|
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.
|