50 replies to this topic

[grasklippare]

Hello,

 

So, I am thinking of buying myself a Newtonian to put on the top of my EQ6-R. The two contestants at the moment is the Skywatcher Quattro 8" and the Quattro 10".

 

The difference in price is currently only 30 Euro, so that factor is pretty much irrellevant. Instead factors like:

• How cumbersome will it be for me having to handle a 10 inch scope over an 8 inch, i.e. attaching and removing it each night(I do not have any permanent setup)?
• How will the EQ6-R be able to handle the 10, as that scope is almost 60 percent heavier than the 8? The 10 with all my devices attached, such as the imaging camera, filter wheel, OAG and camera, coma corrector, mini PC etc. will land at slightly below the stated capacity of the EQ6-R for astrophotography.
• How big of an issue will wind be with each respective scope? Both of them are quite big, but the 10 inch, naturally, is bigger and should catch the wind more. Is not having an observatory where the scope can be shielded from wind too big of a problem with either of these scopes?
• I will mostly do DSO imaging, but I would also very much like to be able to do some planetary imaging, this is the main reason why I am considering the 10 inch scope. Does the extra aperture bring enough additional detail when imaging planets to be worth the hassle of the 10 inch scope's massive weight and size?

I had been toying with the idea of having a smaller telescope and camera riding ontop of the Newtonian to add the possibility of some wide-field imaging. That idea goes out the window if I do decide to go for the 10 inch scope, as the weight will be too much and the size of the whole thing is sure to be even greater at catching the wind.

 

Of course, maybe I should go the route of getting two seperate scopes, one for DSOs and one for planets. But that would increase the cost. I would have TWO scopes to store instead of one. With one single scope I could simply swap between two different camera assemblies, one for DSO and one for planetary, and then be ready to go.

 

Any thoughts? Could someone help guiding me in making this decision?

[imtl]

Well first, none are planetary scopes and this is a DSO imaging forum.

 

Will this be your first imaging system or do you have prior experience? This info will help people to give you better effective advice.

[Sheridan]

+1 on the above comment.  Also what is the weight difference as most 10" ota's weigh in around 30lbs. 

[OK Apricot]

As far as whether the mount handle it, the answer in my experience is yes, definitely.

I've only ever had the EQ6-R and an SA GTI, and I recently bought the 250P Quattro. I knew I the mount would be close to, if not over, it's practical limit, however real world results for me have been spot on.

My 533, filter drawer, OAG, 290MM, ASIAIR+ are (obviously) mounted on the OTA adding to the weight, but the EQ6-R does fine, just fine. On steadier nights it guides around 0.5-0.7. Even on slightly breezy nights 99% subs are usable. It's a bit big and cumbersome but it is manageable enough, and that's coming from someone with a painful bulging disc.

I've not used for planetary imaging and don't plan to, but a friend does planetary with good results with his 200P+Barlow which shares the focal length of the 250PQ.

[grasklippare]

Well first, none are planetary scopes and this is a DSO imaging forum.

 

Will this be your first imaging system or do you have prior experience? This info will help people to give you better effective advice.

Yes, I do understand that. Perhaps there is a section of the forum that would allow for both uses to be discussed? In the meantime, simply please disregard the planetary imaging parts of the initial post.

 

It will not be my first imaging system. I have had my EQ6-R and a 70 mm aperture refractor for a few years now. I have been using a ZWO ASI533MC Pro camera, and now I have went and purchased myself a monochrome camera with an APS-C sized sensor and I would also like to up my telescope game a bit.

[grasklippare]

+1 on the above comment.  Also what is the weight difference as most 10" ota's weigh in around 30lbs. 

It differs slighty on where one founds the info on this, but around 21 lbs for the 8 inch and around 34 lbs for the 10 inch. EQ6-R has a stated max capacity of 44 lbs for when doing astrophotography.

 

As far as whether the mount handle it, the answer in my experience is yes, definitely.

I've only ever had the EQ6-R and an SA GTI, and I recently bought the 250P Quattro. I knew I the mount would be close to, if not over, it's practical limit, however real world results for me have been spot on.

My 533, filter drawer, OAG, 290MM, ASIAIR+ are (obviously) mounted on the OTA adding to the weight, but the EQ6-R does fine, just fine. On steadier nights it guides around 0.5-0.7. Even on slightly breezy nights 99% subs are usable. It's a bit big and cumbersome but it is manageable enough, and that's coming from someone with a painful bulging disc.

I've not used for planetary imaging and don't plan to, but a friend does planetary with good results with his 200P+Barlow which shares the focal length of the 250PQ.

Oh, okay! But is your imaging spot shielded from wind in any way? Do you use a permanent pier or have built some type of observatory? If not, you seem to have some very well-behaved equipment.

 

 

[imtl]

Yes, I do understand that. Perhaps there is a section of the forum that would allow for both uses to be discussed? In the meantime, simply please disregard the planetary imaging parts of the initial post.

 

It will not be my first imaging system. I have had my EQ6-R and a 70 mm aperture refractor for a few years now. I have been using a ZWO ASI533MC Pro camera, and now I have went and purchased myself a monochrome camera with an APS-C sized sensor and I would also like to up my telescope game a bit.

Yes. The section on CN for planetary imaging is here. Planetary and DSO are completely different things that require very different approach and equipment.

 

Jumping from 70mm frac to a 10" Newt is a big jump. But doable if you got the patience. 

 

It differs slighty on where one founds the info on this, but around 21 lbs for the 8 inch and around 34 lbs for the 10 inch. EQ6-R has a stated max capacity of 44 lbs for when doing astrophotography.

 

Oh, okay! But is your imaging spot shielded from wind in any way? Do you use a permanent pier or have built some type of observatory? If not, you seem to have some very well-behaved equipment.

When mount companies state max load capacity, they skip valuable info about how does it actually track with that load capacity. With these mass produced mounts, the general rule of thumb is half the max load. It does not mean it won't hold more, but the point is not to hold more but to track well with what it holds. So, max capacity of 44Lbs is not going to give you good enough tracking with that mount in most cases.

[Oort Cloud]

I'd go with the 8"; a 10" newt, even a "shorter" one at f/4 is still a lot to ask. Not saying it won't work, but the 8" will be more manageable.

[unimatrix0]

It differs slighty on where one founds the info on this, but around 21 lbs for the 8 inch and around 34 lbs for the 10 inch. EQ6-R has a stated max capacity of 44 lbs for when doing astrophotography.

 

 

I as someone who uses an 8" F5  (it's a lot longer than the F4 version) and also the 6",  the 8" is starting to hit that weight limit with the EQ6R pro mount. Sure, I could add another 15lbs maybe, but my counterweight bar has to be extended and the counterweights need to go low as possible to get it balanced.

 

Remember you still have to add your camera  + focuser or filter wheel if mono camera used, and also guider scope and mini computer and all the cables. They all add weight.  Also the rated 44lb max capacity of the mount should be taken with a grain of salt.  I personally feel like I'm near max limit with the 8" scope and all the rest of the gear. 

 

It's your choice, but I think you may want to try the 8" first.   You can still do planetary with an 8" with a 2X or 3X Barlow though, I'm just guessing here if it has like 800mm focal length, you can triple that up with the 3X Barlow. 

I did my planetary with my 8" F5- but mine is 1000mm focal length, used a 2X and a 3X Barlow and worked good, except the weather. 

 

If you still want the 10", I would advise to get it from a place with a good return policy and during first unboxing just be careful and rig the whole thing up on the mount and give it a try if it works or not and be ready to re-package it and return it if it doesn't work. 

My 2 cents.  

Edited by unimatrix0, 14 August 2024 - 11:42 AM.

[Oort Cloud]

Yes. The section on CN for planetary imaging is here. Planetary and DSO are completely different things that require very different approach and equipment.

Jumping from 70mm frac to a 10" Newt is a big jump. But doable if you got the patience.

When mount companies state max load capacity, they skip valuable info about how does it actually track with that load capacity. With these mass produced mounts, the general rule of thumb is half the max load. It does not mean it won't hold more, but the point is not to hold more but to track well with what it holds. So, max capacity of 44Lbs is not going to give you good enough tracking with that mount in most cases.

I am still suspicious, but the EQ6-r actually states "44lb for astrophotography" in the documentation. Mine has never been over ½ of that though, so I can't say if it's accurate.

[Spaceman 56]

Skywatcher released a video on You Tube, and the presenter stated multiple times that Weight was NOT the largest consideration for the EQ6.

 

he said the EQ6 was designed for reasonably short focal length OTAs, and referred to 600 to 800mm as being optimum.

 

he said YES you can run long focal length SCTs and the like, but the RING-GEAR was not designed for that level of accuracy.

 

Having clarified that, I think the 8 inch Newt would be a better match for the EQ6.

 

a 10 inch anything is a pretty hefty scope.  

[Oort Cloud]

Skywatcher released a video on You Tube, and the presenter stated multiple times that Weight was NOT the largest consideration for the EQ6.

he said the EQ6 was designed for reasonably short focal length OTAs, and referred to 600 to 800mm as being optimum.

he said YES you can run long focal length SCTs and the like, but the RING-GEAR was not designed for that level of accuracy.

Having clarified that, I think the 8 inch Newt would be a better match for the EQ6.

a 10 inch anything is a pretty hefty scope.

Maybe with the way they come from SW, but after tuning mine, I've imaged successfully at 2 meters of FL with mine, multiple times.

How successful tracking/guiding is, has more to do with image scale than focal length, so it's a bit weird that any mount MFG would make any claims regarding FL. If tracking isn't good enough, and you bin2, suddenly tracking is good enough, yet FL didn't change at all.

[grasklippare]

Yes. The section on CN for planetary imaging is here. Planetary and DSO are completely different things that require very different approach and equipment.

 

Jumping from 70mm frac to a 10" Newt is a big jump. But doable if you got the patience. 

 

When mount companies state max load capacity, they skip valuable info about how does it actually track with that load capacity. With these mass produced mounts, the general rule of thumb is half the max load. It does not mean it won't hold more, but the point is not to hold more but to track well with what it holds. So, max capacity of 44Lbs is not going to give you good enough tracking with that mount in most cases.

I know that there is a section exclusively for planetary imaging that is not what I was asking for, I wanted to know if there is a section where it would be allowed to discuss BOTH DSO- and planetary imaging using the the same telescope

 

I as someone who uses an 8" F5  (it's a lot longer than the F4 version) and also the 6",  the 8" is starting to hit that weight limit with the EQ6R pro mount. Sure, I could add another 15lbs maybe, but my counterweight bar has to be extended and the counterweights need to go low as possible to get it balanced.

 

Remember you still have to add your camera  + focuser or filter wheel if mono camera used, and also guider scope and mini computer and all the cables. They all add weight.  Also the rated 44lb max capacity of the mount should be taken with a grain of salt.  I personally feel like I'm near max limit with the 8" scope and all the rest of the gear. 

 

It's your choice, but I think you may want to try the 8" first.   You can still do planetary with an 8" with a 2X or 3X Barlow though, I'm just guessing here if it has like 800mm focal length, you can triple that up with the 3X Barlow. 

I did my planetary with my 8" F5- but mine is 1000mm focal length, used a 2X and a 3X Barlow and worked good, except the weather. 

 

If you still want the 10", I would advise to get it from a place with a good return policy and during first unboxing just be careful and rig the whole thing up on the mount and give it a try if it works or not and be ready to re-package it and return it if it doesn't work. 

My 2 cents.  

Are you suspecting that you are enchroaching  that limit based solely on the counterweights sitting far out on the counterweight bar? How about putting more, or fewer but heavier weights, closer to the mount?

 

What is the guiding performance like for you though? Anything there signaling that you are close to the limit of what the mount is capable of? Is wind an issue for you?

 

Another thing, that 8 inch telescope of yours, ´do you have any issues with it, or even coming close to, hitting the tripod legs or the azimuth adjustment bolts? Perhaps you are using the pier extension or have the mount and scope on a proper pier?

 

I am still suspicious, but the EQ6-r actually states "44lb for astrophotography" in the documentation. Mine has never been over ½ of that though, so I can't say if it's accurate.

Yeah, they do state that in the documentation. However, I just looked at this overview of the EQ6-R on Skywatchers Youtube channel, and the fellow, Kevin, in the video says that 30-35 would be a reasonable payload limit, specifically for imaging.

 

Skywatcher released a video on You Tube, and the presenter stated multiple times that Weight was NOT the largest consideration for the EQ6.

 

he said the EQ6 was designed for reasonably short focal length OTAs, and referred to 600 to 800mm as being optimum.

 

he said YES you can run long focal length SCTs and the like, but the RING-GEAR was not designed for that level of accuracy.

 

Having clarified that, I think the 8 inch Newt would be a better match for the EQ6.

 

a 10 inch anything is a pretty hefty scope.  

Please do note that the mount in question here is the EQ6-R, and not it's predecessor the EQ6. THere are some difference between these two mounts.

 

Seems like quite an oversimplified statement, might there actually have been more of it? Do you happen to know which video this was mentioned in?

 

Yeah, I am starting to lean towards the 8 inch. Easier to deal with, and leaves some room, weightwise, for extra devices on top of the scope. Plus, the scope is short, 28 inches, and that may leave with me with less worries of the scope hitting the mount screws or tripod legs.

 

But that extra aperture and resolution sure seems juicy, at almost no difference in cost.

[Spaceman 56]

 Do you happen to know which video this was mentioned in?

Skywatcher You Tube.

 

https://www.youtube....cz4xJ2&index=16

 

33.00 is about payloads and 53.00 onwards discusses ring gear.

 

there was other stuff too but its an hour long video. 

[imtl]

I know that there is a section exclusively for planetary imaging that is not what I was asking for, I wanted to know if there is a section where it would be allowed to discuss BOTH DSO- and planetary imaging using the the same telescope

There isn't.

[unimatrix0]

 

 

 

Are you suspecting that you are enchroaching  that limit based solely on the counterweights sitting far out on the counterweight bar? How about putting more, or fewer but heavier weights, closer to the mount?

 

What is the guiding performance like for you though? Anything there signaling that you are close to the limit of what the mount is capable of? Is wind an issue for you?

 

Another thing, that 8 inch telescope of yours, ´do you have any issues with it, or even coming close to, hitting the tripod legs or the azimuth adjustment bolts? Perhaps you are using the pier extension or have the mount and scope on a proper pier?

 

 

1 - I could move heavier weights on it, but I don't have more. I only got the 2 that came with, I could possibly buy more weights, but again, it all adds to the max limit

2. Guiding is great. It guides just as good as with my 6" Newtonian or 80mm refractor. Guiding is between 0.3-0.8 the last time I used the rig. 

3. I use Asiair (but can be set in NINA too) to have the tracking stop at 5 minutes before Meridian and wait another 5 minutes before flipping and resuming to image.  It's not hitting or getting close to the tripods, I could probably go lower numbers, but I rather be safe than sorry. 

This is what the 8" F5 looks like with the EQ6Rpro while imaging.  The F4 version is shorter tube, I assume the 10" F4 is also shorter than this. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by unimatrix0, 16 August 2024 - 07:31 AM.

[MikeCMP]

1 - I could move heavier weights on it, but I don't have more. I only got the 2 that came with, I could possibly buy more weights, but again, it all adds to the max limit

2. Guiding is great. It guides just as good as with my 6" Newtonian or 80mm refractor. Guiding is between 0.3-0.8 the last time I used the rig. 

3. I use Asiair (but can be set in NINA too) to have the tracking stop at 5 minutes before Meridian and wait another 5 minutes before flipping and resuming to image.  It's not hitting or getting close to the tripods, I could probably go lower numbers, but I rather be safe than sorry. 

This is what the 8" F5 looks like with the EQ6Rpro while imaging.  The F4 version is shorter tube, I assume the 10" F4 is also shorter than this. 

If you get the pier riser, you can go quite a bit past meridian, wold help you get more images at Zenith, where the atmosphere is thinnest and you should theoretically get the best image quality. And a little more piece of mind that it won't hit the tripod legs. It can save you a lot of imaging time - if you are doing 5 minute subs, your applications might not trigger won if it will overlap with your 5 minute window, meaning you could be missing out on more imaging time than you think - if I stopped my imaging 5 minute prior to meridian, when doing 10 minute NB subs that could be two subs not taken, or 20 minutes.

[psienide]

Like unimatrix0, I use an 8" f5 on the EQ6R. For me it's cumbersome enough to set up, so I can only imagine what a 10" would be like. Just getting it on the mount plate, etc. I only use it when the wind is going to be no more than 5mph or so. It is also limited in it's DSO targets without doing mosaics. I have used it for planetary with a 2x photographic APO barlow and I was pretty impressed with Jupiter vs my 4" refractor.

 

Obviously a newt requires much more tinkering and calibrating. So if you're a tinkerer it's great, but if you just want to throw something on and image on a whim, it's not the best.

[grasklippare]

Skywatcher You Tube.

 

https://www.youtube....cz4xJ2&index=16

 

33.00 is about payloads and 53.00 onwards discusses ring gear.

 

there was other stuff too but its an hour long video. 

That video is an overview of the AZ-EQ6, I would never of thought of watching that! 

 

What he says regarding payload is pretty much the same as the in the video overview for the EQ6-R, namely, 30-35 pounds. That is if you want the mount to be able to handle the tracking solidly and rigidly.  In the video you provided he also mentions that 8 inch newtonians as well as 8 inch cassegrains will be handled just fine by the mount, with the latter of the  two surely having a much longer focal length about 1600mm, for sure longer than the 600 to 800mm you mentioned. But of course, that section of the video was focused on payload, so he was not necessarily saying that those longer focal lengths of 8 inch cassegrains are not an issue for the mount(s).

 

In the part of the video focused on the ring gear he specifically mentions scopes with focal lengths at 2500-3000mm focal lengths and says that that is too much for the mount.

 

But yeah, long video, I mostly watched the specific sections you mentioned. 

 

 

There isn't.

Thank you for letting me know.

 

1 - I could move heavier weights on it, but I don't have more. I only got the 2 that came with, I could possibly buy more weights, but again, it all adds to the max limit

2. Guiding is great. It guides just as good as with my 6" Newtonian or 80mm refractor. Guiding is between 0.3-0.8 the last time I used the rig. 

3. I use Asiair (but can be set in NINA too) to have the tracking stop at 5 minutes before Meridian and wait another 5 minutes before flipping and resuming to image.  It's not hitting or getting close to the tripods, I could probably go lower numbers, but I rather be safe than sorry. 

This is what the 8" F5 looks like with the EQ6Rpro while imaging.  The F4 version is shorter tube, I assume the 10" F4 is also shorter than this. 

1. What I have heard is that, generally, you do not include the weight of the counterweights into the capacity specifications of a mount. I would think that it would a bit better adding an additional counterweight, have them closer to the mount, and get rid of that extension bar.

2. That's nice to hear. It looks like you neither have put the mount on and scope on a pier nor inside of an observatory. You do not seem to have it sitting in a vast open field or anything like that, so wind might not be able to reach it and affect the guiding all that much?

 

The Quattro 8 inch is only 71 cm long,, while f/5 8 inch newtonians are about 20 cm longer than that. SO the Quattro may actually be able to clear the tripod legs, it would  perhaps depend a little bit on what latitude you have the mount set up for though. And also how you have balanced the scope, adding some weight to the back of it so that you would need to scoot the telescope forward in the saddle would bring even more clearance.

 

If you get the pier riser, you can go quite a bit past meridian, wold help you get more images at Zenith, where the atmosphere is thinnest and you should theoretically get the best image quality. And a little more piece of mind that it won't hit the tripod legs. It can save you a lot of imaging time - if you are doing 5 minute subs, your applications might not trigger won if it will overlap with your 5 minute window, meaning you could be missing out on more imaging time than you think - if I stopped my imaging 5 minute prior to meridian, when doing 10 minute NB subs that could be two subs not taken, or 20 minutes.

I would find that that extension pier great if only it had a hole on the side so that you could reach inside of it to remove the mount from the pier more easily. I store my mount in the box it was delivered in, and there is not room for having the extension pier permanently attached.

 

Like unimatrix0, I use an 8" f5 on the EQ6R. For me it's cumbersome enough to set up, so I can only imagine what a 10" would be like. Just getting it on the mount plate, etc. I only use it when the wind is going to be no more than 5mph or so. It is also limited in it's DSO targets without doing mosaics. I have used it for planetary with a 2x photographic APO barlow and I was pretty impressed with Jupiter vs my 4" refractor.

 

Obviously a newt requires much more tinkering and calibrating. So if you're a tinkerer it's great, but if you just want to throw something on and image on a whim, it's not the best.

Yeah, the 10 inch would probably be a bit too cumbersome to handle.

 

I am a bit split on that. I would like to be able to just slap everything together and then go ahead and image, not needing to change or adjust anything But I also do somewhat enjoy tinkering a bit. With the Quattro being f/4 I understand it to be even more hassle regarding collimation, tilt, backfocus and everything. I am therefore also now considering the SKywatcher 200PDS. That is also 8 inch but instead f/5, so should be a bit more forgiving in regards to what I just mentioned.

 

I am quite sure I will be getting the TS Optics GPU coma corrector. It has threads on it that with the correct adapter ring would allow you to screw the coma corrector directly to the focuser of the scope. Also looking into if one could even add an rotator, such as this https://www.teleskop...-focusers-16490. The rotator would be screwed directly to the focuser, then the adaptar ring for the coma corrector, and after that the corrector itself. Does anyone happen to know if that would work? Is there enough of focus travel with the focuser to make that work? Where does the image plane sit, both for the Quattro 8 or the 200 PDS?

 

I will be using a camera with the IMX571 sensor. Are these scopes able to illuminate an APS-C sensor well, not vignetting too badly? Is the secondary mirrors large enough, and is the TS Optics GPU coma corrector wide enough?

[Sheridan]

It differs slighty on where one founds the info on this, but around 21 lbs for the 8 inch and around 34 lbs for the 10 inch. EQ6-R has a stated max capacity of 44 lbs for when doing astrophotography.

 

Oh, okay! But is your imaging spot shielded from wind in any way? Do you use a permanent pier or have built some type of observatory? If not, you seem to have some very well-behaved equipment.

 In that case I would opt for the 10
 

[psienide]

...

 

I am quite sure I will be getting the TS Optics GPU coma corrector. It has threads on it that with the correct adapter ring would allow you to screw the coma corrector directly to the focuser of the scope. Also looking into if one could even add an rotator, such as this https://www.teleskop...-focusers-16490. The rotator would be screwed directly to the focuser, then the adaptar ring for the coma corrector, and after that the corrector itself. Does anyone happen to know if that would work? Is there enough of focus travel with the focuser to make that work? Where does the image plane sit, both for the Quattro 8 or the 200 PDS?

 

I will be using a camera with the IMX571 sensor. Are these scopes able to illuminate an APS-C sensor well, not vignetting too badly? Is the secondary mirrors large enough, and is the TS Optics GPU coma corrector wide enough?

My only concern would be the stock focuser if youre doing CC+Rotator+OAG+FW+Cooled Camera. The synta focusers that come with those scopes are not the best for imaging and may not handle all that weight. At least with my old synta focuser and my new upgraded one, there is no issue with focus travel.
 

 

The thing with these SW newts is expect to pay another 500(including CC) to get it into tiptop imaging shape.

[grasklippare]

 In that case I would opt for the 10
 

Well, as has been mentioned, Skywatcher, on their own Youtube channel instead recommends a max payload of 30-35 pounds. The mount should be able to handle that in a solid and secure manner, less prone to issues from breezes and such. The Quattro 10(also called 250) would be right at the upper limit of that payload range, add to that all of the devices needed for imaging. And going by Skywatcher's advice, it would be a bit much for the mount to handle. But then again, a few here has said that it handles 10 inch newtonians without any issues at all. 

 

My only concern would be the stock focuser if youre doing CC+Rotator+OAG+FW+Cooled Camera. The synta focusers that come with those scopes are not the best for imaging and may not handle all that weight. At least with my old synta focuser and my new upgraded one, there is no issue with focus travel.
 

 

The thing with these SW newts is expect to pay another 500(including CC) to get it into tiptop imaging shape.

Not in that order. There is not enough room for a rotator after the CC. The CC requires 55 mm of backfocus, and the OAG, FW and camera would use up all of that space on their own. The rotator would be put before the CC, and thus would push the CC-OAG-FW-camera-assembly out a little bit, so that the focuser would need to travel inwards enough to account for that.

 

So 500 money(I guess dollars or euros), most of that would go into the coma corrector. Would the rest be put towards a new focuser? Anything else?

[OK Apricot]

It differs slighty on where one founds the info on this, but around 21 lbs for the 8 inch and around 34 lbs for the 10 inch. EQ6-R has a stated max capacity of 44 lbs for when doing astrophotography.

Oh, okay! But is your imaging spot shielded from wind in any way? Do you use a permanent pier or have built some type of observatory? If not, you seem to have some very well-behaved equipment.

I wouldn't say it is necessarily shielded but does benefit from a fence and my house itself. I'm not actually great at estimating breezes, but I find if the leaves are bristling in the trees, it's generally too much - the size and FL make any more than that prohibitive.

It's relatively forgiving though, at least over in the UK where seeing is rarely ever great - sampling at approx 0.5" but seeing at 2" means, while there can be some spikes in either axis while guiding, the majority of my frames still have round stars.

Finally, no observatory or pier, just the supplied tripod set out on the paving. It's by no means a concrete pier but it's got some beef and is steady. I would post a picture but it's a bit of a faff from my phone. I have made sure to keep the backlash down during my 2 years of ownership and now the mount is beyond warranty, will be opening it up soon for a service. The EQ6-R is a phenomenal mount for the money in my opinion.

[psienide]

Well, as has been mentioned, Skywatcher, on their own Youtube channel instead recommends a max payload of 30-35 pounds. The mount should be able to handle that in a solid and secure manner, less prone to issues from breezes and such. The Quattro 10(also called 250) would be right at the upper limit of that payload range, add to that all of the devices needed for imaging. And going by Skywatcher's advice, it would be a bit much for the mount to handle. But then again, a few here has said that it handles 10 inch newtonians without any issues at all. 

 

Not in that order. There is not enough room for a rotator after the CC. The CC requires 55 mm of backfocus, and the OAG, FW and camera would use up all of that space on their own. The rotator would be put before the CC, and thus would push the CC-OAG-FW-camera-assembly out a little bit, so that the focuser would need to travel inwards enough to account for that.

 

So 500 money(I guess dollars or euros), most of that would go into the coma corrector. Would the rest be put towards a new focuser? Anything else?

New focuser, flocking, mirror mask, some like an integrated secondary spider, collimation tools, custom dew shield.

[unimatrix0]

 

 

I will be using a camera with the IMX571 sensor. Are these scopes able to illuminate an APS-C sensor well, not vignetting too badly? Is the secondary mirrors large enough, and is the TS Optics GPU coma corrector wide enough?

There will be some vignette with the aps-c sensor, it's unavoidable. Flats will take care of it though. 

 

BTW, all the telescopes mentioned so far are not just a "slap it on and go" telescopes.

Also they are a big wind sail, weather it's the 8" or the 10". 

The 8" is not my primary telescope and never will be. 

Those would be my 6" Newtonian or the 80mm refractor.

I use the 8"  at special occasions, when I feel like imaging a particular target. To be honest I only got it, because it was dirt cheap at one point. 

I still ended up spending more money to buy a better focuser for it, and then I 3D printed an aperture mask. 

So, they are not the slap on and go telescopes as other will tell you too. 

You also don't want to go with the cheapest coma corrector either. I use Sharpstar 0.95X and a Starizona Nexus 0.75X.  Others talk about the Paracorr 2 or the Explore Scientific coma corrector. 

None of those are what I would classify as cheap. There are large threads about these topics on this forum and people have already done the math and testings and there are a few winner with a lot of losers. 

 

As far as both planetary and DSO imaging, people have been trying to find a telescope that does it all for decades.  It doesn't exist. 

If you really want to do planetary without the hassle weight limit and size issues, you may be better off looking at a Celestron 10" cassegrain or an 8" RC .

Save on both weight and size, while having a much longer focal ratio. 

Edited by unimatrix0, 17 August 2024 - 08:29 AM.