Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:09 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
I think RC is a bit of puffery these days, was the best in days gone by, but corrected designs are so good these days it's not worth the extra money IMO. But, There's always the placebo effect and "bugger the money I want the best" there's ALWAYS a market for that. Look at Marcus's Stella officiana RC, it's just amazing and utterly drool worthy, that can seriously make the ownership/imagining experience well worth the extra bucks. This is a hobby, how you feel about it alone can make ALL the difference.
Yes & with the usual ordinary seeing conditions I am happy
with just using a Newt. and a 3 element coma corrector.
RCs & other high tech designs can only take advantage of top seeing in my humble opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:10 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Hard to tell if true or not. I believe he would be achieving better spot sizes. Phillip Keller is very good at optics.

There is an astrophotographer up at Cairns who got one of his large scopes.

Greg.
Really?

Do you have a link to his images?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:18 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Yes & with the usual ordinary seeing conditions I am happy
with just using a Newt. and a 3 element coma corrector.
RCs & other high tech designs can only take advantage of top seeing in my humble opinion.
Of course, seeing is the killer, a rational decision to be sure.

Tell you what though, having a Ferrari parked in the garage, and cruising down to the shops for milk in it is pretty cool .

Then jus sometimes, you get to take it on a country trip and wet yourself.

Those rare still skies even urban bound, are a treat.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:28 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo (Mark)
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Yes & with the usual ordinary seeing conditions I am happy
with just using a Newt. and a 3 element coma corrector.
RCs & other high tech designs can only take advantage of top seeing in my humble opinion.
It is unlikely an RC with corrector gives you any tighter images than your corrected Newt.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:29 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
Of course, seeing is the killer, a rational decision to be sure.

Tell you what though, having a Ferrari parked in the garage, and cruising down to the shops for milk in it is pretty cool .

Then jus sometimes, you get to take it on a country trip and wet yourself.

Those rare still skies even urban bound, are a treat.

Yes - seeing is everything.
When I first got my Newt. 4 or 5 years ago - I looked at Jupiter
many times & all I saw was a fuzzy ball with a few lines across it.
I thought something was wrong with it till I took
it to Mt Baw Baw at nearly 5,000 feet altitude & behold -
Jupiter snapped into view sharp & crystal clear at over 300 magnification.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:33 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satchmo View Post
It is unlikely an RC with corrector gives you any tighter images than your corrected Newt.

Yes - then we are in agreement.
Look at the pics Mike gets with his AG12 Newt. - just amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 14-11-2013, 06:44 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
As I suspected, I was being flippant, makes total sense, even though I dont know much about this stuff really.

I'm hosted in very dark skies now, so I just live in a ego tripping world of hope and expectations with what I have
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15-11-2013, 10:02 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
As I suspected, I was being flippant, makes total sense, even though I dont know much about this stuff really.

I'm hosted in very dark skies now, so I just live in a ego tripping world of hope and expectations with what I have

Still nice to have a telescope as good as yours.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 15-11-2013, 04:32 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,458
Its also unlikely you can do long exposures on a corrected Newt with a 16803 camera without severe flexure. Newts are great but having a focuser sticking out the side of the tube is an engineering nightmare. Perhaps one Isaac did not forsee!

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15-11-2013, 04:49 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Its also unlikely you can do long exposures on a corrected Newt with a 16803 camera without severe flexure. Newts are great but having a focuser sticking out the side of the tube is an engineering nightmare. Perhaps one Isaac did not forsee!

Greg.
True -
many people have trouble mounting a tank like that on any telescope.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 15-11-2013, 05:34 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
I must say, the RCOS is built like a tank and weighs like one too. You get of various length spacers with it that are engineered so close that they are next to impossible to unscrew when done up.But they are stupidly stable and anything hangs off the end with no flex. I've seen many neut setups with side mounted cams that just swung in the breeze. A notorious video of a 16803 mounted to an ASA neut showed many mm of flex just leaning on it a bit, what a disaster. 14 rolls of seletape around the whole shebang was required just to make it usable. That side mounting stuff must be a nightmare to manage.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 15-11-2013, 05:55 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
I must say, the RCOS is built like a tank and weighs like one too. You get of various length spacers with it that are engineered so close that they are next to impossible to unscrew when done up.But they are stupidly stable and anything hangs off the end with no flex. I've seen many neut setups with side mounted cams that just swung in the breeze. A notorious video of a 16803 mounted to an ASA neut showed many mm of flex just leaning on it a bit, what a disaster. 14 rolls of seletape around the whole shebang was required just to make it usable. That side mounting stuff must be a nightmare to manage.

Yes - you get what you pay for.
An RCOS can handle a big camera with ease.

A QHY9 is more than enough to hang on my Newt.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 15-11-2013, 08:40 PM
Satchmo's Avatar
Satchmo (Mark)
Registered User

Satchmo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,858
Orion UK seem to have the stability of the camera /focusser controlled on the Newts with the use of bulkheads either side of the focusser - see Mikes scope for example.
Avoid their CDK's though - there are examples that have serious issues.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 15-11-2013, 08:56 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Yes - then we are in agreement.
Look at the pics Mike gets with his AG12 Newt. - just amazing.
Well, yes and no...on axis it's a piece of cake.....but...the edges of his 16803 fields were proving troublesome.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 15-11-2013, 09:05 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Woohoo it's clear

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Its also unlikely you can do long exposures on a corrected Newt with a 16803 camera without severe flexure. Newts are great but having a focuser sticking out the side of the tube is an engineering nightmare. Perhaps one Isaac did not forsee!

Greg.
You are kind of right Greg. With the big heavy PL16803 + Atlas focuser and CFW-5-7, on the AG12 I had to limit subs to 5min and even then I could see diff flex more often than I would like but much of this problem was really due to the size of my guide scope (ED80) and how I had it mounted to the system (ie rather poorly ) ...now that I have an OAG as part of the SX gear (all be it a much lighter system at 1/3 the weight) I can really see that when I eventually return to using the 16803 on the AG12 again I will be fitting a MMOAG in the image train..I think it, along with the camera and filterwheel, can just fit within the 79mm back focus.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 16-11-2013, 02:45 AM
dvj's Avatar
dvj (John)
Registered User

dvj is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 748
I was able to use a separate guide scope on my ASA N12 for 30 minute subs - no problem. That was with the STL11000 hanging off the side. the larger problem was enabling good collimation.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 16-11-2013, 04:53 AM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Woohoo it's clear

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvj View Post
I was able to use a separate guide scope on my ASA N12 for 30 minute subs - no problem. That was with the STL11000 hanging off the side. the larger problem was enabling good collimation.
You may have had your OTA and guide scope attached more optimally than I John? For the very best results, I also think an image plane tilt unit is something that needs to be incorporated into these fast scopes and big chips.

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 16-11-2013, 05:01 AM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Woohoo it's clear

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 14,714
In the end there are a lot of people who search high and wide or wait yeeears and pay big dollars for that supposed perfect system (in their eyes) and along the way worry about every little nuance (perceived or real) but sadly even once they have found that seemingly holy grail get little or have nothing to show in the way of amazing images...in the end, is it really worth all the procrastination...an odd star shape at the edge of your field will not leap out and stab a dagger in your heart

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 17-11-2013, 08:15 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike View Post
In the end there are a lot of people who search high and wide or wait yeeears and pay big dollars for that supposed perfect system (in their eyes) and along the way worry about every little nuance (perceived or real) but sadly even once they have found that seemingly holy grail get little or have nothing to show in the way of amazing images...in the end, is it really worth all the procrastination...an odd star shape at the edge of your field will not leap out and stab a dagger in your heart

Mike
Very true. All scopes except Astrophysics ones have shortcomings of one type or another.

The fun is getting out and producing some images you are happy with.

The good news is the cost of quality scopes seems to have dropped a lot over the last 5 years. Perhaps this is why RCOS had trouble. High end high priced gear in a falling price market place with viable cheaper alternatives with too similar performance.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 17-11-2013, 09:20 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Very true. All scopes except Astrophysics ones have shortcomings of one type or another.

The fun is getting out and producing some images you are happy with.

The good news is the cost of quality scopes seems to have dropped a lot over the last 5 years. Perhaps this is why RCOS had trouble. High end high priced gear in a falling price market place with viable cheaper alternatives with too similar performance.

Greg.
Not only that - whatever you buy there will always be something bigger & better.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement