#21  
Old 30-06-2025, 08:41 PM
Nikolas's Avatar
Nikolas (Nik)
Dazed and confused

Nikolas is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramius View Post
Crossed my mind but what would do the job? I don't know that the Skywatcher / GSO crayfords would necessarily be an upgrade and Feather Touch isn't happening.

Irrespective need to run a full nights imaging before deciding what's next - and weather looks bad for a week.
Rack and pinion type maybe
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 30-06-2025, 09:28 PM
Startrek (Martin)
Registered User

Startrek is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Sydney and South Coast NSW
Posts: 6,678
I use GSO standard Crayford dual speed focusers which have load rating of 2.5kg and 30mm of travel however the heavy duty linear mono rail is significantly better.

The GSO heavy duty linear crayford with monorail which has a load rating of up 4kg and 50mm of travel GSO ( see attached TS rebadged GSO ) these are guaranteed not to cause tilt.
I have one of these as a spare for my 8” Carbon Newt

https://www.teleskop-express.de/en/t...ual-speed-3700

I’ve previously had a Sky-Watcher scope and have had my 12” SW Goto Dob for 6 years now. The barrel and thumbscrews on this dual speed focuser is rubbish for imaging , very flakey.

For the cost GSO are pretty good focusers
I did have to make up my own custom bracket to suit the ZWO EAF on the 8” and 10” carbon newts.

TS now make a 3D printed custom bracket for their GSO rebranded focusers to suit the ZWO EAF

https://www.teleskop-express.de/en/t...focusers-13279

Cheers
Martin
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 30-06-2025, 10:50 PM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
CYCK is rack and pinion !
Have been reading an old thread here and some good info - specifically how to isolate tilt issues to camera or focuser which will help a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-07-2025, 10:06 AM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
Martin
I looked at the GSO Linear Bearing focuser when first considering a Newt. They do look good though no rotator or more importantly tilt adjuster. Still interesting though - the linear bearing version looks like it would take a standard EAF focuser without special brackets etc.


Do I understand that it is a straight bolt in replacement for the original skywatcher focuser or does this require drilling new mount holes or other mods?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-07-2025, 03:21 PM
Startrek (Martin)
Registered User

Startrek is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Sydney and South Coast NSW
Posts: 6,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramius View Post
Martin
I looked at the GSO Linear Bearing focuser when first considering a Newt. They do look good though no rotator or more importantly tilt adjuster. Still interesting though - the linear bearing version looks like it would take a standard EAF focuser without special brackets etc.


Do I understand that it is a straight bolt in replacement for the original skywatcher focuser or does this require drilling new mount holes or other mods?
Bill,
All GSO focusers for Newts require a makeshift custom bracket ( like mine ) or 3D printed bracket like TS to mount a ZWO EAF ( ZWO have a note about it on their website , maybe they have a product now but I doubt it ) Most folk like me have made their own , I think I did post my photo in their focuser section years ago.

As far as swapping a SW to GSO focuser , it could be direct swap but like everything in Astro there’s always subtle differences. You may have look online at any reference drawings to show a dimensioned drilling pattern and hole sizes.

Martin
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-07-2025, 11:44 PM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
Martin

Thanks again. The GSO is a good focuser but overall I have some doubts. At this stage I am not sure the existing focuser is the source of the problem and if it is, there is no guarantee the GSO is better than the CYCK noting that the GSO gets some mixed reviews online including a less than glowing dedicated tilt test by Narrowband Channel. On top of that it would need new focuser brackets and mods to the tube and I would be giving up a rotator and tilt adjustment.

I will need to give it more thought if I am unhappy with performance of the existing rig after a full test.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-07-2025, 08:14 AM
Startrek (Martin)
Registered User

Startrek is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Sydney and South Coast NSW
Posts: 6,678
In simple terms with no cost restraints I personally recommend either intermediate f5 Carbon like I did or high end premium f4 Carbon as I mentioned previously.
I’ve seen so many folk on this forum using budget entry level f4 scopes and struggling for months and months to achieve a good Star field , some fix the issues , some just give up.
You have to throw money at f4 and faster as they require precision optics and precision mechanics.
I do hope you resolve things
Martin
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-07-2025, 08:26 AM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
Yes I agree that F5 would have been the better choice though i am still bemused that I seemed to have no significant problems with the first two targets. I will post a conclusion when i next get a good clear night.
Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-07-2025, 05:13 PM
rmuhlack's Avatar
rmuhlack (Richard)
Professional Nerd

rmuhlack is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Strathalbyn, SA
Posts: 982
when collimating with the OCAL, is the scope on the mount? if so what direction is the scope pointing, and does the collimation (according to OCAL) change as the mount slews? that might help isolate where the problem lies. And given the trivial weight of the OCAL, if collimation remains solid according to OCAL no matter where the scope is pointing, that would suggest the issue is focuser related (maybe drawtube sag from the weight of your imaging camera gear)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-07-2025, 05:17 PM
rmuhlack's Avatar
rmuhlack (Richard)
Professional Nerd

rmuhlack is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Strathalbyn, SA
Posts: 982
and when you said there is no tilt, how did you confirm that? I use the NINA aberration inspector, which (together with a tilt adjuster) allowed me over successive runs of the tool and repeated tilt adjustment to remove residual tilt from my f2.8 hyperbolic newtonian.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-07-2025, 05:32 PM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
Richard
Yes collimated on the mount and no noticable change when slewed to various locations - so yes I agree it is most likely sag somehere due to the weight of the (ASI2600) camera. That said i think i dialled out a lot of the sag when i went through and checked everything in the image train notably the focuser tension.
What I hope to do now is to the eliminate the tilt/sag readings with the focuser tilt adjuster (until now i have been faffing with the camera adjuster) then run a full nights imaging to see what variation i get at different locations. If the variation is acceptably small I will call it a day - if not... ?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-07-2025, 05:36 PM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
Regarding tilt - I have been using the tilt tools in ASI Studio and ASTAP but for this next round I intend using Hocus Focus in Nina.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 21-07-2025, 08:43 PM
Ramius (Bill)
Registered User

Ramius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Canberra
Posts: 68
Hi,
Have finally had some clear skies to do some checks. Headline - it was movement of the primary mirror.

Being new to Astrophotography and particularly to Newtonians this issue was difficult to resolve. I found surprisingly little to help online so I have logged my experience here in case it benefits someone else. At the outset having given it some thought and consideration of comments above I was aware that potential sources of the problem included:

Tilt
Camera sensor
Focuser base
Collimation
Secondary mirror - Alignment/height, Rotation and Angle
Primary mirror
Reflections - possibly in the
Telescope tube
Focuser or Comma corrector
Sag - most likely in the
Telescope tube itself (flex)
Focuser tube,
Comma corrector connection to the focuser (eyepiece holder)
Flexure between the main telescope and guide scope, or
Mirror Flop - primary

This process took nearly 3 weeks partly due to cloud cover but also from me going in circles, exploring issues and learning collimation craft. These are the lessons I learned.

Reflections
Some of my imaging was done not that far from a full moon. Also I had previously seen a strange large but faint halo around the bright star in the Horse Head Nebula. However the scope has baffles, some flocking and no unpainted surfaces within the tube so instinct said this was not the problem. As I felt this would be difficult to resolve I continued hoping to find the problem elsewhere.

Tilt
I played with tilt adjustment at both the focuser base and camera. I initially thought these were effectively the same - that alignment errors in either would produce the same outcome and that tilt measured in the image could be resolved with either adjustment. On further consideration I now think they are quite different (happy to be corrected). Tilt at the focuser base is basically a collimation issue. If collimation is good tilt at the focuser base is probably OK and conversely tilt here will appear as bad collimation not "tilt" measured in the image. Camera or lens tilt is different and independent of collimation and tilt in the focuser tube. Assuming perfect collimation, sensor tilt could still be an issue.
That said I ran the scope all one night on a single target. There was no correlation between the 'bad' images and tilt. I got the same tilt readings with the bad images as with the good ones. I would go further and say that low to moderate tilt only marginally effects the images. I concluded that tilt is not the fundamental problem.

Sag and Flexure
I reset and tightened every thing in the image train. I tried to move the centred camera image in OCal by putting pressure on the image train in several directions. I didn't measure it but I would say at least several kilo's of force. I could see minor movement in some planes so inconclusive. My initial experience was that transition from bad images to good images was gradual and associated with approaching the Zenith. This strongly suggested a gravity related problem - likely sag or flexure. At 800mm focal length I did not think this was flexure. Checks with very short exposures which still showed the aberration confirmed this.

Checking another nights images I found that the transitions between good and bad images occurred suddenly between consecutive frames. This was a surprise and had not happened previously where the change was incremental. However it is still consistent with a gravity related issue. In addition I examined images at a Meridian Flip. This significant movement should elicit changes associated with sag, flexure, mirror flop etc. However there was no discernible difference in the images before and after the flip. Tilt readings were also unchanged. This was confusing and seemed to contradict other evidence. There were now several points of evidence against sag and flexure but contradicted by the meridiam flip evidence

Collimation
OCal - I have the second version. I have no previous experience collimating with any other tools. I found the OCal very good for collimating the Secondary mirror. OCal uses the reflected camera image rather than the centre marker on primary mirror for final primary alignment. Mine never clearly focused on this camera reflection making adjustment of the Primary difficult. I got it close but needed to use a de-focused star to get it spot on.

I went around the buoy with collimation several times. In desperation I completely reset the secondary from scratch. This was painful but instructive. It was also probably unnecessary. But in the end I was getting repeatable good collimation of the secondary and Ok collimation of the primary finessed by star collimation. Checks conducted before and after imaging runs indicated that secondary collimation was rock solid. This further supported the conclusion that the problem was not sag. However there did seem to be some movement in primary collimation.

Conclusion
So what was going on? In my mind I had ruled out flexure, tilt, sag, reflections (tentatively) and secondary collimation. That leaves movement of the primary mirror. However as above checks before and after a meridian flip showed no changes. This was a bit confounding but the primary mirror appeared the only option so I pulled it out and took the opportunity to clean it (while testing it rained on me out of a completely clear sky - go figure). I found some very minimal movement was possible in both the lateral plane and in the direction toward the secondary but these did not seem enough to account for my issues. Nonetheless to address lateral movement I placed adhesive rubber strips under the mirror and pieces of paper around the perimeter to remove the very small gaps. I aslo tightened the clips a little to address movement in the other plane - no physical clearance under them this time but still loose enough so as to hopefully avoid mirror pinch. There was a lot of talk online that upgraded springs stop mirror movement. I cannot see this has anything to do with it assuming one is using the locking screws. Nonetheless i did tighten all three adjustment screws thus tightening the springs - which did provide better feel and control while making adjustments.

I put it back together and forgot to redo primary collimation before imaging from 8.00 to midnight when it clouded over. Despite forgetting to collimate, images are good (not perfect but surprisingly close considering). I think I finally have this skinned - thankfully.

Image - single 2min sub, no collimation of primary, average seeing and light overcast.
Click image for larger version

Name:	NGC6357_0039(1).jpg
Views:	25
Size:	211.9 KB
ID:	328392

Last edited by Ramius; 21-07-2025 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Yesterday, 01:24 PM
ChrisV's Avatar
ChrisV (Chris)
Registered User

ChrisV is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,799
Bill

I've been down this path. Things I have found that help are:
- getting a good coma corrector, e.g. the aplantatic SW F4 coma corrector. 2 reasons – (1) beautiful correction and (2) doesn't move inside the focuser (crucial !!!). After battling with a Baader corrector for yonks, the aplanatic has been brilliant on my old 8” F5 GSO and now my SW carbon fibre F4. Have to thank Martin for this.
- getting a cat's eye collimator. This was a game changer for precise collimation a low F values (4-5). Way better than just using a laser, or cheshire collimator. Use both their cheshire & auto-collimator. I've collimated with a laser or just a cheshire & then found collimation is way out with the Cat's Eye auto-collimator.
- moving from a metal GSO F5 to a carbon fibre skywatcher F4. This solved the problem of flexure in the scope which caused the whole camera to shift at different positions – especially with a heavy camera. I know others have described ways of improving flexure on mounts – but carbon fibre was an easy way out.
- Stuck a moonlite focuser on my mount. I think its better but haven’t really compared it to the stock SW focuser. So could be kidding myself to justify the expense.

A few comments about tilt at focuser & camera. For me they are two different (but inter-related) things.
- Tilt at the focuser affects collimation. This should be addressed during collimation before worrying about your camera & any coma/tilt there. BUT - I usually don't fiddle with this, just go ahead & collimate.
- When collimated, add the coma corrector and camera (at recommended corrector-camera spacing) & focus. Take some shots and look at the stars.
They will be either
(1) perfect over the whole image. You are good to go.
(2) evenly elongated in the 4 corners. Need to adjust corrector-camera spacing. This is all that usually needs to be done.
(3) Elongated in corners (& possibly centre) & corner elongation not even. Need to do (2) & then adjust camera tilt.

Corrector spacing can be easily done by taking single shots & using some sort of inspector to check star elongation in the corners. Camera tilt can be done similarly. But there’s a great plugin with NINA that helps you set this up Hocus Focus (aberration inspector). It quantifies the spacing error & tilt & tells you how much to adjust them (especially good for tilt).
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Yesterday, 11:15 PM
rmuhlack's Avatar
rmuhlack (Richard)
Professional Nerd

rmuhlack is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Strathalbyn, SA
Posts: 982
I second Chris's suggestion of a cat's eye collimator. I have one with the additional offset view port. I also have a laser, Cheshire, and ocal. Overall the cat's eye gets me the closest collimation. Invaluable for fast newtonians.
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 12:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement