arguably the best tripod on the market is $A3450...not a whole lot more than an EQ6....

Peter

[avandonk]

Multiweb

My original post said it all.

Sorry to get so excited. At my age you are down to three w---s a day.

A good outcome for you.

Bert

[Prickly]

G11 base cost may be around 3.5K but still approx double an Eq6 without computerisation. Dont forget to factor in accessory plates etc to mount the scope.

As mentioned previously need to look at needs and whether you really plan to be taking photos at 2.5m focal length.

A previous post showed an autoguider used with an Eq6 gave around 3 arc sec error which seems pretty good.

Also in my opinion compared to $2160US for a G11 at Anacortes in the US I think they seem overpriced at that amount. Woudnt buy one at that price personally out of principle.

[multiweb]

You're right. By the time you add the bits and pieces and the Gemini you're a bit over $5k incGST. Wishing you all a merry Xmas and hoping Santa brings you all the "bits and pieces" you need for your rigs including a patient and understanding wife (sort of).

:xmas:

[Gerald Sargent]

There is no substitute for a quality mount, my route was
C8 on fork mount > G8 with steppers, which was quite good,
G8 + FS2 which was excellent > G8 + Gemini about which the
less said the better, > Atlux with SS2KPC which out of the box
was superb from the word go > AP Mach1

I suggest that aspiring imagers get onto the AP webb site and
put their names down for the 2 year wait for a Mach 1, at
the asking it is a steal. My (costly) experience

[rumples riot]

Peter,

while I can see your points on the accuracy of the mounts I think you may have overlooked the accuracy needed for planetary imaging. You simply are making assessments in a field you are not practicing or indeed have much knowledge about (I am not trying to insult you, just you need to understand).

I always say, you either decided to go full on into DSO or Planetary. You cannot really do both well. They require good mounts, but equipment and techniques differ from each field. Like yourself I am striving to achieve the best image possible and will go to any length to achieve this, including gutting a new C14 and installing peltiers, using guiding to hold the planet on the chip when it is the size of an orange, spending enless hours working up new processing ideas. In other words like yourself.

Admittedly up until 4 years ago planetary imaging was considered as a bit of joke. The Techniques that Damian, Bird, Pete Lawrence, Dave Tyler, Mike and myself (just to name a few who are dedicated to this) have brought this part of imaging into the 21st century. Many people marvel at the images obtained, but they do still require the same gear you are talking about.

Now back to my point. At 11,000mm + (going up to 23,000mm) you need a very accurated mount to image the planets. I can say that at 11,000mm the EQ6 worked well, but would have needed guiding to stay on top the situation at much higher focal lengths. This is more than 4x the FL you are suggesting. Yes the major difference is that the planet can move a bit, because we stack hundreds of frames and DSO imagers cannot do this. However, when imaging at 17,000mm my CGE holds the field quite well and simply needs some corrections to keep it centred. The point being that the accuracy of the mount must be as good for what you describe Web/Cam planetary as DSO work. If the mount is not solid and stable you will not get good results in planetary imaging either. A 14,000mm Jupiter (near opposition) looks the size of the 640x 480 viewing pane. If the EQ6 was not a good mount it would not be able to produce the goods. It does need some work to get it great, but it does not equate to $4000.00 worth of difference.

In addition the EQ6 mod group have and are producing really nice images from this mount. Yes you get what you pay for, that has always been the case, but the tools are not always at fault with the tradesman.

You images are a credit to your level of committment, but you should not disregard the level of expertise that other imaging requires these days. Nor the level of excellence that an accomplished imager could achieve with an EQ6 if they put their mind to it.

Winning awards can be easy when there is no competition. Winning does not guarantee perfection and should not be the bench mark for a conversation on the merits of equipment. There are too many other factors involved than just the equipment.

[Bassnut]

A small contribution if I may, on an aspect that seems to have been missed.

There are many "amatures" out there, who have no technical interest/expertise in asto gear, and no inclination to learn of the technical aspects, but do find Astrophotography generally of interest as a pleasurable pass time. There are others that appreciate the technical difficulties, but have no interest in bothering with the painfull experience of the technical aspect and just wont to get on with the act of producing the best images possible with the image processing skills they have. Given often these people have the financial clout to overcome what they see as the "technical diffuclties" and concentrate on imaging persay, who has the right to say they have not encompassed the spirit of astrophotograhy as a hobby because they have the money to sidestep bothersome technical issues?.

As an example, I have had the privaledge to use an PME. With this beast, and software such as Pempro and Tpoint, the PME always points to where its told, and autoguiding always produces pin point stars. Issues such as pointing accuracy and PE simply go away, they become invisible, they are removed as a factor in the act of capturing an image. For the monied fortunate, technical mount issues are just boring, concentration on image quality focusses purely on envioromental factors and image processing skills.

I for one, enjoy extracting max performance from my G11 and count the effort as part of the Astrophotograhy experience, as is the Aussie way, but it is disingenuous to assume that those that dont follow this creed somehow have not encompassed the amature spirit of astrophotraphy in an "appropriate" manner simply because they chose to spend more money.

Cheers

[Peter Ward]

Paul,

My experience with planetary imaging admittedly is not cutting edge...but
it would not be correct to assume I have not given planetary imaging a nudge ;)

Exhibit a)
http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/images/marslowres.jpg
Exhibit b)
http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/images/marsmedres.jpg

Most mounts can track well enough for a Webcam at 30 frames to sec to grab a significant number of sharp frames. I personally found the seeing to be paramount (no pun intended) to the results I could obtain...and came to the sad realization the micro-climate around my observatory made very high-res imaging a futile task....and moved on..

While it was intended as a glib remark, I still stand by my earlier comment that a *120mm achromat* on an EQ6 is not great combo winning awards/getting published, which is not to say you can't have a lot of fun
with the same. Not sure quite what you meant "Winning awards can be easy when there is no competition" I'd suggest the hundreds (if not thousands) of David Malin Award and S&T contestants all strive for excellence and are more than happy to pass on their experience on to others.

[Prickly]

Well Peter I hope you are wrong on that score. I seriously hope we stop seeing competitions where the winner to every category is an Takahashi 6 inch refractor on a Tak mount. (must have been embarrassing for the poor bugger that won too). In my view there was no need for it. As mentioned by others previously it is not too hard to consider the relative merit considering the equipment used. Who would be bothered submitting images while such a view exists unless they own a Takahashi. (sorry about the thread diversion here but I think it is an important point because it is a hobby and even an achromat on an Eq6 is mighty expensive - and many of us are not flush with money to afford the great gear).

Wasn't the winner of the last David Malin award a picture of comet McNaught through a camera lens? I wonder if it was an apo or an achromatic camera lens? (or indeed if it should matter). If its ok to take images through an achromatic camera lenses why not achromatic telescopes? Another was a picture of the moon in colour - very imaginative. I dont think these won due to the fancy equipment used for the large part. However amateur comps seem slightly different I have noticed.

So I would like to put forward a contrary view. Yes it sould be for fun - same as with expensive equipment and the equipment needs to be considered in any judging to the extent that it may be a limiting factor. I personally think forget the mount and equipment creep, focus on the technical aspects of the imaging and be happy as there is always better equipment (and you can always download HST images if you really want perfection). There is something fun about getting a great image on budget equipment in my mind and plenty of people out there doing just that. Check out the link below (with an achromat) which I think is an excellent effort.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=24908

However, if I did have fancy equipment, like you do Peter, I would be enjoying every minute of it (as Im sure you do).

David

[avandonk]

Peter I used to work in an xray crystallography laboratory collecting xray data to solve the three dimensional structure of protein molecules. The cameras cost $500k+ Aus each the generators $400k+ Aus each. We had four cameras and two generators. It was my job to run the lab and collect the data. I developed in house xray optics that could concentrate the xray beam by a factor of 30. Our signal to noise was better than a synchrotron source due to careful design of the optics albeit a bit slower.

Before I left CSIRO I was involved with the design of the Beamline at the new Australian Synchrotron in Melbourne. It is now performing better than specifications.

I think the take home message is no matter what equipment you have it can always be improved by working on the weakest link. Unless you are in the business of cutting edge research you make do with what you can afford.

It has been an interesting thread as it has shown the various options one could take to get into astrophotography. There is no correct answer!

If you want to get the last 3% then Peters approach is correct as a starting point.

If you want to have fun and just learn, any starting point that works will do. It is up to the individual after that how far he or she wants to go equipment wise.

I am personally having fun doing the best I can with what I have. The image processing methods are also important.

Bert

[Prickly]

Hi Bert,

Agree entirely. As you say the many who cant afford the extra 3% need not be put off by that. I have a different type of scientific background however it is amazing what a bit of ingenuity can do and I really enjoy seeing that. Who would have thought 10 years ago that a cheap quickcam could produce the types of planetary images we see today for example.

You can get amazing results these days with CCDs even just using small instruments and the technology just seems to keep improving and becoming more affordable. I hold nothing against those who wish to treat themselves with fancy equipment to get around imperfections in cheaper equipment. I also think however that everyone should be encouraged in relation to any "contests" - a bit like a handicap event to use a parallel.

Cheers,
David

[Peter Ward]

Right tool for the job is my position.

This year's David Malin Award was deservingly given to an excellent image of McNaught taken with a DSLR. The year before a modest 80mm APO and DSLR.

In both cases the subject matter was wide field, compelling and there was simply no need for heavy artillery....(and is one of the big draw cards for the DM awards...where a good eye and creativity is essential)

My glib remarks aside, you certainly can use a 120mm achromat on a modest mount to take superb narrow band H-Alpha solar images.....it doesn't matter if the lens is a colour machine: you are effectively imaging in monochromatic light & that simple doublet only needs to have a good figure.
....but you'll still need a +$5k H-Alpha filter ;)

Use the same instrument for high-res deep sky colour imaging and you will invariably have bloated stars with violet halos.... I am not suggesting this will doom the user to a life of imaging misery :) .... simply don't be surprised when you push the envelope thusly.

Making choices about equipment that fit your interest, budget & subject matter is fun. Intelligent choices here will be rewarding....which is really what its all about

[rumples riot]

Peter, excellent images and yes you have given it a nudge indeed. Apologies for my assumptions.

I still think that the use of the word webcam is a little out dated though. The use of the word webcam gives the impression that imaging the planets is easier than doing DSO imaging. Webcams are used by a lot of people imaging the planets, however now there are plenty of people who are using very advanced equipment which utilises RGB and monochrome imaging techniques. And; with high res RGB you do now need a good mount. At very high resolutions (14,000mm +) the stability of the mount is as important as for those doing DSO imaging. Such talk 7 years ago was met with laughter or considered as being fanciful and not a serious pursuit in astronomy, however today things are a lot different and some of us are try to stretch the limits of planetary imaging. We need different equipment, but it needs to be good all the same and some equipment is not asking for the earth as a price. Just because something is cheaper, it does not always mean it is lesser quality overall.

That I guess is my ultimate point that I was trying to make. Sorry for the digression in the topic.;)