Which Mount for Astrophotography? - Page 2

skwinty (Steve) · #21 06-02-2008, 01:03 AM

Hi g__day
Thanks for the info. I am not miffed with Peter in any way and he doesnt need defending. I asked a question in good faith and got sarcasm in reply.I can cope with that. I was born and bred in africa so by default have a thick skin and as every knows Africa aint for sissies.
Jokes aside I really enjoy this forum and all the active and differing perspectives and debates.
I use a canon 40DH so 60-120 second exposures are probably as much as i will be able to handle with eq6 pro unguided. So track n stack for me and i hope to produce images as good as Peter. According to the hand book of astronomical image processing and AIP4WIN software by Richard Berry and Jim Burnell the chances are pretty good that i will.

Kind Regards
Steve

netwolf · #22 06-02-2008, 01:09 AM

Steve, i think perhaps you have judged Peter a bit to harshly. I do not belive he is speaking with a vested interest. If an EQ6 could give Paramount performance then why would people spend more on the Paramount. Most people who buy and sell high end gear understadn that they are getting what they paid for "specs". The want results.

In the scheme of things the Losmandy/Vixen mounts Peter has recommended are only the top end of the bottom of a very big ladder. Still they are priced for the performance they provide. An EQ6 with effort and tuning could foreseeably produce equal results and thats well and good. But some folk want results out of the box. Even then the Losmandy's als need tuning to improve there performance to match higher end gear. So its all relative.

When and if you upgrade your mount i am sure you will be looking at specs to decide what you buy next. We all climb this ladder, we all improve with time and begin to become more demanding of our equipment. Thats what this hobby is about.

Define the problem first:
What do you want to image? And at what scale/mag?

Analyse: What is the best scope for the job? Whats the best mount for that focal length?

The answer at one end might be a rock, and on the other end the Hubble telescope. Its all relative.

I dont think Peter was being sarcastic your question left it open to judge what you did or did not understand about FL and its impact on imaging.

Regards
Fahim

madtuna (Steve) · #23 06-02-2008, 01:12 AM

Actualy Skwinty, I think you may have possibly just missinterpreted it, it wasn't sarcasm it was a simple analogy for us noobs

skwinty (Steve) · #24 06-02-2008, 01:32 AM

My goodness
I seem to have opened a can of worms here.
The point is, Peter had lots to say about eq6 in the last long saga of posts about the same issue.I asked a simple question about whether he thought the product had improved since 2005. I got rocks for an answer.
And now everyone jumps to defend him because i accused him of sarcasm and having a vested interest in the brands he represents. He has spent probably a hundred thousand dollars if not more on his gear and he therefore deserves a vested interest in that. I dont hold him in contempt because of that. All he had to say was yes it has no it hasnt whichever he felt. I read the whole saga previously posted and felt he was the best person to ask for an honest answer. The rock wasnt that.
I never asked about focal lengths or any of the other stuff just whether or not the product had improved in his opinion.
I thought i was wrong but i was mistaken.
Regards
Steve

PS Perhaps Peter should say something?

dugnsuz (Doug) · #25 06-02-2008, 07:28 AM

If I had my time again, or hopefully next time around in the mount purchasing game...it will be a GM8 as minimum. I know what I had to do to the EQ5 to get it to operate at a level acceptable to my requirements by performing the "astroboy" improvements. And, from what I read, similar fixes may be necessary for an EQ6 too.
As you grow into the hobby you will probably come to a point like many of us where an upgrade is wanted - the GM8 would be mine!
If you bought that quality now, that upgrade could be deferred much longer.

Zuts · #26 06-02-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by netwolf

Steve, i think perhaps you have judged Peter a bit to harshly. I do not belive he is speaking with a vested interest.

The answer at one end might be a rock, and on the other end the Hubble telescope. Its all relative.

I dont think Peter was being sarcastic your question left it open to judge what you did or did not understand about FL and its impact on imaging.

Regards
Fahim

Well,

The original poster clearly stated they are a newb and had done some reading and wanted some help. An important point in the original post was the budget, $2000 and the scopes. A C8 plus 80mm guide scope and a camera and i guess a guide cam.

I am also a newb but a Losmandy G8 has a recommended load capacity of 13.8 kg. An 8 inch LX90 weighs around 7kg. So if you add the guide scope cameras etc it may be over the rated capacity of a G8. So what is the point of recommending it. Especially if the poster implies he may want to stick a 12 inch dob on it.

Correct me if I am wrong but I would of thought a proper and helpfull answer to the question would have been a discussion of the relative merits of sub 2000 AUD mounts.

For gods sake if i am in the market for a car and state my budget is X dollars and am thinking about a holden, how does it help me if the discussion is all about the relative merits of BMW's versus AUDI's with the occasion comment that while a BMW is a good car a Porsche is even better.

As far as skwinty is concerned, he was not the original poster and his post clearly stated that he had in fact purchased an EQ6 and he was asking some questions about it. Basically he got told he had a rock and to swap it for a G8.

I am afraid i just dont understand. If someone is looking at $200 eyepieces (a heap of money in my book) you could recommend a Vixen LV and probably not a Nagler or Pentax and definately not a Zeiss. If someone has an LV and says it is not quite sharp at the edges how is it polite to tell them they should sell it and get a Nagler?

Regards Paul

Peter Ward · #27 06-02-2008, 09:25 AM

Que? No sarcasm was intended. Just a little humor

My point being you don't need to crack a nut with a steam roller. For short FL deep sky imaging many mounts/cam trackers are more than adequate.

I'm hardly going to haul a PME west of the blue mountains if all I want to do is image a comet with a 300mm lens. A small EQ will do the job just fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

I did not ask for sarcastic remarks relating to garden rocks or other statements of fact.
I asked the question hoping for an informed and educated answer considering all the comments you have made previously.
Obviously I was mistaken.
Regards
Steve

Terry B · #28 06-02-2008, 09:37 AM

I think the important thing here is the budget of ~$2000.
I use an EQ6 with the cheap Q-guider with a guide scope.
I image with an 1800mm fl scope and have no problem achieving very good tracking. According to the data from guidemaster, with guideing I can keep the scope within ~1-3 arcsec in both directions depending on seeing and wind etc.
The less guideing that is done the better but good results can be achieved with this combination that cost about ~$2000 total.

Peter Ward · #29 06-02-2008, 10:00 AM

Most products improve over time. That includes the EQ6, Taka EM series, G-8's etc, computers, cars.

So I'm I not quite sure what the point of the question is.

I've been taking astro-photos, well, for a very long time. The only observation I'd make in this digital age is don't get too carried away with aperture...It can get costly

A well matched 4-6" system is a lot easier to tame than a 12" on a mount that continues to vibrate for many seconds after you touch it or sways in the slightest breeze.

The French website referred to by Kal is a good one for comparing tracking
accuracy, but doesn't say a lot about system rigidity.

And...I often use rocks when I didn't pack a tripod. But their tracking accuracy is only about 15 arc sec per sec

Quote:

Originally Posted by skwinty

I asked a simple question about whether he thought the product had improved since 2005.

edwardsdj (Doug) · #30 06-02-2008, 10:03 AM

I've used rocks a few times too.

Tracking may not be that good but stability is awesome

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #31 06-02-2008, 10:31 AM

Another thread on mounts I have subscribed to!

g__day (Matthew) · #32 06-02-2008, 10:42 AM

I think there should be a rule of thumb like pay double for you mount than your combined OTAs budget.

Peter Ward · #33 06-02-2008, 10:59 AM

Nah...that's a little glib.

There are some pretty expensive small aperture APO's out there

I'ts more of a case of don't be tempted to put too much telescope on too little mount.

Quote:

Originally Posted by g__day

I think there should be a rule of thumb like pay double for you mount than your combined OTAs budget.

g__day (Matthew) · #34 06-02-2008, 11:52 AM

Don't know Peter - if you spent $8 on a 5" Televue - would you love to mate that with a Titan ($12K) a EM 400 or 500? My guess must be close to true - although too simple.

It boils down exactly as you say - start your imaging with a 12" - 14" dob on a CG5 + bailing wire and you'd be fit for American dumbest astronomers show!

PS - off topic apology

Why don't really high-end refractors use carbon fibre instead of aluminium tubes to minimise thermal change induced re-focusing?

RB (Andrew) · #35 06-02-2008, 12:01 PM

This thread has strayed a bit from OP's original question.

Quote:

After a bit of research I have found the EQ5 mounts are good for telescopes up to 12 inches. Therefore being a total newbie to this, I have no idea what is the best mount for astrophotography
on a budget of no more than $2000.

Quote:

Originally Posted by g__day

PS - off topic apology

Why don't really high-end refractors use carbon fibre instead of aluminium tubes to minimise thermal change induced re-focusing?

That's a topic for another thread.

skwinty (Steve) · #36 06-02-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty P

After a bit of research I have found the EQ5 mounts are good for telescopes up to 12 inches. Therefore being a total newbie to this, I have no idea what is the best mount for astrophotography on a budget of no more than $2000.

Any suggestions?

Hi Matty
When i first become involved in amateur astronomy i bought a 12" GSO dob.
After some time I decided to buy a mount. The eq6 pro was what i could afford. However when i tried to get OTA rings I could not get 12" rings.
Apparently the biggest i could get was 10 or 11 inch rings.
I have subsequently got an engineering company to manufacture.
According to sky watcher 12" is too much for the eq6.
Now I know that i have over loaded the eq6 but with a hargreaves strut, track and stack approach with a dlsr i am proceeding without guiding. The people with experience of eq6 tell that the mount will cope but i should not add any more load.
Obviously more expensive mounts handle a lot more weight and i suspect that that is why they are so much more expensive.
The electronics side should be more or less on par.(IMHO)
Regards
Steve

skwinty (Steve) · #37 06-02-2008, 05:46 PM

Hi Peter
Thanks for the reply.
The reason I asked the question of whether the eq6 had improved since 2005 was purely one of trying to get a good cross section of opinion as there were lots of problems with this product a few years ago.
I based my decision on money and sky and telescope reports.
I suppose i am trying to allay any thoughts of buyers remorse which i suspect is also unreasonable as i have not yet used the mount.

I look forward to taking some pix and posting them for positive criticism.
Regards
Steve

Matty P (Matt) · #38 06-02-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuts

Well,

The original poster clearly stated they are a newb and had done some reading and wanted some help. An important point in the original post was the budget, $2000 and the scopes. A C8 plus 80mm guide scope and a camera and i guess a guide cam.

I am also a newb but a Losmandy G8 has a recommended load capacity of 13.8 kg. An 8 inch LX90 weighs around 7kg. So if you add the guide scope cameras etc it may be over the rated capacity of a G8. So what is the point of recommending it. Especially if the poster implies he may want to stick a 12 inch dob on it.

Correct me if I am wrong but I would of thought a proper and helpfull answer to the question would have been a discussion of the relative merits of sub 2000 AUD mounts.

For gods sake if i am in the market for a car and state my budget is X dollars and am thinking about a holden, how does it help me if the discussion is all about the relative merits of BMW's versus AUDI's with the occasion comment that while a BMW is a good car a Porsche is even better.

As far as skwinty is concerned, he was not the original poster and his post clearly stated that he had in fact purchased an EQ6 and he was asking some questions about it. Basically he got told he had a rock and to swap it for a G8.

I am afraid i just dont understand. If someone is looking at $200 eyepieces (a heap of money in my book) you could recommend a Vixen LV and probably not a Nagler or Pentax and definately not a Zeiss. If someone has an LV and says it is not quite sharp at the edges how is it polite to tell them they should sell it and get a Nagler?

Regards Paul

I totally agree with you Paul.

In my first post I clearly stated that I am a total newbie and would like some advice on what is the best mount for astrophotography on a budget of no more than $2000 AUD.

From what I know, the EQ6 pro seems like it is a great mount for the price and performs like a champ. Comparing it to a Losmandy or a Vixen mount is really just rather stupid in my opinion. They are all different mounts and have their own pros and cons.

For me, I still have to do a lot more research before I take plunge. Whether I decide to go with the EQ6 or one of the Losmandy mounts, I'm sure with the help of you guys. I will make the right decision.

On a different matter, I hope purchase either a 0.3 or 0.6 focal reducer for my C8 resulting with between a 600mm f/3 or 1200mm f/6 focal length. Is this good for imaging?

My little 80mm refractor IMHO is not a suitable candidate for the main imaging scope. Why I say this....? The overall quality of the scope and optics are not up to scratch.

Whenever I am in this situation I like to say to myself and sometimes others,

"You get what you pay for"

Thanks for your help

Kal (Andrew) · #39 06-02-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty P

On a different matter, I hope purchase either a 0.3 or 0.6 focal reducer for my C8 resulting with between a 600mm f/3 or 1200mm f/6 focal length. Is this good for imaging?

This depends completely on the camera.

For the DSI definately the F3 reducer is best, but the F3 reducer won't work with the DSLR because the image circle it produces will be way too small to fill the chip. In simple terms, an F3 reducer with a DSLR will give you an image inside a circle in the middle of your image, and everything around it will just fall off to black, wasting 3/4 of the image sensor.

At F6 you could use the DSLR, but imaging will be harder as longer focal length imaging puts more demands on the mount (as already established in this thread)

Doomsayer · #40 06-02-2008, 08:05 PM

Not sure if I missed a mention of this already...
The used market has some good value showing up at times - mounts with good unguided tracking. Older Non-goto Takahashi EM200 mounts can be had for less than Losmandy G11s. The EM200s have good old-fashioned accurately machined gears and housings - giving very good unguided tracking performance. The EQ6's are, as understand it, based on the EM200s to a large degree. If you are on a tight budget the EQ6's can give surprsingly good performance (perhaps with tweaking) for the money. I own a Paramount ME, a Losmandy GM8 (and an old LX200) so I have some experience with the spectrum of mount performance. I consider the Paramount to be good value for money based on its performance - close to perfect in fact - the only criticism I can direct at it is the limited travel across the meridian. On another angle it is also hard to compare a such a revolutionary mount as the Paramount with a relatively traditional mount such as the EQ6 (ignoring Q/C or budget issues etc). I also really like the GM8's performance and use it a lot - mine tracks remarkably well. The GM8 is easy to transport, but I'd say 1500mm FL would have to be its absolute ceiling for imaging. I have experienced erratic performance in a number of other Losmandy mounts. Other experiences with Losmandy mounts have been hassle free (they vary a lot it seems too). I have witnessed a humble LX75 GEM give excellent unguided tracking with 800-1000mm focal length.
Perhaps the Chinese will offer a mount which gets closer to the Paramount in the near future? They are certainly doing it other areas such as manufacturing CNC lathes, mills etc I have seen.
cheers