imakebeer

That's a useful video @paulyz , thanks for sharing - I have the same model (450D / XSI) I picked up recently from eBay for not much. Much as a dedicated ZWO camera would be nice, that video suggests there's a lot to learn about process and you can still achieve a lot with older gear.

Thanks @happy-kat , I think that's helped make it a little clearer 👍 Possibly I've misunderstood a little, but are you saying the behaviour is different between refractors and Newtonians? I'd have thought it's the same, just that the light in a Newt is folded??? With my current refractor, for visual observation with a diagonal and 25mm eyepiece (and of course the diagonal has length, just with a mirror in the middle) I'm pretty sure I have to wind the focuser most of the way in to achieve focus. Conversely, with a DSLR and the same 25mm eyepiece I have to wind the focuser most of the way out (maybe an extra 50mm) PLUS I'm using a telescopic eyepiece projection adapter (100mm or so) PLUS the distance from the T-ring to the DSLR sensor (30-40mm)... It just surprises me there would be such a marked difference between visual and photographic... hmm... but I suppose the diagonal adds 50-100mm length, and the eyepiece is in a different position so maybe that has an effect too... So many things to get my head around, but I like a challenge 😁

Hi All, I've read through this thread with interest - I wonder if any of you can explain to a newbie what is mean by back focus, and the scope having/not having enough back focus and why it's important? (Or point me to a resource that explains it!) Reason for asking - I've been having a go at planetary imaging with a basic setup (here's one example), and will have a bash at deep sky if it ever stops raining 😂. I'm currently using a SkyWatcher 900mm/70mm refractor, now with a Canon EOS 450D (was using my Nikon D5500 initially), plus an Svbony eyepiece projection adapter. But, I'm looking at upgrading to a SkyWatcher Explorer 150PDS - now as I understand it the PDS differs from the regular P by having a tweaked design to make it better for photography (or prime focus at least)..... I have a feeling this might be related to the back focus that has been mentioned. And I have a feeling it something to do with where the light is focused to a point, and where this point sits relative to the sensor in the camera, but I haven't quite had the Eureka moment yet. (and also I suppose barlow and/or eyepieces will also change the position of this point if they're used) Can anyone help explain it?

@StarryEyed currently in the fermenter - "Waxing Gibbous" Tropical Stout. You're very welcome 😂🍻

Hi @MG01 - I'm a newbie so treat my words with caution! 😂 "My" scope actually isn't mine at all, it's my daughter's - we bought our for her 8th birthday, she's nearly 10 now. This is what we have: https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-capricorn-70-eq1-telescope.html To my mind it delivers tremendous entry level bang for buck. I've described here what you can see with it and if you go to the top of that thread you'll see some pics (the photo gear is all mine btw!😂 ) Lunar shot here too My daughter needs me to do the setting up but likes what she can see. Actually getting cold is more of an issue for her! In time I hope I can help her learn to do it for herself 👍

Is it fair to say that if you went for such a scope, F5, you could add a Barlow to increase focal length for planetary work? Or is it not as simple as that / is this rookie missing something? (Which is not to say that a dedicated longer focal length scope wouldn't be more optimum for planetary)

I'm in a similar boat to you, relative newcomer, Sky-Watcher 900mm/70mm refractor on an EQ1 mount. You can actually achieve quite a lot even with a basis but good setup (I've posted a few pics recently). EQ mounts need a bit of time and patience just to get your head around how they work, but they're really not that hard - I picked it up quickly as a complete novice just by reading the manual plus a couple of web pages. I recommend you read this article - it's long but worthwhile. I'm also looking at a Sky-Watcher 130 or 150 Newtonian (the article above suggests you may want to avoid Celestron as they use a spherical mirror rather than parabolic). What I'm picking up from the folks here is the issue with these bigger scopes is you need a substantial mount to keep it steady - and it's this that pushes up the cost dramatically.

Newbie question here... bear with me as I may not have all the terminology exactly right... At the moment I've been doing lucky imaging of planets with a Nikon D5500 and Canon EOS 450D - now these DSLRs have a relatively big sensor but we only use a small section of it for capture, through the 5x zoom feature in BackyardNikon/EOS or similar. But before I activate the 5x zoom feature I can see my target as a smallish dot in a big, wide field of view - this makes getting roughly lined up with my target easy 👍 Now upgrading to a dedicated astro cam like a ZWO ASI120 or 224 isn't out of the question, but... Don't these cameras have a much smaller sensor? I.e. they only have the the area we actually need for capture. But doesn't that mean you lose that wider of field of view making it hard to actually acquire your target in the first place prior to capturing? (Unless you have a guide cam, which I don't) Hopefully one of you astroninjas can explain 😁

I posted recently about my initial planetary imaging attempts. I managed to get out again last night - after a brief bit of lunar work for focusing I moved on to Jupiter (unfortunately Saturn kept hiding in the clouds). My setup is the same as before except I've got hold of a used Canon EOS 450D to use in place of my Nikon D5500 - although the Canon is older and lower resolution than the Nikon, my understanding is this should be/might be better due to having 1:1 pixel resolution??? Plus it means I can have the Nikon on a tripod and shoot some startrails while I'm busy telescoping 😂 SkyWatcher 900mm/70mm refractor; Canon ESO 450D; Svbony eyepiece projection adapter; 25mm eyepiece; BackyardEOS I'm shooting 500-1000 frames in 5x zoom mode, same as the Nikon. One thing I noticed is the older Canon captures fewer frames per second than the Nikon. I'm not expecting miracles with my setup. I certainly don't think it's better than before with the Nikon - different maybe but not conclusively better. When I look at it on my mobile I think I can see pixellation in the image - I'm not sure if this is caused by something I'm doing in Autostakkert or Registax, or if it's really there because the 450D has larger sensor pixels and overall lower res than my D5500??? If any of you experts have any ideas then I'd appreciate your suggestions - cheers! 👍🔭

I posted recently in the planetary section about my initial attempts with lucky imaging. I was out again last night and since the moon was out I could use it for focusing - and while the scope was pointing that way I figured why not (I went on to do some Jupiter, will post these shortly in planetary). SkyWatcher 900mm/70mm refractor; Canon ESO 450D; Svbony eyepiece projection adapter; 25mm eyepiece; BackyardEOS First time lucky imaging on the moon - I've some idea what I'm doing in Autostakkert for planets but no idea for the moon so I need to read up though I find the resulting image pleasing enough. I'm quite curious to learn how to do the mosaics I've read about. Thinking about it some more it would probably be better with either a DSLR + zoom lens where I can get the whole disk in frame at once, or maybe ditch the 25mm eyepiece and just go with prime focus - but I was geared up for planets. Onwards and upwards! 👍🔭

@KingsAmis Yep, I know exactly the feeling you're describing - I'm new and I felt (still feel!) exactly the same when I first saw the Pleiades. And the Orion Nebula. And Jupiter's moons. So cool, all of it. I had another similar moment last night with the Andromeda Galaxy M31 - you're skies might be a bit darker than mine I think so you might be able to make it out with your binos. Keep up the good work 👍🔭

Hi All, Many thanks for the encouraging replies - I'm very pleased to know I'm at least looking for M31 in the right place, and that I wasn't imagining the smudge I'd seen! 🤣 To answer the question, I live in suburban Wokingham (UK) which according to FLO's "Clear Outside" app it Bortle 5. Sod's law, I had to go back indoors for family duties after I took that pic and by the time I was allowed out to play again it had clouded over ☹ With more time I'd have zoomed in with the DSLR (not withstanding that that means capturing less light, more star trailing etc) and had another bash. I've no tracking yet but I've got the D5500 on a tripod, plus a Canon 450D on the scope - so I have room to play, to experiment and to learn while I consider future purchases. Cheers 👍🍻🔭

I've been looking recently for the Andromeda galaxy M31 - part of the confusion is I'm not sure what to expect, how bright/faint it is, visible or not to the naked eye or with binoculars? I wonder actually if it's a bit fainter than the Pleiades, for example? (I've just realised I should have looked up the relative magnitudes shouldn't I! 😂) The other day through the scope (900mm/70mm refactor) I just made out a very faint smudge in roughly the right area of the sky... Similar I think through my 8x30 binoculars... Last night I stuck my DSLR on a tripod in the garden and did a wide angle 30s exposure (hopefully these images are big & bright enough for you all): In this first pic below I've marked the big W of Cassiopeia and the 3 stars in Andromeda with Mirach/Beta-Andromeda in the middle. The area of interest is circled in green (in fact I think you can already see M31 here!): In this next pic I've zoomed in: We see Mirach/Beta-And. in green, Mu-And. in yellow, then two stars in blue... and then above that circled in orange... is that it, is that faint smudge the Andromeda galaxy M31? If I'm right then at least now I know what to expect and exactly where to look in the sky. I realise this is all really really basic, but assuming this is M31 I found it rather exciting to know there is a whole other galaxy floating (at some distance!) above my garden 😁

Also eye wateringly expensive to a noob like me! 😱😂 But thanks for the pointers, it's all helpful as I learn 👍 Yep, 100% . I've already posted my initial efforts with the gear I have. I've been out again this evening experimenting - not sure it's better, but it's all learning (will post the results in the coming hours/days nevertheless). And I figure all the learning will pay dividends as and when I can upgrade. Orion nebula is still a bit low in the sky for me ATM. I saw it last winter but will have a go again soon to continue learning 👍

Not wishing to derail the OP's thread, but I'm in a similar position myself looking to upgrade from my very basic current setup. Do I understand that you can achieve something initially in deep sky imaging relying just on the tracking of an EQ5 go-to? (which I gather is passive and just relies on dead-reckoning). (Obviously autoguiding is better - as I understand it you have some feedback from the guide cam and which tries to correct for tracking errors. But it's more money to shell out in one go!) Any reason why not a Newtonian such as the Explorer 130PDS/150PDS? That's what I'm currently looking at as a Newt seems to deliver more bang for buck, though of course the OP may have a particular preference for a refractor. Personally I'm not going to rush out and buy one of these but I have a Nikon 18-300mm zoom lens already. Is it worth having a bash with this? Actually I can answer that for myself - of course there's no harm in trying! Though I suppose you need some sort of tracking to avoid star trailing with such long exposures.

Oh, and yes, you're spot on there, SkyWatcher Capricorn. It's certainly not bad - with the 25mm eyepiece both Jupiter and Saturn can be seen. They're both very bright white but the image is sharp and you can see the outline of Saturn's rings. With the 10mm eyepiece, or 25mm + x2 Barlow (they seem to add up to about the same in practice) you can just make out some of the banding on Jupiter, though it's rather bright so the colour is rather washed out but they're there alright. And of course you can make out Jupiter's moons too. Obviously when you attach a DSLR you can play around with the settings more and control the brightness of the image and start to more of the colours and patterns as in the images above.

@neil phillips I'm just waiting for the stars to align moon to be out and it not be raining before I have another crack at the moon. I had a bash last winter, a bit with the scope, and also just my DSLR on a tripod which wasn't too bad, but now I've got my head around the basics of lucky imaging I'd like to have another go.

Oh OK, thanks, I missed that. You may not have seen but I posted some pictures here of my planetary imaging so far with my basic setup. I've tried lunar shots last winter with the scope or just my DSLR, but the moon has been AWOL in the last few weeks when I've been out there doing planetary. Now it's back again it hasn't stopped raining! Haven't tried any deep sky yet but that's a different kettle of fish to planetary, very long exposures vs. lucky imaging etc.

Yep, that's the one. Why'd you ask?

Umm... UKABS? You're gonna have to help me (and Google) out on that one 🤔

@allworlds @Stu @LaurenceT - thanks for your comments, and I will take a look through those threads 👍 What I'm getting is it's a bit of "your mileage may vary", "you get what you pay for" and "keep your expectations vs. budget" in check. At the same time I'm sure there are people out there who would tell me I can't possibly do planetary imaging with the gear I have, to which I would respectfully disagree. Perhaps it's more a case of spending twice as much won't generate images twice as good? Or to put it another way, if you images twice as good you need to spend 10x (I'm guessing) more. Just looking out the window at the clear blue skies as the sun goes down and hoping 🙏. And then checking the weather forecast and seeing we're in for another deluge! Why sky gods, why! 😫😂

@LaurenceT I had a feeling you might say something like that. What's really confusing for a noob like me is on the one hand that's not the first time I've read experienced folks saying that even the EQ5 with or without GoTo isn't up to much (and it ain't exactly cheap!). Yet on the other hand FLO will happily sell you a bundle of the Explorer 200P + EQ5, or the Explorer 150P/PL/PDS + EQ3 or 5. I don't doubt what you and other seasoned astronomers say - you're speaking from personal experience afterall. But likewise I don't get the impression that FLO are a bunch of cowboys who will sell you complete garbage (and their forum is lovely by the way 😁). It's honestly starting to seem like I can have a small refractor for £200 or pay 10-15x that for a full setup and there is literally no middle ground at all ☹️ I refuse to be defeated though! 😜

Thanks for the offer 👍 I have an EQ1 at the moment so I understand how to use an EQ mount and what it's doing, but I imagine the EQ3 & 5 are rather more weighty and so less portable. But by home much? I was looking at your list of gear in your signature block - do you by any chance mount the Explorer 130PDS on your EQ5? Specifically my current top of the list is an Explorer 150PDS on an EQ3/5 GoTo, but I'd like to see one in action just to be sure before I fork out. The scope performance will be dictated by location and seeing at the time, but I'm more interested to see in exactly which postcode the eyepiece will end up depending on the orientation of the scope! 😂 Also on my list (and still looking at your signature block 😉) was the Skymax 127 Maksutov (thermal issues? Newtonian delivers more bang for buck?) and Startravel 120T (refractors = chromatic aberration?)

On the plus side at least SWMBO is happy this evening that for once I haven't said "I'm just popping outside for a bit to do some telescoping" 😂

Thanks for the tip @Graham Darke 👍 You could well be right - I'd have to check the time stamps on the original files but from memory I think Jupiter may have been lower in the sky for the second one. I was disappointed not to have captured the GRS in either of those - I did get it subsequently but the image was much lower quality, maybe due to poorer seeing, clouds, bad luck, cackhandedness or different eyepieces/barlow 😂 (Note to self: take notes!)