Thanks.
SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Thanks.
- Lady Fraktor
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 10074
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:14 pm
- 5
- Location: Slovakia
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
The only culture I have is from yogurt
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Looks like the load would be 10 pounds with the 560mm lens. I'd like to get the Orion ED80T CF Triplet, which is a pound lighter, but haven't found a used 1. So may have to go with the Apertura.Lady Fraktor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 5:55 pm For visual it would likely be fine but for AP you want to stay lower in capacity.
Been trying to get in-touch with the TS-Optics thru the shop['s website but no replies.
Thanks.
- Lady Fraktor
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 10074
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:14 pm
- 5
- Location: Slovakia
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Mounts are the most important part of your setup be it visual or
Under mounting can work but may lead to frustration whereas over mounting is always preferable for a solid setup.
The only culture I have is from yogurt
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
If the limit is is 11 lbs, what's a safe load?Lady Fraktor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 6:16 pm The difference in focal length does not give you more 'reach', shorter just provides faster imaging time and a slightly wider FOV.
Mounts are the most important part of your setup be it visual or AP.
Under mounting can work but may lead to frustration whereas over mounting is always preferable for a solid setup.
The longer the focal length the more distant the objects u can image, right? So a loss of 130mm is notable, yes?
- Lady Fraktor
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 10074
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:14 pm
- 5
- Location: Slovakia
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Visual I like to stay no higher than 90% but most
The average focal ratio for
The shorter the focal ratio (not focal length) the wider the view available.
A 80mm
The only culture I have is from yogurt
- Lady Fraktor
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 10074
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:14 pm
- 5
- Location: Slovakia
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Normally long focal ratios are used for planetary, lunar and solar.
Short focal ratios are used for widerfield
The only culture I have is from yogurt
- SkyHiker
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:40 pm
- 5
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
TSS Awards Badges
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
A difference of 130 mm is definitely noticeable but it's not the only factor. For
- JayTee
- Co-Administrator
- Articles: 2
- Posts: 5657
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:23 am
- 5
- Location: Idaho, USA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
I'm firmly in the
Additionally, the rule of thumb for
∞ AP Scopes: #1: TPO 6" f/9 RC #2: ES 102 f/7 APO #3: ES 80mm f/6 APO
∞ G&G Scopes: #1: Meade 102mm f/7.8 #2: Bresser 102mm f/4.5
∞ Guide Scopes: 70 & 80mm fracs -- The El Cheapo Bros.
∞ Mounts: iOptron CEM70AG, SW EQ6R, Celestron AVX, SLT & GT (Alt-Az), Meade DS2000
∞ Cameras: #1: ZWO ASI294MC Pro #2: 662MC #3: 120MC, Canon T3i, Orion SSAG, WYZE Cam3
∞ Binos: 10X50,11X70,15X70, 25X100 ∞ AP Gear: ZWO EAF and mini EFW and the Optolong L-eXteme filter
∞ EPs: ES 2": 21mm 100° & 30mm 82° Pentax XW: 7, 10, 14, & 20mm 70°
Searching the skies since 1966. "I never met a scope I didn't want to keep."
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Not to start any big discussions here, but when u can stack photos, doesn'tJayTee wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 10:03 pm If you get heavily into AP, then we will get into the war of f/ vs FL. Considering one over the other has both pros and cons. We'll worry about that once you start imaging.
I'm firmly in the FL camp because ignoring it has way more implications than ignoring f/. Also, FL determines which equipment to use way more than does f/ alone!
Additionally, the rule of thumb for AP load on any given mount is 50-60% of the max rated load.
- JayTee
- Co-Administrator
- Articles: 2
- Posts: 5657
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:23 am
- 5
- Location: Idaho, USA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Your greatest success with limited funds is a
Even something as inexpensive as this. Before you read this article skip down to the images first.
viewtopic.php?t=3129
∞ AP Scopes: #1: TPO 6" f/9 RC #2: ES 102 f/7 APO #3: ES 80mm f/6 APO
∞ G&G Scopes: #1: Meade 102mm f/7.8 #2: Bresser 102mm f/4.5
∞ Guide Scopes: 70 & 80mm fracs -- The El Cheapo Bros.
∞ Mounts: iOptron CEM70AG, SW EQ6R, Celestron AVX, SLT & GT (Alt-Az), Meade DS2000
∞ Cameras: #1: ZWO ASI294MC Pro #2: 662MC #3: 120MC, Canon T3i, Orion SSAG, WYZE Cam3
∞ Binos: 10X50,11X70,15X70, 25X100 ∞ AP Gear: ZWO EAF and mini EFW and the Optolong L-eXteme filter
∞ EPs: ES 2": 21mm 100° & 30mm 82° Pentax XW: 7, 10, 14, & 20mm 70°
Searching the skies since 1966. "I never met a scope I didn't want to keep."
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
I have aJayTee wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 12:52 am Any aperture can be made smaller (but we don't want that). What you can't do is make it larger. A 102mm objective can never be bigger than 102mm. But FL is completely variable with reducers and focal extenders (like a barlow). FL determines image size for any given sensor. So we consider the Aperture and the sensor size as fixed. Realistically ALL we can vary is the FLYour greatest success with limited funds is aDSLR (with a 50 to 400mm lens) on an inexpensiveEQ mount. Many great images on these forums were acquired using that gear.
Even something as inexpensive as this. Before you read this article skip down to the images first.
viewtopic.php?t=3129
- JayTee
- Co-Administrator
- Articles: 2
- Posts: 5657
- Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:23 am
- 5
- Location: Idaho, USA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Awards Badges
TSS Photo of the Day
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Check out the images in this post with nothing more than an
viewtopic.php?p=214441#p214441
∞ AP Scopes: #1: TPO 6" f/9 RC #2: ES 102 f/7 APO #3: ES 80mm f/6 APO
∞ G&G Scopes: #1: Meade 102mm f/7.8 #2: Bresser 102mm f/4.5
∞ Guide Scopes: 70 & 80mm fracs -- The El Cheapo Bros.
∞ Mounts: iOptron CEM70AG, SW EQ6R, Celestron AVX, SLT & GT (Alt-Az), Meade DS2000
∞ Cameras: #1: ZWO ASI294MC Pro #2: 662MC #3: 120MC, Canon T3i, Orion SSAG, WYZE Cam3
∞ Binos: 10X50,11X70,15X70, 25X100 ∞ AP Gear: ZWO EAF and mini EFW and the Optolong L-eXteme filter
∞ EPs: ES 2": 21mm 100° & 30mm 82° Pentax XW: 7, 10, 14, & 20mm 70°
Searching the skies since 1966. "I never met a scope I didn't want to keep."
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
I found a scope that is only 4.1 pounds (the TecnoskySkyHiker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 6:53 pm The standard rule of thumb is a factor 1/2 so a 5.5 lbs. limit for AP if a visual load of 11 lbs. is advertised.
A difference of 130 mm is definitely noticeable but it's not the only factor. For AP of DSOs you should look at the F ratio not the focal length. It determines how much integration time you need. For AP of planets you need large aperture (ideally say, 14") and exceptionally good seeing like once in a year or so. With less good seeing, 6" or 8" aperture will do fine. Smaller aperture works too but the resolution will be noticeably limited by the aperture not just the seeing.
- SkyHiker
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 8:40 pm
- 5
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Status:
Offline
-
TSS Photo of the Day
TSS Awards Badges
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
The price is low, the weight is probably as low as it gets but still above the 5.5 lbs. rule of thumb. It may or may not work, all I can say is just that.hatflyer wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:40 pmI found a scope that is only 4.1 pounds (the TecnoskySkyHiker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 6:53 pm The standard rule of thumb is a factor 1/2 so a 5.5 lbs. limit for AP if a visual load of 11 lbs. is advertised.
A difference of 130 mm is definitely noticeable but it's not the only factor. For AP of DSOs you should look at the F ratio not the focal length. It determines how much integration time you need. For AP of planets you need large aperture (ideally say, 14") and exceptionally good seeing like once in a year or so. With less good seeing, 6" or 8" aperture will do fine. Smaller aperture works too but the resolution will be noticeably limited by the aperture not just the seeing.APO 70/420 ,f/ 6). Compared to my current set-up, with my camera 400mm, this would add only 1.5 pounds. And be the same focal length. So if it works with my camera lens, this 7.2 pound load may work as well?
See if you can find out if a flattener is needed. For instance, if you look at the Sharpstar 61EDPH they warn that a reducer/flattener is needed for
If you want to take the guess work out, strap a 1.5 lbs. weight on to your camera and see if it can deliver pinpoint stars. One more thought, I don't know what
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
I assume it needs a flattener.SkyHiker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 4:45 pmThe price is low, the weight is probably as low as it gets but still above the 5.5 lbs. rule of thumb. It may or may not work, all I can say is just that.hatflyer wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 3:40 pmI found a scope that is only 4.1 pounds (the TecnoskySkyHiker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 09, 2022 6:53 pm The standard rule of thumb is a factor 1/2 so a 5.5 lbs. limit for AP if a visual load of 11 lbs. is advertised.
A difference of 130 mm is definitely noticeable but it's not the only factor. For AP of DSOs you should look at the F ratio not the focal length. It determines how much integration time you need. For AP of planets you need large aperture (ideally say, 14") and exceptionally good seeing like once in a year or so. With less good seeing, 6" or 8" aperture will do fine. Smaller aperture works too but the resolution will be noticeably limited by the aperture not just the seeing.APO 70/420 ,f/ 6). Compared to my current set-up, with my camera 400mm, this would add only 1.5 pounds. And be the same focal length. So if it works with my camera lens, this 7.2 pound load may work as well?
See if you can find out if a flattener is needed. For instance, if you look at the Sharpstar 61EDPH they warn that a reducer/flattener is needed forAP . Now, that scope isF/ 4.5 so maybeF/ 6.6 is forgiving enough to get by without. Maybe Jim (Juno16) can weigh in, he has one of those and takes fabulous images with it. Of course, he uses an autoguider.
If you want to take the guess work out, strap a 1.5 lbs. weight on to your camera and see if it can deliver pinpoint stars. One more thought, I don't know whatDSLR you have but a mirrorlessDSLR like a Fuji X-a1 or X-a2 body can be had on EBay for $130 or so. I have used an X-a1 myself, it works quite well, and those cameras are lighter than a regularDSLR .
My Nikon D5500 weighs less than 1 pound. Guide scope and guide cam <1 pound. About as light as can be.
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
- Lady Fraktor
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 10074
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:14 pm
- 5
- Location: Slovakia
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
https://www.astronomics.com/celestron-o ... mount.html
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equato ... eluxe.html
They are rated at 20 lb capacity.
Both are manual mounts but tracking motors are available as well as a
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-wa ... is-dc-moto
The
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-wa ... eq3-2.html
The only big difference between the two is that the Skywatcher comes with a aluminium tripod whereas the Celestron has a steel tripod.
The only culture I have is from yogurt
-
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:27 pm
- 1
- Location: US
- Status:
Offline
Re: SW AZ-FTi Load Limit
Unfortunately, the CG4 is too heavy for me, and theLady Fraktor wrote: ↑Thu Nov 10, 2022 9:08 pm The Celestron CG-4 or Skywatcher EQ-3/2 (same mount and company just different name)
https://www.astronomics.com/celestron-o ... mount.html
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/equato ... eluxe.html
They are rated at 20 lb capacity.
Both are manual mounts but tracking motors are available as well as a goto kit.
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-wa ... is-dc-moto
The goto kit has to be ordered from UK/ EU as it is not available in USA.
https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-wa ... eq3-2.html
The only big difference between the two is that the Skywatcher comes with a aluminium tripod whereas the Celestron has a steel tripod.
Create an account or sign in to join the discussion
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Create an account
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute