Quote:
Originally Posted by codemonkey
IMO you can get some decent results using a moderate sized refractor with small pixels... it's certainly been my approach and, not to blow my own trumpet, but I think my images hold up well to much larger, much harder to manage and potentially much more expensive scopes
|
Yes your images are inspirational Lee, amazing results
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
I agree, your images are great and I certainly don't yawn when looking at them....
|
+1^
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJT
I have been chasing ARP14, a tiny little galaxy, from Sydney with an RC8 (1628mm) and an older ST2000XM with a 7.2 pixel size. Its doable but needs patience.
But this would be a struggle if the plan is to do single nights at a dark site... it might be a struggle, unless you have your setup process nailed completely....these things can hold focus and collimation all night so that's a plus.
|
Yes, good arguments for the CF RC8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
... set your focal length to 1.5m to match your pixels and then get the fastest scope that your mount will carry.
|
Thanks again Ray - as mentioned above I'm leaning towards a carbon fibre RC8 to suit my EQ6/5.4m pixels combo.
1625mmFL, 7Kgs, short OTA (less wind issues than a newt at my exposed location), good bang for the buck but will need collimation & upgraded focusser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiraz
Given that you might want something with >100 mm clear aperture (~200mm+ if obstructed) and 1.5m fl, that will work on an EQ6 - you could consider:
- an 8 inch f8 RC with field flattener (will take a long time, but give best resolution)
|
Agreed, a bit slow at f8 but the short OTA, longer FL & best resolution are attractive.
Maybe more so than a shorter FL, longer OTA 8" f4 CF Newt, and anything 10" is too heavy, as is the MN190 MakNewt.
I'd like to one day get decent A4 size printable images to enter in print competitions, so this is looking like a good entry point to start working towards that goal.
Thanks again to all for your input, glad several other IIS'ers have got something out of this thread as well.