My ASKAR120apo in that case of use a 2600mc camera, the star point is large, and detection by an astronomical box is usually about 4 pixel, and the star point average size is about 3.2 pixel even at the best sight. I don't think this should happen. I need some other user data to compare and communicate with the official customer service. If anyone has some information I need, please let me know. Thank you very much
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
At f/7 it is normal to have a FWHM of that size given that the scope is a refractor. And the seeing isn't that great.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Ming,
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Welcome to the reality of astrophotography.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Adam Cox:
Hi Ming,
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam I am about the same with the 2600mc. My focus changes more than my 80ED did so an Electronic focuser is needed.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I'm also at around 3" on my 120APO with 1x flattener and 294MC. On good seeing it is around 2.7" at best, bad seeing it gets to 4".
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference. But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Adam Cox:
Hi Ming,
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam
I am about the same with the 2600mc. My focus changes more than my 80ED did so an Electronic focuser is needed.
I use pixinsight the actual detected FWHM is about 7, and the guidance star and the vision on that day are both very good
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
MING ZIWEN:
Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box What is your Median FWHM if you check your subs with Subframe Selector? Or when you run the script "FWHMEccentricity"? To be honest I do not know what you want to say with "astronomical box".
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
MING ZIWEN:
Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box *Can you post a screenshot of a star field at full resolution. That should clarify where you are.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
MING ZIWEN:
I use pixinsight the actual detected FWHM is about 7, and the guidance star and the vision on that day are both very good I do not use PI atm. I watch it in NINA and the numbers are similar in Siril and APP.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Tobiasz:
MING ZIWEN:
Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box
What is your Median FWHM if you check your subs with Subframe Selector? Or when you run the script "FWHMEccentricity"? To be honest I do not know what you want to say with "astronomical box". the midian FWHM is 7.5. And the astronomical box is ASIAIR
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
If you suspect the optics why not do a star test, that will tell you a lot and is easier than ever to do it digitally.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
MING ZIWEN:
the midian FWHM is 7.5.
And the astronomical box is ASIAIR *That's pretty bad if this is the best you can achieve. I'd certainly return the scope if that would be the case.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
OKeveryone I use the pixinsight did a test in. Here's the test report  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
That's great but posting a full resolution sub frame would tell us a lot more.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
0.00
9.89
1.20
8.11
0.00
2.11
2.39
