My ASKAR120apo in that case of use a 2600mc camera, the star point is large, and detection by an astronomical box is usually about 4 pixel, and the star point average size is about 3.2 pixel even at the best sight. I don't think this should happen. I need some other user data to compare and communicate with the official customer service. If anyone has some information I need, please let me know. Thank you very much
something wrong with my askar120apo
At f/7 it is normal to have a FWHM of that size given that the scope is a refractor. And the seeing isn't that great.
Hi Ming,
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam
Well Written Concise
Welcome to the reality of astrophotography.
Adam Cox:
Hi Ming,
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam
I am about the same with the 2600mc. My focus changes more than my 80ED did so an Electronic focuser is needed.
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
Helpful Insightful Respectful
I'm also at around 3" on my 120APO with 1x flattener and 294MC. On good seeing it is around 2.7" at best, bad seeing it gets to 4".
Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box
Adam Cox:
Hi Ming,
I'm in a Bortle 4-5 location and my FWHM is around 3" on average when shooting in mono with my 2600mm Pro. I can get down to 2.5" in good seeing and 4-5" in bad seeing.
Regards,
Adam
I am about the same with the 2600mc. My focus changes more than my 80ED did so an Electronic focuser is needed.
I use pixinsight the actual detected FWHM is about 7, and the guidance star and the vision on that day are both very good
MING ZIWEN:Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box
What is your Median FWHM if you check your subs with Subframe Selector? Or when you run the script "FWHMEccentricity"? To be honest I do not know what you want to say with "astronomical box".
MING ZIWEN:Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box
*Can you post a screenshot of a star field at full resolution. That should clarify where you are.
MING ZIWEN:
I use pixinsight the actual detected FWHM is about 7, and the guidance star and the vision on that day are both very good
I do not use PI atm. I watch it in NINA and the numbers are similar in Siril and APP.
Tobiasz:MING ZIWEN:Tobiasz:
3.2 pixel at best with 0,91"/pix sampling is ~3" FWHM. I don't think the telescope is broken, your seeing is just average/below average. Keep in mind there are many factors affecting star size and introducing blur like the quality of your lenses/mirrors, your tracking, guiding and (back-)focus.
Less expensive refractors introduce softer stars (there is no free lunch). Just check out the spot diagrams of different refractors of different price points and you may see a difference.
But my actual test FWHM is around 7.5, and 3.2 is just the average star point size shown in the astronomical box
What is your Median FWHM if you check your subs with Subframe Selector? Or when you run the script "FWHMEccentricity"? To be honest I do not know what you want to say with "astronomical box".
the midian FWHM is 7.5.
And the astronomical box is ASIAIR
If you suspect the optics why not do a star test, that will tell you a lot and is easier than ever to do it digitally.
MING ZIWEN:
the midian FWHM is 7.5.
And the astronomical box is ASIAIR
*That's pretty bad if this is the best you can achieve. I'd certainly return the scope if that would be the case.
Well Written
OKeveryone I use the pixinsight did a test in. Here's the test report
That's great but posting a full resolution sub frame would tell us a lot more.
Well Written