| |
Main
Date: 04 Nov 2006 00:16:43
From: goodnigh
Subject: Question: Celestron
|
May buy myself a present this year.
Does anyone have experience with the Celstron NexStar SE series?
Already own three other Celestron StarSeekers, but this would be
my first SC and probably the 8" model.
mike
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 18:16:57
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
goodnigh wrote:
> "RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162602572.861316.35290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > goodnigh wrote:
> >> May buy myself a present this year.
> >> Does anyone have experience with the Celstron NexStar SE series?
> >> Already own three other Celestron StarSeekers, but this would be
> >> my first SC and probably the 8" model.
> >>
> >> mike
> >
> > Hi;
> >
> > If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them,
> > either here or via direct email.
> >
>
> What I want to know, is the tracking system suitable for astrophotography?
> My current collection of StarSeekers is not. Considering the price though,
> they are fine instruments.
> I have access to dark sites.
>
> Thanks for your advice.
>
> mike
Hi:
The answer? That depends. Certainly the scopes are good enough for
beginning imaging.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 09:51:01
From: Bob G.
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
>>
>> What I want to know, is the tracking system suitable for astrophotography?
>> My current collection of StarSeekers is not. Considering the price though,
>> they are fine instruments.
>> I have access to dark sites.
>>
>> Thanks for your advice.
>>
>> mike
>
>Hi:
>
>The answer? That depends. Certainly the scopes are good enough for
>beginning imaging.
I own a 8i... Love the darn thing... purchased it for it very low
weight and extreme portability.... which I "needed" a few years
ago... before I retired...
Tracking was, and is, fine for visual..has kept Saturn in the field
of view for hours ...
BUT Personally except for stacking images using a web cam I do not
think the 8i, 8i SE or the 8SE would satisfy your needs ... Spend a
few more bucks and look at the CPC series... or the Advanced-GT
series...ESPECIALLY since you intend to "try" a little imaging..
I no longer travel...therefore I really do not need the low weight and
extreme portability...so I would have been better off buying a 8 or
9.25 GPS series scope at the time... as my needs changed..
What I am saying is that
you may..... in a few years have a "need" for something beyond
beginning imaging ...I would honestly tell you to plan ahead...just in
case.
Just my 2 cents...
Bob G.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:30:00
From: goodnigh
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
"Bob G." <rg327_remove_@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:su8pk21mhjehsa0jsnsm7o1autjjtpffi6@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>>> What I want to know, is the tracking system suitable for
>>> astrophotography?
>>> My current collection of StarSeekers is not. Considering the price
>>> though,
>>> they are fine instruments.
>>> I have access to dark sites.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your advice.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>Hi:
>>
>>The answer? That depends. Certainly the scopes are good enough for
>>beginning imaging.
>
> I own a 8i... Love the darn thing... purchased it for it very low
> weight and extreme portability.... which I "needed" a few years
> ago... before I retired...
>
> Tracking was, and is, fine for visual..has kept Saturn in the field
> of view for hours ...
>
> BUT Personally except for stacking images using a web cam I do not
> think the 8i, 8i SE or the 8SE would satisfy your needs ... Spend a
> few more bucks and look at the CPC series... or the Advanced-GT
> series...ESPECIALLY since you intend to "try" a little imaging..
>
> I no longer travel...therefore I really do not need the low weight and
> extreme portability...so I would have been better off buying a 8 or
> 9.25 GPS series scope at the time... as my needs changed..
>
> What I am saying is that
> you may..... in a few years have a "need" for something beyond
> beginning imaging ...I would honestly tell you to plan ahead...just in
> case.
>
> Just my 2 cents...
> Bob G.
Thanks for your input Bob G.
You are right about not taking small steps.
May as well upgrade to a real machine and spend the bucks.
My den is littered with small steps :)
Probably go with the CPC 925 as that seems like a decent step.
mike
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:48:22
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:51:01 -0500, Bob G.
<rg327_remove_@adelphia.net > wrote:
>BUT Personally except for stacking images using a web cam I do not
>think the 8i, 8i SE or the 8SE would satisfy your needs ... Spend a
>few more bucks and look at the CPC series... or the Advanced-GT
>series...ESPECIALLY since you intend to "try" a little imaging..
I personally don't think any alt-az mount (i.e. SE and CPC series w/o
a wedge) is good for even webcamming solar system objects except
perhaps the Moon**. There is field rotation and if you take a movie of
any length the rotation will show up in the processing as smearing of
details.
All the seriously successful webcam artists I've seen use EQ mounts.
---
Michael McCulloch
**The Moon is ok because it is bright enough to keep the exposures
short and you can run at a higher fps rate to capture enough frames in
a short time to negate field rotation.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 18:45:40
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
On 2006-11-06 02:48 +0900, Michael McCulloch wrote:
> I personally don't think any alt-az mount (i.e. SE and CPC series w/o
> a wedge) is good for even webcamming solar system objects except
> perhaps the Moon**. There is field rotation and if you take a movie of
> any length the rotation will show up in the processing as smearing of
> details.
The SE series tripod has a built-in wedge that can be set to
dramatically reduce field rotation issues. I have a feeling that it's
the same tripod as the older NexStar 4 GT and 5 unit. It's not exactly
fun adjusting it (I own a 4 GT), but it can be done.
> All the seriously successful webcam artists I've seen use EQ mounts.
Perhaps more to the point, seriously successful astrophotographers use
serious mounts. That said, for planetary, lunar and solar imaging with a
webcam, the SE might do well enough to make the OP happy with the results.
trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:08:41
From: Michael McCulloch
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:45:40 +0900, Trane Francks <trane@gol.com >
wrote:
>Perhaps more to the point, seriously successful astrophotographers use
>serious mounts. That said, for planetary, lunar and solar imaging with a
>webcam, the SE might do well enough to make the OP happy with the results.
I had one of the original Nexstar 8's. It was hard enough to get it to
keep Saturn in the visual fov at 200x+. I can't imagine trying to keep
the image on a tiny webcam chip unless the tracking backlash has been
seriously improved.
That said, the Nexstar/SE series offers great value for portable
visual observing at low/medium powers.
---
Michael McCulloch
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:16:08
From: AM
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
Trane Francks wrote:
>
> The SE series tripod has a built-in wedge that can be set to
> dramatically reduce field rotation issues.
I dont think field rotation will be as much
a problem as much as the speed at which said planets
rotate themselves. I think on Mar's the longest I could
go before planetary rotation set in was 4 1/2 minutes
IIRC.
Unless 4 1/2 min of field rotation is worse...
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 Fluxbox 0.9.13
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 09:27:13
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
AM wrote:
> I dont think field rotation will be as much
> a problem as much as the speed at which said planets
> rotate themselves. I think on Mar's the longest I could
> go before planetary rotation set in was 4 1/2 minutes
> IIRC.
>
> Unless 4 1/2 min of field rotation is worse...
In 4-1/2 minutes, Mars rotates a bit more than a degree on its axis.
When it is closest to us, that translates to about 0.25 arcseconds. The
upcoming opposition, it will be more like 0.15 arcseconds. If you get
good enough resolution where that becomes a problem, your resolution is
pretty darned good.
The field rotation is not worse than that, though, over the face of
Mars, provided you stay centered on Mars; it might only be worse in the
rest of the field, which you wouldn't care about.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 19:54:15
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
Just to add to the CPC comment, as it is an Alt-Az scope. If you are going
to spend the extra money for the CPC series scope (which is a very good
value for what you get) you should almost certainly invest in a wedge for
it.
I have the CPC 1100 with a Celestron heavy duty wedge and find it tracks
amazingly well. It has a wedge-alignment feature that increases tracking
accuracy. You run a "good" alignment, then run the wedge alignment. The
scope moves to where it thinks Polaris should be. At that point, you (using
a high-power eyepiece) move the tripod and wedge until Polaris is perfectly
centered (do not adjust the scope, only the tripod and wedge), then perform
another EQ alignment. I've had my CPC for about 2 months and just started
using this method and cannot believe how accurate it is. I use auto-guiding
and there really are very few corrections sent.
Feel very confident in purchasing a CPC along with a wedge and you will be
capable of taking spectacular pictures. Just my $0.02 worth.
Tom
"Michael McCulloch" <michaelm@nospam.invalid.net > wrote in message
news:af8sk2ph89l5441boc4gpr7t6mc0pln93d@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 09:51:01 -0500, Bob G.
> <rg327_remove_@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>>BUT Personally except for stacking images using a web cam I do not
>>think the 8i, 8i SE or the 8SE would satisfy your needs ... Spend a
>>few more bucks and look at the CPC series... or the Advanced-GT
>>series...ESPECIALLY since you intend to "try" a little imaging..
>
> I personally don't think any alt-az mount (i.e. SE and CPC series w/o
> a wedge) is good for even webcamming solar system objects except
> perhaps the Moon**. There is field rotation and if you take a movie of
> any length the rotation will show up in the processing as smearing of
> details.
>
> All the seriously successful webcam artists I've seen use EQ mounts.
>
> ---
> Michael McCulloch
>
> **The Moon is ok because it is bright enough to keep the exposures
> short and you can run at a higher fps rate to capture enough frames in
> a short time to negate field rotation.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 17:09:32
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
goodnigh wrote:
> May buy myself a present this year.
> Does anyone have experience with the Celstron NexStar SE series?
> Already own three other Celestron StarSeekers, but this would be
> my first SC and probably the 8" model.
>
> mike
Hi;
If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them,
either here or via direct email.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 01:29:51
From: goodnigh
Subject: Re: Question: Celestron
|
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162602572.861316.35290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> goodnigh wrote:
>> May buy myself a present this year.
>> Does anyone have experience with the Celstron NexStar SE series?
>> Already own three other Celestron StarSeekers, but this would be
>> my first SC and probably the 8" model.
>>
>> mike
>
> Hi;
>
> If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them,
> either here or via direct email.
>
What I want to know, is the tracking system suitable for astrophotography?
My current collection of StarSeekers is not. Considering the price though,
they are fine instruments.
I have access to dark sites.
Thanks for your advice.
mike
|
|
