Yes, you can stop tracking any time, then just go into normal panorama mode (or single shot mode), do your foregrounds - then go back to astro mode and resume tracking. It will usually not ask for a recalibration, although if a tremendous amount of time has passed it's certainly wiser to redo polar alignment.
Sorry, I haven't really followed up on this thread as it is still MW off-season.
Hi, thanks for the test.I haven't been very active with the Polaris over the past months due to off-season, but recently started to play around with it again in preparation for March. Also, I got the Sony 135mm F1.8 GM for which, aside from detail MW panoramas, I plan to get my feet wet with some low level deep sky.
First tests with the 135mm at my Bortle 8 home had big issues with star trails even at 60s, but it was a quick test without taking proper care of levelling/alignment.
For the second test, I used my sturdiest tripod, spent extra time making sure the whole setup is level and also took a long time to align to the star (Sirius) as dead center as possible. Tracking was much better now - the results up to 90s were satisfactory for my needs. Pushing it further (120s), trailing got unacceptable. See below, top right corner strongly magnified, for comparison with short exposure as reference.
One thing I noticed is that the first 1-2 images of my 90s subs did not turn out well, probably the unit needs some time for the gears to start running smoothly. Also, I did not continue shooting for a longer period of time, so there is a question mark if the tracking would still be on point after 1+hour.
Regardless, this is big progress to my first results from 3 months ago. Hopefully there is still a way to squeeze out some more seconds without getting trails, ideally I can get to 120s in the future which would be sufficient for any kind of pano work (unless I am in a Bortle 1 region, more than 120s at F1.8-F2.0 should never be necessary). For Deep Sky, I'd use shorter subs anyway. If it goes well, I'll probably try at 400mm later this year - which I guess is about the FL limit with this kind of setup.
One potential to improve tracking is to get a better star alignment. What I found out during my last test is that once the unit is aligned to a star and you press the 'start tracking' button, it will actually do some short 'calibration movements' before it goes back to the aligned position and starts tracking. Apparently this is normal and is in order for the gears to kick in and run smoothly from the start. However, some stars are moving very quickly and by the time this movement is finished (usually about 3-5s), earth has rotated quite a bit against the star and alignment is not dead center any longer. See illustration below showing the movements from 1-5, with the unit finally starting tracking at position 5. By that time, Capella which was used in this example had already moved a little downwards.
I did not account for this, but apparently tracking accuracy can further be improved if during initial alignment you make sure to have it started at dead center - which means you need to predict the calibration movement and where it might stop. Not sure how much that will help but I will consider it during my next test.
Another potential for improvement is 2-star alignment. There are rumours Benro has been working on it for quite a while now, and it is supposed to be coming in one of the next Firmware upgrades. How much this will help with tracking accuracy remains to be seen, but I'll make sure to test that feature once it is available.
In my (limited, due to clouds and extreme cold) testing I found shooting at 600 mm to be trackable out to 30 seconds easily. I only had problems due to wind when it was gusting heavily.Hi, thanks for the test.I haven't been very active with the Polaris over the past months due to off-season, but recently started to play around with it again in preparation for March. Also, I got the Sony 135mm F1.8 GM for which, aside from detail MW panoramas, I plan to get my feet wet with some low level deep sky.
First tests with the 135mm at my Bortle 8 home had big issues with star trails even at 60s, but it was a quick test without taking proper care of levelling/alignment.
For the second test, I used my sturdiest tripod, spent extra time making sure the whole setup is level and also took a long time to align to the star (Sirius) as dead center as possible. Tracking was much better now - the results up to 90s were satisfactory for my needs. Pushing it further (120s), trailing got unacceptable. See below, top right corner strongly magnified, for comparison with short exposure as reference.
One thing I noticed is that the first 1-2 images of my 90s subs did not turn out well, probably the unit needs some time for the gears to start running smoothly. Also, I did not continue shooting for a longer period of time, so there is a question mark if the tracking would still be on point after 1+hour.
Regardless, this is big progress to my first results from 3 months ago. Hopefully there is still a way to squeeze out some more seconds without getting trails, ideally I can get to 120s in the future which would be sufficient for any kind of pano work (unless I am in a Bortle 1 region, more than 120s at F1.8-F2.0 should never be necessary). For Deep Sky, I'd use shorter subs anyway. If it goes well, I'll probably try at 400mm later this year - which I guess is about the FL limit with this kind of setup.
One potential to improve tracking is to get a better star alignment. What I found out during my last test is that once the unit is aligned to a star and you press the 'start tracking' button, it will actually do some short 'calibration movements' before it goes back to the aligned position and starts tracking. Apparently this is normal and is in order for the gears to kick in and run smoothly from the start. However, some stars are moving very quickly and by the time this movement is finished (usually about 3-5s), earth has rotated quite a bit against the star and alignment is not dead center any longer. See illustration below showing the movements from 1-5, with the unit finally starting tracking at position 5. By that time, Capella which was used in this example had already moved a little downwards.
I did not account for this, but apparently tracking accuracy can further be improved if during initial alignment you make sure to have it started at dead center - which means you need to predict the calibration movement and where it might stop. Not sure how much that will help but I will consider it during my next test.
Another potential for improvement is 2-star alignment. There are rumours Benro has been working on it for quite a while now, and it is supposed to be coming in one of the next Firmware upgrades. How much this will help with tracking accuracy remains to be seen, but I'll make sure to test that feature once it is available.
I took my Polaris on a holiday two months ago. In my experience, 400mm will be a very frustrating hit or miss experience with Polaris. It is just not good enough, even though some people seem to do reasonably well with it. 135mm seems to be the sweet spot, where most of your subs will turn out ok. Ofcourse it will do best at shorter focal lengths for MW stuff. The Pano mode is great and makes this thing worth its money. For 400mm or more, I would suggest you buy a decent equatorial mount and save yourself a lot of frustration.
If they come up with a two star alignment method it should improve pointing accuracy and with an improved sky model may improve tracking as well, we’ll see.
Also I found that leveling the tripod, iso leveling the top of Polaris seems to yield more accurate results and gives the best tracking.
good luck with it,
Peter
In my (limited, due to clouds and extreme cold) testing I found shooting at 600 mm to be trackable out to 30 seconds easily. I only had problems due to wind when it was gusting heavily.Hi, thanks for the test.I haven't been very active with the Polaris over the past months due to off-season, but recently started to play around with it again in preparation for March. Also, I got the Sony 135mm F1.8 GM for which, aside from detail MW panoramas, I plan to get my feet wet with some low level deep sky.
First tests with the 135mm at my Bortle 8 home had big issues with star trails even at 60s, but it was a quick test without taking proper care of levelling/alignment.
For the second test, I used my sturdiest tripod, spent extra time making sure the whole setup is level and also took a long time to align to the star (Sirius) as dead center as possible. Tracking was much better now - the results up to 90s were satisfactory for my needs. Pushing it further (120s), trailing got unacceptable. See below, top right corner strongly magnified, for comparison with short exposure as reference.
One thing I noticed is that the first 1-2 images of my 90s subs did not turn out well, probably the unit needs some time for the gears to start running smoothly. Also, I did not continue shooting for a longer period of time, so there is a question mark if the tracking would still be on point after 1+hour.
Regardless, this is big progress to my first results from 3 months ago. Hopefully there is still a way to squeeze out some more seconds without getting trails, ideally I can get to 120s in the future which would be sufficient for any kind of pano work (unless I am in a Bortle 1 region, more than 120s at F1.8-F2.0 should never be necessary). For Deep Sky, I'd use shorter subs anyway. If it goes well, I'll probably try at 400mm later this year - which I guess is about the FL limit with this kind of setup.
One potential to improve tracking is to get a better star alignment. What I found out during my last test is that once the unit is aligned to a star and you press the 'start tracking' button, it will actually do some short 'calibration movements' before it goes back to the aligned position and starts tracking. Apparently this is normal and is in order for the gears to kick in and run smoothly from the start. However, some stars are moving very quickly and by the time this movement is finished (usually about 3-5s), earth has rotated quite a bit against the star and alignment is not dead center any longer. See illustration below showing the movements from 1-5, with the unit finally starting tracking at position 5. By that time, Capella which was used in this example had already moved a little downwards.
I did not account for this, but apparently tracking accuracy can further be improved if during initial alignment you make sure to have it started at dead center - which means you need to predict the calibration movement and where it might stop. Not sure how much that will help but I will consider it during my next test.
Another potential for improvement is 2-star alignment. There are rumours Benro has been working on it for quite a while now, and it is supposed to be coming in one of the next Firmware upgrades. How much this will help with tracking accuracy remains to be seen, but I'll make sure to test that feature once it is available.
I took my Polaris on a holiday two months ago. In my experience, 400mm will be a very frustrating hit or miss experience with Polaris. It is just not good enough, even though some people seem to do reasonably well with it. 135mm seems to be the sweet spot, where most of your subs will turn out ok. Ofcourse it will do best at shorter focal lengths for MW stuff. The Pano mode is great and makes this thing worth its money. For 400mm or more, I would suggest you buy a decent equatorial mount and save yourself a lot of frustration.
If they come up with a two star alignment method it should improve pointing accuracy and with an improved sky model may improve tracking as well, we’ll see.
Also I found that leveling the tripod, iso leveling the top of Polaris seems to yield more accurate results and gives the best tracking.
good luck with it,
Peter
I level the tipod, put the polaris on, go to a star near what I want to shoot, and let it go.
