0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: I think you are right on the cost for sure Bill. For the mount, I was torn between one with and without the encoders, do you know if they make a huge different in the guiding accuracy (in other words, are they worth the cost)? |
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
DJ Van Bourgondien:Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: They eliminate backlash entirely in declination, and eliminate periodic error in RA entirely. They also provide a small amount of wind resistance but I'm not really sure that's worth the mention. With the sky modeling in their software and the encoders, unguided imaging is very feasible, and guided imaging is excellent. Without the encoders, you'd want to refresh the factory PEC curve every few years, and the modeling and guiding combo are still usable and fantastic. I do think they are worth the cost, but getting to the point where you know they will be beneficial is when you want to buy them. Right next to my pier in New Mexico is a 12.5" iDK on an 1100 without encoders, and my CDK14 on the 1100 with encoders definitely gets better tracking and guiding. Bill |
22.64
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
For you guys who are interested, I'm reading through this thread while sitting in the airport on my way to Chile. I'll take a lot of pictures and post them in another equipment "image" when I get back. There are a lot of interesting things to report about this new 24" project. BTW, it's an ASA600 on a L600 mount. There a lot of moving parts to making this all happen on a remote mountain top in Chile so I have my fingers crossed that I can get everything assembled and running in the next two weeks without encountering any show stoppers. So...stay tuned! And finally, I wish the OP the best of luck on your new project. It doesn't matter what size scope you have, setting up a new imaging system is always a challenge--and an adventure so enjoy the ride. John |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
John Hayes: Thanks John! I'm definitely looking forward to the whole journey, and definitely! Can't wait to follow the project on the new 24" scope, I'm definitely interested in seeing/hearing how it all goes! Best of luck with it all, and we'll be cheering you on from up here! |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Investing in a good mount is very important. Albeit the “First comes the mount, next comes the mount, after that comes the mount” is a fine slogan for a company that predominantly sells mounts. In my humble experience, “First comes seeing, next comes seeing, third comes seeing” seems to hold better weight. In your process of finalizing your choice, make sure the scope focal length and camera pixel size with whatever appropriate binning support your typical seeing conditions. Otherwise all that focal length / resolution will be wasted. For example, at 3910mm of the C14 and 3.76um pixels of the typical CMOS camera, you are at 0.198”/px, which is wasted even from the skies of Chile. Bin that 2x2 and you are at ~0.4”/px for which you probably need to have around 1.3-1.5” of seeing to take advantage of. Best wishes for your project!  Ani |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Ani Shastry: Roland's slogan is absolutely correct, and characterizing it as anything but, is misleading people. Sure, seeing is important, and if you want to open your wallet and enter into hosting contracts that cost a yearly sum of the mount Roland referenced, you can effectively buy seeing -- but that is not the point of what Roland suggested at all. Equally, the man is an optical genius and I am quite sure he could explain the effects of seeing on optical systems and mount systems better than anyone on this forum. Focal length and resolution are never wasted, per se, not as much as storage space is anyhow. You won't lose any information by oversampling by too much, but you won't gain any either. You most certainly will lose disk space by imaging at bin1 for example, when bin2 would net the exact same information on the chip. Chile has some pretty good seeing. I am finalizing the purchase of a 20" CDK over the next week weeks in Chile (for those interested, it is John Hayes' 20" CDK) and plan to run a QHY600M camera on that (as he did). I am quite sure that its 3454 of FL will not be "wasted" at all, as I have viewed data not only from this system, but larger ones with the same sensor, that were sampled appropriately. Bill |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Bill, we'll have to agree to disagree on the mount case. Also, are you telling me that you are binning 1x1 on the 3454mm of focal length and consistently taking advantage of that resolution? If not, you missed my point entirely. Note I said bin to the specific seeing for critical sampling. |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Ani Shastry: We do not have to agree to disagree at all. This is not about me or you. The mount is the most important part of an imaging system. That is exactly what Roland said, and it is correct. This is not something up for debate in any place I have ever entered into Astro discourse in. Why you are trying to make it out to be otherwise is beyond me. What I stated was, since reading is apparently difficult for some, is that I am purchasing a system in Chile. I do not have the system now, but have viewed Dr. Hayes' data and many others from imagers at El Sauce. Some of which are on CDK1000 systems, and none of the data is binned 2x2 and it is incredibly well sampled for the selection of data they chose to use for their integrations. That is what I said. If you are here to play a game of you are right and everyone else is wrong, with strawman arguments in your back pocket -- count me out of that entirely. I have spent far too many hours arguing with misled imagers. You know where seeing sucks and you need to bin these cameras? The United States. New Mexico, California, and Utah all have trash seeing compared to Chile. What folks do though, is buy data online from McData companies with scopes in Chile that need to sell every sub the system takes. They look at this data and call it the mark of quality for Chile. If you look at data from systems like the ones John runs, and the systems Mike Selby, for example, runs in Chile -- they produce impeccable data. That is not to say that the yield from those systems is 100%, of course it isn't. But to openly claim that is all "wasted" is silly. Do you really think Mike deployed a half million dollar telescope to waste it? Is John deploying a 24" ASA to "waste" it? No of course not. He and Mike know well enough about the site, and the quality of data that can be harvested there -- on the right systems, run by people that care and know what they are doing. Bill |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I am sorry Bill, but you are the only one here stating things as facts that can't be questioned and taking things personally. I am just stating things based on my experience; that may or may not be true for you or anyone else. I prefer to make my own judgements based on my own data and experiences vs following the herd. I have seen some data from various locations, and I am yet to see where 0.2"/px yields consistently usable resolution at 1x1 binning on a camera with 3.76um pixels. Again, that's been my experience. Maybe one day I will have a telescope at Obstech in Chile that will change my mind. But until then, I will go based on my experience. Ani |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Ani Shastry: Your experience is in Sierra Remote Observatories and Utah Desert Remote. Those are both in the United States. The US has poor seeing. I literally said this. I am not taking anything personally, I am saying that you did the following: 1. Improperly characterized Roland Christen of Astro-Physics. He has no need to convince you to buy his mounts with the slogan that you quoted as being wrong and something a mount maker would say. He sells every single one of them they make already without the need for you to ever read that. 2. Improperly made statements about Sky Quality in Chile saying that a C14 with a IMX455 or its similar pixel sized ilk was "wasted" in Chile. No, it most certainly is not. This is what happens when folks, like you, move to a site and think they know everything about imaging across the globe. I have had the fortune of working with folks in Chile, Australia, and in sites in the US like Sierra and DSW for years and years before I ever deployed a scope remotely. I have first hand experience in Animas, NM with my system I deployed there. I've seen troves of data from all over the world, and I can say with all certainty that the 2 points I called out above, which were comments and points you made -- are 100% incorrect. Bill |
|
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Bill, again, I am going to disagree with you. 1. In my experience, seeing has been king. I don't care if Roland Christen thinks mounts are #1, they are #2 compared to seeing to me. That is true for me irrespective what you claim is right or wrong. 2. I am certainly not going to bin 1x1 at 0.2"/px even in Chile as I don't see the need for it. Again, unless I see that data for myself, I am under no obligation accept what you deem as true to be true for me. Good day! Ani |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Ani Shastry: You disagree, because you don't know any better. That is perfectly fine. Offering up your perspective as truth, is not okay. That is all I wanted to make clear here for the OP. On both points you are naive, ignorant, and wrong. |
4.40
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Coming back to the topic from the OP, I think we can agree that any of the proposed setups will be oversampled for their planend location. Due to the ability to smooth or bin in post processing, and the low read noise of modern cameras, there's no image degradation because of this. Besides storage, this also costs FOV - you could use a faster system for larger FOV and "better" samping. In my limited experience with Celestron scopes, they have decent optics - but what hampers them are the mechanics. People have shown up ways to mitigate these problems which are available as ready-made kits. These will push up the price but not into CDK/iDK territory. I haven't found an image taken with the EdgeHD reducers at APS-C or beyond that doesn't show serious aberrations - it doesn't seem made for the small pixels of the modern CMOS chips. I would also want to propose another option: CFF is moving overseas from Europe this year - I would assume this means to the US, as they seem to have most of their customers there. They make very great RCs with competitive pricing. With a dedicated reducer you will have excellent field correction over more than full-frame at a speed of f/6.4 and still be well-sampled for your seeing. Or just use a corrector at f/8 for "easy mode" backspace adjustment - just hit +/- 1mm. To address some common anxieties about RCs: Most of the problems stem from the insufficiencies of the cheap GSO RCs and from the prevalence of urban myths as to the methodology to use. The CFF RCs are built to totally different standards. They are thought-through systems and there will be no tinkering necessary. SKW has changed the RC collimation game by removing the guesswork and will get you to perfection easily in a few minutes. The RCs are available with a secondary-focusing mechanism on request which gives a generous backfocus of 250mm - in hindsight, I should've chosen that instead of the excellent stock FT focuser because it prevents rotator placement. Pre- and post-sales service from CFF is the best I've experienced in the astro equipment world so far, a true pleasure. Any of the many questions I had were answered quickly, courteously and expertly by Mr. Fus even years after my purchase. This probably read like an advertisement but I really think the CFF reflectors are not widely-enough known. |
|
7.90
#...
·
|
|---|
| It does read as an advertisment. |
|
4.40
#...
·
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: Usually I‘m accused of being too negative about my purchases… |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:Ani Shastry: Actually, unlike you, I don't have a product to sell. Your ignorance and incorrectness is blatantly obvious if you think nowhere in the US has good seeing. Kindly stop with the projection, so we can provide reasonable data to the OP based on his seeing conditions. |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Ani Shastry:Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:Ani Shastry: The OP's scope decision, and mount decision has absolutely nothing to do with any products I sell. I said: New Mexico, Utah, and California have bad seeing (compared to other locations). I know reading is something people have mostly given up, but please try to at least read what other people say. You seem to continually have a problem with coherent arguments based on what people actually say. You came into this thread, and made absolutely atrocious claims. I just called them out. Either own it, or don't. I personally do not care. |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: I can agree with you on one thing, which is people seem to have given up on reading. In fact, you don’t even seem to read what you write; as quoted above, you literally said the US has poor seeing. Your entire argument in this thread has been an illogical diatribe around the mount being the most important thing and Chile have unique seeing conditions. So should we just bring the Hubble back to Chile and mount it on your favorite Astro-Physics mount because seeing is secondary to the mount? Anyway, you have veered us so off course here that there aren’t enough breadcrumbs to find a way back. I am signing off this thread at this point. |
