So finally a clear night and the scope is shooting! The first light:  |
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.
Congrats!
Is your image with the 1.0x or 0.8x flattener? I haven't purchased the 0.8x flattener yet and I'm keen to see what people think of its performance.
|
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:
Is your image with the 1.0x or 0.8x flattener? I have the 1x on there at the moment. My ASI294MC was acting up (with failed exposure issue) so have to throw some of the lights out... Will stack this weekend end see how it turns out!
|
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 Niels,
you can take a look at the pictures I took recently with a setup close to what you target : https://www.astrobin.com/users/verticalmagic/
Overall I think it is a good scope, the optics is good and mechanics is good. It is probably not as sharp as higher end telescopes like Tak or Stellarvue. In Nina the typical HFR I get is 3.5 pixels, vs 2.7 for the FRA400 with same camera (IMX571 color). It is more impacted by the seeing though, the HFR can easily get to 4 with a little turbulence. So maybe not the sharpest telescope on the market but quite good for the money. The reducers/flatteners are good (I have both). The HFR you get is based in the resolving power and other things of the scope, you can’t compare the HFR from one scope to another, that’s just wrong, nir can you tell people what they should get based on your numbers, the two scopes you talk about are different sizes and focal lengths, so your HFR’s will be totally different, and then you have the seeing on top of that…what is good for one persons set up won’t necessarily be good for another person’s set up 👍🏻
|
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 in the same boat, I have a 294, and currently have a 65phq..
My next scope purchase is coming up and I'm looking at the 107PHQ, 120APO and 130PHQ.
Personally, I prefer the phq scopes, and once you add a reducer, the 107phq is cheaper, sharper, and no requirement for a flattener or backfocus adjustment..
I'll probably end up with the 130, because I want the reach..
|
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.
Alex Nicholas:
I'm in the same boat, I have a 294, and currently have a 65phq..
My next scope purchase is coming up and I'm looking at the 107PHQ, 120APO and 130PHQ.
Personally, I prefer the phq scopes, and once you add a reducer, the 107phq is cheaper, sharper, and no requirement for a flattener or backfocus adjustment..
I'll probably end up with the 130, because I want the reach.. I hesitated between the 130, the 120 and the 140. I eventually went for the 120 for 2 main reasons: - the 130 and 140 are very significantly heavier: around 10.5 kg vs 6.5 kg for the 120. This means both that they are more difficult to set up, and that they are more challenging for the mount: since I use the ZWO AM5, I would have needed the heavier PE200 instead of the lightweight PE-160 pier extension, and tracking may be much worse under less than optimal conditions. Since I leave in a city and have to set up my telescope in the countryside each time I want to image, this was a serious concern. - the numerous reviews of the 120 and they are all positive. Review of the larger Petzvals from Askar (103 PHQ, 130 PHQ or their ZWO equivalents) are more ambiguous, and some point out toward significant optical quality issues, especially with the reducers. See for instance Niko’s shootout including the 103PHQ and Lukomatico’s review of the 130 PHQ Damien
|
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.
Damien Galanaud:
Alex Nicholas:
I'm in the same boat, I have a 294, and currently have a 65phq..
My next scope purchase is coming up and I'm looking at the 107PHQ, 120APO and 130PHQ.
Personally, I prefer the phq scopes, and once you add a reducer, the 107phq is cheaper, sharper, and no requirement for a flattener or backfocus adjustment..
I'll probably end up with the 130, because I want the reach..
I hesitated between the 130, the 120 and the 140. I eventually went for the 120 for 2 main reasons:
- the 130 and 140 are very significantly heavier: around 10.5 kg vs 6.5 kg for the 120. This means both that they are more difficult to set up, and that they are more challenging for the mount: since I use the ZWO AM5, I would have needed the heavier PE200 instead of the lightweight PE-160 pier extension, and tracking may be much worse under less than optimal conditions. Since I leave in a city and have to set up my telescope in the countryside each time I want to image, this was a serious concern.
- the numerous reviews of the 120 and they are all positive. Review of the larger Petzvals from Askar (103 PHQ, 130 PHQ or their ZWO equivalents) are more ambiguous, and some point out toward significant optical quality issues, especially with the reducers. See for instance Niko’s shootout including the 103PHQ and Lukomatico’s review of the 130 PHQ
Damien yeah, though I really won't use a reducer... the 120 is considerably cheaper than the 130 though, and reports are really good. I've not seen anything on the 140, but thats a little unwieldy for my liking... I am torn between the 107phq, 120apo and 130phq 107 is cost effective enough, flat field and light weight. 120 is the cheapest by a small margin with the flattener, but requires a flattener. 130 has the 1000mm focal length and the aperture advantage... though it's heavy, long and hard to transport around... I need to think long and hard about the decision...
|
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.
AstroShed:
Hi Niels,
you can take a look at the pictures I took recently with a setup close to what you target : https://www.astrobin.com/users/verticalmagic/
Overall I think it is a good scope, the optics is good and mechanics is good. It is probably not as sharp as higher end telescopes like Tak or Stellarvue. In Nina the typical HFR I get is 3.5 pixels, vs 2.7 for the FRA400 with same camera (IMX571 color). It is more impacted by the seeing though, the HFR can easily get to 4 with a little turbulence. So maybe not the sharpest telescope on the market but quite good for the money. The reducers/flatteners are good (I have both).
The HFR you get is based in the resolving power and other things of the scope, you can’t compare the HFR from one scope to another, that’s just wrong, nir can you tell people what they should get based on your numbers, the two scopes you talk about are different sizes and focal lengths, so your HFR’s will be totally different, and then you have the seeing on top of that…what is good for one persons set up won’t necessarily be good for another person’s set up 👍🏻 Well that is not entirely true : for a perfect diffraction-limited system, the HFR is only a function of the F-number, so that you can compare the resolution between scopes of similar F-number with a perfect sky assumption. The difference between the Airy theoretical limit and the real performance says how well corrected the optics is, and one can further look at the spot diagram when available for further discussion. In practice there is always the influence of the seeing, but one can roughly estimate it. For example let us say I have a 1 arcsec seeing, that would roughly be a 1 pixel width with the 120 APO and a half pixel width with the FRA400, so I would expect a half pixel width difference due to seeing.
|
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.
AstroShed:
Hi Niels,
you can take a look at the pictures I took recently with a setup close to what you target : https://www.astrobin.com/users/verticalmagic/
Overall I think it is a good scope, the optics is good and mechanics is good. It is probably not as sharp as higher end telescopes like Tak or Stellarvue. In Nina the typical HFR I get is 3.5 pixels, vs 2.7 for the FRA400 with same camera (IMX571 color). It is more impacted by the seeing though, the HFR can easily get to 4 with a little turbulence. So maybe not the sharpest telescope on the market but quite good for the money. The reducers/flatteners are good (I have both).
The HFR you get is based in the resolving power and other things of the scope, you can’t compare the HFR from one scope to another, that’s just wrong, nir can you tell people what they should get based on your numbers, the two scopes you talk about are different sizes and focal lengths, so your HFR’s will be totally different, and then you have the seeing on top of that…what is good for one persons set up won’t necessarily be good for another person’s set up 👍🏻
Well that is not entirely true : for a perfect diffraction-limited system, the HFR is only a function of the F-number, so that you can compare the resolution between scopes of similar F-number with a perfect sky assumption. The difference between the Airy theoretical limit and the real performance says how well corrected the optics is, and one can further look at the spot diagram when available for further discussion. In practice there is always the influence of the seeing, but one can roughly estimate it. For example let us say I have a 1 arcsec seeing, that would roughly be a 1 pixel width with the 120 APO and a half pixel width with the FRA400, so I would expect a half pixel width difference due to seeing.
Ok, well you are more clued up than me, can you give me an idea of what number HFR I should be getting with an average of 2 arcsec seeing, a 550mm f5.5 scope (esprit 100) and a camera with 3.76 micron pixels..?
|
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.
So finally a clear night and the scope is shooting!
The first light:
The stacked image: https://astrob.in/v1rlhh/0/This was after just under 7 hours but I'm trying to gather some more data tonight and the next few days. It needs much more data to get all the detail out but overall I am happy with the Askar 120APO!
|
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.
AstroShed:
AstroShed:
Hi Niels,
you can take a look at the pictures I took recently with a setup close to what you target : https://www.astrobin.com/users/verticalmagic/
Overall I think it is a good scope, the optics is good and mechanics is good. It is probably not as sharp as higher end telescopes like Tak or Stellarvue. In Nina the typical HFR I get is 3.5 pixels, vs 2.7 for the FRA400 with same camera (IMX571 color). It is more impacted by the seeing though, the HFR can easily get to 4 with a little turbulence. So maybe not the sharpest telescope on the market but quite good for the money. The reducers/flatteners are good (I have both).
The HFR you get is based in the resolving power and other things of the scope, you can’t compare the HFR from one scope to another, that’s just wrong, nir can you tell people what they should get based on your numbers, the two scopes you talk about are different sizes and focal lengths, so your HFR’s will be totally different, and then you have the seeing on top of that…what is good for one persons set up won’t necessarily be good for another person’s set up 👍🏻
Well that is not entirely true : for a perfect diffraction-limited system, the HFR is only a function of the F-number, so that you can compare the resolution between scopes of similar F-number with a perfect sky assumption. The difference between the Airy theoretical limit and the real performance says how well corrected the optics is, and one can further look at the spot diagram when available for further discussion. In practice there is always the influence of the seeing, but one can roughly estimate it. For example let us say I have a 1 arcsec seeing, that would roughly be a 1 pixel width with the 120 APO and a half pixel width with the FRA400, so I would expect a half pixel width difference due to seeing.
Ok, well you are more clued up than me, can you give me an idea of what number HFR I should be getting with an average of 2 arcsec seeing, a 550mm f5.5 scope (esprit 100) and a camera with 3.76 micron pixels..? From the reviews I have seen the Esprit 100 is pretty well corrected, so I would say 2 pixels for the diffraction limit + 1 pixel for the seeing = around 3 pixels FWHM, is that what you get ? (I think the NINA "HFR" is in fact FWHM)
|
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.
AstroShed:
AstroShed:
Hi Niels,
you can take a look at the pictures I took recently with a setup close to what you target : https://www.astrobin.com/users/verticalmagic/
Overall I think it is a good scope, the optics is good and mechanics is good. It is probably not as sharp as higher end telescopes like Tak or Stellarvue. In Nina the typical HFR I get is 3.5 pixels, vs 2.7 for the FRA400 with same camera (IMX571 color). It is more impacted by the seeing though, the HFR can easily get to 4 with a little turbulence. So maybe not the sharpest telescope on the market but quite good for the money. The reducers/flatteners are good (I have both).
The HFR you get is based in the resolving power and other things of the scope, you can’t compare the HFR from one scope to another, that’s just wrong, nir can you tell people what they should get based on your numbers, the two scopes you talk about are different sizes and focal lengths, so your HFR’s will be totally different, and then you have the seeing on top of that…what is good for one persons set up won’t necessarily be good for another person’s set up 👍🏻
Well that is not entirely true : for a perfect diffraction-limited system, the HFR is only a function of the F-number, so that you can compare the resolution between scopes of similar F-number with a perfect sky assumption. The difference between the Airy theoretical limit and the real performance says how well corrected the optics is, and one can further look at the spot diagram when available for further discussion. In practice there is always the influence of the seeing, but one can roughly estimate it. For example let us say I have a 1 arcsec seeing, that would roughly be a 1 pixel width with the 120 APO and a half pixel width with the FRA400, so I would expect a half pixel width difference due to seeing.
Ok, well you are more clued up than me, can you give me an idea of what number HFR I should be getting with an average of 2 arcsec seeing, a 550mm f5.5 scope (esprit 100) and a camera with 3.76 micron pixels..?
From the reviews I have seen the Esprit 100 is pretty well corrected, so I would say 2 pixels for the diffraction limit + 1 pixel for the seeing = around 3 pixels FWHM, is that what you get ? (I think the NINA "HFR" is in fact FWHM)
Nearly every time I image and autofocus my HFR is between 2.6 and 2.9, so that seems about right…
|
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.
AstroShed:
Nearly every time I image and autofocus my HFR is between 2.6 and 2.9, so that seems about right… Astroshed, I have an Esprit 100ED and have used it with both an ASI2600MC and an ASI2600MM. What I was getting in Nina is 2.2px HFR for the color camera and 1.6px HFR for the mono camera. Pixinsight's FWHMEccentricity script is giving my master lights a FWHM: 1.7px for the mono camera in the L filter. I have a ZWO EAF and I have 3 focus steps with a step size of 45 and out backlash of 85. This consistently gives me perfect R^2 fits of 1.0.
|
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.
John Stone:
AstroShed:
Nearly every time I image and autofocus my HFR is between 2.6 and 2.9, so that seems about right…
Astroshed, I have an Esprit 100ED and have used it with both an ASI2600MC and an ASI2600MM. What I was getting in Nina is 2.2px HFR for the color camera and 1.6px HFR for the mono camera. Pixinsight's FWHMEccentricity script is giving my master lights a FWHM: 1.7px for the mono camera in the L filter.
I have a ZWO EAF and I have 3 focus steps with a step size of 45 and out backlash of 85. This consistently gives me perfect R^2 fits of 1.0. And what was your seeing, as mine is around 2”/pixel most of the time, so pretty poor.. by the look of your figures your seeing was around 1 to 1.5”/pixel…which is pretty 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.
I'm using the flattener that comes with the scope which gives me sampling of 1.41"/px so that times 1.7 px FWHM is 1.94" or nearly 2" which I take to be my local seeing.
How are you calculating a number much smaller?
|
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.
John Stone:
I'm using the flattener that comes with the scope which gives me sampling of 1.41"/px so that times 1.7 px FWHM is 1.94" or nearly 2" which I take to be my local seeing.
How are you calculating a number much smaller? I didn’t this was done for me above, by a poster in this thread….👍🏻
|
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.
The stacked image: https://astrob.in/v1rlhh/0/
This was after just under 7 hours but I'm trying to gather some more data tonight and the next few days. It needs much more data to get all the detail out but overall I am happy with the Askar 120APO! I now added some more data, 14h35m in total. https://astrob.in/v1rlhh/B/ |
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.
The stacked image: https://astrob.in/v1rlhh/0/
This was after just under 7 hours but I'm trying to gather some more data tonight and the next few days. It needs much more data to get all the detail out but overall I am happy with the Askar 120APO!
I now added some more data, 14h35m in total.
https://astrob.in/v1rlhh/B/
Looking stunning mate! My 120APO gets here tomorrow and I'm dead excited to get it out (though the forecast, as expected, is rain for the forseeable future.
|
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 Niels, I've had my 120 for a few months now, and I'm really enjoying it. This is my 2nd refractor, the 1st being a Redcat 51 II. Everything about the scope has meet my expectations, but again, I don't have much to compare it too. Here is a shot of the East Veil I took recently: https://astrob.in/5ba2za/0/ |
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 am very pleased with my Askar120 APO. I have both the .8 reducer and the 1X Flattener and now have some reasonable time with both. I can honestly say I am very glad to have the option. Here's a recent image with the 1X Flattener. https://astrob.in/ile829/0/And here's one with the .8 Reducer. https://astrob.in/o1pgtf/C/Any issues are my ham-fisted processing and not the Askar120. My scope seems very dialed in and a good example. It rides on the AM5 like a dream without counterweights and honestly, I wouldn't want to sling around anything much bigger. The 120 is a big scope.
|
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 Niels,
I've had my 120 for a few months now, and I'm really enjoying it. This is my 2nd refractor, the 1st being a Redcat 51 II. Everything about the scope has meet my expectations, but again, I don't have much to compare it too. Here is a shot of the East Veil I took recently: https://astrob.in/5ba2za/0/ That is a cracking image…👏🏻👏🏻 can I ask, first of all is the image cropped at all, and second are those Stars straight from the scope, or have they been through BlurX by any chance..? as they look perfectly shaped to me, am interested as every frac I have owned has some amount of elongated strs in the corners with a 2600 camera..
|
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.
AstroShed:
Hi Niels,
I've had my 120 for a few months now, and I'm really enjoying it. This is my 2nd refractor, the 1st being a Redcat 51 II. Everything about the scope has meet my expectations, but again, I don't have much to compare it too. Here is a shot of the East Veil I took recently: https://astrob.in/5ba2za/0/
That is a cracking image…👏🏻👏🏻
can I ask, first of all is the image cropped at all, and second are those Stars straight from the scope, or have they been through BlurX by any chance..?
as they look perfectly shaped to me, am interested as every frac I have owned has some amount of elongated strs in the corners with a 2600 camera.. Thanks. Image only lightly cropped, auto-cropped using WBPP script. I did use BlurX for the final image, but here is a FIT file converted to JPG so you can get an idea of the optical performance raw...  |
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.
AstroShed:
Hi Niels,
I've had my 120 for a few months now, and I'm really enjoying it. This is my 2nd refractor, the 1st being a Redcat 51 II. Everything about the scope has meet my expectations, but again, I don't have much to compare it too. Here is a shot of the East Veil I took recently: https://astrob.in/5ba2za/0/
That is a cracking image…👏🏻👏🏻
can I ask, first of all is the image cropped at all, and second are those Stars straight from the scope, or have they been through BlurX by any chance..?
as they look perfectly shaped to me, am interested as every frac I have owned has some amount of elongated strs in the corners with a 2600 camera..
Thanks. Image only lightly cropped, auto-cropped using WBPP script. I did use BlurX for the final image, but here is a FIT file converted to JPG so you can get an idea of the optical performance raw...
Thanks very much for that, and wow that is excellent as far as star shapes go, better than my Esprit 100, as nearly twice the price, I see some CA, but of course easily corrected and not an issue at all when mono imaging… is this at the native f7 with flattener, or with the reducer fitted…? Super, thanks..👍🏻
|
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.
Here's are some stacked masters from my Esprit 100 with both a mono APS-C camera and an APS-C OSC camera, I don't believe my star shapes are particularly bad. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1v_9pME4EA_evx6oFNm82iwqNmpddU3lz?usp=drive_linkPixinsight gives me an FWHM of ~2.0 and eccentricity of ~0.39 for the OSC data and FWHM of ~1.7 and eccentricity of ~0.4 for Mono for my images. Pixinsight measured the above Askar 120 APO image as FWHM of 4.138 and eccentricity of 0.5004. Are you seeing something different in your Esprit 100ED?
|
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.
AstroShed:
Thanks very much for that, and wow that is excellent as far as star shapes go, better than my Esprit 100, as nearly twice the price, I see some CA, but of course easily corrected and not an issue at all when mono imaging…
is this at the native f7 with flattener, or with the reducer fitted…?
Super, thanks..👍🏻
Edited about 4 hours ago Native F7 with 1.0 flattener...
|
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.
2.39
1.20
5.21
12.25
1.20
2.11
0.00
5.49
