Eta Carina new rig

[gregbradley]

Here is another.

This one taken under ideal conditions. AP140/Apogee U16M/Astronomik filters/FLI filterwheel.

About 2.25 hours.

I'll probably add some Ha and O111 from a previous imaging session to this later.

Although Eta Carina looks very nice in LRGB to me.

Getting used to these new filters. Quite different to the Astrodons.
Overall quite happy with them and especially the lack of reflection halos.

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/99869148

Greg.

[jase (Jason)]

So what's the verdict Greg? 50mm square Astrodon's or Astronomiks? The stars certainly have a lovely colour to them and no distracting/noticeable halos. I think you need a few more images under your belt to make a quantitative assessment. If you're going to get them, its usually on the blue or green filter, in particular the latter. A real test is M45.

Also, yet another lovely image. Well done. Have you measured the vignetting drop off on your flats with the AP140/field flattener and the 16803 chip. Would be interesting to compare the optical configuration with the FSQ natively. Don Goldman did some tests many months ago when the first 16803's hit the streets. He reported that with the FSQ it showed a very minor drop off of 2,500 ADU (22,000 ADU at center and 19,500 ADU in the corners). So it would seem the FSQ needs a bigger chip to push its limits. I guess with an 88mm image circle what does one expect.

[Garyh]

The large version is beautiful!
Nice and sharp, well processed!
cheers Gary

[Ric]

A fine image Greg, very sharp and detailed.

I was just looking up those Apogee cameras as I hadn't heard much about them. That was a bit of a heart starter but interesting. LOL

[Matty P (Matt)]

Lovely image Greg, vivid colour and lots of detail.

Very well done.

[gregbradley]

Hi Jase,

I haven't quantified it but the AP has an extremly large corrected field and no hint of vignetting or very very little. Flats look a little different since I added the mask Apogee sent but overall quite even. In a bias frame it looks like it has a glow on either side of the chip but that doesn't come through in any images.

I like this chip. It is going to be tough on your optics setup and whether everything is orthogonal or not.

The filters seems good. Main bummer is their thickness - only 1mm. I currently have mine taped in position with electrical tape and small pieces of foam resting on the corners of the filters! So Astronomik has been slack in not providing a spacer kit like they do with the 50mm round.

I am also looking to buy some of the new Baader filters if they will sell them!! Man they make it hard to buy off them.

Yes I was thrilled about the lack of halos. That has been a big issue with some filters. Astrodons were the worst. I saw some shockers. Even the new Gen 2 supposedly non reflective filters still give unnacceptable halos.

Lets face it, we spend a fortune on scopes that have fine differences, a fortune on cameras that have the highest specs and then waste the image due to halos from filters- its not on.

Greg.

Originally Posted by jase

So what's the verdict Greg? 50mm square Astrodon's or Astronomiks? The stars certainly have a lovely colour to them and no distracting/noticeable halos. I think you need a few more images under your belt to make a quantitative assessment. If you're going to get them, its usually on the blue or green filter, in particular the latter. A real test is M45.

Also, yet another lovely image. Well done. Have you measured the vignetting drop off on your flats with the AP140/field flattener and the 16803 chip. Would be interesting to compare the optical configuration with the FSQ natively. Don Goldman did some tests many months ago when the first 16803's hit the streets. He reported that with the FSQ it showed a very minor drop off of 2,500 ADU (22,000 ADU at center and 19,500 ADU in the corners). So it would seem the FSQ needs a bigger chip to push its limits. I guess with an 88mm image circle what does one expect.

[jase (Jason)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Lets face it, we spend a fortune on scopes that have fine differences, a fortune on cameras that have the highest specs and then waste the image due to halos from filters- its not on.

I hear you Greg and concur. 'bout time vendors stepped up. Hey, if we can put a man on the moon, surely we can develop an appropriate coating/technology to mitigate halos/reflections.

The mask you talk about. I've heard of this, but have never seen it. Please explain...thanks.

Cheers,
Jase

[gregbradley]

The mask is a thin piece of blackened aluminium that is fixed in place between the opening of the camera and shutter. It has a cutout in it which is just slightly bigger than the chip.

The idea is to block out unnecessary light entering the CCD chamber where it can reflect off of shiny bits and pieces and then bounce off the flattener which almost all scopes will require with this chip except for RCs that are not using a flattener (a lot do).

Greg.

[Robert_T]

Beautiful deep image Greg, stars are so fine they really give and impression of dust. Impressive

[skeltz (Rob)]

Lovely image greg lovely,as for the filters i myself am going to put my 2 inch Astronomiks back into my stl.
So much money for astrodons and so much disappointment
cheers