hmm.. is this an april fool's joke?
My sentiments too! Probably that is also why i don't image galaxies that often. Shooting at 1000mm is already quite challenging unless you have a very stable and predictable, reliable mount. It is good for the manufacturers to come out with new and cheaper products that bring down the affordability for imaging, but time-tested older products like the VISAC (for >1000mm) and R200SS used by several imagers all over the world together with modified DSLRs or entry level CCDs should provide the proof in the pudding that such systems work too. It would be good to wait for emerging testers for these new mass RCs from the larger community to see if they are indeed products with performance as advertised by the manufacturers.
heh, shooting at short focal length of 500-700mm allows u to use a small sensor and yet squeeze most objects into the fov. imaging at a focal length of 1600mm would require a reasonably large sensor, preferably at least 4/3 or even aps-c.
next if u consider how to mount that scope, the cheapest decent mount may very well be the em-200, atlux or mach1gto. eq-6 would prolly be pushing luck and struggling with guiding.
given that r200ss/vc200l with coma corrector/reducer can be gotten for similar amt of money, the qns of whether to struggle with a slower scope comes in.
just cleaned out the r200ss today, wondering how it would feel like to image with that scope. pretty hard for me to choose using the 800mm f/4 newt over the 500mm f/5 apo.
~MooEy~
next if u consider how to mount that scope, the cheapest decent mount may very well be the em-200, atlux or mach1gto. eq-6 would prolly be pushing luck and struggling with guiding.
given that r200ss/vc200l with coma corrector/reducer can be gotten for similar amt of money, the qns of whether to struggle with a slower scope comes in.
just cleaned out the r200ss today, wondering how it would feel like to image with that scope. pretty hard for me to choose using the 800mm f/4 newt over the 500mm f/5 apo.
~MooEy~