The Never ending Quest for the best setup

elgol20 said:

So Rutger,
have all your questions been answered?

Click to expand...

Rutgerbus said:

Rutgerbus said:

So Rutger,
have all your questions been answered?

Click to expand...

I think I triggered some deep tucked-away frustrations here ;-). Seems like the Quest continous.

I also think I'm quit happy at the moment with my excellent performing iOptron CEM25P and the new William Optics GT71.

Now if I just get it to Perform acurate GoTo commands! I can only use like 1 align-star from my backyard.

Click to expand...

elgol20 said:

Rutgerbus said:

elgol20 said:

So Rutger,
have all your questions been answered?

Click to expand...

I think I triggered some deep tucked-away frustrations here ;-). Seems like the Quest continous.

I also think I'm quit happy at the moment with my excellent performing iOptron CEM25P and the new William Optics GT71.

Now if I just get it to Perform acurate GoTo commands! I can only use like 1 align-star from my backyard.

Click to expand...

i have the cem25 without a p. works fine. do without pec but with mgen. can you live without it? how is your pe?

Click to expand...

Rutgerbus said:

elgol20 said:

Rutgerbus said:

Rutgerbus said:

So Rutger,
have all your questions been answered?

Click to expand...

I think I triggered some deep tucked-away frustrations here ;-). Seems like the Quest continous.

I also think I'm quit happy at the moment with my excellent performing iOptron CEM25P and the new William Optics GT71.

Now if I just get it to Perform acurate GoTo commands! I can only use like 1 align-star from my backyard.

Click to expand...

i have the cem25 without a p. works fine. do without pec but with mgen. can you live without it? how is your pe?

Click to expand...

P.e is OK. The CEM25P comes with a certificate of that says it has lower then +/-10 Arc.sec PE.

Here is a movie I made of Comet 21P Giacobini-Zinner using a 6" Meade Schmidt Newt. were you can clearly see the PE. (hopefully the link works. it is embedded in a post I put on Facebook!)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2155476994716803

Click to expand...

AstroStan said:

"To each their own"

Of course!

I am not "dissing" DSLR when I note its limitations. And obviously I don't need to sing DSLR praises as you guys seem to do that all day long! <g>

And when I note that some equipment is superior to other equipment in an objective evaluation (limiting magnitude, actual resolution, S/N, etc.) that doesn't mean everyone has to rush out and get on it.

The title of this thread was "best equipment"

Click to expand...

AstroStan said:

so I thought it might be useful to note that the range of this hobby extends well beyond DSLR. BTW, it may appear that I spend a lot of $ but that's not the case; e.g. the RCOS was well below cost because I was a contributing designer and alpha tester; my EMCCD cost $1,500 (lab liquidator) and I worked a year programming for it instead of buying a $10k program; many CMOS I've used were borrowed, and so on.

There is no need for hostility. But I see now that this is a small-scope DSLR group where other aesthetics and methods are threatening and unwelcome . So I am now exiting this group. Sorry to have disturbed some of you.

Click to expand...

AstroStan said:

Stan

Click to expand...

rnclark said:

NancyP said:

"a small short refractor" = Canon 400 mm f/5.6 L, the same one I use for birding

Eq mount = Astrotrac

DSLR, tripod, geared head to set declination, plate under the Astrotrac, ball head on top (soon, a wedge so the ball head is easier to manipulate), and hand-warmer gaff taped to the lens barrel to keep the lens unfogged. My problem is that I find it time consuming to frame specific objects.

Click to expand...

Nancy,

The problem with these light trackers is that a heavy lens will make the system sag, so positioning a 300 mm lens or longer becomes difficult. The simple solution is do not use a ball head--use a gimbal head.

Roger

Click to expand...

SoupOrPhoto said:

rnclark said:

NancyP said:

"a small short refractor" = Canon 400 mm f/5.6 L, the same one I use for birding

Eq mount = Astrotrac

DSLR, tripod, geared head to set declination, plate under the Astrotrac, ball head on top (soon, a wedge so the ball head is easier to manipulate), and hand-warmer gaff taped to the lens barrel to keep the lens unfogged. My problem is that I find it time consuming to frame specific objects.

Click to expand...

Nancy,

The problem with these light trackers is that a heavy lens will make the system sag, so positioning a 300 mm lens or longer becomes difficult. The simple solution is do not use a ball head--use a gimbal head.

Roger

Click to expand...

I've had a problem with sagging and simple unwieldiness with a ball head on my iOptron SykGuider and large lens. A gimbal is a good idea--I've thought about getting one for regular photography but always found better ways to spend money for my hobby.

I came across this 2-axis head. Any thoughts about or experience with using this type of head on a tracker?

Sirui L Series L-20S 2-Way Levelling Tilt Heads

Click to expand...

NancyP said:

I will start by using what I have, a gimbal attachment that slots into the ball head clamp when the head is placed in the 90 degree slot. This balances beautifully with the 400 mm lens.

Click to expand...

rnclark said:

SoupOrPhoto said:

rnclark said:

NancyP said:

"a small short refractor" = Canon 400 mm f/5.6 L, the same one I use for birding

Eq mount = Astrotrac

DSLR, tripod, geared head to set declination, plate under the Astrotrac, ball head on top (soon, a wedge so the ball head is easier to manipulate), and hand-warmer gaff taped to the lens barrel to keep the lens unfogged. My problem is that I find it time consuming to frame specific objects.

Click to expand...

Nancy,

The problem with these light trackers is that a heavy lens will make the system sag, so positioning a 300 mm lens or longer becomes difficult. The simple solution is do not use a ball head--use a gimbal head.

Roger

Click to expand...

I've had a problem with sagging and simple unwieldiness with a ball head on my iOptron SykGuider and large lens. A gimbal is a good idea--I've thought about getting one for regular photography but always found better ways to spend money for my hobby.

I came across this 2-axis head. Any thoughts about or experience with using this type of head on a tracker?

Sirui L Series L-20S 2-Way Levelling Tilt Heads

Click to expand...

That will have the same sagging problems as a ball head. It is not just the head that sags, the whole mount will as the weight distribution changes. The advantage of a gimbal head is that it can be balanced so that without locking any axis, one can point the camera+lens anywhere, let go and nothing moves. For example, see Figure 7 here: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/portable-astro-landscape-wildlife-setup/ and in the two images in Figure 7, the axes on the gimbal head are not locked.

Roger

Click to expand...

rnclark said:

NancyP said:

I will start by using what I have, a gimbal attachment that slots into the ball head clamp when the head is placed in the 90 degree slot. This balances beautifully with the 400 mm lens.

Click to expand...

Hi Nancy,

I assume you mean a Wimberly Sidekick, or similar? I also use one on one of my astrotracs or lighttrack, but be very careful. They are famous for not clamping down tight enough on the ball head and the whole thing slipping. I recently had an incident that almost broke the LCD screen: I had the ball head tightened down well, but the clamp on the post on the ball came loose, the camera fell backward and the LCD screen hit the back of the Fornax Lighttrack II. I need to put locktight on the screw where the clamp attaches.

Roger

Click to expand...

Navman said:

rnclark said:

NancyP said:

I will start by using what I have, a gimbal attachment that slots into the ball head clamp when the head is placed in the 90 degree slot. This balances beautifully with the 400 mm lens.

Click to expand...

Hi Nancy,

I assume you mean a Wimberly Sidekick, or similar? I also use one on one of my astrotracs or lighttrack, but be very careful. They are famous for not clamping down tight enough on the ball head and the whole thing slipping. I recently had an incident that almost broke the LCD screen: I had the ball head tightened down well, but the clamp on the post on the ball came loose, the camera fell backward and the LCD screen hit the back of the Fornax Lighttrack II. I need to put locktight on the screw where the clamp attaches.

Roger

Click to expand...

Roger, can you please confirm that the setup you show in your photo works equally well with the Fornax Lightrack? And I presume that your wedge is simply constructed with an angle corresponding to the general latitude at which you're using it? What's your overall impression of the Lightrack? There is no NZ agent, and I'm keen to hear some independent assessments of it before I commit to buying one in. I'm after something that will handle up to an FD 300 mm F/2.8 L with a Sony A7R on the back of it.

Many thanks, John

Click to expand...

rnclark said:

Navman said:

rnclark said:

NancyP said:

I will start by using what I have, a gimbal attachment that slots into the ball head clamp when the head is placed in the 90 degree slot. This balances beautifully with the 400 mm lens.

Click to expand...

Hi Nancy,

I assume you mean a Wimberly Sidekick, or similar? I also use one on one of my astrotracs or lighttrack, but be very careful. They are famous for not clamping down tight enough on the ball head and the whole thing slipping. I recently had an incident that almost broke the LCD screen: I had the ball head tightened down well, but the clamp on the post on the ball came loose, the camera fell backward and the LCD screen hit the back of the Fornax Lighttrack II. I need to put locktight on the screw where the clamp attaches.

Roger

Click to expand...

Roger, can you please confirm that the setup you show in your photo works equally well with the Fornax Lightrack? And I presume that your wedge is simply constructed with an angle corresponding to the general latitude at which you're using it? What's your overall impression of the Lightrack? There is no NZ agent, and I'm keen to hear some independent assessments of it before I commit to buying one in. I'm after something that will handle up to an FD 300 mm F/2.8 L with a Sony A7R on the back of it.

Many thanks, John

Click to expand...

I only got the lighttrack in early August, so I have only had it out once (for 3 nights). I used it with the Sigma 105 mm f/1.4 with a ball head and the Wimberly sidekick. The 105 mm is heavier than a typical 300 f/4. The lighttrack did just fine, and seems like it would do just as well with a big lens like 300 f/2.8 or 400 f/4, but I have not yet tested that.

The lighttrack is made quite solid, so vibration with a big lens may be less than with the astrotrac. Again, this is an impression--I'll need to test a big lens to be sure. This may be a while as I am not sure when I'll get out in the next new moon period due to medical issues in the family. Maybe the November new moon.

Roger

Click to expand...

NancyP said:

So, of the two Canon image-stabilized binoculars, 12 x 36 and 10 x 42L, which do you use more often and which do you like better? I am also considering the 10 x 30 IS for light weight (travel and camping). Debating whether to pull the trigger and get the "L", considerably more expensive than other alternatives. These binoculars aren't stocked locally, unless the hunting stores are carrying them (the hunting stores carry Swarovski binocs, so it is possible that they carry other high end items, not just the mountains of Nikon binocs facing the aisles.

--
NancyP
sure the 10*42, latest version. really good, weatherproof and close distance view 2m instead 6m, also IS stays on when buttom pushed once. heavier. sharper. makes you addicted. the 12×36 ii is for guests only haha
--
Best regards
___
Stefan

Click to expand...

Astrozoid said:

AstroStan said:

But the proof is in the pudding and it is easy to compare images of difficult objects to see that DSLR performs poorly when you really push the limits. It's trivial to make a pretty pic of M42 but it can be exceedingly difficult to ferret out a small dim galaxy or PN, etc. If you care to compare actual images for *real* features (depth, resolution, etc.) then let's have a little contest; e.g. show me your M16 or M57 and I'll show you mine! <g>

Click to expand...

Hi Stan,

Ok, here's my shot of the integrated flux nebula around M81 and M82.

Taken with crappy old DSLRs.



Lets see yours. In color.

Jerry

Click to expand...