SynScan EQ6 vs. Losmandy

[theodog (Jeff)]

Two memories come to mind,
1. Working with Scott Alder in 1985 developing 2415 in D11, in a tent in the Warrumbulgles NP, looking for a supernova.
2. Enlarging B&W images onto large (20x24 I think) using the bath tub as a developing tray.



"Only looked at a stack of old black/white photos with some visitors the other day and they couldn't believe that we did things like that 30 odd years ago. Couldn't get over how sharp and clear the images were with home made equipment and without automatic guiding " Aster

Yep those were the days.

[montewilson (Monte)]

WRT the poll....

A Takahashi telescope on a Tasco mount will give a poor result.

A Tasco telescope on a Takahashi mount will give a much better result.

Never skimp on the mount, if you do, everything else will become irrelevant.

[tornado33]

Originally Posted by theodog

Two memories come to mind,
1. Working with Scott Alder in 1985 developing 2415 in D11, in a tent in the Warrumbulgles NP, looking for a supernova.
2. Enlarging B&W images onto large (20x24 I think) using the bath tub as a developing tray.



"Only looked at a stack of old black/white photos with some visitors the other day and they couldn't believe that we did things like that 30 odd years ago. Couldn't get over how sharp and clear the images were with home made equipment and without automatic guiding " Aster

Yep those were the days.

Ahh yes, Jeff I remember doing that "bush processing" Making the most of the gear that was available at the time. And to think the images I have sent in to IIS have all been taken on the same "ancient" gear, most of which was purchased in the 1980's.

Regarding dear v cheap mounts, the double whammy is economy of scale. A Hyaundai is so much cheaper than a Bimmer not just because it is a cheaper design, but far more of them are made for each Bimmer. Just imagine if, say as many paramount ME's were made as Hyaundai Excels. They would be made in a huge fully automated factory, by the thousands each week, and thus would probably only cost $1000 or $2000 to buy. If as many SBIG 11's were made as canon 400D's, again, they would not cost much more then a 400D.

Of course, Astrophotography, though a great hobby, isnt one that everyone does, so there will never ever be a demand for high end gear in great numbers, so it will always have to be expensively priced to be viable to build.

On mounts, if I had enough money for a SBIG 11 with the Adaptive Optics, Id get that and still use my existing mount, accurate tracking now not necessary as the AO can make far more corrections than any mount. All the mount has to do is track within the range of the AO's corrections.
Scott

[Zuts]

I also would be curious how a long focal length scope, say a C9.25, nearly 2.5 meters would go on a

EQ6, with good PE
Using an STL11000M with on axis guiding and adaptive optics

The EQ6 can certainly handle the load of a C9.25 plus one camera and with all that good SBIG gear to guide would there be any significant difference with a high range mount, say losmandy or tak?

By significant what, no difference, 1%, 10% ....
Paul

[Peter Ward]

Paul posted a good question.

Provided you can get a bright enough guide star, I suspect there would be very little difference. Guide adaptively virtually none...corrections every 1/10th of a second can tame most systems (though a systematic drift will indeed show)

Sadly nature is rarely so kind. Plus if you want to drop narrow-band filter in place, expect corrections once every 10 seconds, maybe....

Given I get to image so rarely, I rather not leave things to chance in seeking excellent results but if you want to dabble and have a bit of fun the point is probably moot at best.

Cheers
Peter

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

I have noticed over the last 12 months, with the rapidly expanding interest in Imaging, and the amount of software, cameras, mounts, etc available nowdays, I regularly see people Imaging waaaayyyy beyond the gear's capability.

It doesn't always come down to 'who's got the best mount, camera etc. It comes down to 'who has done thier best with what they've got'.

Constantly I see images better than what the users available gear should be able to do!

To me, that is Gold. And to be applauded!
I would hate to see the day come when Imaging wasn't fun for some because they don't think they have the best gear.
Crikeys, I'm still using a clapped out Toucam and I'm having a ball!!!!

Even if we did ALL have ME mounts and 18" RC's and robotics etc etc, it would still come down to the user. Having all top shelf gear doesn't mean you'll get great images. It isn't automatic. Recently (and pleasingly) it is the user outdoing their equipment

Keep pushing your gear, folks! You are doing great
NASA is Jealous

[Aster]

Originally Posted by Zuts

I also would be curious how a long focal length scope, say a C9.25, nearly 2.5 meters would go on a

EQ6, with good PE
Using an STL11000M with on axis guiding and adaptive optics

The EQ6 can certainly handle the load of a C9.25 plus one camera and with all that good SBIG gear to guide would there be any significant difference with a high range mount, say losmandy or tak?

By significant what, no difference, 1%, 10% ....
Paul

Paul

Can't tell you how the EQ6 would compare to a Losmandy with the gear you mention.

But I can tell you how much weight a EQ6 can handle, the head mounted on a pier, for DSO imaging.

EQ6, none GoTO, will carry a 300mm dia. CardBoard Forma Tube 1650mm long with a 250mm F6 (1500mm) primary. Usual 8x50 finder GSO low profile 10:1 focuser with Skywatcher Focus Motor attached. An old 80mm Unitron Spotting Scope, converted, with 3xbarlow for future auto guiding. Tube balance weights. All held on a wooden saddle which is attached to the head by a standard 400mm long dovetail. Total weight with camera attached is 18.7kg. Couterweights are extra.

After drift aligning I was able to achieve 2.5min unguided exposures. Enlarging the image on a 17" Samsung 730Bf monitor to the point were the star images deteriorated I could just make out the start of tracking error in RA.

After 4 min it became obvious that one had to alter the handcontroll to get some control over the speed in RA. After dropping the handcontrol a couple of times in the dark I am down to 30sec. without getting any drift in RA.

Good excuse to either get my electronics mate to alter the thing, or update the EQ6 mount to a GoTO version, which is supposed to have higher torque stepper motors anyway.

Hope this goes somewhere near to answering your question.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

That's a spot on observation Ken.
Doing the best you can with what you have, and enjoying it.
I've had a ball doing the "impossible", imaging with an old DV camcorder through the Dob. And I got published to boot.

[avandonk]

Peter if you saw square stars the full image was 2.2 meters across!

Quote "Bert held up some good examples, but at FL 300mm? Hardly a tracking challenge (but, sorry, the stars are square etc "

I did say really really unchallenging at a focal length of 300mm. I was having a lend of you! Sorry about the tardiness in reply but it was not really important to me to reply to in haste, to such a poorly thought out post.

Sad that you jump to such facile conclusions. Sadder still that you don't actually comprehend what others are saying let alone take it on board.

Bert

[Peter Ward]

Bert,

The stars in your Eta image (taken at 300mm) are square. They look square on my PC, Toshiba laptop and MacBook Pro. They look square if I download the image from Sydney or San Francisco (my current locale, the Napa Zinfandel is not too bad )

There is a reason for this....which I can only glean you don't get either...
or should we move onto Nyquist sampling and Bayer matrices?

By the way, at 14mm a wooden pole tracks quite well, particularly when using 15 micron pixels.

How about you shoot the same object using an EQ6 at 3000 mm (or so), a few hours would be nice. Then we can start comparing apples with apples.

Take is easy
Peter

[avandonk]

Peter I assume you are quoting knowledge of the Nyquist theorem. I am impressed!

I shall try the wooden pole! It would be far more constructive than communicating with you.

bye

[ving (David)]

hmm... holden rodeo vs lotus elise... the los doesnt carry as much apparently but the build quaility is better, the eq6 is a work horse but the quallity isnt quite as high...

that doesnt help at all

[Peter Ward]

Bert,

Nyquist sampling is the bare minimum...but you knew that ;-)

But I digress...and I'm sorry... I still can't see the point you are trying to make.

If it was in jest...then yes I missed it.

My position is straightforward. IMHO Tracking accuracy (for deep sky imaging) needs to get *considerably* better as you increase focal length.

If you disagree...then so be it. Keep posting your best image examples, I'll post mine and I'm sure people can decide for themselves which way they want to go...

For those newbies who are looking to purchase their (often limited, and hard earned) equipment dollars and still achieve high signal, low noise, deep sky images with tight, round stars, I say (and it would seem a good percentage of others) spending the $ on the mount is a good investment....

'nuff said

Peter

[avandonk]

peter you are pompous. But you knew that!

What is wrong with my LMC mosaic? Square stars too gritty!
Here again 2.4MB

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~fmlee/LMC_moshdr.jpg

Do better!



Bert

[leon]

Hmmm, very interesting thread, I will just read.

Leon

[wasyoungonce (Brendan)]

Time to subscribe to this thread

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

peter you are a pompous ars--le. But you knew that!

What is wrong with my LMC mosaic? Square stars too gritty!
Here again 2.4MB

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~fmlee/LMC_moshdr.jpg

Do better!



Bert

Great thread! Lots of heat! However, I have to say that the stars are square. To me this indicates that:
1 The guiding is good. The light from the star is pretty much focused on a single pixel.
2 The scope is not properly matched to the camera. You need the Airy disc to cover enough pixels to give a round star.
Geoff

[Prickly]

The G11 is a great mount but too pricey for many people I suspect. My view is that it should be about getting the best result with what you can afford. Theres always a more expensive mount out there.

On the topic of winning awards - if the only way to win an award is to use high end equipment then I would have to question what it is that is being awarded? Unfortunately however, often this may be the case. I think it sends a bad message though to those who may choose to submit images using cheaper equipment. (why even bother if high end equipment always wins?) To me it should be about the processing and what is being achieved with the equipment being used. Perhaps there needs to be some thought about how to compare apples with apples (different categories of awards other than based just on types of objects?).

Dont get me wrong - some of those who buy expensive equipment are really excellent at imaging, but they need to be kept on their toes and people using cheaper equipment (even achromats on chinese mounts) encouraged.

[leon]

Prickly, I reckon you nailed it and i agree, this thread is pointless, if it is going to be a bickering secession between the very experienced.

Not that i mind a good discussion, I feel too that some will be discouraged in submitting there work because it dosn't come up to standard.

Leon

[Aster]

Prickly, That was my point many messages ago. No insult or anything else towards Peter, great images and all that, But how can he even start to compare his images taken with his semi professional gear to the average amateur on this side.

I mean, his quote, " I will post mine and you post yours let the viewer decide " is in my opinion getting a bit childish. Naturally His images have to be better, otherwise what a waste. The more experienced amateur on this side would love to have Peters equipment, I am sure. But this, my images are better then yours is ludicrous.