Europa Loc: West Hills, CA

Don't give up so quick, that's a tiny target. I posted one on your other post, as you can see, the "too few" subs stands out. I'm betting with your additional exposures, it'll be pretty nice.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

This I cropped a little, not much but stacking both nights required a crop due to alignment issues. I can see more detail but I know there is much more nebulosity in the entire image than I am able to pull out. Also, the reds are missing. I did a fast processing PS ...I need to revisit and process using PixInsight and see what happens.

(Download)

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Well, he tried to do good.
It may be that it is better suited for visual than photographic use?
But it probably needs to be tinkered with.

Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM

Sorry Ed, I was just thinking that there's not a lot of room of travel to achieve balance.
We all know that astrophotography is like Zen, its all about balance.
;o)
I'm guessing that you have different sizes of counterweights?
Thanks,
Jim

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

Agreed. I know what looks good and what doesn't - and the scope fills the frame with data but I am not impressed with the results.....now I am wondering if I am in focus. According to FWHM and the Bahtinov mask, I was - but it almost looks like I have a focus issue - bloated fat stars - lacking detail and definition.

I need to be in a better mood before trying it again. I was reading one review and the reviewer was raving over the visual views of the planets - mars, saturn, and pluto...as well as the moon. Oh well!

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

I'm beginning to wonder if my bloated stars early on weren't caused by the guiding trying to correct itself, thus taking what was a smaller star and... smearing it, for lack of a better term.
Most recently I've engaged PEC in my Celestron mount, and it seems to have made a noticeable difference in the star sizes. Or it seems.
Maybe once we get around this Holidaze, I can go back to experimenting. I've been running my PHD2 at 1 second sampling rates. I tried a 3 second rate and there was a marked delineation in RA.
When I changed it back to 1 second, RA stabilized.
I use to run at a .5 second sampling rate, and wonder if too many corrective pulses may have caused bloating of the stars. But that's my thinking and observations.

As far as observing planetary and Solar System objects, I think the human eye adapts and corrects so rapidly that it is two entirely different opinions. When trying to have the tracking stabilized to a camera, it is far more visible in the end result. Our cameras tend to stay fixed while tracking changes get "sprayed" on the sensor, and bigger, or bloated stars result.
The human eye merely compensates, and at an unconsciousness rate. We just don't realize it.
I think that is why an Alt-Az mount is workable for visual. But not so hot for our more demanding Astrophotography needs.

But I might be full of crap, too.

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

You may be onto something - I am using a guide scope that is clearly not capable of handing a 3000 fl.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Just observation along my climb up the learning curve.
I zoom in in Stellarium and watch to see if the telescope representation is moving much. (What's that called? Just a Symbol?). In the past, it has been.
But the finer I can get my guiding, and the less intelligible movement I see, the sharper my stars seem to have gotten.
So that is where I came up with my theory.

I tried looking up my 80 mm and it has a 480 FL, while the 50 mm guide scope has a 162 FL. But if I remember correctly, my thinking was 80mm telescope, 50mm guide scope, = good ratio. But I look at things very simplistically. I wanted a guide scope that didn't overpower my refractor.
If you wanted 1/3 of the 3000mm, would you need a 1000mm guide scope? That sounds scary to me.

Would a Barlow lens be out of the question to try with the guide camera? Could that multiply the FL?

nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina

The math says I do need a guide scope that is closer to 1000 but my 400mm short tube guide scope along with the Orion SAG camera should work.

I am putting the Vixen in the closet for the time being ...and will probably not bring it out until I get "moon or planetary" happy.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Well, nice thing about hardware is it comes without a 'Stale Date'. So it will keep well.

Here's some fun advice: The Traveling Wilburys, Cool Dry Place

Happy Thanksgiving Ed!