CLOUDY NIGHTS FORUM ARCHIVES
"Live Forums" can be found here: Live Forums


Equipment Discussions >> Mounts

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Strgazr27



Reged: 10/04/04
Posts: 7104
Loc: StonyHill Observatory
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: yg1968]
      #2768611 - 11/24/08 08:33 PM

Quote:

The C11 is a light bucket and there is something to be said for that. My best images have been taken with the C11. So I am partial to keep it and using it. Although I also like my C6. It's nice to have options!




Try shooting with the 11 at f/6.3 and compare your background levels. I think you'll be surprised to see the 6.3 images show a better SNR than at f/10. Your spreading more of the light over a given pixel. Yes the image scale will be a bit smaller but your guiding will be better and your exposure length may be able to be shortened up a bit compared to f/10. If the guiding is better than the 6.3 image can easily be cropped to bring up the image scale.

--------------------
Bobby

http://www.strgazr27.zenfolio.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter in Reno
Post Laureate


Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 4566
Loc: Reno, NV
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: Strgazr27]
      #2768745 - 11/24/08 09:52 PM

I spoke to Celestron about the dent on my scope and they authorized a return for repair/replacement. I also told them that the scope looked out of collimation and I tried to re-collimate but was unsuccessfull probably because of the dent on the aluminum tube. They told me never touch the collimation screws because it's already collimnated from the factory. I find that odd since the instruction manual mentioned collimation instructions.

Peter

--------------------
Astro-Physics Mach1GTO GEM
Celestron 8" EdgeHD OTA
Atik 460EX mono CCD camera
SX 7 position 36mm filter wheel
Astrodon 36mm LRGB, Ha 5nm, OIII 5nm, SII 5nm
Lodestar autoguider
Hutech OAG with Helical focuser
SXVR-M25C CCD color camera
Nagler 31mm, Ethos 13mm & 8mm
Peter's Galleries



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter in Reno
Post Laureate


Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 4566
Loc: Reno, NV
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: yg1968]
      #2768754 - 11/24/08 09:56 PM

Quote:

Personally I also have a C6 in addition to the C11. But the problem is that the time of exposure must be much longer with the C6 than the C11.




Both C6 and C11 have same F/10 focal ratio and the exposure times should be similar. The C-11 has more light gathering power and reveal dimmer images but I believe the exposure should be the same as C-6 due to same focal ratio. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Peter

--------------------
Astro-Physics Mach1GTO GEM
Celestron 8" EdgeHD OTA
Atik 460EX mono CCD camera
SX 7 position 36mm filter wheel
Astrodon 36mm LRGB, Ha 5nm, OIII 5nm, SII 5nm
Lodestar autoguider
Hutech OAG with Helical focuser
SXVR-M25C CCD color camera
Nagler 31mm, Ethos 13mm & 8mm
Peter's Galleries



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter in Reno
Post Laureate


Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 4566
Loc: Reno, NV
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: Peter in Reno]
      #2768788 - 11/24/08 10:19 PM

This is still bugging me since I started this thread. I have a very rock solid equipment including ADM Losmandy dovetail, saddle, mini-dovetail and clam shell tube rings for guide scope. Where the hell is the flex coming from?

We have not mentioned the durability of Celestron aluminum tubes. How thick are these tubes? What if the flexure is coming from C-11 aluminum tubes? The front bezel and rear cell are pretty heavy and can put some stress on aluminum tubes. Can top and bottom dovetail plates which connect front bezel and rear cell cause stress on aluminum tubes? Would tube rings supporting C-11 aluminum tubes be better if they are available?

So many variables.

Peter

--------------------
Astro-Physics Mach1GTO GEM
Celestron 8" EdgeHD OTA
Atik 460EX mono CCD camera
SX 7 position 36mm filter wheel
Astrodon 36mm LRGB, Ha 5nm, OIII 5nm, SII 5nm
Lodestar autoguider
Hutech OAG with Helical focuser
SXVR-M25C CCD color camera
Nagler 31mm, Ethos 13mm & 8mm
Peter's Galleries



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AlexDJ30
sage


Reged: 09/02/08
Posts: 405
Loc: Monterrey, Mexico
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: Peter in Reno]
      #2768813 - 11/24/08 10:35 PM

I still think the atlas yes is for 40 lbs payload, but like many said its for visual use, photography is another ball and like many said you should lower ther weight on the atlas. Maybe you can try with a lower OTA (If you have a C6 try with it) and compare the results if the flexture is still there then is something on the mount or how you balance or something else, if the flexture is gone now you know that is the C11 weight plus all the accesories.

--------------------
Equipment:
- ETX 125 AT
- C6 ASGT
- WO 66mm SD
- 2.5X ED Barlow, 8-24mm Zoom Eyepice
- Canon EOS Rebel XSi
- Celestron Nextimagen
- Orion Starshoot CCD cam


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 10/12/07
Posts: 1781
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: Peter in Reno]
      #2768969 - 11/24/08 11:49 PM

Quote:

I have a very rock solid equipment including ADM Losmandy dovetail, saddle, mini-dovetail and clam shell tube rings for guide scope. Where the hell is the flex coming from?





Refractors have long aluminum tubes and they do ok with guidescopes. SCT's and RC's have two mirrors on supports, and they have flexure issues. The primary mirror is big and heavy, and it only has to tilt by microns or less to show a shift on the scale of pixels at f/10. Even with mirror locks it's hard to make a big mirror remain perfectly oriented to that level of precision as the OTA tracks the sky and the direction of gravity changes. For a c11 with no mirror locks, it will definitely have issues.

With OAG - it's just not an issue anymore.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Peter in Reno
Post Laureate


Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 4566
Loc: Reno, NV
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: freestar8n]
      #2768999 - 11/25/08 12:10 AM

Quote:

Refractors have long aluminum tubes and they do ok with guidescopes. SCT's and RC's have two mirrors on supports, and they have flexure issues. The primary mirror is big and heavy, and it only has to tilt by microns or less to show a shift on the scale of pixels at f/10. Even with mirror locks it's hard to make a big mirror remain perfectly oriented to that level of precision as the OTA tracks the sky and the direction of gravity changes. For a c11 with no mirror locks, it will definitely have issues.

With OAG - it's just not an issue anymore.

Frank




Makes sense.

Thanks,
Peter

--------------------
Astro-Physics Mach1GTO GEM
Celestron 8" EdgeHD OTA
Atik 460EX mono CCD camera
SX 7 position 36mm filter wheel
Astrodon 36mm LRGB, Ha 5nm, OIII 5nm, SII 5nm
Lodestar autoguider
Hutech OAG with Helical focuser
SXVR-M25C CCD color camera
Nagler 31mm, Ethos 13mm & 8mm
Peter's Galleries



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
AlexN
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 08/09/08
Posts: 1202
Loc: Brisbane - Australia
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: Peter in Reno]
      #2769140 - 11/25/08 02:45 AM

Quote:


Both C6 and C11 have same F/10 focal ratio and the exposure times should be similar. The C-11 has more light gathering power and reveal dimmer images but I believe the exposure should be the same as C-6 due to same focal ratio. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Peter




Nope, not true...

An 11" Scope at F/10 will capture more light than a 6" F/10 on the same target. Not only will the 11" image scale be bigger, but the image will be brighter as well..

I tested my 102mm F/6.9 APO vs my C11 @ F/7 The C11 captured much more nebulosity in M42 in a 5 minute exposure than the refractor.

That being said, the entire experience with the refractor was easier, And I routinely run 30 minute exposures with the refractor, the idea of a 30min sub with the C11 seems a bit ridiculous... Its just not going to happen.

Horses for courses. I am a narrow field junkie, So i've persevered with my setup to be able to achieve round stars in 5-7 minute exposures. (Even managed 2 minutes unguided at F/6.3) However its taken a LOT of tweaking, tuning and at least an hour or so to get the balance perfect...

--------------------
Custom Made 10" F/3.8 Newtonian Astrograph
EQ6-Pro
SBIG ST-8300M
FLI CFW 2-7
Astrodon 5nm NB Filters
Astrodon I series LRGB
OAG + QHY5


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 10/12/07
Posts: 1781
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: AlexN]
      #2769508 - 11/25/08 10:17 AM

Quote:

An 11" Scope at F/10 will capture more light than a 6" F/10 on the same target. Not only will the 11" image scale be bigger, but the image will be brighter as well..




There is a lot of confusion on this stuff, but a simple way to describe it is: For nebulosity, the S/N per pixel depends only on f/ratio, but the S/N per square arc-second depends only on aperture. If you see "more nebulosity" with more aperture at same f/ratio on a per-pixel basis I'd like to see the comparison. In this case, the smaller aperture image will be smaller than the larger one - but just as 'bright.' The nebular detail may show better in the large aperture, but that's due to finer structure at the larger image scale - not greater brightness due to the aperture.

Quote:

the idea of a 30min sub with the C11 seems a bit ridiculous... Its just not going to happen.





With OAG the impossible becomes possible, and the weight is reduced so that a smaller mount can be more nimble. I have done 20m and could do longer with no problem - but I prefer having more images to stack. Here is a study of 20m subs with c11 at f/10 on cge, using OAG.

Galaxy pair 20m subs

Here is one with 15m subs:

Bubble 15m subs

Of course - I'm using different guiding software and video, which also helps.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
yg1968
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 01/26/04
Posts: 1859
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: AlexN]
      #2769524 - 11/25/08 10:24 AM

Alex,

I agree with you. There was a long debate on a number of threads about this issue on the CCD forum (focal ratio vs aperture). I will spare you the details but the conclusion was that aperture rules (if your mount is up to the task).

Other thread

But reducing the focal ratio (with a focal reducer) helps in terms of getting stars that appear to be rounder given that it increases the field of view making the stars look smaller and therefore appear to be rounder (even though they actually aren't any rounder when you zoom in on them -it's just harder to tell when they are smaller). The same thing is true for having a larger chip, the larger chip means the individual stars appear to be smaller in the image (making them seem rounder -even though they are not).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 10/12/07
Posts: 1781
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: yg1968]
      #2769642 - 11/25/08 11:24 AM

Quote:

I will spare you the details but the conclusion was that aperture rules (if your mount is up to the task).





Hmm - well I piped in at the end of that thread with the thing about pixels vs. arc-seconds - which is very different from aperture rules - and it seemed to be accepted. The thread does come up a lot and it is always a slippery topic - but if you focus on pixels vs. square arc-seconds it makes sense. There is weird stuff about film vs. ccd that confuses things and isn't relevant.

The adu and s/n of nebulosity for a pixel on a given camera just depends on f/ratio of the attached lens. There is a direct trade off of aperture and image scale at a fixed f/ratio and fixed camera, and no magic is involved. Stars behave differently and are much more dependent on aperture.

For the concrete example here - a nebular image with 6" at f/10 and 11" at f/10 will look just as bright (same adu's and per pixel s/n) but the 6" image will be smaller. If you then blow it up, it will have less detail and look noisier. But if you don't blow it up, you will have a nice, wider field and bright image with the 6" vs. the narrow field, but equally bright, 11" image.

So - aperture rules, and f/ratio rules - depending on what you mean.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
yg1968
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 01/26/04
Posts: 1859
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: freestar8n]
      #2769781 - 11/25/08 12:33 PM

Thanks for the explanations. But I have some follow-up questions. If you use the same camera for both scopes, shouldn't the image size be the same? Also for a fair comparaison, shouldn't you compare both objects at the same size (by zooming on the object in the image with the smaller scope)?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Strgazr27



Reged: 10/04/04
Posts: 7104
Loc: StonyHill Observatory
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: yg1968]
      #2769893 - 11/25/08 01:48 PM

Quote:

Thanks for the explanations. But I have some follow-up questions. If you use the same camera for both scopes, shouldn't the image size be the same? Also for a fair comparaison, shouldn't you compare both objects at the same size (by zooming on the object in the image with the smaller scope)?




The physical size of the image will be the same (Whatever size your chip is doesn't change regardless of what scope you mount it on). What does change is the image scale as well as FOV.

For those that don't know about it and want to see what changes can happen when you swap cameras and scopes go to Ron Wodaskis site and DL his CCDCalc. You can find it Here

It also needs to be understood that pixel size will also have an impact on FOV/Image scale. If you look at most imagers shooting at real long Fl's 15-1800mm and longer they are using cameras with larger pixels. Much larger than those found in todays DSLR's. This is the subject of being over/under sampled.

I will say I will put my 8" f/4 up against a C11 any day. My exposures will be shorter to reach the same SNR, my guiding errors will be less and my image just as bright. My FOV will be much larger but as I said before, with good guiding I can crop the image such that I can clome pretty close to the 11 as far as image scale goes. I may suffer a SLIGHT bit in resolution but it would be hard to tell for most.

--------------------
Bobby

http://www.strgazr27.zenfolio.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
freestar8n
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 10/12/07
Posts: 1781
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: yg1968]
      #2770924 - 11/25/08 11:05 PM

Quote:

If you use the same camera for both scopes, shouldn't the image size be the same? Also for a fair comparaison, shouldn't you compare both objects at the same size (by zooming on the object in the image with the smaller scope)?





Hi -

Well - you can do whatever you want with the images and things will change accordingly. But somehow the importance of f/ratio has been made into a myth, and oddly associated with a change from film to ccd. My point is - f/ratio is just as important and fundamental as it ever was, and it does have this nice property that, for the same camera and the same nebula, the s/n and adu levels on each pixel ONLY depend on f/ratio and aperture doesn't matter.

That isn't artificial, either. Fast optics really do let you capture more nice images quicker - because people don't blow things up to the same arc-second scale. They tend to use the wide shot regardless. If you do go ahead and zoom in, say on a planetary nebula, then aperture is all that matters for the same image scale.

Frank


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
yg1968
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 01/26/04
Posts: 1859
Re: Atlas EQ-G, imaging C-11, 80mm ST, PHD Guiding new [Re: freestar8n]
      #2771514 - 11/26/08 10:23 AM

I see what you are saying and I agree. But I guess that it depends on your target. The larger scope you can use on smaller stuff like Stephen's quintet. The smaller 80ED scope is better for wider filed targets such as Andromeda or the Orion Nebula. In other words, there is something to be said for having a larger scope and a smaller one. You can also use a focal reducer with the larger scope to reduce the focal ratio.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 18 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Charlie Hein, lineman_16735 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 4282

Jump to

CN Forums Home



Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics