Suggestions for Improving Astromaster 130EQ Performance
860 views
Skip to first unread message
Bhupender Pruthi
Mar 11, 2018, 11:25:32 PM3/11/18
to Bangalore Astronomical Society
Dear Members,
I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings like spherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
regards
Bhupender
I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings like spherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
regards
Bhupender
Karthik Subramanian
Mar 12, 2018, 12:28:53 AM3/12/18
to Bangalore Astronomical Society
On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:
I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings like
spherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
Welcome, Bhupinder!
To answer your questions:
- Coma correctors are commercially available.
- Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
Best,
K.
Bhupender Pruthi
Mar 12, 2018, 9:38:12 AM3/12/18
to Bangalore Astronomical Society
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:53 AM UTC+5:30, Karthik Subramanian wrote:
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
I am glad to see your response on my query...1) i have checked that 130eq model from Celestron has a spherical mirror. The reason i asked for improvement suggestions is that, I want to add certain eyepieces to my bucket for Terrestrial and DSOs and do some Astrophotography. An idea of adding a 8-24mm / 7.5-22.5mm zoom eyepieces was popping in my head and read certain astronomy forums/blogs and also asked in an astronomy forum in Bangalore and got a response that don't waste your money on buying any eyepiece for this particular scope as it has shortcomings...so got confused and thought to improve the shortcomings and then plan for wide angled eyepieces.
The question you have asked on observation of spherical aberration & coma, i have not been able to capture such details, being a newbie. I had watched the moon surface with my 10mm and 20mm (erect) eyepiece and the images were very revealing/crisp. However, I saw some deffraction caused by butterfly vanes while viewing the surroundings.
On the collimation, it seems OK. I have not done it till now (as the telescope has not been used much from last 3 years). I also bought a cheshire collimation tool but broke the cross-hairs by mistake. Now will use some fine needles to fit the holes drilled for crosshairs to bring it back to life.
Please guide me ahead.
regards
Bhupender
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
>
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:53 AM UTC+5:30, Karthik Subramanian wrote:
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
>
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:53 AM UTC+5:30, Karthik Subramanian wrote:
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
>
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:53 AM UTC+5:30, Karthik Subramanian wrote:
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
> On Monday, 12 March 2018 08:55:32 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:I own a 2014 model of Astromaster 130EQ and aware of its major shortcomings likespherical aberrations and coma. Looking for suggestions to improve this scope.
>
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
Dear Mr. Karthik,
>
>
>
> Welcome, Bhupinder!
>
>
> To answer your questions:
> - Coma correctors are commercially available.
> - Two common ways of fixing the spherical aberration problem are to refigure the mirror, or use a corrector lens.
> Neither is a practical option with your scope, I'd think.
>
>
> As far as I know, the Astromaster 130 is supposed to have a parabolic mirror (as opposed to the Astromaster 114).
> Mass-market optics can vary vastly in quality though.
>
>
> May I ask you a slightly different question? What have you observed with your scope so far, and how have the
> scope's spherical aberration and coma affected your observations? For all you know, the problem(s) you're facing
> might have nothing to do with spherical aberration, and more to do with collimation. Describing your experiences
> with the scope will help the people on this list identify your problem, and hopefully point you to a good solution.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> K.
I am glad to see your response on my query...1) i have checked that 130eq model from Celestron has a spherical mirror. The reason i asked for improvement suggestions is that, I want to add certain eyepieces to my bucket for Terrestrial and DSOs and do some Astrophotography. An idea of adding a 8-24mm / 7.5-22.5mm zoom eyepieces was popping in my head and read certain astronomy forums/blogs and also asked in an astronomy forum in Bangalore and got a response that don't waste your money on buying any eyepiece for this particular scope as it has shortcomings...so got confused and thought to improve the shortcomings and then plan for wide angled eyepieces.
The question you have asked on observation of spherical aberration & coma, i have not been able to capture such details, being a newbie. I had watched the moon surface with my 10mm and 20mm (erect) eyepiece and the images were very revealing/crisp. However, I saw some deffraction caused by butterfly vanes while viewing the surroundings.
On the collimation, it seems OK. I have not done it till now (as the telescope has not been used much from last 3 years). I also bought a cheshire collimation tool but broke the cross-hairs by mistake. Now will use some fine needles to fit the holes drilled for crosshairs to bring it back to life.
Please guide me ahead.
regards
Bhupender
Karthik Subramanian
Mar 12, 2018, 11:01:40 AM3/12/18
to Bangalore Astronomical Society
1) i have checked that 130eq model from Celestron has a spherical mirror.
The reason i asked for improvement suggestions is that, I want to add certain eyepieces to my bucket for Terrestrial and DSOs and do some Astrophotography. An idea of adding a 8-24mm / 7.5-22.5mm zoom eyepieces was popping in my head and read certain astronomy forums/blogs and also asked in an astronomy forum in Bangalore and got a response that don't waste your money on buying any eyepiece for this particular scope as it has shortcomings...so got confused and thought to improve the shortcomings and then plan for wide angled eyepieces.
Fair enough :) If your scope indeed has a spherical mirror, your best bet is to buy
a better scope. I have no experience with the Celestron 130 EQ. However, I do
know of at least two people on this list who've owned this scope, and have used
it to successfully hunt down most of the Messiers before moving on to better scopes.
As long as you have decent optics, it's not a bad scope. There *are* a few mechanical
niggles with the mount and finder, but those things can usually be fixed with a little DIY.
So I'd probably say this - don't be in a hurry to buy new eyepieces just yet! Use your
scope to the max in dark skies. That will help you understand its limitations, as well
as guide your future purchasing decisions. (It also helps to look through other scopes).
The question you have asked on observation of spherical aberration & coma, i have not been able to capture such details, being a newbie. I had watched the moon surface with my 10mm and 20mm (erect) eyepiece and the images were very revealing/crisp. However, I saw some deffraction caused by butterfly vanes while viewing the surroundings.
In general - if it ain't broke, don't fix it! How would you go about "improving"
the performance of something when you haven't measured the performance?
I have no idea about using scopes for terrestrial observations, so I won't comment
on that.
On the collimation, it seems OK. I have not done it till now (as the telescope has not been used much from last 3 years). I also bought a cheshire collimation tool but broke the cross-hairs by mistake. Now will use some fine needles to fit the holes drilled for crosshairs to bring it back to life.
"Hair" from a paintbrush might be a better thing to use. A friend of mine has even
used human hair (his own) to fix the crosshairs on his Cheshire.
I'm not sure that fine needles will be fine enough :)
After reading through your emails, this is what I'd recommend:
(i) Be sure of the problem you want to fix before you go fixing it
(ii) Don't fix problems that you haven't encountered (unless you really know what you're doing)
(iii) Use your scope to the max under dark skies before doing anything to it.
That last one is going to be difficult to do for a few months now, since this is
almost the end of the season.
Then again, opinion is subjective. This is just *my* personal opinion, so take
it with a huge pinch of salt :)
Clear skies,
K.
Anish Kumar
Mar 12, 2018, 11:30:43 AM3/12/18
to b-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bhupinder,
I recently had a conversation with someone who owns this telescope. I wanted to find out if it had a spherical mirror. I was under the impression that powerseeker was the series that had the Jones-bird design. Here is an interesting thread I read yesterday. I am not sure you will find it helpful but be sure to read post #7. Read all of the comments on page two as well. :)
Regards,
Anish
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangalore Astronomical Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to b-a-s+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to b-...@googlegroups.com.
Bhupender Pruthi
Mar 12, 2018, 11:31:49 AM3/12/18
to b-...@googlegroups.com
Thanks a ton for your valuable response. I will keep in mind the suggestions being shared.
A) I had read somewhere on online forums that modding or replacing this 130mm f/5 scope with Parabolic Mirror will give a better/sharper focused views, coma to prevail.
B) On the viewfinder and mount what kind of DIY suggestions you recommend. I am willing to work on those as early as possible.
C) I am also evaluating 8x42 and 9x50 monoculars in lieu of a finder scope, are they better or recommended for star finding?
Currently, I am staying in Bangalore and next month going back home to warm up my telescope. I think I can utilize this time to learn more about mirror making and other DIY projects. In case if it is possible to meet you in person, that will be best thing for me to learn more in this field.
Regards,
Bhupender
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bangalore Astronomical Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/b-a-s/03HDvocZFWY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to b-a-s+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Bhupender Pruthi
Mar 12, 2018, 11:50:52 AM3/12/18
to b-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Anish,
I had seen this thread already and read it once again just now...these companies are playing with end users by confusing them completely. What i understand is that if one has enough money and resources, better go for a DIY telescope or buy some better products from trusted / credible brands.
Until then, I will squeeze every drop of juice from my current setup along with some DIYs and a pinch of salt :)
regards
Bhupender
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bangalore Astronomical Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/b-a-s/03HDvocZFWY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to b-a-s+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
keerthi kiran
Mar 13, 2018, 12:28:42 AM3/13/18
to BAS
Hi Bhupender,
How did you get to know that the mirror is spherical and not parabolic?
If you are not sure whether it is really spherical, you can do a simple Ronchi test. Just print a ronchi pattern on a transparent sheet and you should be able to see the ronchi pattern. Or you could take the OTA to ABAA and get it tested.
If you are not sure whether it is really spherical, you can do a simple Ronchi test. Just print a ronchi pattern on a transparent sheet and you should be able to see the ronchi pattern. Or you could take the OTA to ABAA and get it tested.
Isn't is an f/5 scope? At f/5, parabolization is really required. I searched on the internet. It had a lot of confusing answers. Some said it is spherical, some said it is parabolic. So, can't trust the answers on the internet.
In any case, careful collimation and focusing will really help. I'd not spend a lot of money on eyepieces for this telescope.
Regards,
Keerthi
Bhupender Pruthi
Mar 13, 2018, 12:54:51 AM3/13/18
to b-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Kirthi,
I had searched most of the online forums and met someone at ABAA too and here is the outcome - Celestron Astromaster 130EQ is a waste of money and time. But somehow I have to live with it till a new telescope comes. I will keep experimenting on this setup for now. Hope to get some inputs on low cost modification so that I can learn to locate the Messier Objects comfortably.
Bhupender
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to b-a-s+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to b-...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bangalore Astronomical Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/b-a-s/03HDvocZFWY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to b-a-s+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to b-...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bangalore Astronomical Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to b-a-s+un...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Bangalore Astronomical Society" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/b-a-s/03HDvocZFWY/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to b-a-s+un...@googlegroups.com.
Karthik Subramanian
Mar 13, 2018, 2:07:11 AM3/13/18
to Bangalore Astronomical Society
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 10:24:51 UTC+5:30, Bhupender Pruthi wrote:
I had searched most of the online forums and met someone at ABAA too and here is the outcome - Celestron Astromaster 130EQ is a waste of money and time. But somehow I have to live with it till a new telescope comes. I will keep experimenting on this setup for now. Hope to get some inputs on low cost modification so that I can learn to locate the Messier Objects comfortably.
Hi Bhupender,
The AstroMaster 130 is probably not a great scope - but from what little I've heard about it, *optically* it is not a bad beginner
scope for visual purposes. If you're getting into AP, that would be a different matter altogether.
I'd still suggest that you use the scope with its current optics under dark skies, *before* you try to modify it. Please do not arrive
at conclusions about the goodness (or lack thereof) of a scope purely with hearsay information. Since you've spent money
on the scope, you might as well use it to its best.
To summarize:
(1) Don't try replace the mirror just yet. Use the scope with its current optics under *dark skies* first.
(2) Using an 8x50 or a 9x50 finder is probably a good idea (see below for specifics). However, these are considerably
heavier than the RDF that comes with most telescopes. You'll have to compensate for the shift in balance point of the scope.
(3) Use the scope to its max, then upgrade to a better scope.
(4) Don't invest in premium eyepieces just yet.
Again, these are just suggestions :) You'll need to figure out what works best for you and go that route.
Best,
K.
A quick note on finders:
--------------------------------
I prefer an 8x50 or a 9x50 finder over others because the FOV is very close to a pair of 10x50 binoculars. My usual process is to scan the area with 10x50 binocs, then switch over to the scope and confirm the field through the 8x50. Your mileage might vary.
Also - a good number of observers (self included) prefer a setup with 2 finders - a TelRad/QuikFinder as well as a 9x50.
I personally find RDFs a little too bright even at their dimmest setting (but this will only be apparent under dark skies).
Shashikiran Kolar
Mar 13, 2018, 5:52:51 AM3/13/18
to Bangalore Astronomical Society
Adding to the suggestions here, the 130 f/5 could be used as a grab-and-go and a rich field telescope.
If one looks at the observation data presented in "Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky" by Roger N. Clark, 1990, chapter 7, most DSO's require a magnification of 120-180 for detailed study, something not practical with this telescope due to the below:
If one looks at the observation data presented in "Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky" by Roger N. Clark, 1990, chapter 7, most DSO's require a magnification of 120-180 for detailed study, something not practical with this telescope due to the below:
- a magnification of 100 would need an eyepiece of 6.5mm (with no Barlow) and results in an exit pupil of 1.3mm
- a magnification of 200 would need an eyepiece of 3.25mm (with no Barlow) and results in an exit pupil of 0.65mm
The short eye-relief of these eyepieces and small exit pupils would make it uncomfortable for sustained observation.
The focal length ranges of the eyepieces that you are looking at are ideal of the scope:
- an eyepiece of 8mm results in a magnification of of 81, an exit pupil of 1.64 and a FOV of 0.64 (with AFOV of 52 degrees).
- an eyepiece of 22mm results in a magnification of of 30, an exit pupil of 4.4 and a FOV of 1.76.
An exit pupil greater than 1mm is ideal for viewing comfort. The large FOVs are suitable for widefield objects (M31, M42, M45 and more). For a given eyepiece a faster telescope results in increased surface brightness (noticeable when compared with SCTs or MCTs) and is independent of aperture.
For more detailed visual study, a telescope of a larger aperture would be useful as the surface brightness depends on it for a given magnification. It would also yield in larger exit pupils at higher magnifications. For AP, a EQ mounted SCT/MCT would be a good option.
In his book, Clark states that "The greatest variable for seeing such detail is not the size of the telescope but the condition of the sky. For deep-sky work, a 4-inch telescope in the country will beat a 16-inch in the city."
Thanks,
-Shashi
Bhupender Pruthi
Mar 13, 2018, 6:45:36 AM3/13/18
to b-...@googlegroups.com
Dear Karthik and Shashi,
Very well said, now I am quite clear on what I shall do with my scope and that is extract the best out of it with given limitations. I will start working on a DIY 8x50 or 9x50 scope. As of now arrived at following specs:
- Achromat Objective of 51mm dia, 170-180 mm FL
- Eyepiece (Inverted Projector lens) of 22-25mm f/1.4
Telrad might come from US through some personal means.
I have spent much of time in reading and understanding various aspects of Astronomy with Optics involved in it, will be using this scope mostly for Astrophotography and also evaluated my existing Oneplus 2 phone camera chip specs for this purpose. Pls see this link (http://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd suitability)
It seems quite a good option with high power eyepieces for capturing DSOs without investing on a specialized camera for AP. Once I am done with some ground work, I will come back and share my experience with the group.
Going forward, my wishful project will be RC or SCT in a reasonable cost. I know a sound resource who could do the machining/ robotics/ structural design work as they are into manufacturing of SPMs (special purpose machines). For this I will seek guidance here and as well as from other sources.
Any chance to meet up with you folks in Bangalore these days. Pls let me know, I am staying in HSR Layout.
Regards,
Bhupender
--
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages