Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options. 2400 is the dream match for SCT's. I don't want any other sensor so I'm going the CFA delete route on mine.
|
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.
Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options.
2400 is the dream match for SCT's. I don't want any other sensor so I'm going the CFA delete route on mine.
To be honest, OSC camera is never good match for long FL scope. Resolution is compromised. Then, what is point for long FL? Clear Skies!
|
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.
AnaTa:
Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options.
I think the best way is F10, conventional qhy268 camera and 2x2 binning (Qhy is excellent for binning). Clear Skies! The 2400 bin 2 will give you 400ke full well, and is better natively sampled. Only downside is that it's color stock.
|
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.
AnaTa:
Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options.
I think the best way is F10, conventional qhy268 camera and 2x2 binning (Qhy is excellent for binning). Clear Skies!
The 2400 bin 2 will give you 400ke full well, and is better natively sampled. Only downside is that it's color stock.
Yes, but it will be too much for resolution. We want to keep 0.5-0.7”/pixel for good resolution and proper utilization of long FL scopes. Clear Skies!
|
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.
AnaTa:
Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options.
2400 is the dream match for SCT's. I don't want any other sensor so I'm going the CFA delete route on mine.
To be honest, OSC camera is never good match for long FL scope. Resolution is compromised. Then, what is point for long FL? Clear Skies! This is why we use CFA drizzle 😆
|
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.
AnaTa:
AnaTa:
Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options.
I think the best way is F10, conventional qhy268 camera and 2x2 binning (Qhy is excellent for binning). Clear Skies!
The 2400 bin 2 will give you 400ke full well, and is better natively sampled. Only downside is that it's color stock.
Yes, but it will be too much for resolution. We want to keep 0.5-0.7”/pixel for good resolution and proper utilization of long FL scopes. Clear Skies! I use the 2400 on my 8HD with great results, then again my seeing is ~1.2-1.6" average.
|
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.
AnaTa:
Charles Tremblay-Darveau:
I was thinking doing the same and match it with the 2400mc. The other option was to use the starizona f/7 reducer with the non-edge 9.25 and a crop sensor. I'm still kinda split between the two options.
2400 is the dream match for SCT's. I don't want any other sensor so I'm going the CFA delete route on mine.
To be honest, OSC camera is never good match for long FL scope. Resolution is compromised. Then, what is point for long FL? Clear Skies!
This is why we use CFA drizzle 😆
These are artificial means, which will improve results, but not match results with reasonably low image scale.
|
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.
Fireworks Galaxy. https://astrob.in/8q3tv1/B/I have mostly been using the x0.7 reducer, but I do have one image taken at the native focal length. I may switch back to imaging without the focal reducer when galaxy season starts up again  I've only had this scope for 6 months so am still learning the best way to use it. The image I've shared for you is taken with a small sensor camera - the ASi294MC Pro which is a 2x2 binned camera by default. More recently though I've been using a full frame camera (ASI6200) and found coma and elongated stars in the corners, especially using the x0.7 reducer. A full frame camera really puts this scope to the test. I use BlurXterminator to fix it though, so my images turn out OK. Here's a thought about imaging with or without the focal reducer - I'd be very interested to hear what others think about this: The question: On paper, the higher focal length should yield a higher resolution image. But in practice, can I really achieve a sharp, crisp image at that image resolution? I'll get an image faster at F7 than F10, and if I can't practically achieve the theoretical resolution due to blur from seeing conditions and guiding performance, why bother? Why not just settle for always imaging with the reducer? Clear Skies, Chris
|
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.
Chris Ashford:
Fireworks Galaxy. https://astrob.in/8q3tv1/B/
I have mostly been using the x0.7 reducer, but I do have one image taken at the native focal length. I may switch back to imaging without the focal reducer when galaxy season starts up again
I've only had this scope for 6 months so am still learning the best way to use it. The image I've shared for you is taken with a small sensor camera - the ASi294MC Pro which is a 2x2 binned camera by default. More recently though I've been using a full frame camera (ASI6200) and found coma and elongated stars in the corners, especially using the x0.7 reducer. A full frame camera really puts this scope to the test. I use BlurXterminator to fix it though, so my images turn out OK.
Here's a thought about imaging with or without the focal reducer - I'd be very interested to hear what others think about this:
The question:
On paper, the higher focal length should yield a higher resolution image. But in practice, can I really achieve a sharp, crisp image at that image resolution? I'll get an image faster at F7 than F10, and if I can't practically achieve the theoretical resolution due to blur from seeing conditions and guiding performance, why bother? Why not just settle for always imaging with the reducer?
Clear Skies, Chris Resolution is defined by many factors. In my opinion, image scale and seeing are most important. I have seen pictures where 130mm Tak almost the same as 11 SCT. The best way to achieve 0.4-0.7”/pixel image scale is long FL and large pixels. Increased sensitivity and resolution.
|
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.
AnaTa:
Chris Ashford:
Fireworks Galaxy. https://astrob.in/8q3tv1/B/
I have mostly been using the x0.7 reducer, but I do have one image taken at the native focal length. I may switch back to imaging without the focal reducer when galaxy season starts up again
I've only had this scope for 6 months so am still learning the best way to use it. The image I've shared for you is taken with a small sensor camera - the ASi294MC Pro which is a 2x2 binned camera by default. More recently though I've been using a full frame camera (ASI6200) and found coma and elongated stars in the corners, especially using the x0.7 reducer. A full frame camera really puts this scope to the test. I use BlurXterminator to fix it though, so my images turn out OK.
Here's a thought about imaging with or without the focal reducer - I'd be very interested to hear what others think about this:
The question:
On paper, the higher focal length should yield a higher resolution image. But in practice, can I really achieve a sharp, crisp image at that image resolution? I'll get an image faster at F7 than F10, and if I can't practically achieve the theoretical resolution due to blur from seeing conditions and guiding performance, why bother? Why not just settle for always imaging with the reducer?
Clear Skies, Chris
Resolution is defined by many factors. In my opinion, image scale and seeing are most important. I have seen pictures where 130mm Tak almost the same as 11 SCT. The best way to achieve 0.4-0.7”/pixel image scale is long FL and large pixels. Increased sensitivity and resolution. Yes - me too. It’s usually a Tak or a Stellarvue scope - I think the quality of the lens glass/manufacture also has something to do with it.
|
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.
Chris Ashford:
AnaTa:
Chris Ashford:
Fireworks Galaxy. https://astrob.in/8q3tv1/B/
I have mostly been using the x0.7 reducer, but I do have one image taken at the native focal length. I may switch back to imaging without the focal reducer when galaxy season starts up again
I've only had this scope for 6 months so am still learning the best way to use it. The image I've shared for you is taken with a small sensor camera - the ASi294MC Pro which is a 2x2 binned camera by default. More recently though I've been using a full frame camera (ASI6200) and found coma and elongated stars in the corners, especially using the x0.7 reducer. A full frame camera really puts this scope to the test. I use BlurXterminator to fix it though, so my images turn out OK.
Here's a thought about imaging with or without the focal reducer - I'd be very interested to hear what others think about this:
The question:
On paper, the higher focal length should yield a higher resolution image. But in practice, can I really achieve a sharp, crisp image at that image resolution? I'll get an image faster at F7 than F10, and if I can't practically achieve the theoretical resolution due to blur from seeing conditions and guiding performance, why bother? Why not just settle for always imaging with the reducer?
Clear Skies, Chris
Resolution is defined by many factors. In my opinion, image scale and seeing are most important. I have seen pictures where 130mm Tak almost the same as 11 SCT. The best way to achieve 0.4-0.7”/pixel image scale is long FL and large pixels. Increased sensitivity and resolution.
Yes - me too. It’s usually a Tak or a Stellarvue scope - I think the quality of the lens glass/manufacture also has something to do with it. Definitely! Awesome quality. I have Epsilon, and I am happy bunny.
|
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.
Chris Ashford:
The question:
On paper, the higher focal length should yield a higher resolution image. But in practice, can I really achieve a sharp, crisp image at that image resolution? I'll get an image faster at F7 than F10, and if I can't practically achieve the theoretical resolution due to blur from seeing conditions and guiding performance, why bother? Why not just settle for always imaging with the reducer? I've imaged with the reducer for over a year with ASI533MM/MC and later ASI2600MM-Duo cameras, 3.76 µm pixels. I would be lucky to get less than 2.5" FWHM. Sometimes, if a target was high in the sky. (Value from PixInsight FWHM script on the auto-cropped L master Light.) I've now done two galaxy images without the reducer, and got 2.05" and 2.15", on PGC 120 and NGC 1961 respectively. The latter doesn't get above 60° altitude from my location. A quick one on planetary nebula NGC 40, also low-ish altitude, got 2.40". Only three data points, and had some good seeing. But still, sharpest galaxy images ever, twice in a row? @OklahomAstro pointed out that the Celestron reducer has not had any optical improvements in a long time, and may not be delivering the theoretical resolution. I don't think you need to increase exposure times so much. With the same exposure time, it's the same number of photons from the target hitting the sensor, so theoretically the same amount of information. SNR will be lower (30% in theory), but the de-noise algorithm will have twice as many pixels to work from. The final result may not suffer as much as you expect. You can do longer subs since the target and sky background are half intensity. I will continue to do projects without the reducer, and see if I just got lucky. I have yet to do the same target with and without the reducer, so I don't have a good comparison.
|
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.
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM, which is absurdly good, ASI2400 is a little less fussy with the seeing thanks to the 5.94um pixel.
Plus the 100Ke- native full well makes for extremely crispy M42 data without having to do any HDR, just 30s exposures at G0 and you're good to go.
That reminds me of my project on that which I should be starting soon, so 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.
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM Wow, Oklahoma sky!
|
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.
Bill Dirks:
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM
Wow, Oklahoma sky! Great seeing. I don’t average that even on 1 meter mirror telescope in Chile. It tells that your seeing on average is 1-1.2”. Do you think I believe it?!
|
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.
AnaTa:
Bill Dirks:
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM
Wow, Oklahoma sky!
Great seeing. I don’t average that even on 1 meter mirror telescope in Chile. It tells that your seeing on average is 1-1.2”. Do you think I believe it?! Chile is taking advantage of reduced airmass vs atmospheric deadzones like OK is- After storms pass through typically, our skies become absurdly clear and insanely stable despite being at 400m altitude. I'd totally love to get a big scope down here in a permenant observatory, but tornadoes being as common as they are, insurance would be a massive pain in the glass. It also helps I have a smaller scope, seeing is numbed for the most part on scopes under 10" Lowest I've seen naturally was 0.9", I can also artificially induce an average of 1.2-1.4" using an IR pass filter on bad nights when the seeing is above 1.8".
|
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.
AnaTa:
Bill Dirks:
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM
Wow, Oklahoma sky!
Great seeing. I don’t average that even on 1 meter mirror telescope in Chile. It tells that your seeing on average is 1-1.2”. Do you think I believe it?!
Chile is taking advantage of reduced airmass vs atmospheric deadzones like OK is- After storms pass through typically, our skies become absurdly clear and insanely stable despite being at 400m altitude.
I'd totally love to get a big scope down here in a permenant observatory, but tornadoes being as common as they are, insurance would be a massive pain in the glass.
It also helps I have a smaller scope, seeing is numbed for the most part on scopes under 10"
Lowest I've seen naturally was 0.9", I can also artificially induce an average of 1.2-1.4" using an IR pass filter on bad nights when the seeing is above 1.8".
Interesting! 🧐 I never thought that seeing could be so good anywhere in Oklahoma. I also used Sloan I filter for for reducing seeing. It is just not clear whether Sloan-I should be R or Lum. You could see those pictures on my AstroBin site. I had couple below 2” FWHM nights (see PN pictures), but it is once-twice a year.
|
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.
AnaTa:
AnaTa:
Bill Dirks:
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM
Wow, Oklahoma sky!
Great seeing. I don’t average that even on 1 meter mirror telescope in Chile. It tells that your seeing on average is 1-1.2”. Do you think I believe it?!
Chile is taking advantage of reduced airmass vs atmospheric deadzones like OK is- After storms pass through typically, our skies become absurdly clear and insanely stable despite being at 400m altitude.
I'd totally love to get a big scope down here in a permenant observatory, but tornadoes being as common as they are, insurance would be a massive pain in the glass.
It also helps I have a smaller scope, seeing is numbed for the most part on scopes under 10"
Lowest I've seen naturally was 0.9", I can also artificially induce an average of 1.2-1.4" using an IR pass filter on bad nights when the seeing is above 1.8".
Interesting! 🧐 I never thought that seeing could be so good anywhere in Oklahoma. I also used Sloan I filter for for reducing seeing. It is just not clear whether Sloan-I should be R or Lum. You could see those pictures on my AstroBin site. I had couple below 2” FWHM nights (see PN pictures), but it is once-twice a year. When I use my IR filter I am either adding the IR to R when doing some galaxies and nebulae, or assigning it as R in an IRG pallette. OK and Texas have pretty good seeing, Kansas a little less due to inflow from the rockies. Colorado is a no-go, I've never seen anything below 2.5" there.
|
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 the western end of the Panhandle in OK is a great dark site, Black Mesa State Park. …and not too far from there is Clayton Lake State Park, NM which is another great dark camping site. What's this California boy doing there? …I drive my van to Dallas once a year to see friends and always travel with my scopes.
|
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 Favalessa:
At the western end of the Panhandle in OK is a great dark site, Black Mesa State Park. ...and not too far from there is Clayton Lake State Park, NM which is another great dark camping site. What's this California boy doing there? ...I drive my van to Dallas once a year to see friends and always travel with my scopes. It is Okie-Tex star party site. It is great darkness-wise but not seeing-wise. To be honest, I am very much surprised to claim that some place in OK has seeing matching Atacama Desert. Amazing!
|
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.
AnaTa:
AnaTa:
Bill Dirks:
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM
Wow, Oklahoma sky!
Great seeing. I don’t average that even on 1 meter mirror telescope in Chile. It tells that your seeing on average is 1-1.2”. Do you think I believe it?!
Chile is taking advantage of reduced airmass vs atmospheric deadzones like OK is- After storms pass through typically, our skies become absurdly clear and insanely stable despite being at 400m altitude.
I'd totally love to get a big scope down here in a permenant observatory, but tornadoes being as common as they are, insurance would be a massive pain in the glass.
It also helps I have a smaller scope, seeing is numbed for the most part on scopes under 10"
Lowest I've seen naturally was 0.9", I can also artificially induce an average of 1.2-1.4" using an IR pass filter on bad nights when the seeing is above 1.8".
Interesting! 🧐 I never thought that seeing could be so good anywhere in Oklahoma. I also used Sloan I filter for for reducing seeing. It is just not clear whether Sloan-I should be R or Lum. You could see those pictures on my AstroBin site. I had couple below 2” FWHM nights (see PN pictures), but it is once-twice a year.
When I use my IR filter I am either adding the IR to R when doing some galaxies and nebulae, or assigning it as R in an IRG pallette.
OK and Texas have pretty good seeing, Kansas a little less due to inflow from the rockies. Colorado is a no-go, I've never seen anything below 2.5" there.
I am from Texas and know seeing of many locations from Big Bend to Mason-Brady. There are locations with good seeing in Texas, but not even close to the Atacama Desert.
|
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.
AnaTa:
AnaTa:
AnaTa:
Bill Dirks:
On the 2400 with no reducer on my C8HD I average about 1.5" FWHM
Wow, Oklahoma sky!
Great seeing. I don’t average that even on 1 meter mirror telescope in Chile. It tells that your seeing on average is 1-1.2”. Do you think I believe it?!
Chile is taking advantage of reduced airmass vs atmospheric deadzones like OK is- After storms pass through typically, our skies become absurdly clear and insanely stable despite being at 400m altitude.
I'd totally love to get a big scope down here in a permenant observatory, but tornadoes being as common as they are, insurance would be a massive pain in the glass.
It also helps I have a smaller scope, seeing is numbed for the most part on scopes under 10"
Lowest I've seen naturally was 0.9", I can also artificially induce an average of 1.2-1.4" using an IR pass filter on bad nights when the seeing is above 1.8".
Interesting! 🧐 I never thought that seeing could be so good anywhere in Oklahoma. I also used Sloan I filter for for reducing seeing. It is just not clear whether Sloan-I should be R or Lum. You could see those pictures on my AstroBin site. I had couple below 2” FWHM nights (see PN pictures), but it is once-twice a year.
When I use my IR filter I am either adding the IR to R when doing some galaxies and nebulae, or assigning it as R in an IRG pallette.
OK and Texas have pretty good seeing, Kansas a little less due to inflow from the rockies. Colorado is a no-go, I've never seen anything below 2.5" there.
I am from Texas and know seeing of many locations from Big Bend to Mason-Brady. There are locations with good seeing in Texas, but not even close to the Atacama Desert. It might help the most that OK is a meteorological deadzone when theres no storms, zero jetstream.
|
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.
For anyone using a C925EdgeHD, I highly recommend the Moonlite CHL focuser over any of the ones that attach to the focus knob. The CHL is inline with your imaging train and you keep your primary mirror locked down. With no mirror flop and precise autofocus, you'll get the lowest HFR values you can. I know there's a price jump, but it's worth it. If you are even less price sensitive, the Moonlite Nightcrawler with focuser and rotator together gives another performance level yet. Moonlite is made in the USA and make a well-designed sturdy product with easy to use ASCOM drivers and their own focuser app which give few problems. I've been running the CHL for 4-5 years now with little troubleshooting. It will work with the scope with or without the reducer though some extensions may be needed to change back and forth. A plus vote from me!
John
|
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.
5.08
3.34
0.90
1.20
13.55
1.81
