Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ccd-newastro] Re: New gear??

Expand Messages
  • Neil Fleming
    I agree with Eric s comments.  On the assumption that you truly want, very flat wide-field photography , then an RC will not deliver that.  You re far
    Message 1 of 12 , May 16, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with Eric's comments.  On the assumption that you truly want, "very flat wide-field photography", then an RC will not deliver that.  You're far better off with either an FSQ 106 F/5.  You could go for a very specialized newt, with a dedicated flattenner, but you'll be talking major bucks, even more so for a Riccardi Honders which is a real light cannon.
       
      The FSQ is very easy to use, and requires no collimation or fiddling.  The relative lack of aperture can certainly be overcome with extending the amount of data you collect, and there is no difference in final resolution given the pixel scale at which you'll be imaging.  The 8300-based cameras would come best to matching the focal length for wide-field imaging.
       
      Like Eric, here are some examples.  There are certainly not my most recent work, but are still decent:
      http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/ic1805.html
      http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/ic1396.html
      http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/ngc7000.html
       
         Cheers...Neil

      www.flemingastrophotography.com 
      Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup
      Also check out the astro_narrowbandYahoo group!


      >________________________________
      >  On May 15, 2012, at 8:17 AM, echesak@... wrote:
      >
      >> I know you mentioned RC, but have you given refractors a thought?  Also, I've owned 3 G11's and loved each one.  But the MachGTO that I have now is a far superior mount.  If you're looking at the heavier scopes, I'd probably even consider an AP1200.  Don't skimp on a mount! 
      >>
      >> IMHO, putting a DSLR on some of the scopes being discussed is a little underwhelming.  If you're really planning to get into this deep (digital-wise), I'd highly recommend a Mono CCD with filter wheel. The 8300 CCD's are very popular, and priced well, but the 11K (full frame) and 16K CCD's have a much larger FOV and deeper wells.
      >>
      >> I'm not sure about your comment of service on Tak's,  TNR, here in Texas, is very responsive and will bend over backwards to help you.
      >>
      >> I own the Takahashi FSQ-106ED and an FLI Microline 11K CCD riding on a Mach1GTO. 
      >>
      >> http://smu.gs/KcDoAD
      >>
      >> These three are, IMO, the ultimate in widefield imaging. The Q is f5, 530mm with a huge, flat imaging circle & color corrected to 1000nm.  I also use it with my Canon 7D for terrestrial shots. 
      >>
      >> Here are some examples of the field of view from my set-up.  Great for nebula, not so great for Galaxies, since the FOV is fairly large.
      >>
      >> Some Astro color:
      >> http://smu.gs/Je4u15
      >>
      >> Some Asrto Mono:
      >> http://smu.gs/KcC5Sl
      >>
      >> Birding through the Tak:
      >> http://smu.gs/KcCKDd
      >>
      >> Terrestrial through the Tak:
      >> http://smu.gs/KcCV1u
      >>
      >>
      >> There's my 2-cent's worth.  Good luck,
      >>
      >> Eric
      >>
      >>
      >> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Mountain Master <rjcalliger@...> wrote:
      >>>
      >>> I'd like to get some thoughts on a new
      >>> 'scope and camera please..I am "graduating from old
      >>> Newt and film!":-)
      >>>
      >>> I am mainly interested in deep space very flat, wide field
      >>> ccd photography and will not skimp on the ccd or DSLR...maybe
      >>> a quick planet look now and then to make sure Mars
      >>> has not been sucked in a black hole..
      >>>
      >>> f/4 would be great if I did not have to buy a Tak..(I hear
      >>> the service is terrible but collimation not that necessary??)
      >>> Would like to play Hubble so RC optics is what I am shooting
      >>> at this time.
      >>>
      >>> 8-10" range..12 if not out of sight $$$-wise...fL less than
      >>> a 1000mm and of course no coma or color issues...gps and
      >>> goto would be nice but mounts can take care of that probably.
      >>>
      >>> Thanks in advance for your thoughts...I think I've
      >>> eliminated Meade and Celestron f/10s unless someone
      >>> knows a way to nicely speed them up without issues..
      >>>
      >>> I know celestron sells a reducer to bring the clestron 10 to f8
      >>> and they say f2. Anyone have experience with that?
      >>>
      >>> I am up for homebrew mods like removing the obstruction in
      >>> the meade or edg to get to f2 and putting in a camera thing...but
      >>> I am not sure what color or coma that would introduce?
      >>>
      >>> Thanks in advance for your thoughts...I am sruggling between
      >>> $6000 for a Televue 110 OTA (f5.7) with all the levers and stuff,
      >>> Edge HD with Hyperstar 9.25" (f2.3??).
      >>>
      >>> And then a 8 or 16MP to do monochrome wth filters and
      >>> then a good solid Losmanny G-11 mount but doesnt the
      >>> declination motor get in the way??
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> Rich
      >>>>
      >>>> 510 five4one ooh8four1
      >>> De oppresso liber
      >>> ______________________________________________________________
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ------------------------------------
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ron Wodaski
      I like your suggestion, Neil. I personally prefer the E180, but have also done extensive imaging with the FSQ and it s a sweet instrument. The lack of any need
      Message 2 of 12 , May 16, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I like your suggestion, Neil. I personally prefer the E180, but have also done extensive imaging with the FSQ and it's a sweet instrument. The lack of any need for collimation would be an important consideration to weigh.

        Ron Wodaski



        On May 16, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Neil Fleming wrote:

        > I agree with Eric's comments. On the assumption that you truly want, "very flat wide-field photography", then an RC will not deliver that. You're far better off with either an FSQ 106 F/5. You could go for a very specialized newt, with a dedicated flattenner, but you'll be talking major bucks, even more so for a Riccardi Honders which is a real light cannon.
        >
        > The FSQ is very easy to use, and requires no collimation or fiddling. The relative lack of aperture can certainly be overcome with extending the amount of data you collect, and there is no difference in final resolution given the pixel scale at which you'll be imaging. The 8300-based cameras would come best to matching the focal length for wide-field imaging.
        >
        > Like Eric, here are some examples. There are certainly not my most recent work, but are still decent:
        > http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/ic1805.html
        > http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/ic1396.html
        > http://www.flemingastrophotography.com/ngc7000.html
        >
        > Cheers...Neil
        >
        > www.flemingastrophotography.com
        > Direct from Boston - brilliant diamonds in pea soup
        > Also check out the astro_narrowbandYahoo group!
        >
        >
        >> ________________________________
        >> On May 15, 2012, at 8:17 AM, echesak@... wrote:
        >>
        >>> I know you mentioned RC, but have you given refractors a thought? Also, I've owned 3 G11's and loved each one. But the MachGTO that I have now is a far superior mount. If you're looking at the heavier scopes, I'd probably even consider an AP1200. Don't skimp on a mount!
        >>>
        >>> IMHO, putting a DSLR on some of the scopes being discussed is a little underwhelming. If you're really planning to get into this deep (digital-wise), I'd highly recommend a Mono CCD with filter wheel. The 8300 CCD's are very popular, and priced well, but the 11K (full frame) and 16K CCD's have a much larger FOV and deeper wells.
        >>>
        >>> I'm not sure about your comment of service on Tak's, TNR, here in Texas, is very responsive and will bend over backwards to help you.
        >>>
        >>> I own the Takahashi FSQ-106ED and an FLI Microline 11K CCD riding on a Mach1GTO.
        >>>
        >>> http://smu.gs/KcDoAD
        >>>
        >>> These three are, IMO, the ultimate in widefield imaging. The Q is f5, 530mm with a huge, flat imaging circle & color corrected to 1000nm. I also use it with my Canon 7D for terrestrial shots.
        >>>
        >>> Here are some examples of the field of view from my set-up. Great for nebula, not so great for Galaxies, since the FOV is fairly large.
        >>>
        >>> Some Astro color:
        >>> http://smu.gs/Je4u15
        >>>
        >>> Some Asrto Mono:
        >>> http://smu.gs/KcC5Sl
        >>>
        >>> Birding through the Tak:
        >>> http://smu.gs/KcCKDd
        >>>
        >>> Terrestrial through the Tak:
        >>> http://smu.gs/KcCV1u
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> There's my 2-cent's worth. Good luck,
        >>>
        >>> Eric
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Mountain Master <rjcalliger@...> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>> I'd like to get some thoughts on a new
        >>>> 'scope and camera please..I am "graduating from old
        >>>> Newt and film!":-)
        >>>>
        >>>> I am mainly interested in deep space very flat, wide field
        >>>> ccd photography and will not skimp on the ccd or DSLR...maybe
        >>>> a quick planet look now and then to make sure Mars
        >>>> has not been sucked in a black hole..
        >>>>
        >>>> f/4 would be great if I did not have to buy a Tak..(I hear
        >>>> the service is terrible but collimation not that necessary??)
        >>>> Would like to play Hubble so RC optics is what I am shooting
        >>>> at this time.
        >>>>
        >>>> 8-10" range..12 if not out of sight $$$-wise...fL less than
        >>>> a 1000mm and of course no coma or color issues...gps and
        >>>> goto would be nice but mounts can take care of that probably.
        >>>>
        >>>> Thanks in advance for your thoughts...I think I've
        >>>> eliminated Meade and Celestron f/10s unless someone
        >>>> knows a way to nicely speed them up without issues..
        >>>>
        >>>> I know celestron sells a reducer to bring the clestron 10 to f8
        >>>> and they say f2. Anyone have experience with that?
        >>>>
        >>>> I am up for homebrew mods like removing the obstruction in
        >>>> the meade or edg to get to f2 and putting in a camera thing...but
        >>>> I am not sure what color or coma that would introduce?
        >>>>
        >>>> Thanks in advance for your thoughts...I am sruggling between
        >>>> $6000 for a Televue 110 OTA (f5.7) with all the levers and stuff,
        >>>> Edge HD with Hyperstar 9.25" (f2.3??).
        >>>>
        >>>> And then a 8 or 16MP to do monochrome wth filters and
        >>>> then a good solid Losmanny G-11 mount but doesnt the
        >>>> declination motor get in the way??
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> Rich
        >>>>>
        >>>>> 510 five4one ooh8four1
        >>>> De oppresso liber
        >>>> ______________________________________________________________
        >>>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> ------------------------------------
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.