Posted 04 September 2013 - 06:57 PM
Posted 04 September 2013 - 07:00 PM
If I get those two things right, my gotos are well within 20% of the center of my 11mm Nagler. And if I need dead-center tracking, I just sync to that object.
Good enough for me.
Posted 04 September 2013 - 07:00 PM
I only want to get the double in the field, I don't do position measurements. :-)
Precise goto will get you where you need to be without having to buy anything.
As soon as C integrates the starsense with the precise goto function it will be automatic. Then I'd buy the Starsense.
Posted 04 September 2013 - 09:26 PM
I meant arcmin, of course. 30 arcsecs is the separation of Albireo... I only want to get the double in the field, I don't do position measurements. :-)
I don't know about this rig you are using, a Vixen with somebody's motor control board that allows you to use the NexStar HC, but Celestron's mounts will EASILY get your target in the field of such a small wide field scope if the alignment is done correctly.
Posted 04 September 2013 - 10:11 PM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:00 AM
He's using the ASI120 which has a teeny tiny chip (probably equal to or smaller than a Mallincam chip). I think his problem is more of the soft ground (yes, wood under the tripod tips would help) and maybe not using UP and RIGHT for all final alignment corrections.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 08:43 AM
Um, I have to dispute this claim "Celestron still has no competition...".
My LX850 provides excellent gotos (i.e. spot on), and I am pretty certain the same is true for the LX600. Like I said, once I am back home in New Mexico I will use my MallinCam to show how good the Meade setup is.
I cannot speak for all the other Meade units, but I simply have wonderful gotos on my LX200 and LXD75, though qualitatively speaking the LX850/LX600 are better. This is also one of many reasons I chose Celestron over Meade.
I have to agree. I've used both systems and Meade is way ahead of Celestron on ease of alignment and even the fine tuning process. Meade's Easy Align uses two stars that the GPS finds for you and it is as accurate as Celestron's 2+4 system..
Celestron is a popular option for refractors and why they can't simply their alignment process and make it more like Meade's is beyond me.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 09:58 AM
The other part is that for a _GEM_, a two-star alignment really doesn't work worth a frak.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:02 AM
Posted 12 September 2013 - 08:17 AM
Two days ago one of the rays that sustain the accessory tray broke, so I suspect the crack caused lack of rigidity.
Repaired in time for a quick check, now I can have the pointed object within 10 arcmin from the center of the eyepiece.
Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:03 AM
Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:24 PM
Posted 12 September 2013 - 10:25 PM
With a reticle ep for alignments I can get my mount set-up for a visual run easily. When imaging I use a camera and zoom the live view to the maximum to center alignment stars. Hey, it works!
Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:09 PM
Beware to use full CCD resolution; most drivers use the upper-left frame only. For example if your camera has a 1280x1024 pixels and you select 640x480, you bet those pixels aren't in the center of your imaging area.
The result is, if you use a flip mirror, you could see the star not in the center of your eyepiece! Or, if you align based on 640x480 setup, it's like to align with the star not in the dead center of your eyepiece -- you can imagine the effect on pointing precision.
Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:03 AM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:23 AM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:25 AM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:47 AM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 09:53 AM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:33 AM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:45 AM
Have you tried to buy a new AP handcontroller........1000 bucks! Retail....I can buy a new Celestron handcontroller....100 bucks...
Please don't move to have me executed!!! Imaging how good drivers etc would get when the software guys would only have to bother with ONE set of drivers for everyone..
I have owned AP, Bisque and Celestron, and quite frankly the Celestron HC is the most intuitive and full featured...
Just my opinion, let the arguments begin!
Posted 13 October 2013 - 01:32 PM
Posted 13 October 2013 - 03:24 PM
Does anyone have experience and knows how good is pointing accuracy with a EQ6 PRO+C11 at ~100x magnification with firmware 3.35 on both sides of the meridian?
I have not had the opportunity to try 3.35, but the previous version would, with a decent (polar scope) polar alignment, put anything I requested in the field at this magnification. IF...
The secret is giving the SynScan the alignment stars it needs. The suggestions in the manual are more than that:
Stars 1 and 2 should be separated by at least 3-hours of right ascension. Also, try to pick two that are at least 20-degrees apart in declination, but separation in RA is more important.
Star 3 needs to be within a declination range of 30 and 70 degrees north and south.
More recent SynScan firmware is better at offering choices of alignment stars that fulfill the above, but still don't just blindly accept the first stars offered unless they do.